HomeMy WebLinkAboutDELETE
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
May 27, 2026
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Boling
Vice Chairman Dopp
Commissioner Morales
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning
Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the
Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included
on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting.
C. CONSENT CALENDAR
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2026.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF MA
PARAMOUNT LLC AND EXCELSIOR PARTNERS LLC – A request to permit Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light –
Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses
at an existing 100,724 square foot industrial warehouse building that is currently occupied with a legal
non-conforming Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone located at 11246
Jersey Boulevard; APN: 0209-145-22. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities (DRC2026-00020).
D2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF 20900
NORMANDIE LLC AND EXCELSIOR PARTNERS LLC – A request to permit Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light –
Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses
at an existing 127,599 square foot industrial warehouse building that is currently occupied with a legal
non-conforming Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone located at 11096
Jersey Boulevard; APN: 0209-145-08. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities (DRC2026-00022).
D3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF EXP 8998 LLC
AND EXCELSIOR PARTNERS LLC – A request to permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an
existing 103,930 square foot industrial warehouse building that is currently occupied with a legal non-
conforming Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone located at 8998 Hyssop
Drive; APN: 0229-271-45. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities
(DRC2026-00023).
D4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE, MINOR EXCEPTION, TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES – A request to subdivide 6.7 acres of land into 13
numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of single-family residential development and
preservation of an existing historic residence within the Very Low (VL) Residential zone and the
Equestrian Overly, located at the northwest corner of Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue at 6048
Hellman Avenue; APN: 1062-271-01. This item is not subject to further environmental review in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section
15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning (SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416,
DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096, DRC2025-00094).
D5. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Table 17.30.030-1, Table 17.38.060-1, and
Table 17.136.020-1 to Expand the Zones That Allow Child Day Care Facilities/Centers Upon Approval
of a Minor Use Permit, Reduce the Level of Review to a Minor Use Permit When Already Permitted
with a Conditional Use Permit, or Allow Child Day Care Facilities/Centers as an Accessory Use Upon
Approval of a Minor Use Permit When an Approved Assembly Use is Present. This Project is Exempt
from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This Item will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action (DRC2026-00029).
E. GENERAL BUSINESS
E1. Consideration of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Major Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2026/27.
F. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
H. ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may
present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience
should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing
impaired.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After
speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your
name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited
to 3 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s
Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted
fee schedule for all decisions for the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 1 of 3
\
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
April 22, 2026
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission was held on April 22, 2026.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Boling at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Boling, Vice Chairman Dopp, Commissioner Morales, and
Commissioner Diaz
Staff present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sophia Serafin,
Associate Planner; Melanie Hall, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Boling opened the public communications and hearing no comments from the public, Chairman
Boling closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2026.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Morales; seconded by Vice Chairman Dopp to approve minutes as
presented. Motion carried 4-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – HERDMAN ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN ON
BEHALF OF PATRIOT PARTNERS – A request for development of one industrial warehouse building
totaling 86,194 square feet on approximately 5.2 acres of land within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone, located
on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13045 Whittram
Avenue; APNs: 0229-162-04, -05, -11, -12, and -13. This item is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. This
item will be forwarded to City Council for final action (Design Review DRC2025-00320 and Conditional Use
Permit DRC2025-00323).
Associate Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted that a revised version
of the Resolution was placed on the dais for the Commissioners’ review, which includes modification to clarify
the project’s approving authority.
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Applicant Rice was present and available to answer questions.
Page 4
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Boling closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morales expressed support for the project and acknowledged that economic challenges and
the current market conditions have made it difficult for projects to move forward but appreciated the
applicant’s effort to resubmit the project.
Vice Chairman Dopp concurred with Commissioner Morales and expressed appreciation to the applicant
for resubmitting the project.
Chairman Boling expressed appreciation for the modern design and indicated that the development of the
site would positively impact the surrounding area.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2026-011
recommending that the City Council approve Design Review DRC2025-00320 and Conditional Use Permit
DRC2025-00323 as amended. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0 vote.
D2. Consideration of a Request to Amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to
Prohibit Home Experience Sharing. This Item is Statutorily Exempt from the Requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Sections 15060(C)(2) and 15061(B)(3).
This Item will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action (DRC2026-00097).
Senior Planner Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Home Experience Sharing is defined
as the rental of recreational amenities on residential properties independent of any residential rentals. Home
Sharing amenities include swimming pools, BBQs and sports courts.
Commissioner Diaz asked staff whether other nearby cities have similar restrictions for things like this.
Senior Planner Hall responded that she was not aware of any cities that prohibit this.
Chairman Boling confirmed with staff that the item under consideration would not prohibit the personal
use of residential property by family or friends and would not prohibit multi-family properties from hosting
activities.
Senior Planner Hall clarified that activities conducted by property owners on their own property would be
permitted.
Chairman Boling asked staff whether this would be applicable to all zones as opposed to only residential
zones.
Senior Planner Hall replied that it would be prohibited in all zones in the city.
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing and hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Boling
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morales thanked staff for proactively addressing the issue to help keep the community safe
and healthy and to reduce conflicts.
Vice Chairman Dopp asked staff whether it would be possible to work around the requirements of the
ordinance by renting the entire home via AirBnB.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that rental of the entire property is still possible, subject to annual
registration and approval with the City. She added that if it becomes problematic, the City could choose
not to renew their registration the following year.
Commissioner Diaz emphasized the importance of recognizing that the commercialization of parties is not
compatible with residential neighborhoods. She noted that when a home is repeatedly rented out for parties
on an ongoing basis, with different groups of individuals coming in-and-out weekend after weekend, the
ordinance is appropriate.
Page 5
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Morales to adopt Resolution 2026-
012 recommending that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Title 17 to Prohibit
Home Experience Sharing. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0 vote.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura informed the Commission that the May 13th Planning Commission meeting will
be cancelled due to Commissioners Morales and Diaz attending the CNU Conference in Arkansas. She
noted that the next meeting will be held on May 27th.
F. Commission Announcements
Commissioner Morales stated that the Commissioners attended the State of the City Address last week.
He expressed pride in the City and staff in their collaboration efforts in making it an excellent place to live,
work and do business. He also thanked Mayor Dennis for his lifelong service and contributions to making
the City what it is today.
Commissioner Boling thanked Executive Assistant Thornhill for her work as today is Administrative
Assistants Day.
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Boling adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Page 6
DATE:May 27, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES ON
BEHALF OF MA PARAMOUNT LLC AND EXCELSIOR PARTNERS LLC
– A request to permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage
Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light –
Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an existing 100,724 square
foot industrial warehouse building that is currently vacant within the Neo-
Industrial (NI) zone located at 11246 Jersey Boulevard; APN: 0209-145-
22. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA
Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (DRC2026-00020).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2026-00020 with the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site, which is located midblock on the north side of Jersey Boulevard with Milliken
Avenue to the east and White Oak Avenue to the west, consists of an approximately 4.3-acre
parcel. The site is rectangular in shape and is approximately 376 feet along the northern and
southern property lines and 506 feet along the eastern and western property lines.
The site is developed with a 100,724 square foot industrial building that consists of 96,562 square
feet of warehouse space and 4,162 square feet of ground floor and mezzanine office space. The
site is owned by MA Paramount LLC and is currently vacant as the previous tenant who operated
a wholesale and distribution use, Olympia Tools, recently vacated the site in June of 2025. The
site contains a total of 74 standard parking stalls and 9 trailer parking stalls. The site is fully
improved with street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping improvements along Jersey
Boulevard. Access to the site is provided via two separate driveways along Jersey Boulevard that
allow both truck and passenger vehicle access. The first driveway is located at the southeast
corner of the parcel while the second driveway is in the southwest corner.
Page 7
Page 2
3
4
9
5
Figure 1 – Site Map
The applicant, Charles Joseph Associates, on behalf of MA Paramount LLC (owner) and Excelsior
Partners LLC (asset manager), is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large to streamline the occupancy process for future tenants who
may occupy the site. The property owner intends to keep the building limited to a single tenant as
has been historically done for the building, but may allow multiple tenants in the future, following
issuance of Building Permits from the Building and Safety Department for tenant improvements
to divide the existing space. The building has been occupied by a single tenant since it was built
and the property owner does not anticipate future consideration of the potential for more than two
tenants to occupy the building. There are no site or building alterations or improvements proposed
as part of the current entitlement.
The existing land use, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designation for the project
site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
South Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
Page 8
Page 3
3
4
9
5
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, and Food Processing/Manufacturing,
uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to operation within the Neo-Industrial (NI)
zone. In addition, Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce Distribution Fulfillment Center –
Large uses require approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP) within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone. The
proposed Conditional Use Permit will be inclusive of the uses that require a Minor Use Permit,
which are typically approved at the Planning Director level, for the purpose of consolidation of
applications. Obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for each of the six uses will allow for any future
businesses who occupy the building and qualify as one of the identified uses to bypass individual
entitlements. The Conditional Use Permit will also legalize any Wholesale and Distribution –
Medium use that may obtain a business license for and occupy the building prior to June 30, 2026
as the use would be considered legal non-conforming since the adoption of Ordinance 982 in
2021. Prior to Ordinance 982, uses such as Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, were permitted
by right. The most recent tenant to occupy the building operated a Wholesale and Distribution –
Medium use under a legal non-conforming status and closed their business license out on June
30, 2025. Per the legal non-conforming provisions of Chapter 17.62 of the Development Code,
the same use can occupy the building under a legal non-conforming status, provided that any
discontinuations of the prior use do not exceed 365 days. The property owner is still requesting
to bring such use into conformance with the current code through the proposed Conditional Use
Permit whether a tenant obtains a business license for a Wholesale and Distribution – Medium
use prior to the date or not.
One of the six uses must go into effect within two years of the Conditional Use Permit becoming
effective in order to prevent the Conditional Use Permit from expiring, as specified in the
Conditions of Approval and Section 17.14.090A of the Development Code. No further action,
outside of obtaining a business license, will be required to implement the Conditional Use Permit
Public Art
Per Section 17.124.020A of the Development Code, public art requirements do not apply to
Conditional Use Permits and are only applicable to Site Development Review, Minor Design
Review, and Major Design Review applications that meet specified criteria. As such, the
Conditional Use Permit is exempt from the public art requirement.
Environmental Assessment
The Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project classifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 – Existing Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures.
The project scope is for the permitting of Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage
Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an
existing industrial building where no alterations to the site or building are proposed. There is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Correspondence
The project was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on May 13, 2026. Notices were mailed to a total of 138 property
owners within 1,500 feet of the project site on May 13, 2026 as well. The site was posted on May
14, 2026 with four physical notices. As of date, staff have not received any communication from
the public regarding this project.
Page 9
Page 4
3
4
9
5
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit allows the subject industrial building to be leased and re-
tenanted in the future efficiently, allowing for job creation and secondary economic benefits.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit addresses the City Council core value of creating a
sustainable future by planning for future uses in an existing industrial building to allow the property
owner a streamlined approach to future business operations and create an environment in which
economic activity at this site can thrive.
Exhibit A – Link_Project Plans
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval
Page 10
EXHIBIT A
Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2026-00020, A REQUEST TO
PERMIT WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION – MEDIUM,
STORAGE WAREHOUSE, STORAGE PERSONAL STORAGE
FACILITY, MANUFACTURING LIGHT – LARGE, FOOD
PROCESSING/MANUFACTURING, AND E-COMMERCE
DISTRIBUTION/FULFILLMENT CENTER – LARGE USES AT AN
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING THAT CONSISTS OF 100,724
SQUARE FEET AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITHIN THE
NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) ZONE AT 11246 JERSEY BOULEVARD;
APN: 0209-145-22.
A.Recitals.
1.The Applicant, Charles Joseph Associates on behalf of the property owner MA
Paramount LLC and asset manager Excelsior Partners LLC, filed an application for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2026-00020, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 27th day of May 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 27, 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The project site consists of approximately 4.6 acres of land developed with a
100,724 square foot industrial building and is located midblock on the north side of Jersey
Boulevard with Milliken Avenue to the east and White Oak Avenue to the west; and
b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
Exhibit B
Page 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018
DRC2026-00020 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 2
c. The General Plan land use designation and Zoning designation for the project
site are Neo-Industrial Employment District and Neo-Industrial (NI), respectively, which permits
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
and Food Processing/Manufacturing uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses are
permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit. The latter two uses can be approved under the
purview of the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. There are
no site or building alterations or improvements proposed as a part of the current entitlement.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The uses are consistent with the General Plan designation, Neo-Industrial
Employment District, which is intended for light industrial uses with low environmental impacts
and the growth of creative and innovative industries and new businesses. The fully improved site
is developed with an existing 100,724 square-foot industrial building. Upon approval of the
requested Conditional Use Permit, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse,
Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing,
and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses will generate minimal impact on
adjacent uses and properties as the Conditional Use Permit will support the entitlement of uses
that are intended for the zoning district and General Plan land use designation in addition to being
with consistent with the surrounding uses.
b. The uses are consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and
purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city regulations and
standards. Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage
Facility, and Food Processing/Manufacturing uses are permitted in the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone
upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone upon
the approval of a Minor Use Permit. The latter uses permitted under the Minor Use Permit will be
permitted through the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. The
site is currently vacant, but was previously occupied by a Wholesale and Distribution – Medium
use. The uses are consistent with the zoning designation and Development Code in that the uses
do not propose new development or expansion of the existing building and site and they remain
consistent with the current development pattern and uses in the adjacent properties and zone.
The Development Code has specific regulations and performance standards in relation to noise,
vibrations, particulate matter and air contaminants, odor, and humidity, heat, and glare, which are
applied to the operations of industrial uses. The conditions of approval included can mitigate
potential impacts that the facility may cause. The site is not subject to any specific plans. The
uses meet the regulations and standards applied to Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food
South Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
Page 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018
DRC2026-00020 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 3
Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses and
therefore are consistent with the Development Code.
c. The site is suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the uses. The site is
improved with an existing industrial building, access and circulation, parking, utilities, and
landscaping. No changes are proposed to the site except for potential tenant improvements which
will not increase the building footprint that may be submitted for by a new tenant. The uses are
similar in intensity to existing uses in the immediate surrounding area. No additional physical
constraints have been proposed that may impede the operations of the existing surrounding land
uses. Therefore, the project site is well-suited for the uses.
d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the uses would be
compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and
service facilities. The uses will operate within an existing industrial building and will not operate
beyond the project parcel nor onto the property of adjacent similar uses. The intensity of the uses
are not expected to exceed the intensity of adjacent similar uses.
e. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the
vicinity in which the project is located. The scale and operation of the uses are similar to adjacent
uses and will not negatively impact the normal operations of any of the surrounding uses. The
uses have been conditioned to meet performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance
standards, and all other Municipal Code standards to mitigate any potential impacts related to the
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses.
f. The uses will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire,
streets, and other public utilities, such that the city is unable to maintain its current level of service
due to the uses. The uses do not pose any undue burdens in that all uses are consistent with the
zone in which they are located and will not require additional service from streets and utilities as
there are no physical changes proposed to the site. The uses do not authorize any operations
which may result in additional service requests from Fire or Police that are not normally associated
with similar adjacent existing uses.
4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project
qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures. The Conditional
Use Permit will permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage
Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-
Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses where no alterations to the site or building
are proposed. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgement, concurs in the staff determination of exemption.
Page 14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018
DRC2026-00020 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 4
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 15
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2026-00020
Project Name: 11246 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11246 JERSEY BLVD - 020914522-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1.
2.
3.
The Conditional Use Permit authorizes use of the existing 100,724 square foot industrial building
for Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage
Facility , Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/
Fulfillment Center – Large uses within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone, located at 11246 Jersey
Boulevard; APN: 0209-145-22.
The Conditional Use Permit does not authorize outdoor storage of materials. Any future requests for
outdoor storage shall be subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.
The current use and any future uses on the site shall comply with the performance standards outlined in
Chapter 17.66 of the Development Code, specifically the performance standards outlined for industrial
uses.
Pursuant to Section 3.20.070 of the Municipal Code, all retail sales are consummated at the place of
business of the retailer, unless tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer of his or her
agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination.
The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the
state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no
permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at
which retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed
and adopted by the state board of equalization.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
5.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 16
Project #: DRC2026-00020
Project Name: 11246 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11246 JERSEY BLVD - 020914522-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
6.
7.
8.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 17
Project #: DRC2026-00020
Project Name: 11246 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11246 JERSEY BLVD - 020914522-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the
business including changes to the operating days /hours; change in the location on -site or within the
building of the use /activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new
building construction; and/or other modifications /intensification beyond what is specifically approved by
this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to
submittal of documents for plan check /occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or
issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or
intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for
review by the City.
10.
11.
12.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and
Fire District Standard for High Pile Combustible Storage. Please read and understand this Standard in
its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals.
1.
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations.1.
Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department’s public counter ).2.
3.
Submit five complete sets of plans.4.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for accessibility to public buildings.5.
Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.6.
7.
8.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 18
Project #: DRC2026-00020
Project Name: 11246 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11246 JERSEY BLVD - 020914522-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Provide draft stops in combustible attics and concealed spaces, in accordance with CBC.9.
10.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for fire-resistive construction.11.
12.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 19
DATE:May 27, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES ON
BEHALF OF 20900 NORMANDIE LLC AND EXCELSIOR PARTNERS
LLC – A request to permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage
Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light –
Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an existing 127,599 square
foot industrial warehouse building that is currently occupied with a legal
non-conforming Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial
(NI) zone located at 11096 Jersey Boulevard; APN: 0209-145-08. This item
is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities (DRC2026-00022).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2026-00022 with the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site, which is located midblock on the north side of Jersey Boulevard with Milliken
Avenue to the east and White Oak Avenue to the west, consists of an approximately 6-acre parcel.
The parcel is square in shape and contains property lines of approximately 510 feet.
The site is developed with a 127,599 square-foot industrial building that consists of 115,214
square feet of warehouse space and 12,385 square feet of ground floor and mezzanine office
space. The site is owned by 20900 Normandie LLC and is currently occupied by E.S. Kluft &
Company who operates a wholesale and distribution use. The site contains a total of 103 standard
parking stalls and 15 trailer parking stalls. The site is fully improved with street, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and parkway improvements. Access to the site is provided via two separate driveways
along Jersey Boulevard that allow both truck and passenger vehicle access. The first driveway is
located at the southwest corner of the site while the other is in the southeast corner.
Page 20
Page 2
3
4
9
6
Figure 1 – Site Map
The applicant, Charles Joseph Associates on behalf of 20900 Normandie LLC (owner) and
Excelsior Partners LLC (asset manager), is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to legalize the existing legal non-conforming Wholesale and Distribution – Medium use for
the subject building. The applicant is additionally requesting the Conditional Use Permit to permit
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large to streamline the occupancy process for future tenants who
may occupy the site. The property owner intends to keep the building limited to a single tenant,
but may allow multiple tenants in the future, following issuance of Building Permits from the
Building and Safety Department for tenant improvements to divide the existing space. The
building has been occupied by a single tenant since it was built and the property owner does not
anticipate future consideration of the potential for more than two tenants to occupy the building.
There are no site or building alterations or improvements proposed as part of the current
entitlement.
The existing land use, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designation for the project
site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
South Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
Page 21
Page 3
3
4
9
6
West Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Employment
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, and Food Processing/Manufacturing
uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to operation within the Neo-Industrial (NI)
zone. In addition, Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center –
Large uses require approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP) within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone. The
proposed Conditional Use Permit will be inclusive of the uses that require a Minor Use Permit,
which are typically approved at the Planning Director level, for the purpose of consolidation of
applications. Obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for each of the six uses will allow for any future
businesses who occupy the building and qualify as one of the identified uses to bypass individual
entitlements. The Conditional Use Permit will also legalize the current Wholesale and Distribution
– Medium use occupying the building as the use is considered legal non-conforming since the
adoption of Ordinance 982 in 2021. Prior to Ordinance 982, uses such as Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium, were permitted by right. The existing use on the site may maintain their
current operations under the legal non-conforming provisions of Chapter 17.62 of the
Development Code, provided that any discontinuations of the prior use do not exceed 365 days.
The property owner is still requesting to bring the current use into conformance with the current
code though through the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
The Conditional Use Permit will go into effect and legalize the existing use (Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium) at the subject site, effective immediately after the ten-day appeal period
ceases. The current tenant currently holds an active business license obtained upon initial
occupancy of the site in 2006. As one of the requested uses is already in operation and no
additional improvements or alterations are proposed for the building or site, no further action will
be required to implement the Conditional Use Permit as the permit is being exercised within two
years of the time of approval, as is required under Section 17.14.090A of the Development Code.
Public Art
Per Section 17.124.020A of the Development Code, public art requirements do not apply to
Conditional Use Permits and are only applicable to Site Development Review, Minor Design
Review, and Major Design Review applications that meet specified criteria. As such, the
Conditional Use Permit is exempt from the public art requirement.
Environmental Assessment
The Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project classifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 – Existing Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures.
The project scope is for the permitting of Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage
Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an
existing industrial building where no alterations to the site or building are proposed. There is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Correspondence
The project was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on May 13, 2026. Notices were mailed to a total of 166 property
owners within 1,500 feet of the project site on May 13, 2026 as well. The site was posted on May
Page 22
Page 4
3
4
9
6
14, 2026 with two physical notices. As of date, staff have not received any communication from
the public regarding this project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
EXHIBITS:
Page 23
EXHIBIT A
Page 24
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2026-00022, A REQUEST TO
PERMIT WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION – MEDIUM,
STORAGE WAREHOUSE, STORAGE PERSONAL STORAGE
FACILITY, MANUFACTURING LIGHT – LARGE, FOOD
PROCESSING/MANUFACTURING, AND E-COMMERCE
DISTRIBUTION/FULFILLMENT CENTER – LARGE USES AT AN
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING THAT CONSISTS OF 127,599
SQUARE FEET AND IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH A LEGAL
NON-CONFORMING WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION USE
WITHIN THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) ZONE AT 11096 JERSEY
BOULEVARD; APN: 0209-145-08.
A.Recitals.
1.The Applicant, Charles Joseph Associates on behalf of the property owner 20900
Normandie LLC and asset manager Excelsior Partners, filed an application for Conditional Use
Permit DRC2026-00022, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 27th day of May 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 27, 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The project site consists of approximately six acres of land developed with a
127,599 square foot industrial building and is located midblock on the north side of Jersey
Boulevard with Milliken Avenue to the east and White Oak Avenue to the west; and
b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
North
Exhibit B
Page 25
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-017
DRC2026-00022 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 2
c. The General Plan land use designation and Zoning designation for the project
site are Neo-Industrial Employment District and Neo-Industrial (NI), respectively, which permits
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
and Food Processing/Manufacturing uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses are
permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit. The latter two uses can be approved under the
purview of the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. There are
no site or building alterations or improvements proposed as a part of the current entitlement.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The uses are consistent with the General Plan designation, Neo-Industrial
Employment District, which is intended for light industrial uses with low environmental impacts
and the growth of creative and innovative industries and new businesses. The fully improved site
is developed with an existing 127,599 square-foot industrial building. Upon approval of the
requested Conditional Use Permit, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse,
Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing,
and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses will generate minimal impact on
adjacent uses and properties as the Conditional Use Permit will support the entitlement of uses
that are intended for the zoning district and General Plan land use designation in addition to being
with consistent with the surrounding uses.
b. The uses are consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and
purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city regulations and
standards. Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage
Facility, and Food Processing/Manufacturing uses are permitted in the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone
upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone upon
the approval of a Minor Use Permit. The latter uses permitted under the Minor Use Permit will be
permitted through the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. The
site is currently legal non-conforming due to the adoption of Ordinance 982 as the Wholesale and
Distribution use was previously permitted by right in the zone, but now requires a Conditional Use
Permit. The uses are consistent with the zoning designation and Development Code in that the
uses do not propose new development or expansion of the existing building and site and they
remain consistent with the current development pattern and uses in the adjacent properties and
zone. The Development Code has specific regulations and performance standards in relation to
noise, vibrations, particulate matter and air contaminants, odor, and humidity, heat, and glare,
which are applied to the operations of industrial uses. The conditions of approval included can
mitigate potential impacts that the facility may cause. The site is not subject to any specific plans.
South Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
Page 26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-017
DRC2026-00022 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 3
The uses meet the regulations and standards applied to Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses and
therefore are consistent with the Development Code.
c. The site is suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the uses. The site is
improved with an existing industrial building, access and circulation, parking, utilities, and
landscaping. No changes are proposed to the site except for potential tenant improvements which
will not increase the building footprint that may be submitted for by a new tenant. The uses are
similar in intensity to existing uses in the immediate surrounding area. No additional physical
constraints have been proposed that may impede the operations of the existing surrounding land
uses. Therefore, the project site is well-suited for the uses.
d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the uses would be
compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and
service facilities. The uses will operate within an existing industrial building and will not operate
beyond the project parcel nor onto the property of adjacent similar uses. The intensity of the uses
are not expected to exceed the intensity of adjacent similar uses.
e. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the
vicinity in which the project is located. The scale and operation of the uses are similar to adjacent
uses and will not negatively impact the normal operations of any of the surrounding uses. The
uses have been conditioned to meet performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance
standards, and all other Municipal Code standards to mitigate any potential impacts related to the
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses.
f. The uses will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire,
streets, and other public utilities, such that the city is unable to maintain its current level of service
due to the uses. The uses do not pose any undue burdens in that all uses are consistent with the
zone in which they are located and will not require additional service from streets and utilities as
there are no physical changes proposed to the site. The uses do not authorize any operations
which may result in additional service requests from Fire or Police that are not normally associated
with similar adjacent existing uses.
4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project
qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures. The Conditional
Use Permit will permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage
Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-
Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses where no alterations to the site or building
are proposed. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgement, concurs in the staff determination of exemption.
Page 27
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-017
DRC2026-00022 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 4
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 28
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2026-00022
Project Name: 11096 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11096 JERSEY BLVD - 020914508-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The Conditional Use Permit authorizes use of the existing 127,599 square foot industrial building for
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility ,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing /Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment
Center – Large uses within the Neo -Industrial (NI) zone, located at 11096 Jersey Boulevard; APN:
0209-145-08.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
5.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 29
Project #: DRC2026-00022
Project Name: 11096 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11096 JERSEY BLVD - 020914508-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
6.
7.
8.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 30
Project #: DRC2026-00022
Project Name: 11096 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11096 JERSEY BLVD - 020914508-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the
business including changes to the operating days /hours; change in the location on -site or within the
building of the use /activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new
building construction; and/or other modifications /intensification beyond what is specifically approved by
this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to
submittal of documents for plan check /occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or
issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or
intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for
review by the City.
10.
11.
12.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and
Fire District Standard for High Pile Combustible Storage. Please read and understand this Standard in
its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals.
1.
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Submit two sets of structural calculations, and two sets of energy conservation calculations. (if
applicable)
1.
Submit five complete sets of plans.2.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for accessibility to public buildings.3.
Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.4.
5.
6.
Provide draft stops in combustible attics and concealed spaces, in accordance with CBC.7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 31
Project #: DRC2026-00022
Project Name: 11096 Jersey Blvd
Location: 11096 JERSEY BLVD - 020914508-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for California Building Energy Efficient
Standards.
8.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for fire-resistive construction.9.
10.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations.11.
Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department’s public counter ).12.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 32
DATE:May 27, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES ON
BEHALF OF EXP 8998 LLC AND EXCELSIOR PARTNERS LLC – A
request to permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage
Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light –
Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an existing 103,930 square
foot industrial warehouse building that is currently occupied with an
unpermitted Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial (NI)
zone located at 8998 Hyssop Drive; APN: 0229-271-45. This item is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities (DRC2026-00023).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2026-00023 with the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site, which is located at the northern end cul-de-sac of Hyssop Drive and north of 6th
Street, consists of an approximately 5.4-acre parcel. The site is developed with a 103,930 square
foot industrial building that consists of 97,930 square feet of warehouse space and 6,000 square
feet of office area, split evenly between the ground floor and a mezzanine area. The site is owned
by EXP 8998 LLC and is currently occupied by Ys & Son who operates an unpermitted wholesale
and distribution use. The site contains a total of 70 standard parking stalls and 16 trailer parking
stalls. The site is fully improved with street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping along
Hyssop Drive. Access to the site is provided via two separate driveways located at the north end
of the Hyssop Drive cul-de-sac that allow both truck and passenger vehicle access. Both
driveways are located at the southeast corner of the parcel.
Page 33
Page 2
3
4
9
7
Figure 1 – Site Map
The applicant, Charles Joseph Associates on behalf of EXP 8998 LLC (owner) and Excelsior
Partners LLC (asset manager), is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
legalize the existing unpermitted Wholesale and Distribution – Medium use for the subject
building. The applicant is additionally requesting the Conditional Use Permit to permit Wholesale
and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large to streamline the occupancy process for future tenants who
may occupy the site. The property owner intends to keep the building limited to a single tenant,
but may allow multiple tenants in the future, following issuance of Building Permits from the
Building and Safety Department for tenant improvements to divide the existing space. The
building has been occupied by a single tenant since it was built and the property owner does not
anticipate future consideration of the potential for more than two tenants to occupy the building.
There are no site or building alterations or improvements proposed as part of the current
entitlement.
The existing land use, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designation for the project
site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial Neo-Industrial (NI)
Page 34
Page 3
3
4
9
7
Employment District
North SCE Utility Corridor General Open Space and
Facilities
Flood Control / Utility
Corridor (FC/UC)
South Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East SCE Utility Corridor General Open Space and
Facilities
Flood Control / Utility
Corridor (FC/UC)
West 15 Freeway Transportation
Corridor N/A N/A
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, and Food Processing/Manufacturing,
uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to operation within the Neo-Industrial (NI)
zone. In addition, Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce Distribution Fulfillment Center –
Large uses require approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP) within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone. The
proposed Conditional Use Permit will be inclusive of the uses that require a Minor Use Permit,
which are typically approved at the Planning Director level, for the purpose of consolidation of
applications. Obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for each of the six uses will allow for any future
businesses who occupy the building and qualify as one of the identified uses to bypass individual
entitlements. The Conditional Use Permit will also legalize the current unpermitted Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium use occupying the building as the use required approval of a Conditional
Use Permit at the time of business license submittal in 2022 as the adoption of Ordinance 982 in
2021 altered permit requirements for said use. Prior to Ordinance 982, uses such as Wholesale
and Distribution – Medium, were permitted by right. The existing use on the site requires approval
of a Conditional Use Permit to legally operate.
The Conditional Use Permit will go into effect and legalize the existing unpermitted use
(Wholesale and Distribution – Medium) at the subject site, effective immediately after the ten-day
appeal period ceases and approval of a business license is granted. The current tenant does not
currently hold an active business license as the license was denied upon submittal due to the
Conditional Use Permit requirement. No further action will be required to implement the
Conditional Use Permit outside of obtaining a business license, as the permit would be exercised
within two years of the time of approval, as is required under Section 17.14.090A of the
Development Code. If a business license is not obtained within two years of the time of approval,
the Conditional Use Permit will expire.
Public Art
Per Section 17.124.020A of the Development Code, public art requirements do not apply to
Conditional Use Permits and are only applicable to Site Development Review, Minor Design
Review, and Major Design Review applications that meet specified criteria. As such, the
Conditional Use Permit is exempt from the public art requirement.
Environmental Assessment
The Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project classifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 – Existing Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures.
The project scope is for the permitting of Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage
Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an
Page 35
Page 4
3
4
9
7
existing industrial building where no alterations to the site or building are proposed. There is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
EXHIBITS:
Page 36
EXHIBIT A
Page 37
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2026-00023, A REQUEST TO
PERMIT WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION – MEDIUM,
STORAGE WAREHOUSE, STORAGE PERSONAL STORAGE
FACILITY, MANUFACTURING LIGHT – LARGE, FOOD
PROCESSING/MANUFACTURING, AND E-COMMERCE
DISTRIBUTION/FULFILLMENT CENTER – LARGE USES AT AN
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING THAT CONSISTS OF 103,930
SQUARE FEET AND IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH AN
UNPERMITTED WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION USE WITHIN
THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) ZONE AT 8998 HYSSOP DRIVE;
APN: 0229-271-45.
A.Recitals.
1.The Applicant, Charles Joseph Associates on behalf of the property owner EXP 8998
LLC and asset manager Excelsior Partners, filed an application for Conditional Use Permit
DRC2026-00023, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 27th day of May 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 27, 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The project site consists of approximately 5.4 acres of land developed with a
103,930 square foot industrial building and is located at the northern end cud-de-sac of Hyssop
Drive and north of 6th Street; and
b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
North
Exhibit B
Page 38
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
DRC2026-00023 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 2
c. The General Plan land use designation and Zoning designation for the project
site are Neo-Industrial Employment District and Neo-Industrial (NI), respectively, which permits
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
and Food Processing/Manufacturing uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses are
permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit. The latter two uses can be approved under the
purview of the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. There are
no site or building alterations or improvements proposed as a part of the current entitlement.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The uses are consistent with the General Plan designation, Neo-Industrial
Employment District, which is intended for light industrial uses with low environmental impacts
and the growth of creative and innovative industries and new businesses. The fully improved site
is developed with an existing 103,930 square-foot industrial building. Upon approval of the
requested Conditional Use Permit, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse,
Storage Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing,
and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses will generate minimal impact on
adjacent uses and properties as the Conditional Use Permit will support the entitlement of uses
that are intended for the zoning district and General Plan land use designation in addition to being
with consistent with the surrounding uses.
b. The uses are consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and
purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city regulations and
standards. Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage
Facility, and Food Processing/Manufacturing uses are permitted in the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone
upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Manufacturing Light – Large and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone upon
the approval of a Minor Use Permit. The latter uses permitted under the Minor Use Permit will be
permitted through the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. The
site currently contains an unpermitted use as approval of a Conditional Use Permit was required
at the time of business license submittal in 2022 since the adoption of Ordinance 982 in 2021
altered permit requirements for said use. Prior to Ordinance 982, uses such as Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium, were permitted by right. The uses are consistent with the zoning
designation and Development Code in that the uses do not propose new development or
expansion of the existing building and site and they remain consistent with the current
development pattern and uses in the adjacent properties and zone. The Development Code has
specific regulations and performance standards in relation to noise, vibrations, particulate matter
and air contaminants, odor, and humidity, heat, and glare, which are applied to the operations of
South Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial (NI)
East SCE Utility Corridor
West 15 Freeway Transportation
Corridor N/A N/A
Page 39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
DRC2026-00023 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 3
industrial uses. The conditions of approval included can mitigate potential impacts that the facility
may cause. The site is not subject to any specific plans. The uses meet the regulations and
standards applied to Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage
Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-
Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses and therefore are consistent with the
Development Code.
c. The site is suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the uses. The site is
improved with an existing industrial building, access and circulation, parking, utilities, and
landscaping. No changes are proposed to the site except for potential tenant improvements which
will not increase the building footprint that may be submitted for by a new tenant. The uses are
similar in intensity to existing uses in the immediate surrounding area. No additional physical
constraints have been proposed that may impede the operations of the existing surrounding land
uses. Therefore, the project site is well-suited for the uses.
d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the uses would be
compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and
service facilities. The uses will operate within an existing industrial building and will not operate
beyond the project parcel nor onto the property of adjacent similar uses. The intensity of the uses
are not expected to exceed the intensity of adjacent similar uses.
e. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the
vicinity in which the project is located. The scale and operation of the uses are similar to adjacent
uses and will not negatively impact the normal operations of any of the surrounding uses. The
uses have been conditioned to meet performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance
standards, and all other Municipal Code standards to mitigate any potential impacts related to the
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses.
f. The uses will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire,
streets, and other public utilities, such that the city is unable to maintain its current level of service
due to the uses. The uses do not pose any undue burdens in that all uses are consistent with the
zone in which they are located and will not require additional service from streets and utilities as
there are no physical changes proposed to the site. The uses do not authorize any operations
which may result in additional service requests from Fire or Police that are not normally associated
with similar adjacent existing uses.
4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project
qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures. The Conditional
Use Permit will permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage
Personal Storage Facility, Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and E-
Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large uses where no alterations to the site or building
are proposed. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
Page 40
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-016
DRC2026-00023 – Charles Joseph Associates
May 27, 2026
Page 4
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgement, concurs in the staff determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 41
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2026-00023
Project Name: 8998 Hyssop LLC
Location: 8998 HYSSOP DR - 022927145-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The Conditional Use Permit authorizes use of the existing 103,930 square foot industrial building for
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Storage Personal Storage Facility ,
Manufacturing Light – Large, Food Processing /Manufacturing, and E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment
Center – Large uses within the Neo -Industrial (NI) zone, located at 8998 Hyssop Drive; APN:
0229-271-45.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
6.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 42
Project #: DRC2026-00023
Project Name: 8998 Hyssop LLC
Location: 8998 HYSSOP DR - 022927145-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 43
Project #: DRC2026-00023
Project Name: 8998 Hyssop LLC
Location: 8998 HYSSOP DR - 022927145-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site
Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading
on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code
regulations.
12.
13.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and
Fire District Standard for High Pile Combustible Storage. Please read and understand this Standard in
its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals.
1.
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Submit two sets of structural calculations, and two sets of energy conservation calculations. (if
applicable)
1.
Submit five complete sets of plans.2.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for accessibility to public buildings.3.
Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.4.
5.
6.
Provide draft stops in combustible attics and concealed spaces, in accordance with CBC.7.
8.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for fire-resistive construction.9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 44
Project #: DRC2026-00023
Project Name: 8998 Hyssop LLC
Location: 8998 HYSSOP DR - 022927145-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the
Building and Safety Services Department.
10.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations.11.
Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department’s public counter ).12.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 4Printed: 5/12/2026
Page 45
DATE:May 27, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE,
MINOR EXCEPTION, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES –
A request to subdivide 6.7 acres of land into 13 numbered lots and 1
lettered lot for the purpose of single-family residential development and
preservation of an existing historic residence within the Very Low (VL)
Residential zone and the Equestrian Overly, located at the northwest
corner of Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue at 6048 Hellman Avenue;
APN: 1062-271-01. This item is not subject to further environmental review
in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15183 – Projects Consistent with a
Community Plan or Zoning (SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-
00093, DRC2025-00096, DRC2025-00094).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT20756, Major Design Review DRC2024-00416, Variance DRC2025-00093,
Minor Exception DRC2025-00096, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2025-00094 with the attached
conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
Site Characteristics
The subject property is rectangularly shaped and is located at the northwest corner of Banyan
Street and Hellman Avenue. The site is approximately 386 feet wide along the northern and
southern property lines approximately 664 feet in depth along the eastern and western property
lines. Street frontages on Hellman Avenue and Banyan Street are provided along the eastern and
southern property lines, respectively. The topography of the site slopes upward from south to
north, with an elevation change of approximately 33 feet over the 664-foot eastern property line.
The site is currently developed with an existing single-family residence and barn in a centralized
location on the property. Scattered vegetation and approximately 97 trees are present throughout
the project site.
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent
properties are provided in the following table:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Single-Family
Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
North Single-Family Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
Page 46
Page 2 of 16
6
9
6
3
West Single-Family Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
South Single-Family Dwellings Suburban Neighborhood
Very Low Low (L) Residential
East Single-Family Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
Historic Structures
Due to containing structures that are over 50 years in age and the site being previously listed in
the Historic Resources Survey of Rancho Cucamonga (2009-2010) as a 5S3 property (appears
individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation), the project site was
evaluated for historic significance. A Historic Resource Assessment report was prepared by an
on-call consultant with the City to determine the significance of the existing single-family residence
and barn (Helix 2025). The project site was formerly a commercial citrus ranch and contained a
two-story single-family Spanish Revival style residence that was constructed in 1930. A Gable
barn, constructed approximately in 1896, is also present on the site. It was determined that the
site was individually eligible under the California Register of Historic Resources as well as eligible
for a local Historic Landmark status within the City of Rancho Cucamonga due to various criteria.
The property was found to possess significance under the California Register of Historic
Resources, meeting Criteria A/1 (significance in the area of agriculture) due to its strong and direct
association with the citrus industry in Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County, B/2
(significance in the area of commerce) for its association with Harry Ledig Sr. and Louis Ledig Jr.
who impacted the local and regional economy, and C/3 (significance in the area of architecture)
for exemplifying the Spanish Revival style architecture and showcasing the work of a locally
prolific builder, Ted Krysto.
The project site was also found to meet four of the five criteria listed for the City’s Local
Landmarks, including the site being once associated with events that made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California
or the United States, being associated with persons important to local, state, or national history,
embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and
representing the work of a master, possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
The project proposes to preserve the existing single-family residence in place and renovate it in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The barn will be demolished though in order to accommodate site development as the street and
lot layout is unachievable given the current location of the barn. Historical documentation of the
barn will be undertaken in the form of historic narrative, photographs, and/or architectural
drawings as a method of mitigation to reduce the effects of the demolition of the historic resource,
even though it will not mitigate the effects to the point where no significant effect on the
environment would occur.
Legislative Context:
The applicant submitted a complete SB 330 preliminary application on November 13, 2024.
Pursuant to SB 330, this action vested the project to the applicable development standards in
effect at that time, in accordance with State law. A complete submittal was accepted on May 7,
2025, falling within the 180-day period allotted to SB 330 applications to complete a full submittal.
Page 47
Page 3 of 16
6
9
6
3
ANALYSIS:
Project Design and Layout:
The Applicant, Manning Homes, proposes to develop a single-family development comprised of
13 detached residences, inclusive of the existing historic residence onsite. A total of 13 numbered
lots are proposed in addition to one lettered lot that will serve the purpose of water quality
management. The site is arranged to contain Lots 1-4 along the northern portion of the
development and Lots 5-13 in the southern and central portion of the site. Lots will range from
11,775 square feet to 25,599 square feet.
Vehicular access to the site will be provided through a proposed north-south public street off of
Banyan Street in the southwest corner of the project site (Street B). An additional east-west
access point is proposed midblock on the eastern property line off of Hellman Avenue (Street A).
The site will contain street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements as well as a community
equestrian trail along Banyan Street and private equestrian trail easements along the northern
property line in the rear of Lots 1-4.
The proposed single-family residences will consist of three single-story units and nine two-story
units ranging from 3,812 square feet to 4,482 square feet in size. The existing onsite residence is
a 2,800 square foot, two-story unit, which will remain in place. A total of four distinct floor plans
are proposed in three architectural styles. Nine distinct color schemes are proposed as well.
Page 48
Page 4 of 16
6
9
6
3
Figure 1 – Site/Landscape Plan
Unit Composition and Floor Plans:
Per Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development Code, projects with 11-20 units are required to
provide a minimum of two floor plans and two elevations per floor plan. The project satisfies this
requirement by providing four distinct floor plans with three of the floor plans providing at least
two elevation variations. Section 17.122.010A.1 of the Development Code additionally requires
Page 49
Page 5 of 16
6
9
6
3
that projects consisting of four or more units must provide a minimum of 25 percent of units as
single-story. Of the 12 new units, three (25%) are proposed to be single-story and will be located
on Lots 1, 8, and 9.
Unit Summary
Unit Type Stories Unit Size (SF)Number of Units Architectural
Style
Total Number of
Units Proposed
*Existing historic residence acts as the thirteenth unit of the development
Page 50
Page 6 of 16
6
9
6
3
a 59 square foot covered entry, and a 325 square foot outdoor room.
Page 51
Page 7 of 16
6
9
6
3
Figure 2 – Single Story Front Elevations
Page 52
Page 8 of 16
6
9
6
3
Figure 3 – Plan 3 Front Elevations
Page 53
Page 9 of 16
6
9
6
3
Figure 4 – Plan 4 Front Elevations
Parking:
Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, single-family detached dwellings are required
to provide two off-street parking spaces per unit, one of which is covered and one which can be
located within the driveway. The proposed project provides either a two or three-car garage for
each unit. A standard driveway of at least 18 feet in width and 19 feet in length is additionally
Page 54
Page 10 of 16
6
9
6
3
provided for each lot. As such, the proposed project satisfies the minimum parking requirements.
Required Proposed Compliant?
Lot Area
Net Average Lot
Area
Lot Width (Interior)
Lot Width (Corner)
Lot Depth
Frontage
Density
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
(Interior)
Side Yard Setback
(Street Side)
Rear Yard Setback
Building
Streetscape
Setback (Collector)
Lot Coverage
Building Height
*Compliant upon approval of Variance
Variance Request Summary
Location Development Code
Section Requirement Deviation Request
Page 55
Page 11 of 16
6
9
6
3
Lot 11 – 11,775 SF
Lot 12 – 11,775 SF
Entire
Development Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum net average lot area
of 22,500 square feet 15,725 SF
Lots 5-13 Table 17.36.010-1A
Minimum lot width of 90 feet
for interior properties and 100
feet for corner properties
Lot 5 – 75 ft
Lot 6 – 75 ft
Lot 7 – 75 ft
Lot 8 – 87.4 ft
Lot 9 – 87.4 ft
Lot 10 – 75 ft
Lot 11 – 75 ft
Lot 12 – 75 ft
Lot 13 – 79.7 ft
Lots 5-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum lot depth of 200 feet
Lot 5 – 157 ft
Lot 6 – 157 ft
Lot 7 – 157 ft
Lot 8 – 157 ft
Lot 9 – 157 ft
Lot 10 – 157 ft
Lot 11 – 157 ft
Lot 12 – 157 ft
Lots 5-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum rear yard setback of
60 feet
Lot 5 – 39 ft
Lot 6 – 47 ft
Lot 7 – 42 ft
Lot 8 – 39 ft
Lot 9 – 38 ft
Lot 10 – 42 ft
Lot 11 – 47 ft
Lot 12 – 42 ft
Lots 5-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Maximum lot coverage of 25%
Lot 5 – 32.7%
Lot 6 – 32.7%
Lot 7 – 32.7%
Lot 8 – 32.7%
Lot 9 – 32.6%
Lot 10 – 32.7%
Lot 11 – 32.7%
Lot 12 – 32.7%
Lot 13 Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum side yard setback of
27 feet for corner lots 24 ft
Lots 3, 4, 9,
11
Section
17.120.020A.1
Maximum cut to not exceed 5
feet below the natural grade
and maximum fill to not
exceed 3 feet above the
natural grade
Lot 3 – 5.7 ft cut
Lot 4 – 5.4 ft cut
Lot 9 – 4.5 ft fill
Lot 11 – 3.8 ft fill
Minor Exception:
In addition to the Variance, the applicant has also requested a Minor Exception to wall height at
three locations throughout the development including the western property line of the project near
the knuckle of proposed Street “A”, the southern perimeter wall of Lots 8 and 9 along Banyan
Page 56
Page 12 of 16
6
9
6
3
Street, and the side yard wall between Lots 9 and 10. The maximum permitted wall height is six
feet, but the Minor Exception would allow a two foot increase. The maximum height of the walls
are proposed to be eight feet when measured in accordance with Section 17.48.030 of the
Development Code, which allows the height to be taken from the midpoint of the retaining wall on
the side with the lowest finished grade in situations where there is a grade difference between
two adjoining parcels. The applicant has requested the Minor Exception in order to accommodate
the existing grade difference that is present between the project site and neighboring properties.
The additional wall height will allow for the project to be consistently enclosed on the perimeter in
addition to providing privacy to individual lots that contain a higher finished grade than the below
street. All walls will consist of combination walls with decorative split-face block, a wall cap, and
pilasters.
Page 57
Page 13 of 16
6
9
6
3
that they could reach out directly if any issues surfaced such that individualized actions could be
taken to prevent further impacts.
th. The Design
Review Committee members were supportive of the proposed project as it prioritized preservation
of a historic structure, the quality of the housing product reduced any concerns with lot size
compatibility issues, and overall provided comprehensive designs on each façade with strong
usage of articulation and massing to generate visual interest. The Committee Members
understood the necessity of the Variance requests in order to not only preserve the historic
structure, but also allow for the maximum density to be carried out on the site and thus increase
the housing stock within the City. They similarly agreed that the Minor Exception was valuable to
provide privacy to some of the proposed lots as there are existing, significant grade differences
between the site and adjacent properties.
Page 58
Page 14 of 16
6
9
6
3
Environmental Assessment
Page 59
Page 15 of 16
6
9
6
3
1) The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning and
General Plan policies for which the EIR was certified. The 6.7-acre site with 13 residential
units will contain a density of 1.94 dwelling units per acre, which is compliant with the
maximum permitted density of two dwelling units per acre;
2) There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and which
the EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The only exception identified was for the
historic resource located on the site, but the General Plan EIR adequately determined that
potential project impacts to historic resources were determined to be significant and
unavoidable. Mitigation measures were identified in the Historic Resources Assessment
and will be applied to the greatest extent feasible, with any remaining significant and
unavoidable impacts being consistent with the EIR;
3) There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the EIR failed
to evaluate. The General Plan EIR considered the incremental impacts of the project in
combination with the buildout of the General Plan and no potentially significant off-site or
cumulative impacts related to the project were identified that were not already previously
disclosed in the EIR;
4) There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than
anticipated by the General Plan EIR;
5) The project will undertake feasible mitigation measures as specified in the General Plan
EIR. The project will incorporate relevant, feasible mitigation measures specified in the
EIR as standard conditions of approval. The project will also be required to comply with
applicable regulations and ordinances in place that prevent adverse environmental
effects.
Correspondence
The project was advertised as a public meeting with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin Newspaper on May 13, 2026. Public notices were mailed to the 138 property
owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on May 14, 2026. The site was posted with two
physical notices on May 14, 2026 as well. As of today’s date, staff have received one written
correspondence from the public regarding the project. The comment came from neighbors of the
project site who wanted to express their support of the project as they are excited to see the
largely unimproved site developed with residences.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project site is currently subject to annual property taxes, a portion of which is allocated to the
City. With the development of 12 single-family residences and 13 lots, the assessed value of the
property is expected to increase, resulting in a corresponding increase in the City’s annual share
of property tax revenue. The City receives $0.05 per $1.00 in property tax assessed.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed project addresses the City Council core value of building and preserving a family-
oriented atmosphere by proposing a development of 13 single-family residences that are
designed to support family living. The project also supports the core value of relentless pursuit of
improvement by developing an underutilized, infill parcel with well-designed and desired for-sale
homes.
Page 60
Page 16 of 16
6
9
6
3
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Link_Project Plans
Exhibit B – DRC Comments and Draft Meeting Minutes Dated April 14, 2026
Exhibit C – CEQA 15183 Compliance Memorandum
Exhibit D – Historic Resource Assessment
Exhibit E – Draft Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval
Page 61
EXHIBIT A
Page 62
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
April 14, 2026
6:00 p.m.
Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONEMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW,
VARIANCE, MINOR EXCEPTION, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT -MANNING HOMES -A request
to subdivide 6. 7 acres of land into 13 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of single
family residential development and preservation of an existing historic residence within the Very
Low (VL) Residential zone and the Equestrian Overly, located at the northwest corner of Banyan
Street and Hellman Avenue at 6048 Hellman Avenue; APN: 1062-271-01. This item is not subject
to further environmental review in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15183 -Projects Consistent with a Community
Plan or Zoning (SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096, DRC2025-
00094 ).
Site Characteristics:
The subject property is rectangularly shaped and is located at the northwest corner of Banyan
Street and Hellman Avenue. The site is approximately 386 feet wide along the northern and
southern property lines approximately 664 feet in depth along the eastern and western property
lines. Street frontages on Hellman Avenue and Banyan Street are provided along the eastern and
southern property lines, respectively. The topography of the site slopes upward from south to
north, with an elevation change of approximately 33 feet over the 664-foot eastern property line.
The site is currently developed with an existing single-family residence and a barn in a centralized
location, with scattered vegetation and approximately 97 trees throughout the rest of the project
site. The project site was recommended to be individually eligible under the California Register of
Historic Resources as well as eligible for a local Historic Landmark status within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (Helix 2025) due to the existing structures. The residence will remain in place
and be renovated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties while the barn will be demolished in order to accommodate site development
of the property.
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent
properties are provided in the following table:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Single-Family Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential Dwelling
North Single-Family Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
West Single-Family Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
South Single-Family Dwellings Suburban Neighborhood Low (L) Residential Very Low
East Single-Family Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
Exhibit B
Page 63
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 2
Legislative Context:
The applicant submitted a complete SB 330 preliminary application on November 13, 2024.
Pursuant to SB 330, this action vested the project to the applicable development standards in
effect at that time, in accordance with State law. A complete submittal was accepted on May 7,
2025, falling within the 180-day period allotted to SB 330 applications to complete a full submittal.
Project Design and Layout:
The Applicant, Manning Homes, proposes to develop a single-family development comprised of
13 detached residences, inclusive of the existing historic residence onsite. A total of 13 numbered
lots are proposed in addition to one lettered lot that will serve the purpose of water quality
management. The site is arranged to contain Lots 1-4 along the northern portion of the
development and Lots 5-13 in the southern and central portion of the site. Lots will range from
11,775 square feet to 25,599 square feet.
Vehicular access to the site will be provided through a proposed north-south public street off of
Banyan Street in the southwest corner of the project site (Street B). An additional east-west
access point is proposed midblock on the eastern property line off of Hellman Avenue (Street A).
The site will contain street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements as well as a community
equestrian trail along Banyan Street and private equestrian trail easements along the northern
property line in the rear of Lots 1-4.
The proposed single-family residences will consist of three single-story units and nine two-story
units ranging from 3,812 square feet to 4,482 square feet in size. The existing onsite residence is
a 2,800 square foot, two-story unit, which will remain in place. A total of four distinct floor plans
are proposed in three architectural styles. Nine distinct color schemes are proposed as well.
Page 64
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 3
Figure 1 – Site/Landscape Plan
Unit Composition and Floor Plans:
Per Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development Code, projects with 11-20 units are required to
provide a minimum of two floor plans and two elevations per floor plan. The project satisfies this
requirement by providing four distinct floor plans with three of the floor plans providing at least
two elevation variations. Section 17.122.010A.1 of the Development Code additionally requires
Page 65
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 4
that projects consisting of four or more units must provide a minimum of 25 percent of units as
single-story. Of the 12 new units, three (25%) are proposed to be single-story and will be located
on Lots 1, 8, and 9.
The below table summarizes the proposed unit types:
Unit Summary
Unit Type Stories Unit Size (SF) Number of Units Architectural
Style
Plan 1 (Elevation A) 1 3,511 SF 1 Spanish
Plan 2 (Elevation A) 1 3,551 SF 1 Spanish
Plan 2 (Elevation C) 1 3,551 SF 1 Farmhouse
Plan 3 (Elevation B) 2 4,825 SF 2 California
Ranch
Plan 4 (Elevation A) 2 5,001 SF 1 Spanish
Plan 4 (Elevation B) 2 5,001 SF 1 Ranch
Plan 4 (Elevation C) 2 5,001 SF 1 Farmhouse
Total Number of
Units Proposed 12*
Existing historic residence acts as the thirteenth unit of the development
Each of the plans are summarized as follows:
Plan 1 (Elevation A) – Single-story Spanish style with a total square footage of 3,511 square feet
containing four bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a fifth bedroom. Includes a 672
square foot three-car garage, a 191 square foot entry courtyard, a 108 square foot portico and a
268 square foot covered porch.
Plan 2 (Elevation A) – Single-story Spanish style with a total square footage of 3,511 square feet
containing four bedrooms. Includes a 637 square foot two-car garage, a 60 square foot covered
entry, and a 184 square foot covered porch.
Plan 2 (Elevation C) – Single-story Farmhouse style with a total square footage of 3,551 square
feet containing four bedrooms. Includes a 637 square foot two-car garage, a 60 square foot
covered entry, and a 184 square foot covered porch.
Plan 3 (Elevation A) – Two-story Spanish style with a total square footage of 4,825 square feet
containing four bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a fifth bedroom. Includes a 2,586
square foot first story, a 2,239 square foot second story, a 787 square foot three-car garage, a 59
square foot covered entry, and a 325 square foot outdoor room.
Plan 3 (Elevation B) – Two-story California Ranch style with a total square footage of 4,825 square
feet containing four bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a fifth bedroom. Includes a
Page 66
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 5
2,586 square foot first story, a 2,239 square foot second story, a 787 square foot three-car garage,
a 59 square foot covered entry, and a 325 square foot outdoor room.
Plan 3 (Elevation C) – Two-story Farmhouse style with a total square footage of 4,825 square
feet containing four bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a fifth bedroom. Includes a
2,586 square foot first story, a 2,239 square foot second story, a 787 square foot three-car garage,
a 59 square foot covered entry, and a 325 square foot outdoor room.
Plan 4 (Elevation A) – Two-story Spanish style with a total square footage of 5,001 square feet
containing five bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a sixth bedroom. Includes a
2,593 square foot first story, a 2,408 square foot second story, an 864 square foot three-car
garage, a 96 square foot covered entry porch, and a 211 square foot covered rear patio.
Plan 4 (Elevation B) – Two-story California Ranch style with a total square footage of 5,001 square
feet containing five bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a sixth bedroom. Includes a
2,593 square foot first story, a 2,408 square foot second story, an 864 square foot three-car
garage, a 137 square foot covered entry porch, and a 211 square foot covered rear patio.
Plan 4 (Elevation C) – Two-story Farmhouse style with a total square footage of 5,001 square
feet containing five bedrooms and a flex room that can be utilized as a sixth bedroom. Includes a
2,593 square foot first story, a 2,408 square foot second story, an 864 square foot three-car
garage, a 137 square foot covered entry porch, and a 211 square foot covered rear patio.
Architecture:
A total of three distinct architectural styles are proposed, consisting of Spanish, Farmhouse, and
California Farmhouse styles. The residences are enhanced with high-quality exterior materials
and finishes. The Spanish style homes will contain “S” tile roofs, stucco walls, decorative ceramic
tiles, and a decorative wood sectional garage door. Farmhouse style homes will feature concrete
flat tile roofs, decorative metal roof detailing, horizontal siding, vertical board and batts, stucco
walls, stone veneer, and a decorative wood sectional garage door. The California Ranch style
homes will contain concrete “S” tile roofs, board and batt siding, stucco walls, brick veneer, and
a decorative wood sectional garage door. All homes will additionally feature further decorative
elements such as rafter tails, exposed corbels, decorative stucco trim, decorative shutters, and
wood barge boards.
The existing historic residence features a Spanish Revival style architecture that is clad in stucco,
has metal-framed fenestration, wood doors, low-pitched hipped roofs in barrel-style red clay tiles,
and exposed rafter tails. The home also contains an entry colonnade, a brick chimney, a wood
balcony, and an attached shed with vertical wood siding
Together, the residences establish a cohesive, high-quality development that reflects the City’s
expectations for context-sensitive infill development within the Very Low (VL) Residential zone.
Page 67
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 6
Figure 2 – Single Story Front Elevations
Page 68
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 7
Figure 3 – Plan 3 Front Elevations
Page 69
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 8
Figure 4 – Plan 4 Front Elevations
Page 70
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 9
Parking:
Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the development code, single-family detached dwellings are required to
provide two off-street parking spaces per unit, one of which is covered and one which can be
located within the driveway. The proposed project provides either a two or three-car garage for
each unit. A standard driveway of at least 18 feet in width and 19 feet in length is additionally
provided for each lot. As such, the proposed project satisfies the minimum parking requirements.
Compliance with Development Standards:
The project complies with each of the development standards for the Very Low (VL) residential
zone, except for the variance requests outlined below, as shown in the following table:
Required Proposed Compliant?
Lot Area
Net Average Lot
Area 22,500 sf (min) 15,726 SF Yes*
Lot Width (Interior)
Lot Width (Corner)
Lot Depth
Frontage
Density
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Interior) 10/15 ft (min) 10-24 ft Yes
Side Yard Setback
Street Side) 27 ft (min) 24-35.7 ft Yes*
Rear Yard Setback
Building
Streetscape 35 ft (min) 35-100 ft Yes
Lot Coverage
Building Height
Compliant upon approval of Variance
Variance:
The applicant has requested a variance to deviate from eight development standards. The
variance request is being made to support the preservation of the existing historic single-family
residence as is outlined in the General Plan as the intended method of historic preservation when
feasible. Retaining the historic structure will result in various hardships that do not apply generally
to other properties within the Very Low (VL) residential zone through and strict application of the
development code is not possible given the constraints of where the residence is currently
located. The following deviations from development standards have been requested in the
variance and are detailed in the below table:
Page 71
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 10
Variance Request Summary
Location Development Code Requirement Deviation Request
Lots 4-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum lot area of 20,000
square feet
Lot 5 – 11,775 SF
Lot 6 – 11,775 SF
Lot 7 – 11,775 SF
Lot 8 – 13,570 SF
Lot 9 – 13,633 SF
Lot 10 – 11,775 SF
Lot 11 – 11,775 SF
Entire
Development Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum net average lot area
of 22,500 square feet 15,725 SF
Lots 5-13 Table 17.36.010-1A
Minimum lot width of 90 feet
for interior properties and 100
feet for corner properties
Lot 6 – 75 ft
Lot 7 – 75 ft
Lot 8 – 87.4 ft
Lot 9 – 87.4 ft
Lot 10 – 75 ft
Lot 11 – 75 ft
Lot 12 – 75 ft
Lots 5-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum lot depth of 200 feet
Lot 6 – 157 ft
Lot 7 – 157 ft
Lot 8 – 157 ft
Lot 9 – 157 ft
Lot 10 – 157 ft
Lot 11 – 157 ft
Lots 5-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Minimum rear yard setback of
60 feet
Lot 6 – 47 ft
Lot 7 – 42 ft
Lot 8 – 39 ft
Lot 9 – 38 ft
Lot 10 – 42 ft
Lot 11 – 47 ft
Lots 5-12 Table 17.36.010-1A Maximum lot coverage of 25%
Lot 6 – 32.7%
Lot 7 – 32.7%
Lot 8 – 32.7%
Lot 9 – 32.6%
Lot 10 – 32.7%
Lot 11 – 32.7%
Page 72
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 11
Lot 13 Table 17.36.010-1A 24 ft
11
Section
17.120.020A.1
feet below the natural grade
and maximum fill to not
exceed 3 feet above the
Lot 3 – 5.7 ft cut
Lot 4 – 5.4 ft cut
Lot 9 – 4.5 ft fill
Lot 11 – 3.8 ft fill
Minor Exception:
In addition to the variance, the applicant has also requested a minor exception to wall height at
three locations throughout the development including the western property line of the project near
the knuckle of proposed Street “A”, the southern perimeter wall of Lots 8 and 9 along Banyan
Street, and the side yard wall between Lots 9 and 10. The maximum permitted wall height is six
feet, but the minor exception would allow a two foot increase. The maximum height of the walls
is proposed to be eight feet when measured in accordance with Section 17.48.030 of the
Development Code, which allows the height to be taken from the midpoint of the retaining wall on
the side with the lowest finished grade in situations where there is a grade difference between
two adjoining parcels. The applicant has requested the minor exception to accommodate the
existing grade difference that is present between the project site and neighboring properties. The
additional wall height will allow for the project to be consistently enclosed on the perimeter in
addition to providing privacy to individual lots that contain a higher finished grade than the below
street. All walls will consist of combination walls with decorative split-face block, a wall cap, and
pilasters.
Tree Removal Permit:
The existing project site currently contains approximately 97 trees, 12 of which are considered a
heritage tree and require a tree removal permit prior to removal. All 97 trees are proposed to be
removed to accommodate development of the project site as they pose conflicts with building
locations, grading, and street placement. 109 new trees are proposed as part of the project,
inclusive of street trees and trees located on private property, as demonstrated on the landscape
plan.
Neighborhood Meeting:
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, from 6:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m., at Alta Loma Junior High School. In preparation for the meeting, the applicant mailed
flyers containing meeting details to all property owners within 660 feet of the project site. A total
of 23 members of the community were in attendance, with majority of attendees wanting to learn
more about the project and ask general questions related to what was intended for the historic
home, whether utilities would be undergrounded, if a new sewer line would be put in, and what
the construction timeline would be. One suggestion was voiced by several attendees to preserve
the existing palms trees that line either side of the current driveway to the historic home. The
developer explained that removal of these trees may be necessary due to the onsite grading that
will occur as well as to accommodate the street widening, parkway, and sidewalk that will be
placed along Hellman Avenue. The developer did confirm that if feasible, they would preserve the
trees in place, but if such action is not possible, they would replace the trees elsewhere on the
site. Overall, attendees supported the project as they were pleased to see an underutilized site
developed with high quality homes that would positively impact the character of the neighborhood
and provide desired improvements.
Several concerns were brought up by a neighbor to the east of the project site and one neighbor
who is adjacent to the western property line of the site. The neighbor to the east requested a
Page 73
DRC COMMENTS
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094 –
Manning Homes
April 14, 2026
Page 12
realignment of proposed Street A as they were concerned vehicles exiting the development onto
Hellman would cast their lights directly into their residence. The neighbor also voiced concerns
that drivers would cut through the development to get to Hellman Avenue and that the proposed
T-intersection would pose traffic safety concerns. The developer and staff confirmed that the
overall street alignment has been evaluated by the Engineering Department and has been
determined to comply with all applicable standards. The neighbor to the east mainly voiced
concerns related the impacts that construction would generate, such as noise, dust, and street
parking. The developer confirmed that all construction impacts have been evaluated by a qualified
environmental specialist and mitigation measures will be put in place and complied with to ensure
that any potential impacts would not generate significant effects to those nearby. The developer
also provided their contact information to any residents who had concerns with construction so
that they could reach out directly if any issues surfaced such that individualized actions could be
taken to prevent further impacts.
Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design
building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected
action below to the Planning Commission:
Recommend approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant.
Recommend approval with modifications to the design of the project by incorporating
revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The
revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning
Commission.
Recommend conditional approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions
requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions
shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan check after review and action by
the Planning Director / Planning Commission.
Recommend denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant.
Staff Planner: Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
Members Present:
Staff Coordinator: Caleb Richards, Senior Landscape Planner
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Page 74
Design Review Committee
Meeting Agenda
April 14, 2026
DRAFT MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
6:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Design Review Committee was held on April 14, 2026. The meeting was called to order
by Caleb Richards, Staff Facilitator, at 6:00 p.m.
Design Review Committee members present: Chairman Boling, Commissioner Morales and Caleb Richards.
Staff Present: Sophia Serafin, Associate Planner; Haide Aguirre, Contract Planner.
B. Public Communications
Staff Facilitator Richards opened the public communication and after noting that no public comments were
received, closed public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1.
Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2026.
Motion: Let the record reflect that the motion carried by a 3-0 vote.
D. Project Review Items
VARIANCE, MINOR EXCEPTION, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES – A request
to subdivide 6.7 acres of land into 13 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of single-
family residential development and preservation of an existing historic residence within the Very
Low (VL) Residential zone and the Equestrian Overly, located at the northwest corner of Banyan
Street and Hellman Avenue at 6048 Hellman Avenue; APN: 1062-271-01. This item is not subject
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community
Plan or Zoning (SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096, DRC2025-
00094).
The Committee members expressed support of the proposed project, noting that it prioritizes the
preservation of a historic structure. The Committee found that the quality of the housing product
alleviated concerns regarding lot size compatibility and that the project provides comprehensive
architectural design across each façade, with strong articulation and massing to create visual
interest.
The Committee also acknowledged the necessity of the Variance to both preserve the historic
Additionally, the Committee agreed that the Minor Exception is appropriate, as it helps provide
privacy for certain proposed lots due to significant grade differences between the project site and
adjacent properties.
Page 75
DRC Draft Minutes
Page 2
Several suggestions were made by the Committee regarding tree species and placement, color
contrast, and front door design. The applicant proposed Southern Magnolia trees as street trees
and Coast Live Oak trees adjacent to the public right-of-way. Committee Member Boling
suggested selecting an alternate street tree and relocating the oaks trees to more interior
locations within the lots, as both species may create potential hazards along sidewalks due to
alternative species and the relocation of the oak trees.
Committee Member Boling also recommended enhancing the architectural design through strong
color contrast on certain elevations. He noted that some of the Farmhouse-style homes relied
too heavily on gray tones or included gray and brown combinations that may not complement
each other. The applicant responded that the digital renderings do not accurately reflect the true
colors and provided example photos from a similar project within the City. The applicant further
indicated that additional color variations will be considered and finalized prior to the Planning
Commission hearing.
Lastly, the Committee suggested increasing the width of the front entrance doors on the two-story
units, as the proposed standard single-width doors diminish visual appeal and symmetry. The
applicant confirmed they will evaluate options, including wider single doors (42 inches) or double-
door configurations.
Recommended for approval to the Planning Commission with a 3-0 unanimous vote.
D2. MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, AND VARIANCE – OPUS (PACIFIC COMMUNITIES BUILDER) – The
applicant proposes the development of a mixed-use project consisting of two buildings with a total of 351
apartment units, including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom configurations, and approximately
1,500 square feet of retail space. The project site encompasses a single parcel of approximately 13-acres
and includes two land use designations: Corridor 2 (CO2), where the proposed buildings will be located,
and Flood Control and Utility Corridor (FC/UC), which is primarily comprised of existing easements
traversing the entire length of the property, proposed to accommodate parking and open space
improvements. A variance application has been submitted to request deviations from multiple
development standards, necessitated due to site constraints. The site is located at the northeast corner of
Foothill Blvd and Cornwall Court, south of Garcia Drive, between East Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue
(APN: 1100-201-05). DRC2024-00216 and DRC2025-00337).
With respect to rooftop parking, the Committee requested that the applicant prepare a sightline analysis
and incorporate screening measures to minimize vehicle visibility from ground-level. The architect and
landscape architect confirmed that the analysis will be conducted.
Regarding the north elevation’s architecture, materials, and color, the Committee requested that the
applicant break up the linear and monotonous pattern by incorporating, at a minimum, variation within
the proposed color palette.
For the gas easement on the southeastern perimeter, the Committee requested confirmation that the
area would be landscaped. The landscape architect confirmed it will include vineyard-inspired
landscaping.
Regarding the widening of internal sidewalks and trails, the Committee requested increasing widths,
including along the central park, to comply with minimum standards. The applicant agreed to explore
feasible options to achieve compliance, including potential expansion into adjacent open space areas.
Page 76
DRC Draft Minutes
Page 3
For the vineyard-inspired landscape, the Committee requested clarification on proposed plant species.
The landscape architect confirmed that grapevines will not be included, and that alternative, lower-
maintenance species are proposed. The Committee requested consideration of incorporating real
grapevines and leasing the area for grape production and maintenance.
Regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the Committee commented on the reduction from the required range
of 0.6–1.5 to the proposed FAR of 0.01. Acknowledging site constraints, the Committee requested that
staff confirm the minimum required floor area for compliance and demonstrate its infeasibility. The
minimum required floor area would be 152,895 square feet (254,826 sq. ft. x 0.6).
For school district outreach, the Committee asked whether the district had been notified of the proposed
project. The applicant stated that the district has not been contacted but will be.
Regarding the open space area, and tot lot, the Committee requested incorporation of a tot lot within
the project’s open space areas. The landscape architect noted that a tot lot could be accommodated
within the central courtyard. The Committee also recommended considering placement along the retail
open space frontage to allow community use of the area, such as patrons visiting nearby retail uses
while children remain in a fenced tot lot.
Recommended for approval to the Planning Commission with a 3-0 unanimous vote.
E. Adjournment
Staff Facilitator Richards adjourned the meeting at 8:12 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Page 77
Banyan 13 Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Environmental Review Checklist
April 2026 | 00994.00002.000
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942Exhibit C
Page 78
This page intentionally left blank
Page 79
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 General Plan PEIR Background............................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Project Components ........................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Project Approvals ................................................................................................................ 7
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 25
4.0 SECTION 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST ................................................................................ 27
4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 32
4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 42
4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 49
4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 53
4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 56
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 63
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 66
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 72
4.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 78
4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 80
4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 82
4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 92
4.15 Public Services................................................................................................................... 94
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 98
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 100
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 104
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 107
4.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................... 111
5.0 APPLICABLE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PROJECT SPECIFIC ACTIONS ........ 115
6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 125
Page 80
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 4
2 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 5
3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 38
2 Daily Operational Emissions .......................................................................................................... 39
3 Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................ 40
4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 64
Page 81
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos containing materials
ADT average daily traffic
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARMR Archaeological Resource Management Report
BMPs best management practices
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
City City of Rancho Cucamonga
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COA Standard Conditions of Approval
County County of San Bernardino
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CY cubic yards
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibel
DIF development impact fee
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EHNCP Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ELMT ELMT Consulting
Encompass Encompass Associates, Inc.
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
Page 82
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FTA Federal Transit Administration
General Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
HRA Historical Resources Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
in/sec inches per second
LBP lead-based paint
LEQ energy equivalent noise level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
LTS less than significant
LTSM less than significant with mitigation
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NI no impact
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OCP organo-chlorinated pesticide
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PPV peak particle velocity
PQS Professionally Qualified Standards
project Banyan 13 Project
PSA Project Specific Actions
RCFPD Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Page 83
v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
SB Senate Bill
SBSD San Bernardino Sherriff’s Department
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF square feet/foot
SLF Sacred Lands File
SOI Sphere of Influence
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX sulfur oxides
SU significant and unavoidable
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VOC volatile organic compounds
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WUIFA Wildland Urban Interface Area
Page 84
vi
This page intentionally left blank
Page 85
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides the environmental review for the Banyan 13 Project (project) in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project proposes residential development in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) consistent with the planned land use for the site in the City General
Plan. The environmental effects of development under the City General Plan were previously considered
in a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As such, the following evaluation was performed to
determine if the conditions specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 would require the preparation of
additional CEQA review for the proposed project. The checklist contained in Section 4, Section 15183
Exemption Checklist, of this document demonstrates that the project is exempt from further
environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
1.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provide an
exemption from additional environmental review for projects that are consistent with the development
density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was
certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects
which are peculiar to the project or its site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) specifies that examination
of environmental effects for a project consistent with the development density established in the
existing zoning, community plan, or general plan shall be limited to those effects that:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or
community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts, which were not discussed in
the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information
which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe
adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c) further specifies that if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or the
proposed project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially
mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional
EIR need not be prepared for that project solely based on that impact.
1.2 GENERAL PLAN PEIR BACKGROUND
The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (General Plan) was adopted in December 2021 and includes
a land use plan for the City. Potential environmental effects of development consistent with this land
use plan, including circulation features and other public facilities, to serve projected population growth
were disclosed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan EIR
(herein referred to as “the PEIR”) (City 2021; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2021050261). The PEIR
provided the public and responsible trustee agencies with information about the probable
environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the comprehensive update for the
Page 86
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
2
General Plan. In addition, the PEIR identified General Plan policies and implementation programs that
would reduce those potential effects as well as any additional mitigation measures necessary to
minimize significant impacts to the environment. The PEIR concluded that impacts related to agriculture
and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, noise, and transportation would be significant and unavoidable even with the application of
all feasible mitigation measures. The City adopted the General Plan and certified the associated PEIR on
December 15, 2021.
The PEIR, including the Draft PEIR, Final PEIR, and all associated appendices, is hereby incorporated by
reference. The PEIR is available at: https://www.cityofrc.us/GeneralPlanprocess.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is proposed on an approximately 6.7-acre site located at 6048 Hellman Avenue in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga in the County of San Bernardino (County). The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel
Number 1062-271-01. The project site is developed with an existing single-family house and barn in the
central portion of the project site. The remainder of the project site contains scattered vegetation and
approximately 97 trees, including 12 heritage type trees.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Semi-Rural Neighborhood and zoning of Very
Low Residential. The Semi-Rural Neighborhood land use designation allows for a residential density of
up to two dwelling units per acre. The project site is also within the Equestrian Overlay Zone, which
requires development to provide trails in accordance with the adopted trails map of the General Plan.
Residential land uses surround the project site. Land east, north, and west of the project site is
designated Semi-Rural Neighborhood while immediately south, land is designated Suburban
Neighborhood – Very Low. The project site is bound by Hellman Avenue to the east and Banyan Street
to the south. To the west, beyond the residential units, lies Eastwood Avenue; to the north, past similar
housing, lies Golden Street. Generally, the project site is located approximately 0.6 mile north of State
Route 210 and approximately 4.7 miles northwest of Interstate 15. See Figure 1, Regional Location, and
Figure 2, Aerial Photograph.
2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project proposes subdividing the 6.7-acre site into 13 single-family lots and one lettered lot. As
shown on Figure 3, Site Plan, the northern portion of the project site would include lots 1 through 4,
while the southern and central portions would include lots 5 through 13. Lot A is located along the south
and central western boundary of the development for the purpose of water quality management.
Development on lots 1 through 12 would include three new single-story homes and nine two-story
homes totaling 54,566 square feet (SF), featuring four distinct floor plans ranging from 3,511 to 5,042
SF. For the new homes, the project would provide three elevation styles Spanish, Farmhouse, or
California Ranch and nine distinct color schemes. The existing house would remain in place in lot 13,
while the existing barn would be demolished. The property would be renovated, including new front and
rear landscaping, and be sold at market rate along with the project’s other homes.
Page 87
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
3
The development would be served by a proposed east-west public street, “Street A,” connecting to
Hellman Avenue on its eastern end and a proposed north-south public street, “Street B,” on its western
end. Street B would be located on the western edge of the project site and connect to Street A at its
northern end and Banyan Street at its southern end.
Energy and Utilities
The project would be Title 24 and CAL Green compliant. Each new single-family home would have a
photovoltaic/solar generation system sized per CAL Green, Title 24, and current California Building Code
(CBC) and Uniform Building Code standards and requirements. In addition, the garages of each new
single-family home would be “EV [electric vehicle] Installed.” The proposed project would also include
the construction of new utility connections and drainage improvements. Water and sewer line
connections would be made to existing infrastructure along Hellman Avenue and Banyan Street, in
addition to new lines proposed along Streets A and B. In addition, existing overhead utilities would be
undergrounded. On-site improvements include curb and gutter improvements along street frontages, a
5-foot concrete drainage swale along the far northern edge of lots 1-4, and storm water quality
substructures and bioswales on the far westerly edge along Street B, and the far southern edge of lots 8
and 9 along Banyan Street.
Landscaping and Hardscaping
New landscaping would be provided throughout the site and consist of a combination of various trees
and shrubs, groundcover, and vines. This landscaping would be located along street frontages,
residential front yards, and slope areas along the residential lots. A total of 109 new trees would be
provided on the project site, including 20 citrus/orange trees planted on lot 13. This new landscaping
would involve the removal of 12 on-site heritage trees as defined by the City’s Municipal Code Section
17.16.080. The removal of these trees would require a tree removal permit from the City and
replacement with 12 new heritage trees.
The project also proposes the use of perimeter block walls, which would be used to separate each
residential lot. An additional wall would also be erected along the far westerly edge along Street B,
separating it from the neighboring property. These walls would be up to eight feet in height, with total
wall height a combination of a lower retaining wall (up to 3 feet high) needed in order to pick up vertical
grade differences between the proposed tract and neighboring properties, and a screen wall (up to 6
feet high) built atop the retaining wall needed for privacy and project enclosure. All walls for the project
visible from public areas would consist of colored/decorative split-face block and would include a wall
cap and pilasters.
Vehicular access to each single-family residence would be provided through a private concrete driveway.
Lots 1-8 and 13 would be accessed via the new public streets, while the remaining lots would be
provided access via Hellman Avenue. New concrete sidewalks would also be constructed along Hellman
Avenue, Street A, and B in accordance with City standards. In addition, the project proposes a 15-foot
private equestrian trail along the northern edge of the project site, which would be accessible from the
rear yards of lots 1-4 and from Hellman Avenue. An existing private equestrian trail lines the project’s
western edge and a public community equestrian trail lines the project’s southern edge.
Page 88
iel
ir
M~,is_
Reservoir
./'.?-
Fe
rvoir
..
\
\. ·,.
·,..........
.
~
Pacific ·r•-• Ocean
0 •• \ .... \
i' --·~,{~·..\\ O'Neill Lake
• ., \ l
-'-•·;'\,··'
•. J,.•
10 Mil es +
I
• al LocationHELme'n!anningEnviron Region Figure 1
Page 89
"T
l
o'
i
i
"
-
,
CD
N
l:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
R
\
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
C
i
t
y
_0
09
9
4
\
0
0
0
0
2
_
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
O
n
C
a
l
/
C
E
Q
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
\
0
0
4
_
Ba
n
y
a
n
1
3
R
e
s
\
M
a
p
\
R
p
t
_
15
1
8
3
\
R
p
t
_
15
1
8
3
.
a
p
r
x
Fi
g
2
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
00
9
9
4
.
0
0
0
0
2
.
0
0
4
:
12
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
-
MC
L
n,
:z
:
0
~n
i
~~
~~
~>
<
"'
" s·
"
N
<Q
0 0
.,
,
C1
)
~ ~
)
>
CD
-
&
C--·
"'
t
J
V>
::
:
:
:
r
0 C
!"
0
n
..
.
.
.
)>
0
~
;;
;
·
tC
V,"'
n
,_
.
-
&
0 C
w
C
~
1J
':
"
N N
::
:
:
:
r
~
0
C
Page 90
!:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\R
\
R
a
n
c
h
a
C
u
c
a
m
a
n
g
a
C
i
t
y
_
00
9
9
4
\
0
0
0
0
2
_
Ra
n
c
h
a
C
u
c
a
m
a
n
g
a
O
n
C
a
/
l
C
E
O
A
C
a
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
\
0
0
4
_
B
a
n
y
a
n
1
3
R
e
s
\
M
a
p
\R
p
t
_
1
5
1
8
3
\
F
i
g
3
_
Si
t
e
P
/
a
n
.
i
n
d
d
00
9
9
4
.
0
0
0
0
2
.
0
0
4
12
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
-
MC
L
MA
TCH
LI
NE
SE
E
SH
EE
T
5
~ ~I
!
..
JI
I
!
ll
l
l
l
l
]
l
l!
l
'
i
'
"
I
"
"
"
"
"
>
'
'
~
□□
•i
i
i
i
ll
ll
l
li
i
"
"
"
"
..
.
.
.
,
"
~
•l
l
.
'1
1J
'.
i
; i
1i
1\
=
~
EE
T
B
~
I
' I ,,
' I I
m~
,
1
'
1
--
1
1
-
!
b
h
i
~
"'
~
-<
-2
a
i
:
;
e
\!
\
j
'
l
!
-
'i
j
~
'1
li
!
l
!
l
!
i
l
l
l
l
!
i
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
j
!
!
!
i
l
!
j
1,m
!
!
!
!
i
'
!
11
!
,
1!1
1
!
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
;
!
1
1
I
!1
I
i
!
0
I
,
'
i
i
i
!
l
j
i
1
I
!
'
'
i
i
11
1
!
;
i
i
i!
I
\
r,
l
-
~
-
,
s
i
~
-1
v
<
0 "'
~
!"
rn
::
,
i 8
3
OJ
OJ
:,
-<
OJ
:,
~
f
-
'
g
w
~-
Y'"'
".2
N
0
ro
N
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
~
"'
~:
c
:
es
n
,
~
r
-
~
..
.
.
.
.
~
'
-
-
0,
~
:,:,
~-
(
I
)
-·
..
.
.
.
CD
"'
t
J
-
.
Page 91
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
7
Construction Schedule
Construction is anticipated to occur over an approximately 19-month period. Construction phases would
include the demolition of the existing barn on the site, site preparation (clearing/grubbing), grading,
installation of underground infrastructure and utilities, physical building construction, paving, and
application of architectural coatings (e.g., painting). Grading is expected to involve a cut of 12,660 cubic
yards (CY) and fill of 12,758 CY of soil, resulting in a net import of approximately 98 CY of soil.
2.3 PROJECT APPROVALS
The project is seeking the following approvals:
• SUBTT20756: Tentative Tract Map. The project would subdivide a 6.70 acre plot of land located
at the northwest corner of Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue into 13 single-family lots. This
requires the project to comply with the City’s Subdivision Code, Title 16. Per Section 16.14.020
of the City’s Municipal Code, a tentative and final map shall be required for all divisions of land
when determined by the community development director that such land divided into five or
more parcels. The prepared map would comply with Chapter 16.16 and 16.18 which outline the
requirements and submittal process for tentative and final maps respectively.
• DRC2024-00416: Design Review. The project would develop 12 new single-family homes, which
would be subject to design review under Section 17.20.040 of the City’s Municipal Code as it
involves new construction of residential projects with five or more dwelling units. The design
review would consist of a zone review process in which the design review committee considers
the project’s design elements such as, but not limited to, compatibility of the project to
surrounding properties, relationship of the design and layout of the project to the site,
architectural design, and use of materials, grading, landscaping, screening and buffering
techniques of adjacent properties, signs, and open space. The design review committee would
determine if the project adequately meets City design guidelines and standards and would
transmit an appropriate recommendation to the City’s Planning Commission.
• DRC2025-00094: Tree Removal Permit. The project’s applicant intends to remove and replace
the 12 heritage trees identified within the project site per Chapter 17.80 of the City’s Municipal
Code.
• DRC2025-00095: Notice of Filing Sign Permit. The project would include signage subject to the
regulations in Section 17.14.050 of the Development Code. The signs will be removed after
approval is granted for the project. .
• DRC2025-00096: Minor Exception. The City’s Municipal Code has established a maximum wall
height of 6 feet. The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception to build certain sections of the
perimeter block wall around the project up to 8 feet high as defined by Section 17.48.030 of the
Municipal Code. Given the existing and unique topography of the site, there are a few
conditions at the project boundary where a combination wall would be required to
accommodate grade differences. The combination walls over 6 feet in height would occur at:
1) Western property line of the project near the knuckle of Street A(approximately 55
linear feet)
Page 92
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
8
2) Southern perimeter wall of Lots 8 and 9 facing Banyan Street (approximately 275 linear
feet)
3) Side yard wall between Lots 9 and 10 (approximately 137 linear feet)
• DRC2025-00093: Variance. While the project would be consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, the preservation of the existing residence would result in hardship with the applicant
that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and strict application of the
City’s Zoning Code is not possible. To preserve the historic house, the applicant requests the
following variances:
1) Minimum Lot Size for Lots 4 -12
2) Average Lot Size for entire tract
3) Minimum Lot Widths for Lots 5-13
4) Minimum Lot Depths for Lots 5-12
5) Minimum Rear Setbacks for Lots 5-12
6) Maximum Lot Coverages for Lots 5-12
7) Corner Side yard Setback for Lot 13 (Historic House)
8) Cut/Fill Grade Establishment – Cuts to exceed 5 feet, Fills to exceed 3 feet due to grade
elevations around existing house (to remain)
2.3.1 Standard Conditions of Approval
Consistent with Section 1.8 of the PEIR, the City has existing regulations that relate to the environmental
topical areas, compliance with which would reduce negative environmental impacts. Compliance with
standard conditions of approval (COAs) would be required for all new development and redevelopment
in the City. These standard conditions are considered uniformly applied development policies or
standards pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c). The applicability of these conditions to the
project is addressed by topic in Section 4, of this document. A summary of all COAs applicable to the
project, including project specific actions (PSAs) intended to implement the COAs, is provided in Section
5.0, Applicable Standard Conditions of Approval and Project Specific Actions.
Aesthetics
5.1-1: A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be submitted by
project applicants and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department
prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location,
height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
5.1-2: Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a
solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the
Page 93
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
9
subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows
by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar
objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
There are no COAs to reduce impacts on agriculture and forestry resources.
Air Quality
5.3-1: The City shall ensure that discretionary development will incorporate best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce emissions to be less than applicable thresholds. These BMPs include
but are not limited to the most recent South Coast AQMD [Air Quality Management District]
recommendations for construction BMPs (per South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2016 AQMP [Air Quality
Management Plan], and SCAG’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2020-2045
RTP/SCS, or as otherwise identified by South Coast AQMD).
5.3-2: Applicants for future discretionary development projects that would generate
construction-related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds, will include, but are not
limited to, the mitigation measures recommended by South Coast AQMD (in its CEQA Air Quality
Handbook or otherwise), to the extent feasible and applicable to the project. The types of
measures shall include but are not limited to: maintaining equipment per manufacturer
specifications; lengthening construction duration to minimize number of vehicle and equipment
operating at the same time; requiring use of construction equipment rated by the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model
year 2008 or newer) emissions limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower;
and using electric-powered or other alternative-fueled equipment in place of diesel-powered
equipment (whenever feasible). Tier 3 equipment can achieve average emissions reductions of
57 percent for Nox [nitrogen oxides], 84 percent for VOC [volatile organic compounds], and 50
percent for particulate matter compared to Tier 1 equipment. Tier 4 equipment can achieve
average emissions reductions of 71 percent for NOx, 86 percent for VOC, and 96 percent for
particulate matter compared to Tier 1 equipment.
5.3-3: The City shall ensure that discretionary development that will generate fugitive dust
emissions during construction activities will, to the extent feasible, incorporate BMPs that
exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403 requirements to reduce emissions to be less than
applicable thresholds.
5.3-4: Applicants for future discretionary development projects which will generate
construction-related fugitive dust emissions that exceed applicable thresholds will include, but
are not limited to, the mitigation measures recommended by South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, to the extent feasible and applicable:
o The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized to prevent excess amounts of dust.
Page 94
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
10
o Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or
excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of
watering (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize
fugitive dust during grading activities. This measure can achieve PM10 [particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter] reductions of 61 percent through application of
water every three hours to disturbed areas.
o Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be
controlled by the following activities:
- All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle
Section 23114. Covering loads and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches
can reduce PM10 emissions by 91 percent.
- All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the
construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to
prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization
materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.
Application of water every three hours to disturbed areas can reduce PM10
emissions by 61 percent.
o Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at
least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-
compaction, and environmentally-safe dust control materials, shall be periodically
applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no
further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be
seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with
environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
Replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas can reduce PM10 emissions by 5
percent.
o Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. This measure
can reduce associated PM10 emissions by 57 percent.
o During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact
adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth-moving, and excavation operations shall
be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities
and operations from being a nuisance or hazard offsite or on-site. The site
superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her discretion in conjunction with South Coast
AQMD when winds are excessive.
o Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of
the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
o Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors,
should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division
of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
Page 95
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
11
Biological Resources
5.4-1: Special status plant and wildlife species have the potential to occur within the proposed
General Plan Update Study Area. Any project that involves the removal of habitat must consider
if any special status species (e.g., Threatened or Endangered species, California Native Plant
Society List 1B and 2 plants, or species protected under Section 15380 of CEQA) are potentially
present on the project site and if the project impacts could be considered significant by the City.
If potential habitat is present in an area, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to
construction activities in order to document the presence or absence of a species on the project
site. Botanical surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period for a species.
If no special status species are found on the project site, no additional action is warranted. If
special status species are found, appropriate mitigation would be required in coordination with
the City, consistent with its performance criteria of mitigating lost habitat at a ratio no less than
one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted).
5.4-2: Any project within the proposed General Plan Update Study Area that impacts a Federally
listed species, based on a biological survey or other analysis of the project, shall be required to
secure take authorization through Section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) prior to project implementation. Compensation for impacts to the listed species and their
habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre
impacted). Project applicants shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the
mitigated habitat according to the requirements of the Biological Opinion (Section 7) or Habitat
Conservation Plan (Section 10) for the project. Prior to issuance of the first action and/or permit
which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be
prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the USFWS
[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service], and shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of the
personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and
planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan;
and (7) long-term preservation requirements.
5.4-3: Any project within the proposed General Plan Update Study Area that impacts a State-
listed Threatened or Endangered species shall be required to obtain take authorization (through
an Incidental Take Permit) pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Section
2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. If the species is also listed under the FESA, a
consistency finding per Section 2080.1 of CESA is issued when a project receives the USFWS
Biological Opinion. Compensation for impacts to the listed species and their habitat shall be
mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project
applicants shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigated habitat
according to the requirements of the 2080 CESA process. Prior to issuance of the first action
and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed
mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and shall include: (1) the
responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site
selection; (3)site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) a maintenance
plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements.
5.4-4: To avoid conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald/Golden Eagle Protection
Act, construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September
Page 96
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
12
16 and March 14. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 15 and
September 15), a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist is
recommended prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. If the
biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be
allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines
that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around
the nest; the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of
construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial
photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological
monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve
as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to
ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey
and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the City.
5.4-5: A jurisdictional delineation shall be conducted if a project will impact jurisdictional
resources. Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) shall be required for impacts on areas within these agencies’
jurisdiction. Acquisition and implementation of the permits may require mitigation.
Compensation for impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than
one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project applicants shall be required to
plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigated jurisdictional resource according to the
requirements of USACE and RWQCB. Prior to issuance of the first action and/or permit that
would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be
prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the
appropriate resource agencies, and shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of the
personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and
planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan;
and (7) long-term preservation requirements.
5.4-6: The Porter-Cologne Act and Sections 1600 to 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code
protect “waters of the State.” Agreements (Streambed Alteration Agreements) from the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be required for impacts on areas in
CDFW’s jurisdiction. Acquisition and implementation of the agreement may require mitigation.
Compensation for impacts to CDFW resources shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to
one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project applicants shall be required to plan,
implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigation areas according to CDFW requirements. Prior
to issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading
permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and CDFW, and shall include: (1) the responsibilities and
qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site
preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a
monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements.
5.4-7: The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall require a habitat connectivity/wildlife corridor
evaluation for future development projects that may impact existing connectivity areas and
wildlife linkages identified in Figure 5.4-6, Wildlife Movement Linkages Map. The results of the
evaluation shall be incorporated into the project’s biological report required under standard
Page 97
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
13
condition of approval 5.4-1. The evaluation shall also identify project design features that would
reduce potential impacts and maintain habitat and wildlife movement. To this end, the City shall
incorporate the following measures, to the extent practicable, for projects impacting wildlife
movement corridors:
o Adhere to low density zoning standards
o Encourage clustering of development
o Avoid known sensitive biological resources
o Provide shielded lighting adjacent to sensitive habitat areas
o Encourage development plans that maximize wildlife movement
o Provide buffers between development and wetland/riparian areas
o Protect wetland/riparian areas through regulatory agency permitting process
o Encourage wildlife-passable fence designs (e.g., 3-strand barbless wire fence) on
property boundaries
o Encourage preservation of native habitat on the undeveloped remainder of developed
parcels
o Minimize road/driveway development to help prevent loss of habitat due to roadkill and
habitat loss
o Use native, drought-resistant plant species in landscape design
o Encourage participation in local/regional recreational trail design efforts
Cultural Resources
5.5-1: If a future project pursuant to the General Plan Update contains a designated Historical
Landmark, the site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable Historic
Landmark Alteration Permit. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to,
exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or
structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or
structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Certificate of
Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
5.5-2: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated
with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5
and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
Page 98
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
14
5.5-3: If a building within the project area was constructed more than 50 years ago, the City will
require a determination of whether the building, or site, could be considered historic. If the
project is considered historic Chapter 17.18 Historic Preservation will apply.
5.5-4: Prior to any construction activities that may affect historical resources (i.e., structures 45
years or older), a historical resources assessment shall be performed by an architectural
historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified
Standards in architectural history or history. This shall include a records search to determine if
any resources that may be potentially affected by the project have been previously recorded,
evaluated, and/or designated in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local register. Following the records search, the qualified architectural
historian shall conduct a reconnaissance-level and/or intensive-level survey in accordance with
the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to identify any previously unrecorded
potential historical resources that may be potentially affected by the proposed project. Pursuant
to the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, potential historical resources shall be
evaluated under a developed historic context.
5.5-5: To ensure that projects requiring the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical
resource would not impact its significance, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatments of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent possible. The application
of the standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect
meeting the Professionally Qualified Standards. Prior to any construction activities that may
affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-
defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
5.5-6: If a proposed project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of historical
resource, it cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, recordation of the
resource prior to construction activities will assist in reducing adverse impacts to the resource to
the greatest extent possible. Recordation shall take the form of Historic American Buildings
Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, or Historic American Landscape Survey
documentation, and shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the
Professionally Qualified Standards. Documentation shall include an architectural and historical
narrative; medium- or large-format black and white photographs, negatives, and prints; and
supplementary information such as building plans and elevations, and/or historical photographs.
Documentation shall be reproduced on archival paper and placed in appropriate local, state, or
federal institutions. The specific scope and details of documentation would be developed at the
project level.
5.5-7: If cultural resources that are eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places,
California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register are identified within or adjacent to
the proposed development, the construction limits shall be clearly flagged to ensure impacts to
eligible cultural resources are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. Prior to
implementing construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall verify that the flagging
clearly delineates the construction limits and eligible resources to be avoided. Since the location
of some eligible cultural resources is confidential, these resources will be flagged as
environmentally sensitive areas.
Page 99
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
15
5.5-8: To determine the archaeological sensitivity for discretionary projects within the city, an
archaeological resources assessment shall be performed under the supervision of an
archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards (PQS)
in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. The assessments shall include a California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search and a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF)
maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The records searches shall
determine if the proposed project has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources,
identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any
cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall
be undertaken in areas that are undeveloped to locate any surface cultural materials.
a) If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified through an
archaeological resources assessment, and impacts to these resource cannot be
avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by
an archaeologist who meets the PQS prior to any construction-related ground
disturbing activities to determine significance. If resources determined
significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible,
appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and
undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program that would
be implemented by a qualified archaeologist and shall be performed in
accordance with the Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource
Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (1990) and
Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs (1991).
b) If the archaeological assessment did not identify potentially significant
archaeological resources within the proposed General Plan area but indicated
the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified
archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-
construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The
archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction
activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery.
The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial onsite safety
meeting, and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of
significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources
(artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities,
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted
while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who
meets the PQS. If the discovery proves to be significant, it shall be curated with
a recognized scientific or educational repository
c) If the archaeological assessment did not identify potentially significant
archaeological resources, but indicates the area to be of medium sensitivity for
archaeological resources, an archaeologist who meets the PQS shall be retained
on an on-call basis. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel
prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an
archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the
project’s initial on-site safety meeting, and shall explain the importance and
legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event
Page 100
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
16
that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground
disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the
discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. If the
discovery proves to be significant, it shall be curated with a recognized scientific
or education repository.
Energy
There are no COAs that reduce energy consumption impacts.
Geology and Soils
5.7-1: Development of projects pursuant to the General Plan Update shall comply with the City’s
modifications to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act that call for geotechnical
investigations for all proposed structures designed for human occupancy within the expanded
AP Zones, including a zone along a splay of the Cucamonga Fault and another zone along the
scarp at Red Hill. Also, geotechnical investigations are required for essential and critical facilities
along the buried/uncertain segment of the Red Hill Fault, with a setback requirement of at least
50 feet.
5.7-2: All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans
shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Department
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5.7-3: A geological report shall be prepared for an individual project by a qualified engineer or
geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
5.7-4: The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5.7-5: A separate grading 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 plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California
registered Civil Engineer.
5.7-6: A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California
to perform such work.
5.7-7: If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or
during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction
activities, and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations
regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be
appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
Page 101
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
17
o Assign a paleontological monitor, trained, and equipped to allow the rapid removal of
fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-
disturbing activities.
o Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth disturbing
activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel
make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and
notify the monitor of the find.
o Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary
report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
o Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens
with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
There are no COAs that reduce GHG emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.9-1: Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures
consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology,
flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also
address water supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and
equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for
incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel
modification areas are imposed on new developments.
Hydrology and Water Quality
5.10-1: A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to
final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
5.10-2: Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
Land Use and Planning
There are no COAs that reduce land use and planning impacts.
Mineral Resources
There are no COAs that reduce mineral resource impacts.
Page 102
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
18
Noise
5.13-1: For construction activities that do not involve pile driving occurring within 580 feet
residential, schools, churches, or similar uses or within 330 feet of commercial/industrial uses or
for construction activities involving pile driving occurring within 1,000 feet of residential,
schools, churches, or similar uses, or within 330 feet of commercial/industrial uses, or nighttime
construction activities, as defined in Development Code Section 17.66.050), the City shall
require that project applicants prepare a site-specific construction noise analysis demonstrating
compliance with the noise standards of Development Code Section 17.66.050, as determined by
the City. The analysis shall be completed prior to project approval and can be completed as part
of the environmental review process for projects subject to CEQA. Potential project-specific
actions that can feasibly achieve compliance include, but are not limited to, restrictions on
construction timing to avoid nighttime hours, restrictions on the location of equipment and
vehicle use within the construction site, installing noise mufflers on construction equipment, use
of electric-powered vehicles and equipment, use of sound blankets on construction equipment,
and the use of temporary walls or noise barriers to block and deflect noise.
5.13-2: To avoid or substantially lessen exposure to substantial permanent increases in traffic
noise, the City shall, at the time of development application submittal, require the preparation
of a traffic noise study that includes (1) the evaluation of potential traffic noise impacts of new
noise sources (e.g., project-generated traffic noise increases) on nearby existing noise sensitive
receptors (such as residential neighborhoods) and (2) require noise reduction measures (e.g.,
sound walls, rubberized asphalt) to prevent exposure of noise sensitive receptors to substantial
noise increases, consistent with Table N-1 and incremental increase standards of no greater
than 3 dB where existing levels are below 65 dBA [A-weighted decibels] CNEL [Community Noise
Equivalent Level], 1 dB [decibel] where existing levels are between 70 dBA CNEL and 75 dBA and
any increase where existing levels are above 75 dBA CNEL, as determined by the City.
5.13-3: The City shall require that project applicants analyze and mitigate potential noise
impacts from new stationary noise sources (e.g., loading docks at commercial and industrial
uses, mechanical equipment associated with all building types), to, as determined by the City,
comply with the City’s daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) standards of 65 dBA LEQ [energy
equivalent noise level]/50 dBA LEQ (exterior/interior) and nighttime (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.)
standards of 60 dBA LEQ/45 dBA LEQ (exterior/interior), described in Development Code Section
17.66.050(F). The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer or noise specialist
and completed prior to project approval and can be completed as part of the environmental
review process for projects subject to CEQA. Potential project-specific actions that can feasibly
achieve compliance include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures or screening materials
(e.g., landscape buffers, parapets, masonry walls) around stationary noise sources (e.g., heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, generators, heating boilers, loading docks) or of noise
suppression devices (e.g., acoustic louvers, mufflers).
5.13-4a: The City shall, at the time of development project application submittal, evaluate the
compatibility of proposed noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, lodging, schools, parks) with the
noise environment to ensure noise compatibility standards (Table N-1) are met.
5.13-4b: Applicants for development projects shall, at the time of application submittal,
evaluate noise impacts for compliance with noise compatibility standards (Table N-1), and when
Page 103
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
19
noise attenuation measures are required, prioritize site planning that reduces noise exposure
over other attenuation measures, particularly the location of parking, ingress/egress/loading,
and refuse collection areas relative to surrounding residential development and other noise-
sensitive land uses.
5.13-4c: Applicants for development projects shall, at the time of application submittal, evaluate
noise impacts for compliance with noise compatibility standards (Table N-1), and when noise
attenuation measures are required, incorporate building orientation, design, and interior layout
into the project to achieve compatible noise levels. For example, noise insulation materials (e.g.,
double-glazed windows and well-sealed doors) substantially lessen interior noise levels. In
addition, interior building layouts that place active rooms, such as kitchens, between noise-
sensitive rooms, such as bedrooms, and exterior noise sources, such as roadways, substantially
lessen interior noise levels within the noise sensitive rooms.
5.13-4d: The City shall require that mixed-use development be designed to minimize exposure
of noise-sensitive uses from adjacent noise sources and require full disclosure of the potential
noise impacts of living in a mixed-use development by requiring residential disclosure notices
within deeds and lease agreements as a condition of project approval.
5.13-4e: The City shall review and comment on transportation capital projects and operations
sponsored by Caltrans and other agencies to minimize exposure of noise sensitive uses within
the city to adverse levels of transportation-related noise, including noise associated with
freeways, major arterials, bus transit, and rail lines.
5.13-5a: For development involving construction activities within 500 feet of existing sensitive
land uses (places where people sleep or buildings containing vibration-sensitive uses), the City
shall require applicants, at the time of application submittal, to prepare a project-specific
vibration analysis that identifies vibration-reducing measures to ensure the project construction
does not exceed applicable vibration criteria (e.g., Federal Transit Administration [FTA],
Caltrans) for the purpose of preventing disturbance to sensitive land uses and structural
damage. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the following requirements:
o Ground vibration-producing activities, such as pile driving, shall be limited to the
daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and prohibited on Sundays
and holidays.
o If pile driving is used, pile holes shall be predrilled to the maximum feasible depth to
reduce the number of blows required to seat a pile.
o Maximize the distance between construction equipment and vibration-sensitive land
uses.
o Earthmoving, blasting and ground-impacting activities shall be prohibited from occurring
at the same time if simultaneous activity would result in exceedance of vibration
criteria.
o Where pile driving is proposed, alternatives to traditional pile driving (e.g., sonic pile
driving, jetting, cast-in-place or auger cast piles, nondisplacement piles, pile cushioning,
Page 104
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
20
torque or hydraulic piles) shall be implemented when the project cannot otherwise
demonstrate vibration levels in compliance with the structural damage threshold.
o Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration-producing
activities (e.g., pile driving) for the purpose of preventing damage to nearby structures
shall be established. Factors to be considered include the specific nature of the vibration
producing activity (e.g., type and duration of pile driving), soil conditions, and the
fragility/resiliency of the nearby structures. Established setback requirements (100 feet
for pile driving, 25 feet for other construction activity) can be revised only if a project-
specific analysis is conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer or ground vibration
specialist that demonstrates, as determined by the City, that the structural damage
vibration threshold would not be exceeded.
o Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration producing
activities (e.g., pile driving) for the purpose of preventing negative human response shall
be established based on the specific nature of the vibration producing activity (e.g., type
and duration of pile driving), soil conditions, and the type of sensitive receptor.
Established setback requirements (500 for pile driving, 80 for other construction) can be
revised only if a project-specific ground vibration study demonstrates, as determined by
the City, that receptors would not be exposed to ground vibration levels in excess of
negative human response vibration threshold levels, depending on the frequency of the
event and receiver type.
o All vibration-inducing activity within the established setback distances for preventing
structural damage and negative human response shall be monitored and documented
to compare recorded ground vibration noise and vibration noise levels at affected
sensitive land uses to the applicable vibration threshold values. The results included
recorded vibration data shall be submitted to the City.
5.13-5b: For projects proposed within 600 feet of commuter rail/high-speed rail/freight rail, or
rail with combined services, the City shall require applicants, at the time of application
submittal, to prepare a project-specific vibration analysis to evaluate vibration exposure from
nearby transit sources. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
engineer or noise specialist in accordance with FTA vibration impact criteria, or other applicable
City policy in place at the time of project application submittal. The assessment shall determine
vibration levels at specific building locations and identify structural mitigation measures (e.g.,
isolation strip foundations, insulated windows and walls, sound walls or barriers, distance
setbacks, or other construction or design measures) that would reduce vibration to acceptable
levels for the receptor and source type.
5.13-5c: The City shall evaluate new transportation capital projects and operations sponsored by
other agencies for structural vibration impacts and vibration annoyance impacts, consistent with
City-approved methodologies (e.g., Caltrans, FTA guidance).
Population and Housing
There are no COAs that reduce impacts on population and housing.
Page 105
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
21
Public Services
There are no COAs that reduce impacts to fire protection, services and facilities, police protection
services and facilities, school facilities, or other public facilities.
Recreation
There are no COAs that reduce impacts to recreational facilities.
Transportation
5.17-1: Future development applications in the City shall be required to provide traffic impact
analyses for review and approval by the City during the permit process to identify the traffic
impacts of the project and the needed roadway and intersection improvements. Any identified
on-site improvements and improvements to abutting roadways would need to be made part of
the development. Coupled with the payment of DIF [development impact fee] for the
improvement of off-site roadways and intersections, traffic impacts would be mitigated on a
project-by-project basis.
5.17-2: Future developments with 250 employees or more shall comply with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rule 2202, which requires the implementation of
trip reduction measures as a means of reducing pollutant emission in the air basin. An employer
subject to this Rule shall annually register with the SCAQMD to implement an emission
reduction program, in accordance with this Rule.
5.17-3: Individual projects shall provide the following, as determined applicable by City staff:
o Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;
o Improve or increase access to transit;
o Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle networks into the project;
o Include project measures to reduce transportation requirements such as work
from home and flexible work schedules;
o Link to existing pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; and/or
o Provide traffic calming.
Tribal Cultural Resources
5.18-1: Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, cultural
resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or
environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall
be followed. Cultural resources are defined as being multiple artifacts in close association with
each other, but also include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of
significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the
Native American Tribe(s).
Page 106
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
22
a) All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural
resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer,
the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Planning Director to
discuss the significance of the find.
b) At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after
consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision
shall be made, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the
appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the
cultural resources.
c) Grading or further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the
discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the
appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer
area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.
d) Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent
with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements
entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the
cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural
resources located in native soils and/or re-burial on the Project property so they
are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-
Disclosure of Reburial Locations Condition.
e) If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been
achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project
archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City
for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.
f) Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred
method of preservation for archaeological resources and tribal cultural
resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or
the mitigation for the archaeological or tribal cultural resources, these issues
will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The City’s Planning
Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological and tribal cultural
resources, recommendations of the project archaeologist, and shall take into
account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe.
Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the
City Planning Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission
and/or City Council.
5.18-2: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall
be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be
employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department:
Page 107
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
23
i) Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation
in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where
they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the
resources.
ii) Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for
reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to
protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity.
Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic
recording has been completed, with an exception that sacred items,
burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any
reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and
location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV
report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a
confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
iii) If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources
shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a San Bernardino
County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office
of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The
collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title,
and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees by the Applicant
necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a
letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological
materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be
provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or
invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American
human remains, as defined by the cultural and religious practices of the
Most Likely Descendant. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent
discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.
5.18-3: Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall
retain a qualified Registered Professional Archaeologist, to monitor all ground disturbing
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Registered
Professional Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all
initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including
clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials,
rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Registered Professional Archaeologist and the
Tribal monitor(s), shall independently have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt
the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of
cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The
developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Planning
Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the
Planning Department shall clear this condition. In addition, the Registered Professional
Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall
develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB
[Assembly Bill] 52 to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and
Page 108
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
24
cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that
initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52
consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal
Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a) Project grading and development scheduling;
b) The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-
grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors,
and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to
those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural
sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could
potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the
monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent
discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and
appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and
any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will
conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following
the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning
work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make
themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis;
c) The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and
Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall
be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
5.18-4: Native American Monitoring. Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all
ground-disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock
crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the
requesting Tribe. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of
signed contract between the Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the
project to the Planning Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s)
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities
to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
5.18-5: Archeology Report- Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit
holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data
Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring
Report that complies with the Community Development Department’s requirements for such
reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Planning Department
shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are
adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the
report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton and one (1) copy shall
be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).
Page 109
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
25
5.18-6: Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Bernardino County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code
Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision
as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Bernardino County Coroner
determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall
be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall identify the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant
shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the
remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
5.18-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations. It is understood by all parties that unless
otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or
associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure
requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific
exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be
asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific
exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
Utilities and Service Systems
There are no existing COAs that reduce impacts to wastewater treatment and collection, water supplies
and distribution systems, storm drain systems, and solid waste facilities.
Wildfire
5.9-1: Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures
consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology,
flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also
address water supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and
equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for
incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel
modification areas are imposed on new developments.
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The project is consistent with the analysis performed for the General Plan in the PEIR (SCH
No. 2021050261). The PEIR adequately anticipated and described the impacts of the project, identified
mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible, and the project would
implement the applicable PEIR mitigation measures.
A comprehensive environmental evaluation has been completed for the project as documented in the
Section 15183 Exemption Checklist provided in Section 4 of this report. This evaluation concludes that
the project qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review because it is consistent
with the development density and use characteristics established by the City’s General Plan, as analyzed
in the PEIR, and all required findings can be made. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,
the project qualifies for an exemption because the following findings can be made:
Page 110
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
26
(1)The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning,
community plan, or General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
The project would develop the 6.7-acre site with 13 single-family homes. The project would be
consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Semi-Rural Neighborhood and zoning of
Very Low Residential, which allow for a residential density of up to two dwelling units per acre. The
project proposes approximately 1.94 dwelling units per acre and would therefore be consistent with the
development density established by the General Plan PEIR.
(2)There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and which the
PEIR failed to analyze as significant effects.
The project site has similar characteristics to other properties in the surrounding area, and with the
exception of the historic resource located on the site, there are no project-specific effects that are
peculiar to the project or its site. The potential for project impacts to historic resources were adequately
analyzed by the PEIR and were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Consistent with the PEIR,
the potentially significant project impacts to historic resources would be mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible and any remaining significant and unavoidable impact would be consistent with the PEIR.
(3)There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the PEIR failed to
evaluate.
The project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of development on the site considered
by the PEIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecasted for buildout of the City
in accordance with the General Plan. Off-site impacts of the project associated with utility and
circulation improvements also occur within the development area analyzed in the PEIR. The PEIR
considered the incremental impacts of the project in combination with buildout of the General Plan and,
as explained further in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, no potentially significant off-site
or cumulative impacts related to the project have been identified which were not previously disclosed in
the PEIR.
(4)There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated
by the PEIR.
As explained in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, no new information has been identified
that would result in a more severe impact from the project than what was anticipated in the PEIR.
(5)The project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the PEIR.
As explained in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, the project would incorporate relevant,
feasible mitigation measures (i.e., Standard Conditions of Approval) specified in the PEIR. The project
would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and ordinances that prevent adverse
environmental effects.
April 15, 2026
Signature Date
Yara Fisher Sophia Serafin, Associate Planner, AICP
Printed name For
Page 111
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
27
4.0 SECTION 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST
As described above, the proposed project is consistent with the development density identified for the
site in the General Plan. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), the following
checklist provides an analysis of potential impacts of the project focusing on potential effects that:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or
community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in
the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information
which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe
adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
Following the thresholds evaluated in the PEIR, this checklist indicates the impact significance conclusion
for the General Plan at the program level identified in the PEIR, the project’s compliance with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria, and mitigation measures (i.e., Conditions of Approval) identified in the PEIR
that apply to the proposed project. Impacts for the PEIR are identified as significant and unavoidable
(SU), less than significant with mitigation (LTSM), less than significant (LTS), or no impact (NI). The five
Section 15183(b) criteria are provided in the checklist, and the project would be fully compliant with the
criteria if the “No New Impact?” box is checked. Below each checklist, further explanation of the PEIR
conclusion and a discussion of the project-level impacts are provided. Consistent with the format of the
PEIR, a summary-level cumulative impact analysis is also provided at the end of each issue area.
4.1 AESTHETICS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 112
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
28
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
2) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings
within a state scenic
highway?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) In non-urbanized
areas, substantially
degrade the existing
visual character or
quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an
urbanized area, would
the project conflict
with applicable zoning
and other regulations
governing scenic
quality?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.1-2
4) Create a new source
of substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day
or nighttime views in
the area?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL AESTHETICS ANALYSIS
1) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that prominent scenic vistas in the City include views
of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains to the north and northeast from major roadways,
parks, and trails, as well as panoramic viewpoints like South Panoramic near Etiwanda Falls, offering
Page 113
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
29
expansive views of the Inland Empire. The Pacific Electric Trail and numerous parks also provide natural
scenery and mountain vistas for residents and visitors. The City’s open space areas, parks, and
agricultural lands that currently provide views of scenic vistas would continue to be preserved under the
General Plan Update. The generally low-density residential uses, estate, and rural residential uses within
or adjacent to these scenic vistas and resources would also remain unchanged, thereby preserving views
of these scenic vistas and resources. Furthermore, design standards under the City’s Municipal Code
guide future development characteristics and encourage clustering, variable setbacks, multiple
orientations, and other site-planning techniques to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and
offer views to residents. They also encourage the retention of prominent features, rooflines that follow
natural slopes, and view openings of natural features. Therefore, public vistas and scenic resources from
publicly accessible locations in and surrounding the City and its sphere of influence (SOI) would not be
adversely impacted and impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. An impact on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project
substantially obstructed the line of sight to a designated scenic vista or impacted the scenic vista itself.
The project site is within land designated for low-density residential uses and is surrounded by similar
development. Development would be required to comply with design standards under the City’s
Municipal Code that guide future development characteristics, such as height and placement of
buildings’ architectural design parameters. The project is requesting a minor exception to build certain
sections of the perimeter block wall around the project two feet higher than typically allowed under the
Municipal Code, in addition to variances associated with lot size, width, depth, setback, and coverage.
However, these Project design features would not be substantial enough as to result in the Project
blocking a scenic vista. Due to distance and intervening structures, the project would not result in
impacts to scenic vistas. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan would not damage scenic
resources, as no state scenic highways occur within or near the City’s limits. In addition, the City’s
beautification master plans for designated special boulevards, as well as design guidelines for these
special boulevards, would ensure that special boulevards remain unaffected. Impacts related to scenic
resources were found to be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The nearest designated scenic highway to the project site is State Route 2,
approximately 15.5 miles north of the project site and outside of City limits (California Department of
Transportation [Caltrans] 2018). The project would not create impacts within a state scenic highway.
Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more
significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent
with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 114
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
30
3) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that by complying with the City’s existing regulations,
including the General Plan Update policies, future development would be built to reflect and maintain
the City’s existing visual character and resources. Development projects would also have to comply with
COA 5.1-2 which requires development such as the project to provide solar easements in order to
ensure consistency with the Municipal Code. Impacts on visual character were found to be less than
significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project site is in an urbanized area of the City and is completely
surrounded by existing development. The project would comply with the City’s regulations that would
help maintain the City’s character, namely Title 17, Development Code which requires specific
development standards that are intended to preserve public visual resources and maintain the aesthetic
appearance of residential neighborhoods. Compliance with the Development Code with the approved
variances and minor exception noted above in threshold 1 and completion of the Design Review process
subject to the satisfaction of the City would ensure that project would continue to maintain and be
compatible with the city’s visual character. As new development, the project’s design would also be
required to comply with COA 5.1-2 to maintain consistency with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore,
the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
4) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development and redevelopment projects in the
City would be required to comply with the design guidelines for residential and commercial-industrial
land, sign ordinance, and landscape design guidelines, including guidelines for style, illumination,
location, height, and methods of shielding to not adversely affect adjacent properties. Future
development and redevelopment would also be required to comply with the outdoor lighting standards
in Chapter 17.58 of the City’s Municipal Code, which require lighting to be directed away and shielded
from adjacent residential areas; prohibit the creation of areas with intense light or glare; and call for the
use of fences, walls, berms, screens, and landscaping to reduce light and glare spillover.
General Plan Update Policies C-1.14 and RC-1.4 would also minimize light and glare. By ensuring that all
future development projects comply with the Municipal Code and General Plan Update policies
pertaining to light and glare, any potential spillover would be minimized and impacts would be less than
significant.
Page 115
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
31
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would include standard street lighting throughout the
proposed streets, in addition to common residential lighting for each home. Consistent with the PEIR,
the project would be required to comply with Chapter 17.58 of the City’s Municipal Code. This would
require the Project’s lighting to be directed away from adjacent residential areas and be designed to
prevent intense light or glare. Project lighting would be also similar to the conditions of adjacent
residential uses and would therefore not represent a substantial change from the existing lighting
environment. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL AESTHETICS ANALYSIS
Would the project cause a substantial adverse cumulative impact with respect to aesthetics?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and Unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that although the visual character of the City and its
SOI would only incrementally change as development intensity increases, when combined with past
development, the General Plan Update’s contribution to the visual impact would be cumulatively
considerable. Future development would contribute to a cumulative loss of undeveloped land in the
City, adjacent cities, and the County. The permanent change in visual character of the City and
surrounding areas from past and future development would be considered a significant cumulative
impact. Although implementation of regulatory requirements and COAs would reduce project-specific
impacts to a less than significant level, the General Plan Update’s contributions to cumulative impacts
would be significant and unavoidable
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in thresholds 1 through 4 above, the project would have a
less than significant impact related to scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual character, and light and
glare. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the
impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 116
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
32
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Convert Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or
Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared
pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring
Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in
Public Resources
Code section
12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code
section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland
Production as defined
by Government Code
section 51104(g)?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Result in the loss of
forest land or
conversion of forest
land to non-forest
use?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 117
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
33
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
5) Involve other changes
in the existing
environment which,
due to their location
or nature, could result
in conversion of
Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest
land to non-forest
use?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ANALYSIS
1) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that the City expects all land used for conventional
agriculture would eventually be developed according to the land use designation of each parcel. No
agricultural lands designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance would be preserved under the General Plan
Update. Therefore, approximately 7,352 acres of agricultural land would be converted to non-
agricultural uses. As such, future development associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan
Update land use plan could result in the conversion of farmland areas to non-agricultural uses, a
significant impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures to address this impact, and impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
Grazing lands include scattered undeveloped lands in the City and the foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains. The loss of small, scattered undeveloped lands for grazing would not adversely affect
Farmlands, nor would it result in a significant impact related to the conversion to non-agricultural uses.
Project Analysis
No impact. The California Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program classifies the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land, which does not contain agricultural uses
(DOC 2022). The project site does not currently support agricultural uses, and the project would not
convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural
use. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more
Page 118
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
34
significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent
with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and no impact would occur.
2) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR determined that the City does not have an agricultural land use designation in its
existing land use plan or the proposed land use plan. The City’s development code also does not have an
agricultural zone, although agricultural uses are allowed as an interim use on lots 2.5 acres or more in
the Residential Development Districts. Additionally, there are no lands in the City under a Williamson
Act contract. Therefore, because the City has no zoning for agricultural use or land under a Williamson
Act contract, no impact would occur.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project site is not zoned for agriculture and does not support current agricultural uses.
There are no Williamson Act contracts on or near the project site. Therefore, the project would not
result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the
impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria,
and no impact would occur.
3) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR determined that there are no areas within the General Plan Area that are zoned as
forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. While
the project site does contain a collection of trees, they do not constitute a forest. Therefore, the project
would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific
effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section
15183(b) criteria, and no impact would occur.
4) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR determined that there are no lands that qualify as forest land or timberland within
the General Plan Area. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest
land to a non-forest use.
Page 119
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
35
Project Analysis
No impact. The project site does not contain forest land. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and no
impact would occur.
5) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. As stated in threshold 1 above, approximately 7,352 acres of agricultural
land would be converted to non-agricultural uses through the General Plan Update. No agricultural
lands designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance would be preserved. Impacts to Farmland would be
significant and unavoidable.
As stated in thresholds 1 through 4 above, the General Plan Area does not include lands that qualify as
forest land of timberland. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest
land into non-forest use.
Project Analysis
No impact. As stated in thresholds 1 through 4 above, the project site and surrounding area do not
contain agricultural or forest uses. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the
project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR.
The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and no impact would occur.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Agriculture and Forestry
Resources?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. Future development in the City and the rest of the County is expected to
lead to a cumulative decrease in Important Farmland acreage and crop production value over time. The
decreasing area of Important Farmland and agricultural crop production value is considered a significant
adverse impact, and the contribution to a cumulative impact due to the conversion of vineyards and
orchards in the City represents a significant and unavoidable, cumulative impact.
Project Analysis
No impact. As stated in thresholds 1 through 5 above, the project would not result in impacts to
agricultural or forestry resources. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant
cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and no impact would occur.
Page 120
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
36
4.3 AIR QUALITY
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of
the applicable air
quality plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase in any other
criteria pollutant for
which the project
region is in non-
attainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air
quality standard?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.3-1 and
5.3-3
3) Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Create objectionable
odors affecting a
substantial number of
people?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update, including the companion
Climate Action plan (CAP) document, are both consistent with the goals of the Southern California
Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategies (RTP/SCS) and would further the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s)
2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) goals through policies, strategies, and measures that reduce
air pollutant emissions from mobile, stationary, and areawide sources. Therefore, the General Plan
Page 121
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
37
Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. This impact is less than
significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. An Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared for the project by HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX; 2025a). As demonstrated in threshold 2 below, the project would
not generate short-term or long-term emissions that could potentially cause an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay
timely attainment of air quality standards. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with
the General Plan and zoning designations for the site. Because the project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan, the project would be consistent with the growth assumption used to develop the 2022
AQMP. As such, pursuant to SCAQMD guidelines, residential growth in the City as a result of the project,
and the related changes in regional emissions, are accounted for in the AQMP, which is crafted to bring
the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Accordingly, the proposed
project would be consistent with the emissions projections in the AQMP. Therefore, the project would
not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than
the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b)
criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any other criteria pollutant for which the project
region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that construction activity associated with the General
Plan Update would generate volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) emissions in excess of the SCAQMD’s recommended
thresholds. These construction activities could contribute substantially to the SCAB’s nonattainment
status for ozone, PM10, and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) and could result in
an increase in the potential for adverse health impacts from these pollutants. While the implementation
of policies and action items such as Policy RC-5.10 of the General Plan Update would reduce
construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, it cannot be guaranteed that
emissions from individual discretionary projects would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
Implementation of COAs 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 would also reduce impacts to air quality to the extent
feasible by minimizing construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants. COA 5.3-1 and 5.3-3 require
discretionary development to incorporate BMPs to reduce emissions, while COAs 5.32 and 5.3-4 require
mitigation measures recommended by the SCAQMD for projects that would generate construction-
related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. However, because it cannot be guaranteed that
construction emissions would remain below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The PEIR also concluded that operational activities associated with the General Plan Update would result
in emissions of VOC, NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds
of significance. Therefore, the General Plan Update’s contribution to operational criteria air pollutants
and precursors could result in greater acute or chronic health impacts compared to existing conditions.
While there are policies in the General Plan Update that would reduce criteria air pollutant and
precursor emissions, it is unknown if emission levels from future development would be reduced below
Page 122
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
38
the SCAQMD thresholds, so future development under the General Plan Update could contribute to the
existing nonattainment status of the SCAB. Because it cannot be guaranteed that operational emissions
would remain below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would generate criteria pollutants and precursors in the short
term during construction and the long term during operation. To determine whether a project would
result in cumulatively considerable emissions that would violate an air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project’s emissions are evaluated based
on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The project’s Air Quality Impact
Analysis conducted air quality modeling to assess project emissions (HELIX 2025a). As shown in Table 1,
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 2, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, short-term
construction and long-term operation of the project would not result in criteria pollutant and precursor
pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. While a less than significant
impact would occur, COAs 5.3-1 and 5.3-3 would apply to the project because the project is a
discretionary development. COAs 5.3-2 and 5.3-4 would not apply because the project does not exceed
the applicable threshold triggers for these measures. The project would not result in an effect peculiar
to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the
PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Table 1
MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Clearing and
Grubbing
4.10 37.04 34.64 0.06 1.75 1.49
Grading 1.70 15.07 18.09 0.03 3.56 1.97
Underground Utilities 1.02 7.72 5.21 0.01 0.63 0.52
Building Construction
(Phase I)
1.05 9.44 13.20 0.02 0.39 0.32
Building Construction
(Phase II)
1.05 9.44 13.20 0.02 0.39 0.32
Building Construction
(Phase III)
1.05 9.44 13.20 0.02 0.39 0.32
Paving 0.86 6.99 10.54 0.01 0.44 0.31
Architectural Coatings 1.63 0.84 1.27 <0.01 0.05 0.02
1
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: HELIX 2025a
1 Maximum daily construction emissions of VOC, CO, and SO2 occur during the overlap between the building construction
phases and architectural coating phase during August through November in 2027.
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter
10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
Page 123
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
39
Table 2
DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds/day)
Area 0.41 0.40 3.70 0.01 0.92 0.24
Mobile 1.39 - 0.74 >0.01 >0.01 >0.01
Energy 0.01 0.10 0.04 >0.01 0.01 0.01
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: HELIX 2025a
1 Maximum daily operational emissions of VOCs, CO, and sulfur oxides (SOX) occur during summer, maximum daily emissions
of NOX occur during winter, emissions of sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, and PM2.5 are not seasonally dependent.
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update could
result in exposure of sensitive receptors to construction-related toxic air contaminants (TACs). However,
given that future development under the General Plan Update would occur by 2040 and in various areas
throughout the City, it is unlikely that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to construction-
related TACs for extended periods of time. Therefore, construction activity as a result of the General
Plan Update would not result in the exposure of existing or new sensitive receptors to a substantial
increase in TAC emissions. The General Plan Update would also result in an increase in total vehicle
miles travelled (VMT) along local roadways within the City as a result of future growth and development.
Because there are roads in and around the City that exceed 100,000 vehicles per day, new sensitive
receptors could be exposed to roadway traffic levels that could result in adverse health effects from
TACs. However, the General Plan Update includes policies and action items that would minimize TAC
impacts to the extent feasible. Regarding stationary sources of TACs, the General Plan Update includes
policies that would limit exposure of new sensitive receptors to TACs from stationary sources such as
industrial land uses. Additionally, all new development undergoing discretionary review would be
required to evaluate existing TAC exposure and incorporate available reduction measures in accordance
with SCAQMD requirements. However, it cannot be guaranteed that emissions of TACs and associated
health risk would be reduced to an acceptable level for individual projects. In consideration of these
factors, implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the exposure of new sensitive
receptors to a substantial increase in TAC emissions, and impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis concluded that construction
would result in a temporary increase in diesel particulate matter (DPM), a toxic air contaminant, on the
project site (HELIX 2025a). However, this increase would be temporary and not in a large enough
amount to pose a risk to public health. The project would not require the regular use of heavy or
medium diesel-powered trucks (other than for occasional deliveries and waste collection) and the mix of
vehicles traveling to and from the project site would primarily be light-duty autos and trucks; therefore,
the project would not result in significant localized concentrations of DPM (PM10 and PM2.5). The
Page 124
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
40
project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis also concluded that the project’s daily operations would result in an
increase in the daily trips, however this increase would not be substantial enough to either cause new
severe congestion or significantly worsen existing congestion. For project operational activities,
emissions of NOX and CO are associated with passenger vehicle emissions, which primarily occur off-site.
The portion of passenger vehicle emissions that occur on-site are limited to low-speed circulation and
idling and would be a small portion of the project operational emissions. There would be no potential
for a CO hotspot or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial, project generated, local CO emissions.
As shown in Table 3, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria
pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST). The
project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during
construction. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 3
MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds/day)
Clearing and Grubbing 36.94 33.88 1.61 1.46
Grading 14.97 17.44 3.41 1.93
Underground Utilities 7.69 4.85 0.54 0.49
Building Construction (Phase I) 9.39 12.94 0.34 0.31
Building Construction (Phase II) 9.39 12.94 0.34 0.31
Building Construction (Phase III) 9.39 12.94 0.34 0.31
Paving 6.94 9.95 0.30 0.27
Architectural Coatings 0.83 1.13 0.02 0.02
SCAQMD LST 170 1,232 6 5
Significant Impact? No No No No
Source: HELIX 2025a
1 Maximum localized daily construction emissions occur for CO occurs during the overlap between the building
construction phases and architectural coating phase during August through November in 2027.
NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
4) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that future development and other physical changes
that could occur as a result of General Plan Update implementation could expose sensitive receptors to
odor sources and may cause a nuisance. Additionally, new sensitive receptors could be exposed to
existing land uses that include odors and may result in a nuisance impact. Enforcement of SCAQMD Rule
402 would serve to mitigate new odor generating land uses. Minor odors from the use of heavy-duty
diesel-powered equipment and the laying of asphalt during construction activities would be intermittent
and temporary, dispersing rapidly within 150 meters. Construction would not occur at any single
location or within proximity to the same off-site receptors for an extended period of time and would not
result in permanent odor sources. Therefore, construction is not anticipated to result in substantial
odors.
Page 125
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
41
In addition, the Land Use and Community Character Element of the General Plan Update includes land
use compatibility policies that would serve to reduce potential impacts from receptors near existing
odor sources. As a result, implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in odor impacts
on existing sensitive receptors or future sensitive receptors and impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in the project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis, land uses
associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing
plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding
operations (HELIX 2025a). The project, involving residential development, would not include any of the
typical sources of odors identified by the SCAQMD. Project construction could result in minor amounts
of odors associated with unburned hydrocarbons in diesel heavy equipment exhaust. The odor of these
diesel exhausts is objectionable to some; however, emissions would be intermittent and would disperse
rapidly, and, therefore, would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project would
not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than
the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b)
criteria, and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Air Quality?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that construction emissions from future development
within the City or the region could combine to exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The operation of future
development under the General Plan Update could also combine with other development in the region
to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors. Therefore, even though implementation of regulatory requirements and COAs would reduce
impacts from conflict with the AQMP and CO emissions, the General Plan Update’s contribution to air
quality impacts would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant. As discussed in thresholds 2 and 3 above, project emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD-recommended CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would not result in a
new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Page 126
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
42
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications,
on any species
identified as a
candidate, sensitive,
or special status
species in local or
regional plans,
policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department
of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.4-4,
PSA B-1,
PSA B-2,
and PSA
B-3
2) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or
other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans,
policies, regulations
or by the California
Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 127
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
43
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
3) Have a substantial
adverse effect on
state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not
limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Interfere substantially
with the movement of
any native resident or
migratory fish or
wildlife species or
with established
native resident or
migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede
the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.4-4
5) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a
tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
6) Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state
habitat conservation
plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 128
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
44
PROJECT-LEVEL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
1) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that buildout of the City and SOI in accordance with
the General Plan Update could impact special status vegetation or special status wildlife in the City.
Although projects are subject to state and federal law and the General Plan Update includes policies to
reduce impacts on the City’s biological resources, future development projects may still require more
detailed biological resource evaluations. Implementation of COA 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would protect
special status species but it is uncertain as to whether changes in project design or mitigation would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Even though most of the future growth is anticipated to
occur in focus areas that are currently developed and are surrounded by existing development and
unlikely to provide high quality habitat, the impact on sensitive plant and animal species is considered
significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact with mitigation. A Biological Resources Assessment was prepared for the
proposed project by ELMT Consulting (ELMT; ELMT 2025) in accordance with COA 5.4-1. One special-
status plant species was observed onsite during the assessment’s field investigation, southern California
black walnut (Juglans californica). The project site has been subject to anthropogenic disturbances from
historic agricultural land uses, grading, spoils dumping, and on-site and adjacent development. These
disturbances have reduced, if not eliminated, the suitability of the habitat to support special-status plant
species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Based on habitat requirements for
specific special-status plant species, the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, and
known distributions, it was determined that the project site does not have the potential to support any
of the other special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity and all are presumed to be
absent. No impact would occur and no COAs would be required to address special status plant species.
No special-status wildlife species were observed on-site during the assessment’s field investigation. As
previously mentioned, the project site has been subject to anthropogenic disturbances which have
reduced, if not eliminated, the suitability of the habitat to support special-status wildlife species known
to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. However, based on habitat requirements for specific
species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the proposed project
has a high potential to support sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Astur cooperii)
and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia); and a low potential to support Crotch’s bumble
bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). The project site was determined to
have a low potential to support Crotch’s bumble bee because minimal foraging opportunities are
currently present. The site offers limited potential for colonization or overwintering. Suitable
underground nesting or overwintering features (e.g., rodent burrows or thatch) are largely absent, and
soils across much of the site are too compact in their current condition to support burrowing. However,
a low potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to occur still exists.
Page 129
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
45
While burrowing owl was not identified as having potential to occupy the site due to lack of suitable
burrows, burrowing owls are known in the vicinity and if on-site conditions change, it is possible for
burrowing owl to move into the site prior to construction occurring.
None of the aforementioned species are federally listed. Therefore COA 5.4-2 would not apply to the
project. However, burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee are currently listed as California Candidate
species, and yellow western bat is a CDFW designated Species of Special Concern. To avoid impacts to
potentially present special-status animal species including burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumble bee, and
western yellow bat consistent the following PSAs shall be implemented in lieu of more general
COA 5.4-3.
In addition to the PSAs listed below, COA 5.4-4 would also be required to address potential impacts to
migratory birds with potential to occur at the project site.
PSA B-1 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Clearance Survey. To ensure burrowing owl have
remained absent from the project site and will not be impacted by the project, a
preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with
CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first
14-30 days prior to ground disturbing activities and the second within 24 hours immediately
before ground disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed onsite, no further
review will be required.
Although not anticipated, if burrowing owl are found onsite during the pre-construction
clearance surveys, coordination will need to occur with the CDFW to determine if avoidance
and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to
burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 2081 of the CESA will need to
be prepared and approved by CDFW consistent with COA 5.4-3.
PSA B-2 Pre-Construction Crotch’s Bumble Bee Clearance Survey. To ensure the Crotch’s bumble
bee would not be impacted by the project, a pre-construction clearance survey for Crotch’s
bumble bee shall be performed prior to ground-disturbing activities to ensure the species is
not adversely affected by proposed project implementation.
Although not anticipated, if Crotch’s bumble bee are found onsite during the pre-
construction clearance survey, coordination will need to occur with the CDFW to determine
if avoidance and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or indirect
impacts to burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 2081 of the CESA
will need to be prepared and approved by CDFW consistent with COA 5.4-3.
PSA B-3 Pre-Construction Bat Clearance Survey. The following measure shall be implemented to
avoid any direct or indirect impacts to western yellow bat consistent with the requirements
of COA 5.4-3. Prior to any vegetation removal, structure demolition, or activities that may
disturb potential bat roosting habitat, a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a pre-
construction bat clearance survey. The survey shall be performed within 14 days of the start
of ground-disturbing or tree removal. The biologist shall evaluate suitable roosting features,
including trees, palms, buildings, or other structures, for evidence of bat use such as guano,
staining, urine marks, feeding remains, or auditory/visual detections. When dense skirts are
present on palm trees, a two-day gradual trimming process may be used to encourage
voluntary bat dispersal, unless an active maternity roost is identified.
Page 130
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
46
If occupied maternity roost(s) are identified during the pre-construction survey, no
construction or tree removal activities shall occur within 500 feet during the maternity
roosting season (March 1 through September 30) or until a qualified bat biologist
determines the roost is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate the 500-
foot no work buffer(s), which shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
If no bat sign or activity is detected, the biologist may clear the area and construction may
proceed.
With implementation of COA 5.4-4 and PSAs B-1, B-2 and B-3, significant impacts to special-status
species would be avoided. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project
site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The
project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and impacts would be less than
significant.
2) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
3) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the goals and policies in the Resource
Conservation Element (such as Policies RC-3.1 and RC-3.2) would help conserve, protect, and manage
the City’s biological resources. They would ensure that the City protects sensitive habitats, such as
wetlands and riparian habitats, and biological preserves. In addition, as noted in threshold 1 above,
COAs 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would prevent impacts on special status species by requiring focused
surveys and obtaining take permits from appropriate agencies. These would protect species in sensitive
natural communities. COAs 5.4-5 and 5.4-6 require developers to obtain permits from the USACE and
RWQCB for waters of the U.S. and from CDFW for waters of the state. Compliance with these COAs
would ensure no net loss of waters of the U.S. or waters of the state. Consequently, impacts on sensitive
natural communities are considered less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. According to the project’s Biological Resource Assessment, the project site
supports two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed (ELMT 2025). The
majority of the project site supports disturbed land that is dominated by non-native weedy/early
successional species, in addition to several trees on-site. Developed portions of the project site include
paved areas such as walkways and driveways associated with the historic house. These areas are
generally unvegetated except for especially hardy early successional species. No special-status plant
communities were observed during the field investigation conducted as part of the assessment.
Furthermore, the project site was not found to support CDFW defined Sensitive Habitat or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) defined Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat to the project
Page 131
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
47
site is located approximately 2.12 miles northeast for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus). Development of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive
natural community. As the project would not impact jurisdictional resources, such as waterways under
jurisdiction of the CDFW, COAs 5.4-5 and 5.4-6 would not apply to the project. Therefore, the project
would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific
effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section
15183(b) criteria, and no impact would occur.
4) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development in existing open space and
undeveloped areas of the Plan Area could result in habitat fragmentation and constrain wildlife
movement that has regional significance. The Resource Conservation Element of the proposed General
Plan Update includes policies that would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors, such as Policy RC-3.3
which encourages maintaining and creating wildlife corridors and connectivity. In addition, to avoid
conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), COA 5.4-4 requires preconstruction nest surveys for
projects with construction activities involving vegetation removal conducted between September 16
and March 14. If active nests are present, it requires buffers around the nest and monitors to ensure
there are no inadvertent impacts on the nests. Compliance with the MBTA would ensure impacts to
migratory birds are less than significant. With adherence to the General Plan policies and
implementation of the COA (specifically COA 5.4-7) impacts to wildlife movement would be less than
significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in thresholds 1 through 3 above, the project site consists of
disturbed and developed land and does not serve as a movement corridor for any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species. COA 5.4-4 would apply to the project as the project site has a high
potential to support sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Astur cooperii) and
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), as discussed in threshold 1. COA 5.4-7, which requires
a habitat connectivity/wildlife corridor evaluation for future projects, has been incorporated into the
project’s Biological Resources Assessment. It stated that the project would have no effect on regional
wildlife corridors/linkages because none exist within or directly adjacent to the project site since the site
is surrounded by development. The trees on the project site do not contain sensitive plant species nor
do they provide suitable habitat for sensitive animal species. Regardless, pre-construction surveys would
take place in order to minimize impacts to sensitive species. The project would not restrict wildlife
movement or prevent access to wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Page 132
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
48
5) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would designate the
area under the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) as Natural Open Space,
Rural Open Space, and General Open Space and Facilities, with the latter two designations allowing
residential development at very low densities. This would be consistent with the vision of the EHNCP.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a conservation plan.
The PEIR also concluded that compliance with the County’s ordinances and City’s Municipal Code (such
as the Municipal C Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation) would protect biological resources. Additionally,
the proposed General Plan Update’s policies, such as Policies RC-3.1, RC-3.2, and RC-3.3, would help
preserve and protect sensitive habitats and biological preserves as well as wildlife corridors. Meanwhile,
Policies RC-3.4, RC-3.5, and RC-3.7 would encourage the use of noninvasive species, maintenance of
protective buffers adjacent to plant and wildlife habitat areas, and the development of an urban forestry
plan. Therefore, future development under the proposed General Plan would be required to comply
with applicable policies governing biological resources, which would ensure a less than significant
impact.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project site is not within the EHNCP or any other habitat conservation
plan. As stated in thresholds 1 through 3 above, the project site does not contain sensitive plant or
animal species (besides a single southern California black walnut), sensitive habitat, or wetland features
and the project would have a less than significant impact on these biological resources. Preconstruction
surveys would be conducted in accordance with the MBTA if project construction occurs during the
nesting bird season to prevent impacts to nesting birds, in addition to surveys for the borrowing owl,
Crotch’s bumble bee, and bats. The project site does include trees that are planned to be removed,
which would be subject to the City’s Municipal Code regarding Tree Preservation. An arboricultural
report was prepared for the project (Knapp & Associates 2025), which determined that twelve trees on
the project site (and within the Hellman Avenue right of way) qualified as heritage trees as defined by
Municipal Code Section 17.16.080. These trees would be removed after acquiring a tree removal permit
from the City and replaced with 12 heritage trees. In addition, the project’s landscape design proposes
an additional 97 trees to be planted at various locations across the site, for a total of 109 trees. As a
result, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria, and no impact would occur.
Page 133
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
49
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Biological Resources?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that development within the City may result in
impacts to biological resources. While compliance with COAs and future project-specific mitigation
would reduce potential impacts on biological resources, it is uncertain if all impacts can be reduced to
less than significant levels. Therefore, the General Plan Update’s contribution to biological impacts is
considered cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in thresholds 1 through 6 above, the project is in a developed
area and implementation of the project would not significantly impact sensitive biological resources.
Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historic resource as
defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.5-5,
5.5-6,
and 5.5-
7,
2) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.5-8,
5.18-1,
5.18-2,
5.18-3,
5.18-4,
5.18-5,
5.18-6,
and 5.18-
7
Page 134
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
50
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
3) Disturb any human
remains, including
those interred outside
of dedicated
cemeteries?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.5-2 and
5.18-6
PROJECT-LEVEL CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
1) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that although adoption of the General Plan
Update in itself would not lead to demolition or material alteration of any of these historic resources,
future development under the General Plan Update could adversely impact some of these historic
resources through changes to accommodate adaptive reuse, removal, or reconstruction. Known or
future historic sites or resources listed in the national, California, or local registers maintained by the
City would be protected through local ordinances, General Plan Update policies, and state and federal
regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of historical resources. Compliance with the
proposed General Plan Update policies, and state and federal regulations would ensure that
development would not result in adverse impacts to identified historic and cultural resources. While the
regulations provide a process for recognizing historic buildings and places, they do not prevent the reuse
or modification of them.
However, identified historic structures and sites that are potentially eligible for future historic resources
listing may be vulnerable to development activities accompanying infill, redevelopment, or revitalization
that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update. In addition, other buildings or structures that
could meet the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria upon reaching 50 years of age might
be impacted by development or redevelopment activity that would be accommodated by the General
Plan Update, and construction could damage or destroy as-yet undiscovered resources. Regardless of
the implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to state regulations, some historic
properties may be significantly affected by implementation of this General Plan. Even with the
implementation of COAs 5.5-1 through 5.5-7, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. Consistent with COA 5.5-3 and 5.5-4, a Historical Resource
Assessment (HRA) was completed for the project site by HELIX (HELIX 2025b). The project site was
recommended to be individually eligible under NRHP/ California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3, in addition to being recommended to remain individually eligible for
Page 135
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
51
designation as a City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark based on the City’s Historic Landmark
Eligibility criteria. The HRA recommended retaining the barn in place and, as part of the same parcel,
containing the residence, ensuring that any alterations to either conform with the appropriate standards
and guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, and, lastly,
retaining extant citrus trees whenever possible.
The existing residence at the Project site is to be kept and renovated and then sold for market value.
Pursuant to COA 5.5-5, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties
shall be used to the maximum extent possible, overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic
architect. Prior to any construction activities that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying
and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided
to the City. If as a result of COA 5.5-5, the property is designated as a Historical Landmark, future
projects related to lot 13 would be required to comply with COA 5.5-1 by being developed and
maintained in accordance with the applicable Historic Landmark Permit.
As the project would involve the demolition of the barn as part of the planned development, the HRA
recommended mitigation for the proposed demolition of the barn is to record the building in
accordance with Historic American Building Survey standards, which shall include but not be limited to
historical narrative, photographs, historical photos, and original architectural plans. This would be
consistent with COA 5.5-6. The recording should be submitted to the City for review and ultimately to
both San Bernardino County Historical and Pioneer Society and to the South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. Even with the recommended mitigation, impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. However, this impact would remain consistent with what was
already established by the PEIR. Therefore, while the project would result in an effect peculiar to the
project site, this is not a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the
PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b).
2) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that although adoption of the General Plan Update in
itself would not directly affect archaeological resources, the long-term implementation of the General
Plan Update land use plan could include grading and construction activities of known and unknown
sensitive areas that could potentially cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Therefore,
future development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update could potentially
unearth previously unrecorded resources. However, through the implementation of COA 5.5-8, impacts
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. Consistent with COA 5.5-8, an Archeological Resources Survey was
conducted for the project site (HELIX 2025c), including a record search, literature review, and
archeological survey. The SCCIC record search did not identify any historic or prehistoric resources on
the project site. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search was
positive; however, no specific data on the location or nature of the sacred sites associated with the
project was provided. The archeological survey identified a general scatter of artifacts associated with
Page 136
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
52
the historic-era residential and agricultural use of the property and the remnants of a citrus grove. No
prehistoric cultural material was identified within the project site. It was determined that the
archaeological material found on site is not eligible to the CRHR under Criteria 4 as it is not likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history.
However, per COAs 5.5-8b) and 5.18-1 through 5.18-7, as the project site contains archaeological
features and refuse, much of the project area has not been subject to substantial ground disturbance
below the agricultural use, and the result of the NAHC search of the SLFs was positive, the project area is
highly sensitive for archaeological resources. Therefore, the potential exists to identify intact
archaeological deposits during site development. Due to this potential, and in compliance with COA 5.5-
8.b and 5.18-1 through 5.18-7, it is recommended that an archaeological monitoring program be
implemented if grading or other ground disturbing activities (i.e., trenching for utilities) are to occur. The
monitoring program would include attendance by the archaeologist and a Native American monitor at a
preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and the presence of archaeological and Native
American monitors during initial ground disturbing activities on site. Both archaeological and Native
American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground
disturbing activity in the event that cultural resources are encountered. If significant cultural material is
encountered, the project archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and City staff to develop and
implement appropriate mitigation measures. Through the implementation of the recommended
monitoring program, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
3) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that although soil-disturbing activities associated with
development in accordance with the General Plan Update could result in the discovery of human
remains, compliance with existing law (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 [consistent
with COA 5.5-2]; CEQA Section 15064.5; and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98) and proposed
General Plan Update policies (Policies RC-4.1 and RC-4.2) would ensure impacts to human remains
would remain less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. Although the project site does not contain any known human remains, as
stated in threshold 2 above, the project site is considered highly sensitive for archaeological resources.
Per COA 5.5-2, if human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated
with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the
County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that
code enforced for the duration of the project. Per COA 5.18-6, in the event that human remains are
discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native
American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to
determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code
§7050.5 and PRC §5097.98 shall be followed. By adhering to COA 5.18-6 the project would not result in
an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
Page 137
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
53
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Cultural Resources?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and Unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that although the General Plan Update
includes policies and COAs 5.5-4 through 5.5-7 which would reduce impacts on historic resources,
impacts could still occur. Therefore, development under the General Plan Update would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact on historic resources. This
impact is significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. As discussed in threshold 1, the project would involve a significant
and unavoidable impact to historic resources. Therefore, the project would contribute to the significant
cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and cumulative impacts would be significant
and unavoidable.
4.6 ENERGY
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Result in a potentially
significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of
energy resources,
during project
construction or
operation?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Conflict with or
obstruct a state or
local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 138
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
54
PROJECT-LEVEL ENERGY ANALYSIS
1) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that regulatory compliance (e.g., Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen], California Renewable
Portfolio Standard Program, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards) would increase building
energy efficiency, vehicle fuel efficiency, and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related
fuel usage. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies related to land use and
transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, and renewable energy which would contribute to
minimizing building and transportation related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable
sources of energy. Implementation of the proposed policies of the General Plan Update in conjunction
with and complementary to regulatory requirements would ensure that energy demand associated with
growth under the General Plan Update would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore,
energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the
General Plan Update would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. Project-related construction activities would consume energy, primarily in
the form of diesel fuel and gasoline (for mobile construction equipment, for on-road vehicles used to
transport debris, soil, and supplies, and for construction worker commute trips) and electricity. There
are no known conditions within the project site that would require non-standard equipment or
construction practices that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the
region or the state.
Similarly, while the proposed project would result in the consumption of gasoline, diesel, and electricity,
and natural gas for operation, the increase would be consistent overall with the energy projections to
meet the demands of anticipated future growth in the state and region. The project would be consistent
with the land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update and implementation of the project
would not require the construction of new regional facilities and sources of energy. Therefore, the
project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the land uses accommodated under the General
Plan Update would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency
Standards and CALGreen. As discussed above, the General Plan Update includes policies which would
support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources.
Page 139
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
55
The City has also prepared a CAP as a companion to the General Plan Update that includes goals,
strategies, and measures to reduce communitywide and municipal GHG emission reductions in the
categories of zero emission and clean fuels, efficient and carbon free buildings, renewable energy and
zero carbon electricity, carbon sequestration, local food supply, efficient water use, waste reductions,
and sustainable transportation. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would not
conflict or obstruct implementation of state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would comply with applicable energy standards and
regulations during construction and would be built and operated in accordance with existing, applicable
building regulations, as mandated by the latest restructured 2025 Energy Code: Title 24 Part 6 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen 2025: Title 24 Part 11, the California Green Building
Standards Code. The project would include a photovoltaic/solar generation system that would adhere to
the requirements of the 2025 Energy Code and CALGreen. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL ENERGY ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to energy?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that future projects within the General Plan Area
would generate increased electricity and natural gas demands. However, all projects would be required
to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to
minimizing wasteful energy consumption. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant,
and the contribution to impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in thresholds 1 and 2, the project would have a less than
significant impact regarding energy efficiency and compliance with state or local plans. Like the PEIR, the
project would therefore not have a cumulative impact related to energy. The project would not result in
a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Page 140
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
56
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.7-4 and
5.7-5
i. Rupture of a
known
earthquake fault,
as delineated on
the most recent
Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map
issued by the
State Geologist
for the area or
based on other
substantial
evidence of a
known fault?
Refer to Division
of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42.
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Strong seismic
ground shaking? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Landslides? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2) Result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.7-2
Page 141
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
57
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
3) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or
that would become
unstable as a result of
the GPU, and
potentially result in
on- or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction or
collapse?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.7-2,5.7-
4, and
5.7-5
4) Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5) Have soils incapable
of adequately
supporting the use of
septic tanks or
alternative waste
water disposal
systems where
sewers are not
available for the
disposal of waste
water?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
6) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geological
feature?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 5.7-7
Page 142
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
58
PROJECT-LEVEL GEOLOGY AND SOILS ANALYSIS
1) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the Cucamonga Fault (running east-west along the
north limits) and the Red Hill Fault (running from the northeast around Etiwanda Avenue to the
southwest around Red Hill) have the potential for an earthquake that can lead to group rupture and
associated hazards. However, compliance with COAs and the City’s requirements for geotechnical
investigations in the City-designated Earthquake Fault Zones, as required under COA 5.7-1, would
reduce ground rupture hazards to future development and redevelopment. Therefore, the requirement
that the soil’s capability and seismic potential be considered in the project design would ensure that the
City can evaluate the recommendations prior to any project approval. Impacts from earthquake faults
would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As the project is not within a City-designated Earthquake Fault Zones, COA
5.7-1 does not apply. However, pursuant to COAs 5.7-3 and 5.7-6, a Geotechnical and Infiltration
Evaluation was prepared for the project by GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek; 2025a) which discusses the project
site’s geology and soil. The project site is in a seismically active region; however, the project site itself is
not situated within the State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. The
nearest known faults are the Sierra Madre Fault (Cucamonga Section) and the Red Hill-Etiwanda Avenue
Fault, located approximately 1.26 miles north and 1.87 miles southeast of the site, respectively.
Additionally, the project would be constructed according to the CBC, which includes design standards
for earthquake safety. COA 5.7-4, requiring a final grading plan, appropriate certifications and
compaction reports, and COA 5.7-5, requiring a separate grading plan check, are applicable to the
project and would help minimize potential geologic impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in
an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that ground-shaking hazards associated with
earthquake faults in the City, major faults in the region, and other nearby faults could pose hazards to
future development and redevelopment under the proposed General Plan Update. However,
compliance with the CBC and Policy SE 2.3 would allow redevelopment to better withstand ground
shaking and avoid or reduce structural and nonstructural damage. In addition, Policy SE-2.2 requires
enhanced siting, design, and construction standards that focus on building functionality for new critical
public facilities and key essential (private) facilities after a seismic event. Implementation of these
Page 143
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
59
policies would reduce hazards from ground shaking on existing and future developments in the City.
Impacts from seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated above, the project site itself is not situated within an Earthquake
Fault Zone and would be constructed according to the CBC, which includes design standards for
earthquake safety. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a
new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would
be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that in accordance with the CBC, geotechnical
investigations for new development and redevelopment would identify potential liquefaction hazards
on individual development sites and appropriate recommendations for earthwork, grading, slopes,
foundations, pavements, and other necessary geologic and seismic design considerations. Therefore, the
construction of buildings and infrastructure would ensures structural integrity to withstand liquefaction
hazards. Impacts from ground failure would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. According to the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation (GeoTek 2025a),
the County has not mapped the project site in an area of suspected liquefaction or generalized landslide
susceptibility. Due to the relatively dense nature of the subsurface soils encountered and relatively deep
depth to groundwater, the potential for ground failure or liquefaction on the project site as a result of
seismic activity is considered low. Additionally, as described above, the project would be constructed
according to the CBC, which establishes design standards for seismic safety. Therefore, the project
would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific
effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section
15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that compliance with the COAs mentioned above,
proposed General Plan Update policies, and the CBC would ensure impacts related to seismic hazards
would be less than significant
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated above, the County has not mapped the project site in an area of
generalized landslide susceptibility. Due to the general flat terrain, the potential for seismic induced
landslides is considered nil (GeoTek 2025a). Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar
to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the
Page 144
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
60
PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be
less than significant.
2) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the City is underlain by soils that have moderate
to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazards. Therefore, future development and redevelopment
under the General Plan Update could lead to soil erosion. However, compliance with Chapter 8.16 of the
City’s Municipal Code and COA 5.7-1, future development and redevelopment would not result in
significant adverse impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. COA 5.7-2, which
requires all future building pads be seeded and irrigated for erosion control and the submission of
detailed plans (included in the landscape and irrigation plans) to Planning Department approval prior to
the issuance of building permits, would also minimize the impacts new development would have on
erosion. Impacts relating to erosion would be temporary and less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed project would involve a variety of heavy
equipment associated with intensive earthwork, structural, and paving phases. The project would be
required to implement erosion-control measures as required by Chapter 8.16 of the City’s Municipal
Code and comply with COA 5,7-2. In addition, as described in further detail in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the project would be required to implement construction phase BMPs and post-
construction site design, source control, and treatment control measures in accordance with permit
requirements. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
3) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the GPU, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that compliance with the recommendations of project-
specific geotechnical investigations and the City’s Development Regulations would preserve natural
slopes and reduce landslide hazards. Furthermore, compliance with the CBC would identify potential for
hazards related to soil conditions on individual development sites so the project can be designed to
reflect site-specific geologic and soils conditions and prevent risks due to lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse. Potential impacts related to seismically induced constraints, including unstable
or expansive soils, on future development within the City would be reduced to less than significant.
Page 145
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
61
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated above, a Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation (GeoTek 2025a)
was prepared for the project. The evaluation concluded that the on-site soils exhibited a “Very Low”
Expansion Index and negligible soluble sulfate content. Development of the site appears feasible from a
geotechnical engineering viewpoint, with the incorporation of the evaluation’s recommendations into
the project’s design and construction phases. In addition, the potential for liquefaction, landslides, and
lateral spreading on the project site as a result of seismic activity is considered low due to the relatively
dense nature of the subsurface soils encountered, relatively deep depth to groundwater, and the site’s
generally flat terrain. The project would also incorporate COAs 5.7-2, 5.7-4, and 5.7-5 to prevent
exposure to local geologic hazards. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the
project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR.
The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than
significant.
5) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that future development and redevelopment within
the City would connect to the public sewer system. However, future development within the City’s SOI
could utilize on-site septic tanks. Implementation of the General Plan Update’s standard conditions of
approval would provide oversight prior to septic system construction as well as maintenance and
inspection over the life of the septic system to ensure proper operation, thus reducing the potential for
impacts related to septic tanks. These conditions would reduce potential effects to less than significant.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project would connect to existing sewer infrastructure along Banyan Street and Hellman
Avenue and proposed sewer lines along Streets “A” and “B.” The project would not involve the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and no
impact would occur.
6) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the presence of sedimentary units known to
contain fossil materials throughout the City indicates that there is a potential for encountering
unidentified paleontological resources during excavation and construction of future development
projects. Therefore, the PEIR included COA 5.7-7 to apply to future projects in the City.
Page 146
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
62
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in a
mostly undeveloped parcel. While no known paleontological resources are known to be impacted by the
project, the potential exists for the unearthing of unidentified paleontological resources during ground
disturbing activities such as grading or trenching. Through the implementation of COA 5.7-7, impacts
would be avoided. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a
new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would
be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL GEOLOGY AND SOILS ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to geology and soils?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that through the compliance of individual projects with
the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation, in addition to adherence to relevant plans,
codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction, would provide adequate levels
of safety in the City and surrounding areas. Such adherence would ensure that the General Plan Update
would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to geologic
and soil condition. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
In addition, compliance with COA 5.7-7 would reduce potential project-specific effects on
paleontological resources. Therefore, the mitigation identified for use if unknown or undocumented
resources are discovered would reduce the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts. The
cumulative impact on paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in thresholds 1 through 6 above, the project’s Geotechnical
and Infiltration Evaluation concluded that the project would not result in significant impacts to geology
and soils (GeoTek 2025a). Regardless, the project would comply with the relevant state and City
regulations and ordinances regarding geology and soils, including COA 5.7-7 to address potential impacts
to paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant
cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 147
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
63
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emission
of greenhouse gases?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
1) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update will
result in population growth and development that will generate new activities that result in increased
GHG emissions. To address this, the City has prepared the CAP as a companion to the General Plan In
addition, due to set legislative actions that will continue to be implemented in the future to help reduce
GHG emissions from activities in the City, overall GHG emissions will decline even with growth and
development through implementation of the General Plan Update. As a result, future communitywide
GHG emissions with implementation of the General Plan Update would decrease from the City’s
baseline emissions. Implementation of the General Plan Update would not directly or indirectly result in
an increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions in 2018. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan land
use designation for the project site. The project would implement project specific measures
demonstrated by the project’s CAP Consistency Review Checklist (City 2025). However, the project
would not include net-zero energy per Item 4 of the CAP. To evaluate if the project would generate GHG
emissions significant to the environment, the project’s construction and operational emissions were
Page 148
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
64
modeled. Estimated GHG emissions are available under Attachment A, CalEEMod [California Emissions
Estimator Model] Outputs, of the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project by HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX 2025a). The project’s construction from 2026 to 2028 would result
in approximately 774.12 metric tons (MTs) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Amortized (averaged)
over 30 years, project construction would be approximately 25.80 MT CO2e per year. The results of the
modeling of the project’s operational GHG emissions are shown in Table 4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The data are presented as the maximum anticipated operational GHG emissions for the first full year of
operation (2029) and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e, as the City’s CAP did not
contain an established threshold for individual projects.
Table 4
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Vehicular (Mobile) 159.21
Area 0.22
Energy 37.27
Water and Wastewater 2.33
Solid Waste 3.92
Refrigerants 0.07
Amortized Construction Emissions 25.80
Total Amortized Construction + Operational Emissions
SCAQMD Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis)
1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management
District
As shown in Table 4, the project’s GHG emissions would be approximately 228.82 MT CO2e per year,
which is far below the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the project would not
generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would
be less than significant. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update and its
companion CAP document have been developed to help support future development that reduces local
and regional VMT while promoting land use patterns that promote alternative transportation modes.
The General Plan Update’s goals and policies are consistent with Connect SoCal and would support the
SCAG region in achieving its Senate Bill (SB) 375 emissions reduction targets and emissions reductions in
alignment with the statewide target for 2030 established in SB 32. However, even with the
implementation of the General Plan Update and CAP, it is not projected that the City would achieve the
Page 149
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
65
long-term statewide emissions targets in Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-3-05 to reduce emissions 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050. For the same reasons, the City would not achieve the State’s carbon
neutrality goal by 2045 as established in B-55-18 because the CAP does not include CAP strategies that
would achieve net-zero emissions by 2045. As a result, this impact would be potentially significant.
Project Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The project involves the construction of 13 single-family homes
that would include energy-efficient design features, such as rooftop photovoltaic systems. The project
would be constructed in accordance with the energy-efficiency standards and other requirements
contained in the applicable 2025 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and 2025 Title 24
Part 11 CALGreen Standards. Statewide plans and regulations such as those requiring an increasing
fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide
level; implementation of the project would not conflict with the state’s ability to achieve the statewide
GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG
emissions reductions. However, as stated above in threshold 1, the project would not include net-zero
energy per Item 4 of the CAP, causing an inconsistency with the City’s adopted policy. While this would
result in a significant and unavoidable impact, this would be consistent with the conclusion drawn by the
PEIR. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant
project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the
CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to greenhouse gases?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that GHG emissions are not confined to a
particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide, and the above analysis considers the General Plan
Update’s contribution to the worldwide emissions and is inherently cumulative. Implementation of the
proposed project would be inconsistent with the state’s long-term reduction goals. Therefore, GHG
emissions of future projects and their contribution to global climate change are cumulatively
considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. As described in thresholds 1 and 2 above, the project would be
consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use designation but not the City’s CAP. The project
would contribute to an adverse cumulative effect, consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR. Therefore,
the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria despite its significant and unavoidable impact.
Page 150
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
66
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release
of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
LTS ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would it
create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 151
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
67
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
5) For development
within an area located
within an airport land
use plan or, where
such a plan has not
been adopted, within
two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the
GPU result in a safety
hazard or excessive
noise for people
residing or working in
the GPU area?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
6) Impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
7) Expose people or
structures, either
directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death
involving wildland
fires?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS
1) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Page 152
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
68
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that during the construction of future projects
throughout the City, new development would potentially involve the use of hazardous materials, whose
release would result in a type of human-caused hazard that could impact residents and businesses.
However, future construction activities would be short term in nature, and the materials used would not
require use or storage of hazardous materials in quantities that would pose a substantial safety hazard.
Additionally, the use, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be
required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially
hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential
for safety impacts to occur.
In addition, construction activities such as grading and excavation in infill areas may expose construction
workers and the public to known or potentially unknown hazardous materials in the soil or
groundwater. However, contaminated areas on construction sites would be required to be remediated
prior to construction activities and under the General Plan Update, the City would encourage and
facilitate the adequate and timely cleanup of existing and future contaminated sites and the
compatibility of future land uses. Remediation would also be required to satisfy the appropriate
responsible agency and would prevent exposure of people and the environment to these hazards.
Furthermore, new development would potentially involve the demolition of older buildings which may
contain asbestos containing materials (ACM) or lead-based paint (LBP) and could result in potential
exposure of workers or residents living near these project sites to these hazardous materials. However,
demolition of structures throughout the City for future development would be required to comply with
the California Health and Safety Code, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 related to removal of ACM and LBP. Thus, implementation of
the General Plan Update would not result in substantial hazards to the public due to the transport, use,
and/or disposal of hazardous material. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project is a residential development and is not expected to routinely
use substantial quantities of acutely hazardous materials. Some common hazardous substances, such as
cleaning products, would be used but would not be of the type or quantity that would create a
significant risk to the public or environment. Construction activities associated with the project would
require transportation and use of limited quantities of fuel, oil, sealants, and other hazardous materials
typical to construction. The use of hazardous materials and substances during construction would be
subject to the federal, state, and local health and safety requirements for handling, storage, and
disposal described above. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site
or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project
would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
4) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Page 153
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
69
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that since there are numerous sites undergoing
investigation and/or remediation within the City according to the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database and the Storm Water Resources Control Board’s
(SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database, future development in accordance with implementation of the General
Plan Update may be impacted by hazardous substance contamination remaining from historical
operations on a particular site. However, properties contaminated by hazardous substances are
regulated at the federal, state, and local levels and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and
regulations for investigation and remediation. Therefore, with the compliance to existing laws and
regulations, impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact with mitigation. According to the DTSC’s EnviroStor database and SWRCB’s
GeoTracker database, there are no open hazardous waste sites within 1,000 feet of the project site
(DTSC 2025; SWRCB 2025).
A Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the project
(GeoTek 2025b). The ESA revealed evidence of a recognized environmental condition in connection with
the project site’s previous agricultural use as a citrus grove. Historically, some agricultural sites have
utilized pesticides that are currently considered a health risk and no longer used. Near surface soil
samples were collected from the project site and were analyzed for organo-chlorinated pesticides
(OCPs) and arsenic. The laboratory testing concluded that arsenic was not detected above regional
screening levels in the soil samples tested. However, measurable quantities of the OCP constituents 4,4'-
DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, dieldrin and/or toxaphene were detected in all of the samples collected.
To avoid impacts related to the project site’s contaminated soil, the following PSA shall be implemented:
PSA H-1 Removal of OCP Contaminated Soil. The OCP contaminated soil shall be removed from the
Site and disposed of in accordance with local and state regulations prior to any future
development or soil disturbance. Additional sampling and laboratory testing of OCPs within
the exposed soils at the bottom of the remedial excavations shall be performed by GeoTek
to confirm that adequate remediation has been achieved.
If soil removal is not feasible, dieldrin and toxaphene impacted soils are proposed to be
placed within areas where there is limited potential for future exposure. GeoTek
recommends that the dieldrin and toxaphene impacted soils in the areas of samples A5, A9,
A13, A14, A16 and A17, which are anticipated to be located at a maximum depth of six (6)
inches below original ground, be excavated and stockpiled on the site. The limits of
excavation are based on 6 (six) “grid areas” of tainted soils, with each grid equivalent to 133
square foot by 84 foot and a depth of six (6) inches of tainted soil. The amount of impacted
soils that will need to be buried are estimated at a minimum of approximately 1,242 cubic
yards for contractual and estimating purposes. Additional sampling and laboratory testing of
OCPs within the exposed soils at the bottom of the remedial excavations should be
performed by GeoTek to confirm adequate remediation has been achieved. When removals
of compressible materials are accomplished for the Site, the dieldrin and toxaphene
impacted soils shall be placed two (2) feet below the deepest utilities located in the street
Page 154
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
70
areas. Non-impacted soils should be utilized to “cap” these areas with a minimum of 5 feet
of materials.
PSA H-2 Grading Verification Samples. Verification samples shall be taken during the grading
activities. Soils utilized for capping the street areas shall be sampled and tested in the
laboratory to verify that these materials are suitable and not impacted by the pesticides.
At the completion of grading, one (1) verification sample from each lot is recommended to
be collected and submitted to a state certified laboratory for analysis of organochlorinated
pesticides. If laboratory testing determines that any of the materials located near the finish
surface of the building pads are tainted by the pesticides, additional grading will need to be
accomplished to remove the tainted materials from near finish pad grades.
PSA H-3 Storage Tank Removal. The two (2) unmarked above-ground storage tanks shall be properly
removed by a qualified professional prior to any future development in this area.
Through adherence of the recommendations presented by the ESA in PSA H-1, H-2, and H-3 and
consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations for hazardous materials investigations and
remediation, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more
significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent
with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
5) For development within an area located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the City is approximately 3.2 miles north of the
Ontario International Airport and 4.5 miles east of Cable Municipal Airport in Upland. The southwestern
portion of the City is in the Ontario International Airport Influence Area; thus, compliance with
applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration would be required, and the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan would be considered for any proposed project in the area. Considerations for
new development would be airport-related safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight factors. The
City participates in the airport land use planning process for Ontario International Airport, and new
development in the Ontario Airport Influence Area would be consistent with the approved Airspace
Protection Zones identified in the latest version of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project site is not within the Ontario International Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario
2018), which is the only airport with an influence area within the City as identified in the PEIR. The
closest public airport to the project site is Cable Municipal Airport in Upland, approximately 4.9 miles
southeast. While the project site may experience occasional flyover noise from Ontario International
Airport, the noise would be sporadic and temporary and would not be considered excessive. The project
would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working on the project site. Therefore,
the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
Page 155
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
71
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact would occur.
6) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that future development under the General Plan
Update could result in construction activities that could temporarily affect roadways as a result of lane
closures or narrowing for roadway and/or utility improvements, potentially impacting emergency
response times or evacuation routes. The General Plan Update would also increase the number of
people who may need to evacuate the General Plan Area in the event of an emergency. However, all
existing roadway modifications and new roadways that would occur with implementation of the General
Plan Update to accommodate future growth would be constructed based on industry and City design
standards. Future roadways in the City would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s (RCFPD’s) requirements pertaining to access/egress to
ensure adequate emergency access. Proposed General Plan Policy S-1.1 requires additional roads and
improvements in areas of the City with limited access routes and circulation challenges to ensure
adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuation; and proposed Policy S-1.2 requires any roads
used for evacuation purposes to provide at least 26 feet of unobstructed pavement width.
Implementation of these policies would minimize the potential for a roadway design that could hinder
its use for emergency response or evacuation.
In addition, the City would implement a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), an Emergency Operations
Plan (EOP), a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and an Evacuation Assessment to provide the
framework for responding to major emergencies or disasters. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would be designed in compliance with applicable building
standards related to emergency access and would undergo plan review to ensure no significant impacts
to emergency access occur. As described in Section 4.17 threshold 2, the project would not increase
traffic to a level that would pose a safety hazard in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the project
would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific
effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section
15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
7) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Potential risks associated exposure to wildfire hazards (Threshold 7) are addressed in Section 4.20 and
are not further addressed in this section.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials?
Page 156
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
72
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that hazardous materials contamination impacts,
including remediation activities to protect public health and safety, are site specific and do not combine
with the effects on other sites to result in a cumulative effect. In addition, as discussed above, there is a
substantial regulatory framework that has been promulgated at the federal, state, and regional level
that would also apply to construction and operation of uses outside the City. Compliance with these
regulations in jurisdictions outside the City would be required and would have the same mitigating
effect as in the City. Consequently, the General Plan Update’s contribution to any potential cumulative
impact related to hazards or hazardous materials would be less than considerable and less than
significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in thresholds 1 through 7 above, the project would not result in
significant impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials with the implementation of PSA H-1, H-2,
and H-3. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the
impact identified in the PEIR, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1)Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements or
otherwise
substantially degrade
surface or ground
water quality?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.10-1
and 5.10-
2
2)Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies
or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the GPU
may impede
sustainable
groundwater
management of the
basin?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒None
Page 157
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
73
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
3) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the site or
area, including
through the alteration
of the course of a
stream or river or
through the addition
of impervious
surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i. Result in
substantial
erosion or
siltation on-or
offsite?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.7-2,
5.10-1,
and 5.10-
2
ii. Substantially
increase the rate
or amount of
surface runoff in
a manner which
would result in
flooding on-or
offsite?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.7-2,
5.10-1,
and 5.10-
2
iii. Create or
contribute runoff
water which
would exceed the
capacity of
existing or
planned
stormwater
drainage systems
or provide
substantial
additional
sources of
polluted runoff?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.7-2,
5.10-1,
and 5.10-
2
iv. Impede or
redirect flood
flows? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.7-2,
5.10-1,
and 5.10-
2
Page 158
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
74
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
4) Would the project be
subject to flood
hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, and risk
release of pollutants
due to project
inundation?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Would the project
conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
1) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that with the implementation of federal, state, local
regulations, and the goals and policies of the General Plan Update, runoff from the construction and
operational phases of development pursuant to the General Plan Update would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. COA 5.10-1 requires that storm drainage system
improvements in the City be constructed in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage Westside Area
and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of
Drainage. COA 5.10-2 requires that, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, the
project applicant submit a final drainage study to and approved by the City Engineer and that all
drainage facilities be installed as required by the City Engineer. Additionally, development of projects
with one acre or greater of soil disturbance are required to comply with the Construction General
Permit and associated local National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations to
ensure that the potential for soil erosion is minimized on a project-by-project basis. Project-specific
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are required in accordance with the site-specific
sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans. The SWPPP must describe construction BMPs that
address pollutant source reduction and provide measures/controls to mitigate potential pollutant
sources. Developed projects would be required to comply with Chapter 19.20, Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4), of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Stormwater and
Page 159
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
75
Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Ordinance. Through compliance with these existing
regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project’s construction would comply with Chapter 19.04, Grading
Standards, of the City’s Municipal Code which contains requirements for grading and site erosion
control. As new development, the project would also comply with COA 5.10-1 and COA 5.10-2.
Additionally, as development of the project would involve one acre or greater of soil disturbance, it
would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and associated local NPDES
regulations to ensure that the potential for soil erosion is minimized on a project-by-project basis. The
project would also develop a SWPPP describing construction BMPs that address pollutant source
reduction and provide measures/controls to mitigate potential pollutant sources.
Operationally, the project would be required to comply with Chapter 19.20, MS4, of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, which is the City’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Ordinance. This would ensure the project would comply with the federal Clean Water Act, the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the municipal NPDES permit. The project
would also develop a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to Chapter 19.20 that includes
BMPs during construction and operational activities. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 19.20.110, the
project would comply with all applicable BMPs in the California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook and the County stormwater program’s “Report of Waste Discharge” to reduce
pollutants in stormwater runoff and reduce non-storm water discharges to the City’s MS4 to the
maximum extent practicable or to the extent required by law. Therefore, the project would not result in
an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant. The PEIR concluded that the Cucamonga Valley Water District’s 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) indicates that the water supply would exceed the water demand for normal,
single dry, and multiple dry years from 2025 through 2045. This includes groundwater pumped from the
Chino and Cucamonga Basins based on “operating safe yields.” Furthermore, the policies of the General
Plan Update, such as Policies RC-2.1 and RC-2.2, require the replenishment of groundwater and the
preservation and enhancement of stormwater capture systems for groundwater recharge. With the
implementation of the policies of the General Plan Update, buildout of the General Plan would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described above, buildout of the General Plan Update would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. As
the project is consistent with the site’s General Plan Update’s land use designation, the project would
Page 160
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
76
not strain the public water supply. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the
project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR.
The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than
significant.
3) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would; (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite; (ii)
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on-or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that with the implementation of applicable measures
during the construction and operational phases of future development; the implementation of the
General Plan Update policies including COA 5.7-2 regarding to erosion and COAs 5.10-1 and 5.10-2
regarding drainage changes, and federal, state, and local regulations, any erosion, siltation, polluted
runoff, or flood hazard impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. A Preliminary Drainage Study was prepared for the project by Encompass
Associates, Inc. (Encompass; 2024), which concluded that the project would be broken up into two sub
drainage areas. A small portion of the east side of the site would drain to Hellman Avenue, including the
lots that will front along Hellman Avenue. The bulk of the site would drain to Banyan Street. The off-site
area to the north would be intercepted at the north property line as part of the private equestrian trail
improvements, and would be conveyed out to the proposed street via a parkway drain and gutter
system.
Developed flows would be conveyed to the streets as surface flow and then captured via a parkway
drain or inlet prior to Banyan Street. The inlets would connect to a proposed underground perforated
pipe infiltration system. Flows in excess of the infiltration system would continue as street surface flow,
bypassing the inlets, and out onto Banyan Street. The westerly flows would continue on Banyan Street
to the west and ultimately would be captured by inlets located in Banyan Street just east of Beryl
Avenue. Those existing catch basins are part of the City’s Master Pan of Drainage. Meanwhile, the
smaller area tributary to Hellman Avenue would continue down Hellman Avenue as street flow and
would be collected in catch basins located north of Highland Avenue. The planned drainage
improvements onsite would be consistent with the General Plan Update’s Policies, such as Policies S-4.1
through S-4.5, meant to ensure the safe use and occupation of structures regarding flood impacts. The
project would also comply with COAs meant to minimize impacts from erosion (COA 5.7-2) and drainage
changes (COAs 5.10-2 and 5.10-2). The project would not increase runoff rates in a manner that would
contribute to substantial erosion or flooding. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect
peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified
in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would
be less than significant.
Page 161
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
77
4) Would the project be subject to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update
policies and federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that future development pursuant to the
General Plan Update would not result in flood hazards, and impacts would be less than significant. The
City is also more than 30 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is well outside of the tsunami
inundation zone. No impacts would arise from tsunamis
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. Similar to the conclusions in the PEIR, the project site is not located in an
area vulnerable to tsunamis or seiches, with the Pacific Ocean approximately 51 miles from the project
site. The project site is not within a flood hazard area determined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA; 2016). Regardless, the project would implement relevant General Plan
Update policies and comply with federal, state, and local regulations to ensure development would not
result in flood hazards. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or
a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project
would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
5) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update is within an adjugated
basin and is consistent with the Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan, which manages the basin. In
addition, as mentioned in threshold 2, the General Plan Update would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. There would be no conflict
with a sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of a mostly undeveloped lot with 13
single-family homes, a use that is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation for the project
site. As a result, the growth assumptions utilized in the planning process for the regional water plans
and would not strain the public water supply, as mentioned in threshold 2. Additionally, the project
would include the water quality BMPs described in threshold 3 above, which would ensure that no
conflicts with the water quality standards identified in the Basin Plan would occur. Therefore, the
project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and water
quality?
Page 162
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
78
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update could result in increased
flows that would eventually discharge into waterways. Future projects would be required to comply
with drainage and grading regulations and ordinances, as well as the City’s COAs, ordinances regarding
water quality, and NPDES permitting requirements. In addition, as discussed in threshold 2 above, the
2020 UWMP determined that supply would exceed demand in normal and multi-year drought scenarios
until 2045. Therefore, the General Plan Update’s contribution to cumulative water impacts would be
less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As discussed in thresholds 1 through 5 above, the project would not result
in significant impacts to hydrology. The project would comply with state and local laws and ordinances
regarding hydrology and adhere to COAs 5.10-1 and 5.10-2. No considerable cumulative impact would
result from project implementation. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant
cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an
established
community?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Cause a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with
any land use plan,
policy, or regulation
adopted for the
purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an
environmental effect?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS
1) Would the project physically divide an established community?
Page 163
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
79
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that no aspect of the General Plan Update would divide the existing City.
In addition, the updated General Plan includes provisions that directly address land use connectivity,
compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing neighborhoods and land uses. Thus,
the General Plan update would result in no impact regarding division of an established community or
land use compatibility issues.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project proposes the subdivision of a 6.7-acre site into 13 single-family lots and the
subsequent development of 13 single-family homes, which includes the preservation of an existing
historic house on-site. The project site is surrounded by existing development and would develop a
mostly vacant site with no existing residents, which would not divide an established community.
Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more
significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent
with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and there would be no impact.
2) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that none of the changes in the General Plan Update
would affect plans, policies, or regulations of other agencies that have jurisdiction within the planning
area. The General Plan Update would be consistent with the goals of the 2016 and 2020 RTP/SCS and
would further State goals through emphasis on design and reduction in VMT. Updates to the City’s
Municipal Code and Zoning Map would follow the General Plan Update and bring the code into
consistency with the General Plan. Once the code is amended, there will be no inconsistency between
the General Plan and the zoning code. In addition, the General Plan Update would continue to support
Section 17.80, Tree Preservation, of the City’s Municipal Code which protects trees that are community
resources from indiscriminate cutting or removal. Most of the design of the General Plan Update is
intended to address state and global issues related to climate change and reduce VMT. As individual
projects are considered by the City, those proposed projects would be subject to a variety of federal,
State, and locally adopted plans designed to mitigate environmental impacts or to preserve important
resources. No conflicts between the specific resources and a policy or regulation of another agency
would occur because of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes on a 6.7-
acre site, consistent with the site’s land use designation under the General Plan which limits density to
one dwelling unit per two acres. As the project is also within the City’s Equestrian Overlay Zoning
District, the Project’s implements the existing equestrian trails into its design and adds a new trail that
would be accessible from the homes in the north of the project site. As the project is consistent with the
General Plan’s land use designation, it would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS. The project would
not prevent the implementation of circulation improvements under SCAG’s RTP/SCS and would actually
result in circulation improvements in the project vicinity, as described in Section 4.17. The project would
also adhere to local policies, such as the City’s Tree Ordinance as defined by Section 17.80, Tree
Page 164
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
80
Preservation, of the City’s Municipal Code. A minor exception and site variances would be processed
with the necessary findings as allowed by the Municipal Code and no significant environmental impact
would occur as a result of the exception or variances. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that while the General Plan Update would increase the
development intensity in the City and the region, it would not combine with other development in the
region to physically divide a community or result in inconsistencies with plans adopted to avoid or
mitigate an environmental effect. Therefore, the General Plan Update’s contribution to a cumulative
effect would be less than considerable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in thresholds 1 and 2 above, the project would not divide an
established community or conflict with any land use plans, policies, or ordinances. The project involves
residential development that is in line with the General Plan’s land use designation for the site.
Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to
the region and the
residents of the state?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 165
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
81
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
2) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan, or other land
use plan?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
1) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state?
2) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that although there are aggregate mineral resources in the City, no mine
is currently operating within the City or SOI boundaries, and the existing resources would not be
considered regionally significant. Therefore, there would be no impact to regionally important mineral
resources.
As there are no active mining operations within the City, the resource demand associated with the
future development and redevelopment in the City would have to be met with available resources
throughout the region. There are additional sand and gravel mines within 1.5 miles of the City, including
Holiday Rock Campus Plant and the Kaiser Fontana Mine. These mining operations would not be
impacted by the General Plan Update and would also help to provide the required resources. Thus,
there would be no impact due to the potential loss of availability of these local resources due to future
development.
Project Analysis
No impact. As stated above, existing resources within the City would not be considered regionally
significant and there would be no impact due to the potential loss of availability of local resources as
there are no mining operations within the City. The project proposes the development of single-family
homes and does not involve mineral extraction. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect
peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified
in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact
would occur.
Page 166
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
82
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and Unavoidable. The PEIR concluded that future development and redevelopment under
the General Plan Update would contribute to cumulative increase in demand for construction
aggregates in the region he California Geological Survey already estimates that the demand for these
resources is greater than the supply. Therefore, the loss of additional mineral resources due to buildout
of the City, although not locally significant, would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related
to the loss of known mineral resources. Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable
Project Analysis
No impact. As stated above in response to thresholds one and two, there are no known significant
mineral resources on the project site and the project does not propose mineral extraction activities.
Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR, and no impact would occur.
4.13 NOISE
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Generate a
substantial temporary
increase in ambient
noise levels at noise-
sensitive land uses in
excess of the
standards established
by the City?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ PSA N-1
2) Generate a
substantial
permanent increase
in traffic noise levels
at noise-sensitive uses
in excess of the
following standards?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 167
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
83
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
3) Generate a
substantial
permanent increase
in stationary noise at
noise-sensitive uses in
excess of the
standards, as
measured at adjacent
property line
(exterior) or within a
neighboring home
(interior)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Expose new sensitive
land uses to noise
levels in excess of the
noise compatibility
standards identified in
2040 General Plan
Noise Element Table
N-1?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
construction vibration
or exposure of new
sensitive land uses to
long-term operational
vibration sources that
exceed the
established
standards?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ PSA N-2
PROJECT-LEVEL NOISE ANALYSIS
1) Would the project generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels as noise-
sensitive land uses in excess of the following standards established by the City?
a) For residential, schools, churches, or similar land uses, construction noise would result in a
significant impact if activities were to take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday, and exceed the
noise standard of 65 dBA LEQ when measured at the adjacent property line.
Page 168
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
84
b) For a commercial or industrial use, construction noise would result in a significant impact if
activities were to take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays,
including Saturday and Sunday, and exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA LEQ when measured at
the adjacent property line.
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that noise-sensitive land uses within 580 feet
of construction activity not including pile driving and 1,000 feet of construction activity including pile
driving may be exposed to construction noise levels exceeding the City’s noise standards. In addition,
certain types of construction work, such as utility installation and roadway improvements could
periodically occur during nighttime hours and expose existing or future noise-sensitive land uses to
substantial construction noise levels during sensitive times of the day. Therefore, the development
associated with the General Plan Update could generate substantial temporary increases in construction
noise levels, and impacts would be potentially significant.
Implementation of COA 5.13-1, which requires project applicants to prepare a site-specific construction
noise analysis and, if required, implement measures to demonstrate compliance with the City’s noise
standards, would avoid or substantially lessen potential sleep disturbance associated with nighttime
construction noise and noise levels at properties adjacent to construction sites. While implementation
of this measure would routinely avoid generation of construction noise levels that violate the standards
of Development Code Section 17.66.050., individual construction activities and associated noise
exposure at receiving land uses could not be determined at the program-level of analysis in the PEIR and
it was not possible to conclude that implementation of COA 5.13-1 would construction noise exceeding
City standards for all future development under the General Plan Update. Further, available
construction noise attenuation measures (such as temporary walls or mufflers), can typically achieve a
maximum of 10 decibel (dB) noise reduction, which may not be adequate to achieve noise standards
depending on the proximity of construction activities to nearby land uses. Therefore, the PEIR concluded
the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The project would require construction activities within
580 feet of residential land uses. A Noise and Vibration Technical Report was completed for the
proposed project to analyze potential construction noise impacts (HELIX 2025d) in accordance with COA
5.13-1. The applicable one-hour noise level (LEQ) standard for project construction noise is 65 A-
weighted decibels (dBA) LEQ.
Project construction would require the operation of noise-generating equipment throughout the various
phases of construction, with clearing/grubbing activity is anticipated to generate the highest
construction-period noise levels at the nearest residential property line, specifically during demolition of
the existing barn. To account for equipment moving throughout the site during the workday,
construction equipment anticipated to be used for on-site construction was modeled at an average
distance of 205 feet, which represents the distance from the approximate center of the project site to
the nearest adjacent residential property line. Use of construction equipment at this distance is
estimated to result in noise levels between 64.4 dBA LEQ and 72.2 dBA LEQ depending on the phase of
construction. The two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each phase were modeled as being
used simultaneously. Paving and architectural coating phases of construction are not anticipated to
Page 169
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
85
result in noise levels exceeding 65 dBA LEQ at the adjacent residential property line. For the remaining
phases of construction (clearing/grubbing, grading, utility undergrounding, and building construction),
construction noise levels are anticipated to exceed 65 dBA LEQ at an adjacent residential property line,
thereby exceeding the applicable noise limit and resulting in potentially significant impacts.
To reduce exposure of nearby residents to construction noise in compliance with the City’s noise
standards of Development Code Section 17.66.050 as outlined in COA 5.13-1, the following PSA shall be
implemented.
PSA N-1 Construction Noise Best Management Practices. To reduce noise due to construction below
65 dBA LEQ at adjacent residential property lines, the project applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the City that the project complies with the following:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on Mondays through Saturdays. No construction activities may occur during
nighttime hours or at any time on Sundays or national holidays.
• During construction, stationary equipment shall be placed such that noise is
directed away from the nearest sensitive noise receivers to the extent feasible.
• Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-
required noise attenuation devices.
• The planned 6-foot-high perimeter block walls shall be erected to provide a solid
barrier between construction operations and adjacent residences to the north and
west. This is anticipated to involve construction of the block wall along the majority
of the western perimeter prior to clearing or rough grading, and subsequent
construction of the remaining perimeter walls on the north and south edges of the
site immediately following rough grading of the area. The barriers shall be solid and
constructed of a material with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 22
such as masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those
materials, so long as there are no cracks or gaps through or below the wall.
• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the project construction
site providing a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire
about the construction process and register complaints. This sign shall indicate the
dates and duration of construction activities. In conjunction with this required
posting, a noise disturbance coordinator shall be identified to address construction
noise concerns received. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to
local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the
disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and
determine the cause of the noise complaint and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City. All signs
posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone
number for the noise disturbance coordinator.
Page 170
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
86
As described in the PEIR, available construction noise attenuation measures such as muffler use or
temporary wall construction typically achieve a maximum noise reduction of 10 dBA. Some of the best
practices listed in PSA N-1 above are not readily quantifiable but would contribute to the minimization
of construction noise effects at neighboring residences. A 10 dBA reduction from the installation of
perimeter block walls at the start of construction and use of mufflers would reduce project construction
noise below 65 dBA LEQ. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site
or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project
would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project generate a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive
land uses in excess of the following standards?
a) Where noise levels currently do not exceed applicable noise compatibility standards in the
proposed General Plan Update Noise Element Table N-1 (e.g., 60 dBA CNEL for low density
residential and 70 dBA CNEL for high-density/infill uses) but would exceed Table N-1 standards
for the same land use as a result of project implementation; or
b) Where Table N-1 land use compatibility noise standards are currently exceeded, result in
substantial increases in noise (i.e., 3 dB where existing levels are below 65 dBA CNEL, 1 dB where
existing levels are between 70 dBA CNEL and 75 dBA CNEL, and no increase when existing levels
are above 75 dBA CNEL).
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that new development under the General Plan
Update would result in increased vehicular traffic and the associated traffic noise increases could result
in exposure of existing receptors or future planned development to substantial permanent noise
increases in excess of City standards. Although the General Plan Update’s land use pattern would reduce
traffic noise on some segments, the projected increases in traffic volumes would result in substantial
long-term increases in traffic noise along other segments. This impact would be potentially significant.
Implementation of COA 5.13-2, which requires project applicants to prepare a traffic noise study that
evaluates potential traffic noise impacts on existing noise sensitive receptors and implementation of
noise reduction measures, would routinely avoid exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial increases
in permanent traffic noise levels. However, the PEIR anticipated there may be cases where noise
reduction measures are either infeasible or inadequate for reducing traffic noise to less than significant
levels. Therefore, the PEIR concluded this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project proposes the construction of new single-family residences,
which would result in the generation of vehicle trips with the potential to increase noise levels along
surrounding roadways. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report for the proposed project (HELIX 2025d)
contains a traffic noise analysis and fulfills COA 5.13-2.
Traffic data from the PEIR with the addition of project-generated trips estimated from air quality
modeling were used to model traffic noise from Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue at nearby
representative locations for noise-sensitive land uses. It was determined that traffic noise levels in the
project vicinity would not exceed the exterior compatibility level of 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent
Page 171
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
87
Level (CNEL) for the majority of locations but would slightly exceed 60 dBA CNEL at two receivers. As
existing noise levels are below 65 dBA CNEL, the increase in noise from project-generated traffic would
be considered substantial if the project-related increase exceeds 3 dBA. With the addition of project-
generated traffic, noise levels would increase by 0.1 dBA at these locations. Therefore, the project
would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and no further traffic noise
reduction measures are required of the project. Traffic generated by the project would not result in
traffic noise levels exceeding the applicable standards and the project would not result in an effect
peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified
in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would
be less than significant.
3) Would the project generate a substantial permanent increase in stationary noise at noise-sensitive
uses in excess of the following standards, as measured at adjacent property line (exterior) or within a
neighboring home (interior)?
a) Exterior: 60 dBA (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.), 65 dBA (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.)
b) Interior: 45 dBA (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.), 50 dBA (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.)
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that new stationary equipment and activities
associated with development under the General Plan Update could result in substantial stationary noise
level increases that exceed adopted exterior, and therefore interior, noise standards. This impact would
be potentially significant.
However, implementation of COA 5.13-3 would require project applicants to analyze and mitigate
potential noise impacts from new stationary noise sources to comply with the City’s daytime standards
and nighttime standards as described in Development Code Section 17.66.050(F). Therefore, with the
implementation of proper noise-attenuating measures through adherence to COA 5.13-3, this impact
would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report for the proposed project (HELIX
2025d) contains a stationary noise source analysis and fulfills COA 5.13-3. Stationary sources of noise
associated with the project would include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units for
each residence. Traditional architectural materials are conservatively estimated to attenuate noise
levels by 15 dBA. Therefore, if the project achieves the exterior noise limits of 60 dBA between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. at adjacent residential property lines,
the project can also be presumed not to conflict with the interior noise limits of 45 dBA and 50 dBA for
the associated time periods.
The 4-ton HVAC units proposed as part of the project were modeled at their proposed locations
adjacent to each proposed residence and conservatively assumed to be in constant operation, with
receivers placed along adjacent property lines at a height of five feet. The calculated noise levels do not
consider the proposed block walls or fences that would separate the proposed residences from
neighboring properties and further attenuate noise levels.
Page 172
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
88
Noise levels generated at property lines shared with neighboring residences were calculated to be up to
43.9 dBA LEQ along the northern property line and up to 40.6 dBA LEQ along the eastern property line.
While there are no adjacent land uses directly abutting the project site’s eastern or southern property
lines, noise levels were also calculated at these locations, though noise experienced at existing
residences would be further reduced by both distance and intervening roadway noise. Noise levels were
calculated to be up to 44.5 dBA LEQ along the eastern property line and up to 44.5 dBA LEQ along the
southern property line. The project would not exceed the more restrictive nighttime property line noise
limit of 60 dBA LEQ. The project would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels from stationary
sources and would not exceed applicable exterior or interior standards. Therefore, the project would
not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than
the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b)
criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
4) Would the project expose new sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of the noise compatibility
standards identified in 2040 General Plan Noise Element Table N-1?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that new development associated with the
General Plan Update could potentially be in close proximity to existing roadways and existing or future
planned railroads, thereby exposing these uses to noise levels exceeding the compatibility standards
identified in Noise Element Table N-1. Thus, because specific land use development details were
unknown at the program level of analysis in the PEIR, it could not be guaranteed that noise levels in
Table N-1 would always be achievable. This impact would be potentially significant.
COAs 5.13-4a through 5.14-4e require project applicants to conduct noise assessments to determine
noise compatibility and, if incompatible noise levels are identified, require site-specific noise attenuation
measures to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. However, there may be cases where
noise reduction measures are either infeasible or inadequate for reducing traffic noise to less than
significant level. Therefore, because there may be cases where new development could result in
exposure to substantial permanent noise (traffic and rail) above standards in Table N-1, the PEIR
determined this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report prepared for the proposed
project (HELIX 2025d) utilized the applicable exterior noise standard for the project’s proposed single-
family residential land use of 60 dBA CNEL and the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL, consistent
with CBC regulations. The Noise and Vibration Technical also addresses the requirements of COAs 5.13-
4a, 5.13-4b, and 5.13-4c. As the project does not propose mixed-use development or transportation
improvements sponsored by other agencies, COAs 5.13-4d and 5.13-4e do not apply to the project.
Noise levels at each of the 13 proposed residential facades nearest adjacent roadways were estimated
with the addition of project-generated traffic to Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue. Traffic noise levels
at project residences would range from 43.3 to 59.1 dBA CNEL, which are below the exterior noise
standard of 60 dBA CNEL for the proposed single-family residential uses. Therefore, the proposed land
use for the project is compatible with the existing exterior noise environment as defined in the General
Plan Update Noise Element. Furthermore, traditional architectural materials are conservatively
estimated to attenuate noise levels by 15 dBA. Given exterior noise levels at the building façades do not
Page 173
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
89
exceed 60 dBA CNEL, interior noise levels would not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL limit set forth in the City
Noise Element and CBC. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site
or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project
would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
5) Would the project generate short-term construction vibration or exposure of new sensitive land uses
to long-term operational vibration sources that exceed the following?
a) Structural damage: 0.2 in/sec PPV,
b) For frequent events (i.e., more than 70 events per day): 65 VdB,
c) For occasional events (i.e., 30-70 events): 75 VdB, or
d) For infrequent (i.e., fewer than 30 events per day): 80 VdB.
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that due to the level of anticipated
development throughout the City as part of the General Plan Update, and the lack of specifically
identified construction activities, and their proximity to sensitive receptors, the possibility remains for
construction activities that generate vibrations in excess of established standards to occur, resulting in
potentially significant impacts related to disturbance to sensitive land uses and structural damage. In
addition, new sensitive land uses (as defined by the Federal Transit Administration’s Category 1 and 2
land uses) proposed within 600 feet of existing or new rail and 100 feet of existing or new bus service
could be exposed to excessive vibration levels, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of COA 5.13-5a would require that vibration generating construction activities do not
occur during sensitive times of the day and that vibration exposure to nearby receptors is minimized by
maximizing the distance between equipment and receptors, phasing operations, and predrilling holes
for potential piles. These vibration control measures were determined to result in compliance with
vibration threshold levels established to prevent structural damage. However, while these measures
would substantially lessen human annoyance resulting from vibration, at the PEIR’s programmatic level
of analysis it was not possible to conclude that all vibration levels would be reduced below human
annoyance levels. As a result, the PEIR determined this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of COA 5.13-5b and 5.13-5c, which require project specific vibration analyses for
vibration exposure of new sensitive land uses from nearby transit sources and for potential vibration
impacts from new transit projects, would ensure that new sensitive receptors located in proximity to
transit vibration sources would be adequately evaluated for vibration exposure. Implementation of the
COAs would typically result in vibration exposure levels below threshold values; however, because exact
rail locations, technologies, receptor types, and proximity to transit were unknown, the PEIR could not
conclude that new development would achieve acceptable vibration levels in all locations. As a result,
the PEIR determined this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The project proposes construction within 500 feet of
residential uses. In accordance with COA 5.15-5a, the Noise and Vibration Technical Report prepared for
Page 174
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
90
the proposed project (HELIX 2025d) provides a project-specific vibration analysis. The piece of
equipment required for project construction that generates the highest vibration level would be a
vibratory roller, which generates 0.210 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) and 94
vibration decibels (VdB) at 25 feet. A vibratory roller would be used to compact base fill and asphalt
during street construction, including for the widening of Hellman Avenue and internal project roadways.
Therefore, it is anticipated that a vibratory roller could be used at a minimum distance of 60 feet from
the nearest off-site residential structure to the east of Hellman Avenue and a minimum of 12 feet from
the existing, on-site residence.
At 60 feet, a vibratory roller would generate 0.056 in/sec PPV and 82.6 VdB. These vibration levels
generated by project construction would not exceed the structural damage criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV and
no structural damage impacts to off-site structures would occur. However, the FTA criteria of 80 VdB for
frequent events would be slightly exceeded and a potentially significant impact related to disturbance of
sensitive receptors could occur. Vibration from operation of a vibratory roller would be reduced below
80 VdB at a distance of 75 feet. It should be noted that a vibratory roller is a mobile piece of equipment
that would only generate vibration for an individual receptor for a short amount of time as it passes in
close proximity to the individual receptor. Nonetheless, measures to reduce exposure of nearby
residents to construction vibration would be required consistent with COA 5.13-5a. At 12 feet from the
existing on-site residence, a vibratory roller would generate 0.631 in/sec PPV, thereby exceeding the
structural damage criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV. As no residents occupy this structure, the human
annoyance criteria would not apply. Vibration from operation of a vibratory roller would be reduced
below 0.2 in/sec PPV at a distance of 26 feet. Therefore, measures to reduce the potential for structural
damage to the existing, on-site residence during construction would be required consistent with COA
5.13-5a.
As a residential development, the project does not propose components that would generate
substantial vibration during operations. There are also no known sources of substantial vibration, such
as rail lines, in the project vicinity that would result in the exposure of new sensitive receptors to
excessive vibration. COAs 5.13-5b and 5.13-5c do not apply to the project.
To reduce exposure of nearby residents to vibration effects and to prevent structural damage to the
historic residential structure on the site, the following project-specific actions consistent with those
recommended in COA 5.13-5a, as applicable, would be required during the use of vibratory equipment.
PSA N-2 Construction Vibration Best Management Practices. To reduce vibration impacts due to
construction, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the
project complies with the following:
• Ground vibration-producing activities shall be limited to the daytime hours between
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
• Construction contractor shall maximize the distance between vibratory construction
equipment and vibration-sensitive land uses when feasible.
• Minimum setback requirements for the purpose of preventing negative human
response are established at 75 feet for project construction activities involving the
use of a vibratory roller. Rollers may operate in static mode within 75 feet of
residential structures to reduce the effects of vibration at nearby receptors.
Page 175
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
91
• Minimum setback requirements for the purpose of preventing structural damage to
the existing residence on the project site are established at 26 feet for project
construction activities involving the use of a vibratory roller. Rollers may operate in
static mode within 26 feet of this structure to reduce the potential for structural
damage.
• If rollers are not operated within static mode while operating within 75 feet of an
off-site residential structure of 26 feet of the on-site residential structure, all
vibration-inducing activity within the established setback distance shall be
monitored and documented to compare recorded ground vibration noise and
vibration noise levels at affected sensitive land uses to the applicable vibration
threshold values. The results of recorded vibration data shall be submitted to the
City.
As the established setback distances and operating conditions listed in PSA N-2 would reduce the
potential for human disturbance and structural damage from construction vibration to exceed the
applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or
a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project
would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL NOISE ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to noise or vibration?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that no stationary or non-transportation noise
sources occurred in the surrounding area that would have a cumulative impact on noise-sensitive land
uses in the City. Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis primarily considered future roadway traffic
noise levels. The future cumulative transportation noise levels under the General Plan Update were
projected to exceed the City’s noise standards and the cumulative condition would include this noise
and any traffic noise resulting from growth outside of the City . Consequently, the General Plan Update’s
contribution would be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the COAs identified above would
reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative noise and vibration impacts, but not to a level that is
less than significant. Therefore, the PEIR determined cumulative impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As discussed in thresholds 2 above, the project would have a less than
significant impact in regard to increases in traffic noise levels and would therefore not substantially
affect the surrounding traffic noise environment. The project would not result in a new or more
significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and the project’s contribution to
increases in traffic noise throughout the City would not be cumulatively considerable.
Page 176
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
92
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area,
either directly (for
example, by
proposing new homes
and businesses) or
indirectly (for
example, through
extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL POPULATION AND HOUSING ANALYSIS
1) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update’s anticipated growth and
number of jobs over the planning period will be higher than the projection provided by SCAG for 2040 in
the RTP/SCS.
However, the General Plan Update would accommodate future growth in the City by providing for
infrastructure and public services to accommodate the projected growth. Proposed policies under the
General Plan Update’s Community Development Element also ensure that the City provides adequate
housing choices for various income levels. By focusing development in areas of the existing General Plan
that are designated for intense growth, the General Plan Update would not directly or indirectly result in
substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Implementation of the proposed project would
result in a less than significant impact relating to population growth.
Page 177
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
93
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in mostly
undeveloped land with no current residents, which would contribute to direct population growth
through the provision of new housing. Additionally, construction of the project would result in a
temporary direct increase in construction jobs in the area. However, as discussed previously in Section
4.11, the project is consistent with underlying land use and zoning designations and population growth
resulting from the project would not be unanticipated. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update’s planning period
buildout projects the development of approximately 25,685 new dwelling units. The combination of
adding residential uses to existing non-residential land use designations and focusing growth in areas of
the City that do not have high concentration of housing, and avoiding existing, established
neighborhoods, reduces the potential to displace substantial numbers of people or housing. As a result,
new development in the City would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and
the impact would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in mostly undeveloped land
with no current residents. Furthermore, the project would not remove the existing historic house that is
currently vacant and would not displace individuals or require the development of additional housing
elsewhere. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact would occur.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL POPULATION AND HOUSING ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to population and
housing?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development under the proposed General Plan
Update would not displace housing within the City. Because the City has no control over development in
other areas in the region, it would not contribute to the displacement of housing on other sites within
the region. In addition, the General Plan Update would be within the population and employment
projections in SCAG’s RTP/SCS growth forecasts. Further, the intent of the General Plan Update is to rely
on infill development for projected growth rather than annexation of land for development.
Development under the General Plan would be balanced to include employment opportunities as well
as residential options for residents at various income levels. By providing both housing and employment
Page 178
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
94
and maintaining a jobs housing balance better than current conditions, the General Plan Update would
not combine with other projects in the region to directly or indirectly to result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to induced growth in the region. The project’s impact would, therefore, be
less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As discussed in thresholds 1 and 2 above, the project involves the
development of 13 single-family homes in mostly undeveloped land with no current residents, which is
consistent with the project site’s underlying land use and zoning designations. The project’s anticipated
impact on population growth would be consistent with the General Plan Update and regional forecasts
and therefore planned. The project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than
identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Result in substantial
adverse physical
impacts associated
with the provision of
new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, need for
new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause
significant
environmental
impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable
service ratios,
response times or
other performance
objectives for any of
the public services:
i. Fire protection? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
ii. Police protection? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 179
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
95
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
iii. School Services? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
iv. Library Services? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in a
permanent population increase in the City by approximately 60,000 residents over the next 20 years, in
addition to an increase in the number of businesses operating within it. This increase in population and
business would increase the demand for fire protection services. However, based on consultation with
the RCFPD, the anticipated increases in population and businesses under the General Plan Update can
be adequately served by existing fire stations and the planned opening of Stations 178 and 179. If
service demands begin to exceed the service capacity of the existing and planned stations and their
current and proposed staffing, the Fire District will consider adding additional companies to the
response system. All existing stations, along with Stations 178 and 179, are able to accommodate
additional companies without having to physically expand the stations.
All development in the City that results from the implementation of the General Plan Update will be
reviewed by the Fire District for compliance with applicable provisions of the California fire and
residential codes and the Fire District’s Standards and Guidance documents. Because adoption of the
General Plan Update would not create an immediate need for increased or enhanced response capacity,
the impact of the adoption of the General Plan Update would be less than significant to fire protection.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in a
mostly vacant lot. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation for the project
site, and the PEIR analysis conducted above therefore captures the impacts of the proposed project.
Development in accordance with the General Plan Update, including the project, would be adequately
served by existing and planned fire stations. The project would also be constructed according to the
applicable provisions of the California fire and residential codes and the Fire District’s Standards and
Page 180
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
96
Guidance documents to minimize fire risk. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar
to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the
PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be
less than significant.
ii. Police protection?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update could result in the addition of approximately 60,000 residents from development throughout
the City, increasing the demand for police protection services. Upon implementation of the General Plan
Update, the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) would maintain appropriate staffing to ensure
compliance with local and regional standards for response time and coverage. Based on the
department’s current staffing ratio of 1 officer for every 1,614 residents, the incremental development
resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the demand for
approximately 37 additional law enforcement officers to maintain the current level of service. This
increase in demand for police services would be met through the hiring of additional staff, as needed,
which would be funded through existing funding mechanisms, such as the general fund revenue and
grant funding. The demand can be served with additional patrols; however, no additional police stations
would be required to support the additional officers. Therefore, impacts related to police services would
be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in a
mostly vacant lot. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation for the project
site, and the PEIR analysis conducted above therefore captures the impacts of the proposed project.
Although the project would result in an increase in police demand from existing conditions, the City
does not anticipate needing to expand existing police facilities as a result of future development such as
the project. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or
more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be
consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update could generate approximately 8,650 K-12 students, or approximately 665 per grade. The City’s
existing schools could likely serve these new students, but depending upon the location of new
development, new school facilities could be required. As development projects are proposed, the
appropriate school districts would be notified and would participate in the review process, which would
allow for school planning purposes. In addition, pursuant to SB 50, each of the school districts can
collect school impact fees as new development occurs, which would fund school resources. Though
these impact fees may not provide full funding for all necessary resources, exceeding school capacity
would not be considered a physical impact under CEQA, and payment of fees is considered full
mitigation. Therefore, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a less than
significant impact related to schools.
Page 181
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
97
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in a
mostly vacant lot, which would create an increase in permanent residents, including school-age children,
at the project site. The project would be required to pay the School District Development Fees for school
facilities described above; specifically, the project is within the Alta Loma Elementary School District and
would be required to pay the current fees for that district at the time of project approval. Therefore, the
project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact would occur.
iv. Library Services?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update
would increase the City’s population, leading to in turn increase the demand for library services. While
the City does not have any currently planned library facilities, the Development Impact Fee program was
developed to provide library space and replacement cost of the library’s collection. Library construction,
if needed in the future, would be subject to all applicable regulations, COAs, and mitigation measures
identified throughout the PEIR. There would be no additional impact with respect to the provision of
libraries. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to library services.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would develop 13 single-family homes which would contribute
to an increase in permanent residents at the project site. The project would be subject to the
Development Impact Fee for libraries, paying its fair share as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code.
Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more
significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent
with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact would occur.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to public services?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that potential cumulative impacts to public services
would be offset by development impact fees, in conjunction with the design requirements of the CBC
and California Fire Code, which would reduce the demand for police and fire services. Cumulative
impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As discussed in threshold 1 above, the project would not have a significant
impact on public services within the City and therefore would not contribute to a cumulative impact.
The project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impacts identified
in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 182
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
98
4.16 RECREATION
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or
be accelerated?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Include recreational
facilities or require
the construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL RECREATION ANALYSIS
1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the majority of the park needs of the additional
growth anticipated under buildout of the General Plan Update would be accommodated by the existing
parkland in the City and SOI. The remaining parkland would be accommodated by the numerous
availabilities of other park and recreational facilities in the City such as trails, special use and community
parks, recreational programs and amenities, joint-use school facilities, and accessible natural preserve
and open space areas within the newly acquired Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Area
to serve the proposed residents. Furthermore, new development under the General Plan would be
required to pay in-lieu fees and/or dedicate parkland to provide five acres of parkland. The availability of
new facilities would prevent the accelerated physical deterioration of existing facilities. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Page 183
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
99
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes in a
mostly vacant lot, which would create an increase in permanent residents. The project site does not
contain recreational uses or parkland. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s land use
designation for the project site, and the PEIR analysis conducted above therefore captures the impacts
of the proposed project. The project would have a minimal effect on the City’s existing park ratio and, as
a residential development, would be required to pay the necessary impact development fees. Therefore,
the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact would occur.
2) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that addressing the site-specific impacts of potential
parks would be beyond the scope of the PIR. Subsequent environmental review for individual park
developments would be required. Further, the potentially adverse impacts that may result from the
expansion of parks and recreational facilities pursuant to buildout of the proposed land use plan would
be reduced with the implementation of the General Plan Update’s goals and policies, and
implementation actions and existing federal, state, and local regulations. Impact related to the
construction and maintenance of parks would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
No impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes and does not involve the
creation of new recreational facilities. As stated above, the buildout of the General Plan Update would
not require recreation facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more
significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent
with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and no impact would occur.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL RECREATION ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Recreation?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that with the inclusion of the recently acquired North
Etiwanda Preserve into the City’s jurisdiction, in combination with the numerous availabilities of other
park and recreational facilities in the City such as trails, special use and mini parks, recreational
programs and amenities, and joint-use school facilities, there is more than adequate publicly available
recreational land within the City and its SOI to satisfy recreational opportunities for local residents.
Furthermore, by adhering to the requirements for provision of parkland and/or payment of
development impact fees, future and present residential developments in the City would provide parks
and recreational facilities to meet the City’s parkland standard by allocating sufficient funds and space
Page 184
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
100
for future parkland development. The General Plan Update’s contribution to demand for park and
recreation services would not be cumulatively considerable and would be a less than significant impact.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in thresholds 1 and 2 above, the project would not
substantially accelerate the deterioration of an existing facility nor would it involve the development of
or require a new recreational facility. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more
significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than
significant.
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Informati
on, More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Conflict with
program plan,
ordinance or
policy addressing
the circulation
system, including
transit, roadway,
bicycle and
pedestrian
facilities?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Conflict or be
inconsistent with
CEQA guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Substantially
increase hazards
due to a
geometric design
feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm
equipment)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 185
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
101
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Informati
on, More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
4) Result in
inadequate
emergency
access?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
1) Would the project conflict with program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not conflict with
regional active transportation plans, transit plans, or other mobility infrastructure policies. However, the
RTP/SCS (RTP ID Number 200152) identifies a new interchange at the intersection of Arrow Route and
Interstate 15, which the General Plan would eliminate, creating a potential inconsistency with the
RTP/SCS. VMT forecasting with and without this future interchange was completed, which indicated that
removing the Arrow Route interchange with Interstate15 would result in a benefit to VMT within the
City, making the impact less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would not conflict with any programs, plans, or policies
regarding the circulation system, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Development would adhere to the City’s
Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places and Title 17, Development Code of the City’s Municipal
Code and would not inhibit improvements to the circulation system; conversely, the project would add
circulation improvements including Streets “A” and “B,” where roads does not currently exist. As
described in Section 4.9 (threshold 6), the project would not result in changes to the circulation system
that could interfere with emergency evacuation during project operation. Therefore, the project would
not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than
the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b)
criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that although the findings from the VMT
assessment’s modeling prepared for the General Plan Update indicate that the project is beneficial from
a VMT efficiency perspective (and the proposed General Plan Update is expected to produce VMT at a
rate that would not result in a significant impact), the uncertainty related to future fuel prices, driving
Page 186
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
102
habits of residents, and future legislative policy could dramatically influence VMT production in the City
during the horizon of this General Plan. In addition, it is probable that some development projects may
be proposed and considered before the citywide improvements envisioned by the General Plan Update
can be completed. As the modeling assumes a fully implemented General Plan Update that will reduce
VMT, projects that occur before buildout may increase VMT until the cumulative condition is reached.
Although COAs 5.17-1, 5.17-2, and 5.17-3 would be applied to projects (based on thresholds established
within the COAs) in order to reduce VMT in the City, the effectiveness of these measures on a project-
by-project basis is uncertain and thus impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. Per Resolution 2020-056, the City adopted the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (Fehr and Peers 2020), which established VMT Impact thresholds
based on the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model to measure and analyze a project’s VMT and
its impact. For projects generating less than 250 daily vehicle trips (generally corresponding to 25 single
family housing units), the City Guidelines assume that VMT impacts would be less than significant. Given
the project’s size and proposed residential components, COAs 5.17-1, 5.17-2, and 5.17-3 would not
apply to the project. The project screens out of a VMT impact analysis as required under COA 5.17-1
because its average daily traffic (ADT) is below the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines threshold of 250
trips, the project would not have more than 250 employees so COA 5.17-2 would not apply, and the
project would not be of scale to require traffic-related amenities meant to reduce VMT under COA 5.17-
3. The project is anticipated to have an ADT of up to 124 according to the project’s Air Quality Impact
Analysis (HELIX 2025a) and traffic impacts would therefore be less than significant. As such, no new
impact would result compared to the PEIR. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar
to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the
PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria despite its significant and
unavoidable impact.
3) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the City’s adopted engineering standards would
ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. Additionally, all plans undergo an
extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all
future projects would be subject to these reviews, this impact is considered less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would undergo development review by the City engineer to
ensure the project would not result in hazards. The project was designed according to Title 12 Streets,
Sidewalks, and Public Places and Title 17, Development Code of the City’s Municipal Code, which
establishes design requirements for streets, sidewalks, and driveway improvements to preserve traffic
safety. Specifically, Section 12.20.060 requires that every street project on public or private streets
would incorporate complete streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and
across the right-of-way for each category of users. On-site circulation improvements would include
Streets “A” and “B,” which would provide access to the proposed residential driveways. This project
component is not expected to create a sharp curve or dangerous intersection and would be an
Page 187
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
103
improvement upon existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to
the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR.
The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than
significant.
4) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that with the City’s adopted standards related to
emergency accessibility, along with the review of all development applications by the RCFPD, would
ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Since all
future projects would undergo such reviews and requirements, this impact is considered less than
significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project’s design incorporates a through-street system connecting
proposed Streets A and B. In combination with existing Hellman Avenue and Banyan Street, the project’s
circulation would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles to the residential lots within the
project site. The proposed through-street configuration, which would include sufficient roadway width,
would improve overall emergency response capability and ensure compliance with applicable fire and
safety access requirements. In addition, as described in threshold 2 above, the project would not
increase traffic at a level that would pose a safety hazard. Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to transportation and
traffic?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan Update is
anticipated to improve regional VMT/service population, enhancing overall travel efficiency in the area.
However, short-term inconsistency with the reduction in VMT was determined to be potentially
significant, and there was no mitigation identified that could accelerate the construction of the land plan
and mobility improvements envisioned by the General Plan Update. The cumulative condition
demonstrates that at buildout, the General Plan Update will be consistent with the reduction of VMT in
both the City and regional context. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable in the
short-term, and less than cumulatively considerable at buildout.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in threshold 2, the project would not generate substantial
VMT that would contribute to cumulative traffic increase. The project would also not cause any other
significant impacts related to traffic such as conflict with plans or creating hazards. Therefore, the
Page 188
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
104
project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the
PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1)Cause a substantial
adverse change in
the significance of a
tribal cultural
resource, defined in
Public Resources
Code Section 21074
as either a site,
feature, place,
cultural landscape
that is
geographically
defined in terms of
the size and scope
of the landscape,
sacred place, or
object with cultural
value to a California
Native American
tribe, and that is:
i.Listed or eligible
for listing in the
California Register
of Historical
Resources, or in a
local register of
historical
resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒None
Page 189
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
105
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
ii.A resource
determined by
the lead agency,
in its discretion
and supported by
substantial
evidence, to be
significant
pursuant to
criteria set forth
in subdivision (c)
of Public
Resources Code
section 5024.1? In
applying the
criteria set forth
in subdivision (c)
of Public
Resources Code
section 5024.1,
the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a
California Native
American tribe.
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
5.18-1,
5.18-2,
5.18-3,
5.18-4,
5.18-5,
5.18-6,
and 5.18-
7
PROJECT-LEVEL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
1)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i.listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
ii.a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1.?
Page 190
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
106
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that with the implementation of the General Plan
Update’s goals and policies regarding cultural resources and the Native American consultation process
required by SB 18 and AB 52, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
At the time of future development, the City will consult with tribes and identify COAs to be
implemented on a project level basis.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the Archaeological
Resources Survey conducted for the project determined that there are no historical or cultural resources
on the project site (HELIX 2025c). Although the NAHC SLF Search was positive, no specific data on the
location or nature of the sacred sites associated with the project was provided. Furthermore, it was
determined that the archaeological material found on site is not eligible to the CRHR as it is not likely to
yield information important in prehistory or history. In accordance with COAs 5.18-3 and 5.18-4an
archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented that would include attendance by the
archaeologist and a Native American monitor at a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor
and the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during initial ground disturbing
activities on site. Both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to
temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground disturbing activity in the event that cultural
resources are encountered. If significant tribal cultural material is encountered, the Native American
monitor would coordinate with the applicant and City staff to develop and implement appropriate
mitigation measures as described by COAs 5.18-1 through 5.18-7. Through the implementation of the
recommended monitoring program, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site
or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project
would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to tribal cultural
resources?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that COAs and the policies from the General Plan
Update indicated would apply to both the General Plan Update and the project-specific CEQA review for
future development in the City. Therefore, any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources from the project
or related projects would be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore, project impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in threshold 1 above, with the implementation of COAs 5.18-1
through 5.18-7, the project would not result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and would
therefore not contribute to a cumulative impact. The project would not result in a new or more
significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Page 191
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
107
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
Would the project:
1) Require or result in
the relocation or
construction of new
or expanded water,
wastewater
treatment or storm
water drainage,
electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the
construction or
relocation of which
could cause
significant
environmental
effects?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Have insufficient
water supplies
available to serve the
project site and
reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater
treatment provider
which serves or may
serve the project site
that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the
projected demand in
addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 192
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
108
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
4) Generate solid waste
in excess of State or
local standards, or in
excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair
the attainment of
solid waste reduction
goals?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Not comply with
federal, state, and
local management
and reduction
statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
1) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the City’s sewer and wastewater treatment
systems and water supply and delivery systems are adequate to serve the General Plan Update, as
addressed below in thresholds 3 and 2 respectively. In addition, the continued implementation of the
Master Plan of Drainage Westside Area and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its
associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage, would fund the improvement of the storm drainage
systems in these areas. Storm drainage system improvements in other areas of the City are constructed
in accordance with the storm drain plan in the applicable Specific Plan or Community Plan. Compliance
with this standard condition would result in the development and/or improvement of the storm
drainage systems and prevention of flood hazards. The potential environmental impacts of construction
of the necessary storm drain facilities would be assessed on a project-by-project basis as proposed
projects pursuant to the General Plan Update is implemented. Thus, impacts related to flooding or
drainage system capacity of water bodies downstream of the site would be less than significant.
Page 193
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
109
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated above, the PEIR determined that the City would be able to
accommodate the increase in utility demand resulting from the General Plan. The project is consistent
with the site’s land use designation under the General Plan and would therefore be consistent with the
growth projections under the General Plan. As described in threshold 2 below, the project is consistent
with the General Plan’s land use designation for the site and can be adequately served by existing water
supplies. As described in threshold 3 below, the project is consistent with the General Plan’s land use
designation for the site and can be adequately served by existing wastewater facilities. As discussed in
Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would provide connections to the existing
stormwater system. The project can be adequately served by existing electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities in the project vicinity, as it would connect to existing lines in addition to
new water and sewer lines across Streets “A” and “B.” Therefore, the project would not result in an
effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact
identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and
impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project site and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is
projected to have adequate water supplies through 2045. In addition, water conservation efforts by
CVWD and the City will help to make the City more resilient during drought periods and future climate
change impacts. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in threshold 1 above, the project is consistent with the site’s land
use designation and would not increase water use in excess of the projected 2045 supply. Sufficient
water supplies exist to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to
the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR.
The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than
significant.
3) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project site that it has inadequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s Wastewater
Treatment Plants (specifically Regional Plant No.4 with a treatment capacity of 14 million gallons per
day) are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Regional Collection System’s needs through
2030 and would result in a less than significant impact.
Page 194
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
110
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated above, the PEIR concluded that the projected growth under the
General Plan would not place a burden on regional wastewater treatment facilities; the project is
consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation for the project site, and therefore, would be
consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar
to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the
PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be
less than significant.
4) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the existing facilities that serve the City, such as
Burrtec’s West Valley Material Recovery Facility and Mid-Valley Landfill (with an anticipated close date
of 2045) have ample capacity to accommodate increased volumes of waste from the City through 2040,
and impacts would be less than significant.
County regularly updates its master planning as needed to accommodate future demand and would
take the General Plan projections into consideration. In addition, the City would implement the General
Plan goals and waste reduction laws and regulations within the City. Impacts were determined to be less
than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project involves the development of 13 single-family homes, which
would increase the amount of solid-waste produced by the site. However, the project is consistent with
the General Plan’s land use designation for the project site. As a result, the growth assumptions under
the General Plan capture the potential impacts of the project, and the project would not generate solid
waste beyond existing capacities, per the PEIR conclusion above. Therefore, the project would not result
in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the
impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria
and impacts would be less than significant.
5) Would the project not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development under the General Plan would
comply with the CALGreen Building Code Standards, which requires that at least 65 percent of
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be
recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Furthermore, the proposed project would also comply with the
requirements of AB 341 that mandates recycling for commercial land uses. Additionally, any organic
waste generated in amounts over a certain threshold would be recycled in accordance with AB 1826.
Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste
regulations and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 195
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
111
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project would comply with the established laws and regulations
regarding solid waste minimization described above, such as including AB 341 and AB 1826. Therefore,
the project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-
specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA
Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Utilities and Service
Systems?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the increase in housing and population associated
with the implementation of the General Plan is not anticipated to have significant impacts on local utility
providers, which regularly consider growth projections in future capacity planning. Compliance with
relevant General Plan Update policies and applicable regulations on a project-by-project basis would
ensure a significant cumulative impact on the City’s utilities infrastructure does not occur. Cumulative
impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in thresholds 1 through 5 above, the project would not result
in significant impacts to utilities, and local providers would be able to accommodate the utility demand
of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect
than the impact identified in the PEIR, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
4.20 WILDFIRE
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or
lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
1) Substantially impair
an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
Page 196
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
112
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
COAs
2) Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and
other factors,
exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby
expose project
occupants to,
pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread
of a wildfire?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Require the
installation or
maintenance of
associated
infrastructure such as
roads fuel breaks,
emergency water
sources, power lines
or other utilities that
may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result
in temporary or
ongoing impacts to
the environment?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Expose people or
structures to
significant risks,
including downslope
or downstream
flooding or landslides,
as a result or runoff,
post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
PROJECT-LEVEL WILDFIRE ANALYSIS
1) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Page 197
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
113
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that buildout of the City under the proposed General
Plan Update would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access
routes identified in the City’s LHMP and EOP. To ensure emergency services are not impaired by future
development, all development projects in the City and SOI are reviewed by the RCFPD prior to approval
for compliance with the applicable fire and building codes established by the City. Additionally,
proposed General Plan policies S-1.3, S-1.4, S-1.5, S-1.6, S-1.7, and S-1.9 would ensure effective
emergency response. Therefore, proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and this impact would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project is not located within or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) (California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection [CAL FIRE] 2025). Regardless, the project would be designed in compliance with applicable
building standards related to emergency access and would undergo plan review to ensure no significant
impacts to emergency access occur. As described in threshold 4.17(3), the project would not increase
traffic to a level that would pose a safety hazard. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect
peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified
in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would
be less than significant.
2) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the City and its SOI are vulnerable to and at
significant risk of wildfires. The Wildland Urban Interface Area (WUIFA) in the City includes areas
potentially threatened by wildfires based on historical fire activity and prevalent vegetation types.
Residential neighborhoods, commercial zones, and open space areas are all located in the WUIFA.
Development associated with buildout of the General Plan Update would result in new development in
the WUIFA and would place more assets in VHFHSZs. To protect development, the City requires
adherence to a wide range of state and local codes (California Fire Code, CAL FIRE fire safe design
requirements, City Fire and Public Works Standards, RCFPD wildfire requirements, and other standards).
With adherence to the above building practices and wildfire management requirements, development
associated with the General Plan buildout would not exacerbate wildfire risk and impacts would be less
than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project site is in the central urbanized portion of the City and does not
contain steep slopes. As stated in threshold 1 above, the project site is not within or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025). Regardless, the project would
adhere to the necessary state and local codes. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect
peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified
Page 198
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
114
in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would
be less than significant.
3) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan Update would result
in additional infrastructure, such as roadways and transmission lines, in underdeveloped and
undeveloped areas of the City and SOI in order to serve new development, some of which would likely
be constructed in the WUIFA or VHFHSZs. To protect development in these areas from the risk of
wildfire, the City requires adherence to a wide range of state and local codes, including regulations
under the California Fire Code, CAL FIRE fire safe design requirements, City Fire and Public Works
standards ,RCFPD wildfire requirements, and other standards and recommendations as outlined in the
City’s EOP, Evacuation Assessment, LHMP, and the City’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Additionally, the General Plan Update includes Policies S-1.1 through S-1.9 and S-3.1 through S- 3.8 to
minimize risk from wildfire hazards. With adherence to these building practices and policies, buildout
under the General Plan Update would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in threshold 1 above, the project is not within or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025). The project site involves the
development of an existing commercial building with a similar use. Fire hydrants and fire water service
already exist on the project site, and the project would maintain connections to these utilities. While
additional utilities would be constructed as part of the project such as water lines, sewer lines, and
underground power lines, the potential impacts to the environment would be temporary in nature and
cease once construction is completed. Therefore, the project would not result in an effect peculiar to
the project site or a new or more significant project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR.
The project would be consistent with the CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than
significant.
4) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that adherence to Municipal Code regarding
development and General Plan Update policies within the General Plan Update would endure that
impacts associated with the General Plan Update’s buildout would not exacerbate fire risk. Adherence
to other requirements mentioned above in threshold 3 such as regulations under the California Fire
Code, CAL FIRE fire safe design requirements, and City Fire and Public Works standards would ensure
that impacts associated with the General Plan Update’s buildout would not exacerbate wildfire risk. This
includes potential development in flood hazard areas managed by Municipal Code chapter 19.12 and
Page 199
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
115
policies S-4.1 through S-4.5, in addition to areas with steep slopes, such as hillsides, regulated by
Municipal Code chapter 17.52.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. The project site is in the urbanized portion of the City and is relatively flat
and therefore would not be subject to landslides. The project site is not in a flood hazard area defined
by FEMA (FEMA 2016), nor is it within or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a VHFHSZ
(CAL FIRE 2025). Therefore, the project would not be subject to risks from post-fire slop instability or
runoff. The project would not result in an effect peculiar to the project site or a new or more significant
project-specific effect than the impact identified in the PEIR. The project would be consistent with the
CEQA Section 15183(b) criteria and impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE-LEVEL WILDFIRE ANALYSIS
Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to wildfires?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that development associated with the buildout
of the General Plan Update would result in new development within the WUIFA and would place more
assets in VHFHSZs, which presents a challenge for fire protection and suppression. With adherence to
the applicable building practices and wildfire management requirements, development associated with
the General Plan Update’s buildout would reduce wildfire risk; however, when combined with past and
future development in the adjacent cities and unincorporated County area, the project’s contribution to
the cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. While project specific impacts would be less
than significant with the implementation of regulatory requirements, the General Plan Update’s
contribution to the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in thresholds 1 through 4 above, the project site is not within
or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025). Therefore, the project
would not result in a new or more significant cumulative effect than the impact identified in the PEIR,
and impacts would be less than significant.
5.0 APPLICABLE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AND PROJECT SPECIFIC ACTIONS
Aesthetics
5.1-2: Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a
solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the
subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows
by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar
objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
Page 200
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
116
Air Quality
5.3-1: The City shall ensure that discretionary development will incorporate best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce emissions to be less than applicable thresholds. These BMPs include
but are not limited to the most recent South Coast AQMD recommendations for construction
BMPs (per South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2016 AQMP, and SCAG’s Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan for the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, or as otherwise identified by South Coast AQMD).
5.3-3: The City shall ensure that discretionary development that will generate fugitive dust
emissions during construction activities will, to the extent feasible, incorporate BMPs that
exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403 requirements to reduce emissions to be less than
applicable thresholds.
Biological Resources
5.4-4: To avoid conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald/Golden Eagle Protection
Act, construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September
16 and March 14. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 15 and
September 15), a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist is
recommended prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. If the
biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be
allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines
that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around
the nest; the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of
construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial
photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological
monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve
as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to
ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey
and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the City.
PSA B-1 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Clearance Survey. To ensure burrowing owl have
remained absent from the project site and will not be impacted by the project, a
preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with
CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first
14-30 days prior to ground disturbing activities and the second within 24 hours immediately
before ground disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed onsite, no further
review will be required.
Although not anticipated, if burrowing owl are found onsite during the pre-construction
clearance surveys, coordination will need to occur with the CDFW to determine if avoidance
and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to
burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 2081 of the CESA will need to
be prepared and approved by CDFW consistent with COA 5.4-3.
Page 201
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
117
PSA B-2 Pre-Construction Crotch’s Bumble Bee Clearance Survey.
To ensure the Crotch’s bumble bee would not be impacted by the project, a pre-
construction clearance survey for Crotch’s bumble bee shall be performed prior to ground-
disturbing activities to ensure the species is not adversely affected by proposed project
implementation.
Although not anticipated, if Crotch’s bumble bee are found onsite during the pre-
construction clearance survey, coordination will need to occur with the CDFW to determine
if avoidance and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or indirect
impacts to crotch's bumble bee, or if an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 2081 of the
CESA will need to be prepared and approved by CDFW consistent with COA 5.4-3.
PSA B-3 Pre-Construction Bat Clearance Survey. The following measure shall be implemented to
avoid any direct or indirect impacts to western yellow bat consistent with the requirements
of COA 5.4-3. Prior to any vegetation removal, structure demolition, or activities that may
disturb potential bat roosting habitat, a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a pre-
construction bat clearance survey. The survey shall be performed within 14 days of the start
of ground-disturbing or tree removal. The biologist shall evaluate suitable roosting features,
including trees, palms, buildings, or other structures, for evidence of bat use such as guano,
staining, urine marks, feeding remains, or auditory/visual detections. When dense skirts are
present on palm trees, a two-day gradual trimming process may be used to encourage
voluntary bat dispersal, unless an active maternity roost is identified.
If occupied maternity roost(s) are identified during the pre-construction survey, no
construction or tree removal activities shall occur within 500 feet during the maternity
roosting season (March 1 through September 30) or until a qualified bat biologist
determines the roost is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate the 500-
foot no work buffer(s), which shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
If no bat sign or activity is detected, the biologist may clear the area and construction may
proceed.
Cultural Resources
5.5-1: If a future project pursuant to the General Plan Update contains a designated Historical
Landmark, the site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable Historic
Landmark Alteration Permit. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to,
exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or
structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or
structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Certificate of
Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
5.5-2: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated
with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5
and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
Page 202
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
118
5.5-5: To ensure that projects requiring the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical
resource would not impact its significance, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatments of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent possible. The application
of the standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect
meeting the Professionally Qualified Standards. Prior to any construction activities that may
affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-
defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
5.5-6: If a proposed project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of historical
resource, it cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, recordation of the
resource prior to construction activities will assist in reducing adverse impacts to the resource to
the greatest extent possible. Recordation shall take the form of Historic American Buildings
Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, or Historic American Landscape Survey
documentation, and shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the
Professionally Qualified Standards. Documentation shall include an architectural and historical
narrative; medium- or large-format black and white photographs, negatives, and prints; and
supplementary information such as building plans and elevations, and/or historical photographs.
Documentation shall be reproduced on archival paper and placed in appropriate local, state, or
federal institutions. The specific scope and details of documentation would be developed at the
project level.
5.5-7: If cultural resources that are eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places,
California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register are identified within or adjacent to
the proposed development, the construction limits shall be clearly flagged to ensure impacts to
eligible cultural resources are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. Prior to
implementing construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall verify that the flagging
clearly delineates the construction limits and eligible resources to be avoided. Since the location
of some eligible cultural resources is confidential, these resources will be flagged as
environmentally sensitive areas.
5.5-8: Because the archaeological assessment performed for the project identified the areas as
highly sensitive but no significant resources were identified, consistent with 5.5-8b): a qualified
archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in
areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel
prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological
discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial onsite safety
meeting, and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant
archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are
exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an
archaeologist who meets the PQS. If the discovery proves to be significant, it shall be curated
with a recognized scientific or educational repository.
Geology and Soils
5.7-2: All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans
shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Department
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Page 203
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
119
5.7-4: The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5.7-5: A separate grading 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 plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California
registered Civil Engineer.
5.7-7: If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or
during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction
activities, and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations
regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be
appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
o Assign a paleontological monitor, trained, and equipped to allow the rapid removal of
fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-
disturbing activities.
o Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth disturbing
activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel
make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and
notify the monitor of the find.
o Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary
report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
o Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens
with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
PSA H-1 Removal of OCP Contaminated Soil. The OCP contaminated soil shall be removed from the
Site and disposed of in accordance with local and state regulations prior to any future
development or soil disturbance. Additional sampling and laboratory testing of OCPs within
the exposed soils at the bottom of the remedial excavations shall be performed by GeoTek
to confirm that adequate remediation has been achieved.
If soil removal is not feasible, dieldrin and toxaphene impacted soils are proposed to be
placed within areas where there is limited potential for future exposure. GeoTek
recommends that the dieldrin and toxaphene impacted soils in the areas of samples A5, A9,
A13, A14, A16 and A17, which are anticipated to be located at a maximum depth of six (6)
inches below original ground, be excavated and stockpiled on the site. The limits of
excavation are based on 6 (six) “grid areas” of tainted soils, with each grid equivalent to 133
square foot by 84 foot and a depth of six (6) inches of tainted soil. The amount of impacted
soils that will need to be buried are estimated at a minimum of approximately 1,242 cubic
yards for contractual and estimating purposes. Additional sampling and laboratory testing of
Page 204
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
120
OCPs within the exposed soils at the bottom of the remedial excavations should be
performed by GeoTek to confirm adequate remediation has been achieved. When removals
of compressible materials are accomplished for the Site, the dieldrin and toxaphene
impacted soils shall be placed two (2) feet below the deepest utilities located in the street
areas. Non-impacted soils should be utilized to “cap” these areas with a minimum of 5 feet
of materials.
PSA H-2 Grading Verification Samples. Verification samples shall be taken during the grading
activities. Soils utilized for capping the street areas shall be sampled and tested in the
laboratory to verify that these materials are suitable and not impacted by the pesticides.
At the completion of grading, one (1) verification sample from each lot is recommended to
be collected and submitted to a state certified laboratory for analysis of organochlorinated
pesticides. If laboratory testing determines that any of the materials located near the finish
surface of the building pads are tainted by the pesticides, additional grading will need to be
accomplished to remove the tainted materials from near finish pad grades.
PSA H-3 Storage Tank Removal. The two (2) unmarked above-ground storage tanks shall be properly
removed by a qualified professional prior to any future development in this area.
Hydrology and Water Quality
5.10-1: A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to
final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
5.10-2: Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
Noise
PSA N-1 Construction Noise Best Management Practices. To reduce noise due to construction below
65 dBA LEQ at adjacent residential property lines, the project applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the City that the project complies with the following:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on Mondays through Saturdays. No construction activities may occur during
nighttime hours or at any time on Sundays or national holidays.
• During construction, stationary equipment shall be placed such that noise is
directed away from the nearest sensitive noise receivers to the extent feasible.
• Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-
required noise attenuation devices.
• The planned 6-foot-high perimeter block walls shall be erected to provide a solid
barrier between construction operations and adjacent residences to the north and
west. This is anticipated to involve construction of the block wall along the majority
Page 205
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
121
of the western perimeter prior to clearing or rough grading, and subsequent
construction of the remaining perimeter walls on the north and south edges of the
site immediately following rough grading of the area. The barriers shall be solid and
constructed of a material with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 22
such as masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those
materials, so long as there are no cracks or gaps through or below the wall.
• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the project construction
site providing a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire
about the construction process and register complaints. This sign shall indicate the
dates and duration of construction activities. In conjunction with this required
posting, a noise disturbance coordinator shall be identified to address construction
noise concerns received. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to
local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the
disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and
determine the cause of the noise complaint and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City. All signs
posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone
number for the noise disturbance coordinator.
PSA N-2 Construction Vibration Best Management Practices. To reduce vibration impacts due to
construction, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the
project complies with the following:
• Ground vibration-producing activities shall be limited to the daytime hours between
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
• Construction contractor shall maximize the distance between vibratory construction
equipment and vibration-sensitive land uses when feasible.
• Minimum setback requirements for the purpose of preventing negative human
response are established at 75 feet for project construction activities involving the
use of a vibratory roller. Rollers may operate in static mode within 75 feet of
residential structures to reduce the effects of vibration at nearby receptors.
• Minimum setback requirements for the purpose of preventing structural damage to
the existing residence on the project site are established at 26 feet for project
construction activities involving the use of a vibratory roller. Rollers may operate in
static mode within 26 feet of this structure to reduce the potential for structural
damage.
• If rollers are not operated within static mode while operating within 75 feet of an
off-site residential structure of 26 feet of the on-site residential structure, all
vibration-inducing activity within the established setback distance shall be
monitored and documented to compare recorded ground vibration noise and
vibration noise levels at affected sensitive land uses to the applicable vibration
threshold values. The results of recorded vibration data shall be submitted to the
City.
Page 206
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
122
Tribal Cultural Resources
5.18-1: Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, cultural
resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or
environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall
be followed. Cultural resources are defined as being multiple artifacts in close association with
each other, but also include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of
significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the
Native American Tribe(s).
g) All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural
resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer,
the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Planning Director to
discuss the significance of the find.
h) At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after
consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision
shall be made, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the
appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the
cultural resources.
i) Grading or further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the
discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the
appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer
area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.
j) Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent
with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements
entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the
cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural
resources located in native soils and/or re-burial on the Project property so they
are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-
Disclosure of Reburial Locations Condition.
k) If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been
achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project
archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City
for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.
l) Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred
method of preservation for archaeological resources and tribal cultural
resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or
the mitigation for the archaeological or tribal cultural resources, these issues
will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The City’s Planning
Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological and tribal cultural
resources, recommendations of the project archaeologist, and shall take into
account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe.
Page 207
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
123
Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the
City Planning Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission
and/or City Council.
5.18-2: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall
be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
b) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be
employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department:
iv) Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation
in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where
they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the
resources.
v) Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for
reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to
protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity.
Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic
recording has been completed, with an exception that sacred items,
burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any
reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and
location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV
report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a
confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
vi) If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources
shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a San Bernardino
County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office
of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The
collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title,
and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees by the Applicant
necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a
letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological
materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be
provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or
invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American
human remains, as defined by the cultural and religious practices of the
Most Likely Descendant. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent
discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.
5.18-3: Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall
retain a qualified Registered Professional Archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Registered
Professional Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all
Page 208
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
124
initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including
clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials,
rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Registered Professional Archaeologist and the
Tribal monitor(s), shall independently have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt
the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of
cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The
developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Planning
Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the
Planning Department shall clear this condition. In addition, the Registered Professional
Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall
develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB
52 to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities
that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52
tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process,
and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section
21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
d) Project grading and development scheduling;
e) The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-
grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors,
and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to
those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural
sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could
potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the
monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent
discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and
appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and
any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will
conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following
the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning
work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make
themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis;
f) The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and
Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall
be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
5.18-4: Native American Monitoring. Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all
ground-disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock
crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the
requesting Tribe. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of
signed contract between the Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the
project to the Planning Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s)
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities
to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
Page 209
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
125
5.18-5: Archeology Report- Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit
holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data
Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring
Report that complies with the Community Development Department’s requirements for such
reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Planning Department
shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are
adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the
report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton and one (1) copy shall
be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).
5.18-6: Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Bernardino County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code
Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision
as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Bernardino County Coroner
determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall
be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall identify the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant
shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the
remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
5.18-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations. It is understood by all parties that unless
otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or
associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure
requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific
exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be
asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific
exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed December 1, 2025.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Find your Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (FHSZ) and local public contacts. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-
do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed
December 8, 2025.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025. EnviroStor database. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=12471+Washington+Boulevard.
Accessed December 2, 2025.
Page 210
Banyan 13 Project | April 2026
126
California Department of Transportation. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available
at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805
7116f1aacaa. Accessed December 1, 2025.
ELMT Consulting (ELMT). 2025. Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project Located at
6048 Hellman Avenue. Updated December 10.
Encompass Associates, Inc. (Encompass). 2024. Preliminary Drainage Study for Tentative Tract Map
20756. November 13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (06071C7890J).
Available at: https://www.fema.gov/. Accessed December 18, 2025.
Fehr and Peers. 2020. City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. June.
GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek). 2025a. Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for the Proposed Single-Family
Residential Development (Hellman 13 Lots).
2025b. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for Tract no. 20756 6048
Hellman Avenue.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2025a. Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Banyan 13 Project.
December.
2025b. Historical Resource Assessment for 6048 Hellman Avenue. March.
2025c. Archeological Resources Study for the Banyan 13 Project. December.
2025d. Noise and Vibration Technical Report for the Banyan 13 Project. January.
Knapp & Associates. 2025. Arboriculture Inspection Report for 6048 Hellman Avenue, Tract 20756.
December 4.
Ontario, City of. 2018. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Amended July.
Available at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-
development/planning/planning-programs/ontario-international-airport-inter. Accessed
December 19, 2025.
Rancho Cucamonga, City of (City). 2025.Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist for Project #
DRC2024-00416, SUBT 20756.
2021. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update & Climate Action Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report State Clearing House 2021050261.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker database. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=12471+Washington
+Boulevard%2C+Whittier%2C+CA. Accessed December 2, 2025.
Page 211
6048 Hellman Avenue
Historical Resource Assessment
March 2025 | 00994.00002.001
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942Exhibit D
Page 212
This page intentionally left blank
Page 213
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 State Regulation .................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Local Regulations ................................................................................................................ 8
3.0 CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS........................................................................................................... 10
4.0 RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Cultural Resource Records Search .................................................................................... 10
4.2 Additional Research .......................................................................................................... 11
5.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Residence .......................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Barn ................................................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Property ............................................................................................................................ 23
6.0 HISTORIC CONTEXTS ...................................................................................................................... 25
6.1 Rancho Cucamonga .......................................................................................................... 25
7.0 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE .................................................................................................................. 29
7.1 Spanish Revival, 1915-1940 .............................................................................................. 29
8.0 SITE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................. 31
9.0 EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 35
9.1 Previous Evaluation........................................................................................................... 35
9.2 NRHP and CRHR Eligibility ................................................................................................. 35
9.3 Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark Eligibility ............................................................. 38
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 39
11.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 41
12.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 42
Page 214
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Resumes of Key Personnel
B DPR 523 Series Forms
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
Figure 1. Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. USGS Topography .......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Aerial image of 6048 Hellman Avenue, 2025 (Google Earth). ..................................................... 12
Figure 5. Overview of 6048 Hellman Avenue, view east. ........................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Overview of east/northeast (primary) façades, view southwest. ............................................... 15
Figure 7. Northeast corner including courtyard, view southwest. ............................................................. 16
Figure 8. Northeast corner from within the courtyard, view southwest.................................................... 16
Figure 9. Detail of primary entry colonnade and door, view west. ............................................................ 17
Figure 10. East elevation, view west. .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11. South elevation, view north. ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 12. South elevation, view north. ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13. West elevation, view southeast. ................................................................................................ 19
Figure 14. Northwest corner, view southeast. ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 15. Detail of balcony, view west. ..................................................................................................... 20
Figure 16. Detail of west-facing facet of north wing/northwest corner, view east. .................................. 20
Figure 17. North elevation, view south. ...................................................................................................... 21
Figure 18. East elevation, view west. .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 19. South and west elevations, view northeast. .............................................................................. 22
Figure 20. Overview of the property, view north from Banyan Street. ...................................................... 23
Figure 21. Overview of Hellman Avenue, view north from Banyan Street. ................................................ 24
Figure 22. Overview of Hellman Ave, view south from Golden Street. ...................................................... 24
Figure 23. Historical 1938 aerial image of the subject property. ............................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Directory Listing of Residents at 6048 Hellman Avenue ................................................................ 34
Page 215
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BERD Built Environment Resources Directory
c. circa
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information
City City of Rancho Cucamonga
CO Code of Ordinance
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
HRA Historical Resource Assessment
HRI Historic Resources Inventory
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PQS Professional Qualifications Standards
PRC Public Resources Code
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SR State Route
USC United States Code
Page 216
iv
This page intentionally left blank
Page 217
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and scope: The City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) retained HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
(HELIX) to prepare a Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) for the property located at 6048 Hellman
Avenue (subject property; Assessor’s Parcel Number 1062-271-01-0000) in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California. Situated on the former commercial citrus ranch
property is a one- and two-story Spanish Revival-style single-family residence that was constructed in
1930, and a broken gable barn, which was constructed circa 1896 and was renovated in 1941. The
property owner proposes to retain the residence, demolish the barn, and develop the remainder of the
property. The property was previously recorded and evaluated in 2009-2010 as part of the Historic
Resources Survey of Rancho Cucamonga (2009-2010 Survey), which assigned the property California
Historical Resource Status Code 5S3, meaning that the property appears individually eligible for local
listing or designation through survey evaluation. The 2009-2010 Survey did not indicate under which
criterion/criteria the property possessed historic significance and eligibility. This HRA includes the
following: the results of a cultural resource records search and literature review, an intensive-level built
environment survey, a site history, and an evaluation to determine if the property is individually eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), and/or for designation as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark and, therefore,
whether it constitutes a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The methodology for this HRA complies with best industry standards.
Dates of investigation: HELIX conducted an intensive-level survey of the subject property on February 7,
2025, and completed archival research in February 2025.
Survey findings: HELIX is awaiting the results of a California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) records search (within a 0.25-mile radius) from the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The request was submitted on January 29, 2025.
Based on the preceding investigation and analysis, the property at 6048 Hellman Avenue possesses
significance at the local level under Criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3. Specifically, it possesses significance in the
area of agriculture (Criteria A/1) for its strong and direct association with the citrus industry in Rancho
Cucamonga and San Bernardino County. The period of significance for this association is 1895 to 1945,
the years in which the property is known to have operated commercially. It possesses significance in the
area of commerce (Criteria B/2) for its long association with Harry Ledig, Sr. and Louis Ledig, Jr. The
period of significance for this association is 1895 to 1945, reflecting the years in which Louis and Harry
Ledig were associated with the property. Lastly, the property possesses significance in the area of
architecture (Criteria C/3) for exemplifying the Spanish Revival style (residence) and as the work of
locally prolific builder Ted Krysto. The periods of significance for the residence and barn are 1930 and
circa (c.) 1896-1941, respectively, reflecting their years of construction and renovation. Therefore, the
property is recommended to be individually eligible for the NRHP and for the CRHR under Criteria A/1,
B/2, and C/3.
Likewise, the property is recommended to remain individually eligible for designation as a Rancho
Cucamonga Historic Landmark. The result of this investigation and analysis is that the property is
individually eligible under Criteria A, B, C, and D.
Therefore, the property is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Page 218
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
ES-2
As a historical resource this HRA provides several recommendations to help avoid a substantial adverse
change in the significance to the historical resource, which occurs when the significance of a historical
resource is materially impaired. These recommendations include retaining the barn in place and, as part
of the same parcel containing the residence, ensuring that any alterations to either conform with the
appropriate standards and guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings, and, lastly, retaining extant citrus trees whenever possible.
Mitigation for the proposed demolition of the barn is to record the building in accordance with Historic
American Building Survey (HABS) standards, which shall include but not be limited to historical narrative,
HABS photographs, historical photos, and original architectural plans. This recording should be
submitted to the City for review and, ultimately, to both the San Bernardino County Historical and
Pioneer Society and the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University,
Fullerton.
Disposition of data: The final HRA and any subsequent related reports will be submitted to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga; copies will be retained by HELIX’s La Mesa, California, office. All field notes,
photographs, and records related to the current study are also on file at HELIX’s La Mesa office.
Page 219
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) retained HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) to prepare a
Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) for the property located at 6048 Hellman Avenue (subject
property; Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 1062-271-01-0000) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County
of San Bernardino, California. Situated on the former commercial citrus ranch property is a one- and
two-story Spanish Revival-style single-family residence that was constructed in 1930, and a broken gable
barn, which was constructed circa 1896 and was renovated in 1941. The property owner proposes to
retain the residence, demolish the barn, and develop the remainder of the property. The property was
previously recorded and evaluated in 2009-2010 as part of the Historic Resources Survey of Rancho
Cucamonga (2009-2010 Survey), which assigned the property California Historical Resource Status Code
5S3, meaning that the property appears individually eligible for local listing or designation through
survey evaluation. The 2009-2010 Survey did not indicate under which criterion/criteria the property
possessed historic significance and eligibility. This HRA includes the following: the results of a cultural
resource records search and literature review, an intensive-level built environment survey, a site history,
and an evaluation to determine if the property is individually eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and/or for
designation as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark and, therefore, whether it constitutes a
historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
methodology for this HRA complies with best industry standards.
HELIX Senior Architectural Historian Nelson White conducted the evaluation and authored this
assessment. He has a master’s degree in Historic Preservation and meets and exceeds the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) for Architectural History and History. HELIX
Senior Cultural Resources Manager Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A., RPA, provided quality control and
review. She meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS for History. Resumes of key personnel
are included in this report as Appendix A.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California
(Figure 1, Regional Location; Figure 2, USGS Topography; and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The
approximately 5.88-acre rectangular parcel is located on the west side of Hellman Avenue,
approximately 0.60 mile north of State Route (SR) 210.
Page 220
!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!! !
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
! !!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!! !!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
SAN BERNAR D I N O CO
RIVERSIDECO
SA
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
LO
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
C
O
RIV
E
R
S
I
D
E
C
O
ORA
N
G
E
C
O
Mohave River Rabbit Lake
Silverwood
Lake Baldwin
Lake
Big Bear
Lake
Lake
Arrowhead
San Gabriel
Reservoir
Morris
Reservoir
Irvine Lake
Perris
ReservoirLake Mathews
Canyon Lake
Santa Ana River
Santa ClaraRiver
AngelesRiver,Los
395
101
14
Project
Parcel
Spring
Valley Lake
Lake Palmdale
Horseshoe
Lake
San
Jacinto
Reservoir
Little Rock
Reservoir
Mohave
River Forks
ReservoirPacoima
Reservoir
Big Tujunga
Reservoir
Hansen
Lake Lake Gregory
Cogswell
Reservoir
Devils Gate Reservoir San Dimas
Reservoir
Silver Lake Reservoir
Puddingstone
Reservoir
Peters
Canyon
ReservoirHarbor
Lake
Lee LakeRattlesnake
Reservoir
Yorba Linda Reservoir
Lake
Norconian
Lake Evans
Poorman
Reservoir
Brea Reservoir
Walnut
Canyon
Reservoir
Prado Park
Lake
Santa Fe Reservoir
Peck Road Park Lake
Lake Forest
Fountain
ValleyHuntington
Beach Tustin Irvine
Santa
Ana
Seal
Beach
Garden Grove
Stanton
Cypress
Orange
AnaheimBuena Park
Yorba
LindaFullerton
La
Habra Brea
Placentia
Lake Elsinore Menifee
Hemet
Lomita San
Jacinto
Lakewood
Perris
Corona
Long
Beach
Carson
Cerritos
Chino Hills
Lawndale
Manhattan Beach
BellflowerCompton
La MiradaNorwalk
Hawthorne
Lynwood Norco
South Gate
Bell GardensInglewood
Moreno Valley
Maywood
Bell
Riverside
Diamond Bar
Pomona
Pico
Rivera
OntarioWhittier
Eastvale
Banning
Culver City
Montebello La Puente Walnut
Montclair
Loma LindaMonterey
Park
Redlands
Yucaipa
West Covina
Rosemead
Colton
West
Hollywood Covina
Baldwin
Park
AlhambraBeverly
Hills
San Gabriel UplandTemple CitySouth
Pasadena San
Dimas
La
Verne ClaremontAzusaArcadiaGlendora
Fontana
Duarte
MonroviaPasadena
Glendale
San Fernando
Hesperia
Santa
Clarita
Victorville
AdelantoPalmdale
Beaumont
Rialto
Chino
Rancho
Cucamonga
San
Bernardino
Highland
Los
Angeles
Redondo
Beach
La Canada
FlintridgeBurbank
Jurupa Valley
Paramount
Apple Valley
Rancho
Palos
Verdes Pacific
Ocean
19
110
91
72
5
22
259 330
243
103
2
66
187
38
1
107
142
164
261 74
90
39213
18
83
10
605
405
10
15
5
105
215
10
210
710
2105
110
405
15
0 10 Miles
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
R
\
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
C
i
t
y
_
0
0
9
9
4
\
0
0
0
0
2
_
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
O
n
C
a
l
l
C
E
Q
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
\
0
0
1
_
6
0
4
8
H
e
l
l
e
r
m
a
n
\
M
a
p
\
H
R
A
\
H
R
A
.
a
p
r
x
:
0
0
9
9
4
.
2
.
1
:
1
/
2
7
/
2
0
2
5
-
S
A
B
Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)K
6048 Hellman HRA
Page 221
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
R
\
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
C
i
t
y
_
0
0
9
9
4
\
0
0
0
0
2
_
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
O
n
C
a
l
l
C
E
Q
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
\
0
0
1
_
6
0
4
8
H
e
l
l
e
r
m
a
n
\
M
a
p
\
H
R
A
\
H
R
A
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
2
_
U
S
G
S
:
0
0
9
9
4
.
2
.
1
:
1
/
2
7
/
2
0
2
5
-
S
A
B
Source: CUCAMONGA PEAK 7.5' Quad (USGS)
6048 Hellman HRA
Page 222
PRADO WOODS CT
OR
A
N
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
ROBERDS ST
CR
Y
S
T
A
L
D
R
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
BANYAN ST
GOLDEN ST
EA
S
T
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
HE
L
L
M
A
N
A
V
E
0 200 Feet K
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
R
\
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
C
i
t
y
_
0
0
9
9
4
\
0
0
0
0
2
_
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
u
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
O
n
C
a
l
l
C
E
Q
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
\
0
0
1
_
6
0
4
8
H
e
l
l
e
r
m
a
n
\
M
a
p
\
H
R
A
\
H
R
A
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
3
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
0
9
9
4
.
2
.
1
:
1
/
2
7
/
2
0
2
5
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2024)
6048 Hellman HRA
Project Site
Page 223
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
5
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. Significant resources are
those resources that have been found eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or for local listing, as
applicable.
2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
2.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code [USC] 470), enacted in 1966,
declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered
by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal,
state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the creation of the NRHP, established the position of State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a
mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native
American tribes in preserving their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP).
2.1.1.1 Section 106
Section 106 of the NHPA states that federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally
funded, assisted, or licensed undertakings must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any
historic property that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and that the ACHP must be
afforded an opportunity to comment on such undertakings through a process outlined in 36 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The Section 106 process involves the identification of historic
properties within the area of potential effect (APE), the determination of whether the undertaking will
cause an adverse effect on historic properties, and the resolution of those adverse effects through
consultation with parties to the Section 106 review process, most prominently including the California
SHPO and Native American tribes.
2.1.2 National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state,
and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to
indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment”
(36 CFR Part 60.2).
The NRHP is the official federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Properties can be significant at
the local, state, or national level. To qualify for listing in the NRHP, properties generally must be at least
50 years old, possess historic significance, and retain physical integrity. To be eligible for listing in the
NRHP, a property must be considered significant under one or more of the NRHP Criteria, which include:
• Criterion A: associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
Page 224
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
6
• Criterion B: associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• Criterion C: embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents
a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
and/or
• Criterion D: has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting these criteria, a property must retain historic integrity, which is defined in NRHP
Bulletin 15 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation as the “ability of a property to
convey its significance.”1 In order to assess integrity, the National Park Service recognizes seven aspects
or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must
possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities:
1. Location – the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred;
2. Design – the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property;
3. Setting – the physical environment of a historic property;
4. Materials – the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of
time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;
5. Workmanship – the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory;
6. Feeling – a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time;
and
7. Association – the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property.
2.2 STATE REGULATION
2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR. In
addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local
survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines, are also considered historical resources under
CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a
resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, or is not included in a local
1 National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002).
Page 225
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
7
register or survey, shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the
resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) §5024.1.7.
CEQA, PRC §21084.1, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 §15064.5, address determining
the significance of impacts to archaeological and historic resources and discuss significant cultural
resources as “historical resources,” which are defined as:
• resource(s) listed or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing
in the CRHR 2
• resource(s) either listed in the NRHP or in a “local register of historical resources” or identified
as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1(g) of the PRC,
unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant”3
• resources determined by the Lead Agency to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR 4
2.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used
by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial
adverse change” (PRC §5024.1[a]). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks, numbered 770 and higher, are
automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical
Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks
programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.
A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR
if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following
criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria (PRC §5024.1[c]):
• Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
• Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national
history;
• Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;
• Criterion 4: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
2 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15064.5(a)(1).
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15064.5(a)(2).
4 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15064.5(a)(3).
Page 226
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
8
Under 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the
purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency.
Significant resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as
historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Resource integrity, which is the
authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that
existed during the resource’s period of significance, is evaluated with regard to the retention of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In an archaeological deposit, integrity
is assessed with reference to the preservation of material constituents and their culturally and
historically meaningful spatial relationships. A resource must also be judged with reference to the
particular CRHR/NRHP criteria under which it is proposed for eligibility.
2.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS
2.3.1 Rancho Cucamonga
Local historic landmarks, points of historic interest, historic districts, and conservation districts in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga are under the aegis of the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and are
officially designated by the City Council. Properties may be designated if the City Council determines
that they meet the appropriate requirements and criteria pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Code of
Ordinance (CO) Title 17, §17.18.020.
2.3.1.1 Historic Landmarks
Under CO §17.18.020 (B), local landmarks in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are known as historic
landmarks and are defined in the CO as follows:
Any site, sign, structure, building, landscape, object, area, place, or feature designated
as a historic landmark.5
A property may be designated a historic landmark if the City Council determines that it meets one or
more of the following criteria:
• Criterion A: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States;
• Criterion B: It is or was once associated with persons important to local, state, or national
history;
• Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction;
• Criterion D: It represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
5 Rancho Cucamonga Code of Ordinance §17.146.020.
Page 227
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
9
• Criterion E: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Historic landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance, which is assessed with regard
to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these
factors. A proposed historic landmark need not retain originality of all aspects of integrity but rather
sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. Neither deferred
maintenance nor dilapidated condition of a proposed historic landmark shall, on its own, be equated to
a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be assessed in the context of the particular character-defining features
associated with a property’s significance and reason for eligibility.
2.3.1.2 Points of Historic Interest
Under CO §17.18.020 (C) the City of Rancho Cucamonga also maintains a register of points of historic
interest for public use and information. Points of historic interest are designated by the City Council and
must meet the designation criteria for historic landmarks (CO §17.18.020 [B]). However, they are not
required to retain integrity from their period of significance. Points of historic interest are not subject to
the same restrictions as historic landmarks.
2.3.1.3 Historic Districts and Conservation Districts
Historic Districts
Under CO §17.18.020 (D), the City Council may designate a property or collection of properties as a
historic district if it meets the designation criteria of both historic landmarks (CO §17.18.020 [B]) and
points of historic interest (CO §17.18.020 [C]). A historic district must also meet at least one of the
following criteria:
• Criterion A: It has an identifiable, clear, and distinct boundary that possesses a significant
concentration of structures sharing common historical, visual, aesthetical, cultural,
archaeological, or architectural plan or physical development.
• Criterion B: It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage,
or cultural characteristics of the community, state, or country.
• Criterion C: It is the site of a significant local, state, or national event.
• Criterion D: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or national history.
• Criterion E: It is identifiable as the work of a master builder, designer, architect, artist, or
landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the community,
county, state, or country.
Historic districts must retain integrity from their period of significance, which is assessed with regard to
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Not all properties or
structures need to retain all aspects of integrity but a substantial number must retain sufficient integrity
to convey the historic, cultural, or architectural significance of the district. Neither deferred
maintenance within a proposed district nor dilapidated condition of the structures and landscapes
within shall, on its own, be equated to a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be assessed in the context of the
particular character-defining features associated with the district’s significance and reason for eligibility.
Page 228
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
10
Conservation Districts
Under CO §17.18.020 (E), if a property or collection of properties do not qualify as a historic district, the
City Council may designate it/them as a conservation district provided it possesses either of the
following:
• A distinctive, cohesive, and identifiable setting, character, or association that makes it unique
and an integral part of the city’s identity.
• A recognized neighborhood identity and a definable physical character and either high artistic
value or a relationship to urban centers or historic districts that makes conservation of the
proposed conservation district essential to the city’s history or function.
3.0 CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS
The subject property at 6048 Hellman Avenue, the “Harry Ledig House,” was previously recorded and
evaluated as part of the 2009-2010 Historic Resources Survey of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by
Chattel Architecture, which assigned the property California Historical Resource Status Code (Status
Code) 5S3, meaning that the property appears individually eligible for local listing or designation through
survey evaluation. It did not indicate under which criterion/criteria the property possessed historic
significance and eligibility.6 The subject property is not listed individually in the NRHP, the CRHR, or
designated as a Rancho Cucamonga historic landmark. The subject property is not located within any
NRHP-, CRHR-, or Rancho Cucamonga-listed historic districts. The subject property is not included in the
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for San
Bernardino County.
4.0 RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
This evaluation was prepared in accordance with the practices described in the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation, including standards for planning,
identifying, evaluating, and documenting resources. Applicable national, state, and local level criteria
were considered.
4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCE RECORDS SEARCH
As noted above, HELIX is awaiting the results of a California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) records search for the project site and a 0.25-mile radius at the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. In addition to official maps and
records, the following sources of information were consulted as part of the records search:
• NRHP
• CRHR
• California State Historical Landmarks
6 Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix C:
Spreadsheet of 2009 Survey Findings, 10.
Page 229
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
11
• California Points of Historical Interest
• California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI)
• BERD for San Bernardino County
4.2 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
Further property- and neighborhood-specific research was performed to confirm and/or inform building
construction dates of the subject property and to characterize the historical development of the
surrounding area. In addition to reviewing building permits on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga
(post-1994) and the County of San Bernardino (pre-1987), the following digital archives and
organizations were consulted in an effort to identify relevant historic photographs, newspaper articles,
city directories, and maps:
• Ancestry.com
• Calisphere
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• San Bernardino County
• Online Archive of California
• ProQuest
As part of the HRA, HELIX Senior Architectural Historian Nelson White conducted a built environment
survey of the subject property on February 7, 2025. The purpose of the survey was to identify and
photograph the subject property and to inform its historical significance evaluation. The field survey
consisted of a visual inspection of the existing residence and any associated features. The property was
recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms, which are included
in Appendix B of this report. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on
file at the HELIX La Mesa office.
5.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of an approximately 5.88-acre rectangular parcel that was historically used
as a citrus orchard (see Figures 4 through 19). Situated on the property is the one- and two-story
Spanish Revival-style single-family residence and a detached barn. The residence was originally
constructed in 1930.7 The broken gable barn was constructed circa (c.) 1896 and was renovated in
1941.8 All photographs were taken by HELIX in February 2025, unless otherwise noted.
7 “Another New Home,” The Daily Report, February 28, 1930, 5.; And “Alta Loma to get Many New Houses,” The
Upland News, February 28, 1930, 1; . And Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga
Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix C: Spreadsheet of 2009 Survey Findings, 10.
8 Patricial Ledig. “Ledig Family History” (unpublished, 1981) in City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic
Landmark Designation/Historic Point of Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Historic
Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 230
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
12
Figure 4. Aerial image of 6048 Hellman Avenue, 2025 (Google Earth).
Page 231
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
13
5.1 RESIDENCE
The residence has an inverted T-shape plan consisting of west, north, and east wings. The residence is
clad in stucco. Fenestration consists of all original metal-framed fixed and casement multi-lite windows
with sills. The standard of which is a pair of four-lite casements. Doors are wood and mostly French
style. It is capped by low-pitched hipped roofs, with exposed rafter tails, finished with Spanish barrel-
style red clay tiles. The architectural description of the residence begins with the northeast corner
(primary) façades and proceeds clockwise to the east, south, west, northwest corner, and north
elevations.
Northeast Corner (Primary) Façades
The northeast corner consists of the east- and north-facing facets of the one-story north and east wings,
respectively (see Figures 5 through 9). The east-facing facet of the north wing is asymmetrical. Beginning
at the north end, it has two pairs of casement windows, with three lites each. To the south is a tripartite
window with a fixed center sash flanked on either side by a casement window, all with four lites each.
The south end of the facet consists of the primary entrance, which is located at the end of a covered
colonnade (see Figure 9). The primary entry door has eight panels and a rounded top. The north-facing
facet of the east wing is symmetrical (see Figures 8 and 9). It is fronted by a recessed colonnade with
terra cotta tile floor and square stucco posts. Situated near each corner is a single standard window with
a fixed transom above.
The northeast corner is fronted by an enclosed courtyard. It is paved with red brick laid in a herringbone
pattern (see Figure 8). The wall to the north is approximately four feet high, with a single opening at
center. The wall to the east is approximately two feet high.
East Elevation
The east elevation is asymmetrical and consists of the east end of the one-story east wing (see Figure
10). The north corner of the elevation entails the open end of the primary entry colonnade. The
remainder is occupied by an otherwise centered picture window consisting of three fixed sashes with six
lites each. It is fronted by a wood grille of seven turned spindles.
South Elevation
The south elevation consists of the south elevations of the west and east wings of the inverted T plan
(see Figures 11 and 12). The elevation is asymmetrical and has four distinct sections. From east to west,
the elevation begins with the one-story east wing. This portion is symmetrical with a projecting stucco
and brick chimney at center. The broad chimney is capped by a design of three recessed rectangular
panels with a projecting row of bricks above and below. A shed, clad in vertical wood siding, projects
from the chimney. It has a single matching door on the east-facing facet. The chimney and shed are
flanked on either side by a pair of five-lite casement windows. To the west, the next section projects
approximately two feet and is slightly taller. Centered within this section are two pairs of standard
windows. The next section to the west is two stories. On the ground story it has three evenly spaced
pairs of casement windows, the easternmost of which has three lites each while the other two are
standard. The second story projects approximately one foot with 12 contoured wood corbels beneath
the overhang. The second story has two symmetrically arranged standard windows. The fourth and final
section of the south elevation projects approximately four feet. The ground story has a single standard
Page 232
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
14
window at the center. On the second story there is a single three-lite casement window at the east
corner and a standard window at the west corner.
West Elevation
The east elevation is asymmetrical and consists of the two-story west wing (see Figure 13). On the
ground story are three one-car garages, each with a paneled wood sectional garage door. On the second
story there are a pair of standard windows at the south corner and a standard window at the north
corner.
Northwest Corner
The northwest corner consists of the north-facing facet of the two-story west wing and the west-facing
facet of the one-story north wing (see Figures 14 through 16). The north-facing facet of the west wing is
divided into three sections. On the ground story of the west section there is a standard window at
center. On the second story of this section there is a pair of standard windows at center. To the west,
the next section of the elevation is recessed approximately four feet as a colonnade. On the east-facing
facet is a single paneled door leading to the garage. On the north-facing facet there is another single
paneled door, flanked to the west by a single window with a stucco grille. On the west-facing facet there
is a single French door with a screen door, leading to the house. On the second story there is a wood
balcony (see Figures 14 and 15). It is, in part, supported by a large wood beam with contoured corbels at
each end. The balcony has a wood railing and square wood posts, with a rough-hewn surface and
chamfered corners. The balcony is accessed from the east-facing facet by a single French door with
screen door. To the east of the balcony, the third and final section has a standard window on the second
story (above the north wing). The west-facing facet of the north wing is asymmetrical (see Figure 16).
The elevation begins at the south end with four French doors with ten lites each and four wood screen
doors. To the north there is a pair of casement windows with three lites each. Near the north corner
there is stucco repair work with a partially embedded electricity meter. A terra cotta tile patio spans the
length of this facet. A non-original wood trellis projects over the patio.
North Elevation
The north elevation is asymmetrical and consists of the north end of the one-story north wing (see
Figure 17). Roughly at center is a single non-original wood pedestrian door consisting of four wood
panels beneath nine lites glazed with wavy yellow glass. To the west of it is a small window with a stucco
grille.
Page 233
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
15
Figure 5. Overview of 6048 Hellman Avenue, view east.
Figure 6. Overview of east/northeast (primary) façades, view southwest.
Page 234
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
16
Figure 7. Northeast corner including courtyard, view southwest.
Figure 8. Northeast corner from within the courtyard, view southwest.
Page 235
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
17
Figure 9. Detail of primary entry colonnade and door, view west.
Figure 10. East elevation, view west. Note the turned window grille and brick chimney with adornment.
Page 236
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
18
Figure 11. South elevation, view north.
Figure 12. South elevation, view north.
Page 237
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
19
Figure 13. West elevation, view southeast.
Figure 14. Northwest corner, view southeast.
Page 238
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
20
Figure 15. Detail of balcony, view west.
Figure 16. Detail of west-facing facet of north wing/northwest corner, view east.
Page 239
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
21
Figure 17. North elevation, view south.
5.2 BARN
The broken gable barn was constructed circa 1896 and was renovated in 1941 (see Figures 18 and 19).9
It consists of a two-story center section with one-story sheds projecting to either side. It is clad in
weathered board-and-batten. Fenestration is largely missing but appears to have consisted of wood-
framed hung windows. Vehicular/equipment-sized doors are board-and-batten. The barn is capped by
the defining broken gable roof with a central gable roof flanked by shed roofs. All roofs are finished with
composition shingles. A red brick chimney projects above the gable roof at both ends.
The east elevation is asymmetrical (see Figure 18). From north to south, the north shed is blind. On the
ground story of the middle section there is a wood French door (missing its glazing) with an adjoining
window to the north. A single window is situated approximately three feet to the south. Two windows
are symmetrically arranged on the second story. The south shed has a single window. All doors and
windows on the east façade have hinged board-and-batten covers matching the building cladding.
The south elevation has a vehicle/equipment door at the east corner and a window at the west corner.
The west elevation is asymmetrical (see Figure 19). The south shed has a vehicular/equipment door of
unknown operation type. Immediately north appears to be a pair of windows, covered by laminated
board lumber, that spans across the shed to the middle section. Further north in the middle section is a
single window opening missing its sashes. The second story of the middle section has two symmetrically
arranged window openings missing their sashes. The north shed has a single doorway. The north
elevation is blind.
9 Patricial Ledig. “Ledig Family History ”(unpublished, 1981) in City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic
Landmark Designation/Historic Point of Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Historic
Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 240
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
22
Figure 18. East elevation, view west.
Figure 19. South and west elevations, view northeast.
Page 241
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
23
5.3 PROPERTY
The approximately 5.88-acre rectangular parcel was historically primarily devoted to a citrus orchard
(see Figures 5, 7, 14, and 20). Although most of the orchard was removed in 2021-2022, a few citrus
trees remain. Additional landscaping consists of ornamental trees and shrubs near the residence.
Hardscaping is limited to the gravel driveway that curves from Hellman Avenue around the north
elevation of the residence west to the garage and barn. Low brick walls line the driveway and the entry
courtyard (see Figures 5 and 7).
Figure 20. Overview of the property, view north from Banyan Street.
Page 242
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
24
5.3.1 Setting
The subject property is located on a suburban residential two-lane section of Hellman Avenue between
Banyan Street to the south and Golden Street to the north (see Figures 21 and 22). Both sides of the
street exhibit one- and two-story single-family homes on standard suburban lots. With only a few
exceptions, most of the surrounding houses post-date the subject property by 40 to 50 years and date
from a period of subdividing agricultural land.
Figure 21. Overview of Hellman Avenue, view north from Banyan Street (Google Maps Street View, 2011).
Note subject property at left.
Figure 22. Overview of Hellman Ave, view south from Golden Street (Google Maps Street View, 2019).
Page 243
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
25
6.0 HISTORIC CONTEXTS
6.1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
6.1.1 Spanish Period
Coastal Southern California’s historic period began in September 1542 when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo
landed on Santa Catalina Island as part of his exploration expedition up the coast north of “New Spain.”
Although the impact of this initial contact did not usher in instant changes in the region, it marks the
opening of the area to new contact, colonialism, and cultural shifts.
During the mid-eighteenth century, Spain escalated its involvement in California from exploration to
colonization.10 In 1769, a Spanish expedition headed by Gaspar de Portolá and Junípero Serra traveled
north from San Diego seeking suitable locations to establish military presidios and religious missions in
order to extend the Spanish Empire into Alta California. The Presidio of San Diego and Mission San Diego
de Alcalá were established in 1769 followed by the Presidio of Monterey and Mission San Carlos
Borromeo de Carmelo in 1770 in northern California. Built between 1769 and 1821, the Mission San
Gabriel Arcángel and 20 other missions stood, literally and figuratively, as symbols of Spanish
colonialism, importing new systems of labor, demographics, settlement, and economies to the area.
Agriculture and animal husbandry were the main pursuits of the missions. At Mission San Gabriel
Arcángel, the Gabrielino were forced to labor in these activities to make the Mission self-sufficient.11
Indian revolts were common at the mission throughout the late 1770s; the most notable Gabrielino
revolt was led by Toypurina, a chief’s daughter, against Mission San Gabriel in 1785.12
In the early nineteenth century, ranchos and mission outposts, called asistencias, were established in
inland southern California, increasing the amount of Spanish contact in the region. An asistencia was
established in San Bernardino County, near Redlands, in 1819. The asistencia was an outpost of the San
Gabriel Mission, which had laid claim to large tracts of land in southwestern San Bernardino County and
western Riverside County for cattle grazing activities.13 In 1820, Father Mariano Payeras, a senior
mission official, promoted the idea that the San Bernardino asistencia be developed into a full mission,
with the idea of establishing an inland mission system.14 However, Mexico won its independence from
Spain in 1821, bringing an end to the Spanish Period in California.
6.1.2 Mexican Period
Although Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, Spanish patterns of culture and influence
remained for a time. The missions continued to operate as they had in the past, and laws governing the
distribution of land were also retained for a time. Following secularization of the missions in 1834, large
10 David Weber. The Spanish Frontier in North America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992).
11 William McCawley. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles (Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press
and Ballena Press, 2006).
12 Lowell John Bean and Charles R. Smith, “Gabrielino,” in California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, 1978, 538-549, William C.
Sturtevant, ed. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978).
13 Steve Lech. Pioneers of Riverside County: The Spanish, Mexican and Early American Periods. (Charleston, SC.: The
History Press, 2012).
14 Steve Lech. Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County,
1772–1893 (Riverside, CA: Steve Lech, 2004).
Page 244
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
26
ranchos were granted to prominent and well-connected individuals, ushering in the Rancho Era, with
the society making a transition from one dominated by the church and the military to a more civilian
population with people living on ranchos or in pueblos. With the numerous new ranchos in private
hands, cattle ranching expanded and prevailed over agricultural activities.
The subject property lies within the lands of Rancho Cucamonga. In 1839, the 13,000-acre rancho was
granted to Tiburcio Tapia by Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado.15 Tapia, a wealthy Los Angeles merchant
and purported smuggler, promptly built an adobe on Red Hill, located approximately 0.75 mile to the
north of the project site, raised cattle, and began a successful winery.16 The rancho would later be
inherited by Tapia’s daughter, María Merced Tapia de Prudhomme, and her husband Leon Victor
Prudhomme.
6.1.3 American Period
American governance began in 1848, when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ceding
California to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War. California’s acquisition
by the United States substantially increased the growth of the population in California. The California
gold rush, the end of the Civil War, and the passage of the Homestead Act implementing the United
States’ “manifest destiny” to occupy and exploit the North American continent brought many people to
California after 1848.
While the American system required that the newly acquired land be surveyed prior to settlement, the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo bound the United States to honor the land claims of Mexican citizens who
were granted ownership of ranchos by the Mexican government.17 The Land Act of 1851 established a
board of commissioners to review land grant claims, and land patents for the land grants were issued in
the latter half of the eighteenth century. However, the cost of defending their claim and the evidence
required by the State Lands Commission to prove title claims meant that many Mexican-era ranchos
were claimed as public land that was open to American settlement.
A claim was filed for Rancho Cucamonga in 1852, and the grant was patented to Leon Victor
Prudhomme in 1872.18 In 1858, prior to being patented, however, Rancho Cucamonga was sold to John
Rains, who was married to María Merced Williams, the daughter of Rancho Santa Ana del Chino owner
Isaac Williams and granddaughter of Antonio María Lugo, owner of Rancho San Bernardino.19 Ownership
of the rancho would pass through several hands through the remainder of the nineteenth century,
including John Rains, who expanded Tapia’s winery.
15 “City of Rancho Cucamonga History, Portal to the Past,” Storymaps.arcgis.com, Last modified December 5, 2023,
Electronic resource available at https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8446a917d02145f48ed8c9eca30c7d5d.
Accessed August 2, 2024.
16 “City of Rancho Cucamonga History, Portal to the Past.”
17 Lech, Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–
1893.
18 H.I. Willey. Report of the Surveyor General of the State of California from August 1, 1884, to August 1, 1886.
Sacramento, CA, 1886. Electronic document available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Willey_1884_1886.pdf, accessed August 2, 2024.
19 “City of Rancho Cucamonga History, Portal to the Past.”
Page 245
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
27
Southern California was developed by Americans and other immigrants who migrated to the western
frontier in pursuit of gold and other mining, agriculture, trade, and land speculation.20 This population
growth of southern California during the early years of the American Period brought a need for mail and
freight travel. In 1857, John Butterfield was awarded a six-year contract to transport mail twice a week
between St. Louis, Missouri, and San Francisco, California.21 The Butterfield Stage Route used the same
trail as the Sonora (or Southern Emigrant) Trail from Yuma through Warner Springs and Temecula, and
then up through Temescal Valley to Chino, and then to Los Angeles. Local mail routes within southern
California were also developed, beginning in the 1850s, such as the line begun in 1852 by Phineas
Banning between Los Angeles and San Diego.22 In 1868, Tomlinson & Co. briefly operated a daily mail
route from Tucson, Arizona, to Los Angeles via San Diego and San Bernardino, although, after only four
months, the company had lost $12,000 and discontinued service.23
While stagecoaches were successful at transporting gold, people, and mail, the need for a railroad to
California was imperative. In the 1850s, surveys were initiated by the federal government to determine
a railroad route to the Pacific coast.24 Although the first transcontinental railroad to northern California
was completed in 1869, in the 1870s, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, incorporated in 1865 and
consolidated in 1870, began to construct a southern route that would traverse the state.25 In the early
1880s, the California Southern Railway, a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (Santa
Fe Railroad), was completed and allowed for travel through the Cajon Pass to Barstow to a junction of
the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad and down to San Diego.
With the completion of the California Southern Railway, settlers flocked to southern California in even
greater numbers. The development and urbanization of Los Angeles and Orange Counties pushed
agricultural and dairy farms pursuits further into western San Bernardino County, which saw a land
boom of farming and ranching at the turn of the century.
6.1.4 City of Rancho Cucamonga
The subject property is located within the Ioamosa/Alta Loma (northwest) section of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The City’s original economic mainstay was agriculture, including olives, peaches, and citrus.
Vineyards, chief among them the one started by Tapia and expanded by Rains, characterized the
growing community.26 In the late 1880s, the Santa Fe Railroad was extended through the area, and
Chinese laborers dug irrigation tunnels into the Cucamonga Canyon. In 1913, in an effort to improve
crop transportation, the Pacific Electric Railway was extended through the fledgling city. Over the
following decades the area developed as a regional logistics center. In 1977, the unincorporated
20 Lech, Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–
1893.
21 Mary Helmich, The Butterfield Overland Mail. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2008. Electronic
document available at: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25444, accessed September 3, 2020.
22 K.W. Stott, “Fifty Years of Stagecoaching in Southern California,” in Brand book number one: The San Diego
Corral of the Westerners, ed. Ray Brandes (San Diego: Westerners San Diego Corral, 1968).
23 Stott; James Mills, “Journalistic Remarks on the Los Angeles and Tucson Mails,” San Diego Historical Society
Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1957).
24 Lech, Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–
1893.
25 A.A. Fickewirth. California Railroads (San Marino, CA: Golden West Books, 1992).
26 “City of Rancho Cucamonga History, Portal to the Past.”
Page 246
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
28
communities of Alta Loma, Cucamonga, and Etiwanda voted to incorporate, forming the city of Rancho
Cucamonga.27
6.1.5 The Citrus Industry
While citrus fruits, such as lemons and oranges, were introduced in California by the California mission
padres in the late 1760s, it was not until 1804 that the Spanish are reported to have planted the first
citrus seedlings in California at the San Gabriel Mission.28 Following the secularization of the missions in
the 1830s, American pioneer and naturalized Mexican citizen William Wolfskill acquired some of the
surviving trees and replanted them in his property in Los Angeles.29 By 1841, Wolfskill had established
the first commercial citrus orchard in California.
It was not until the 1870s that the citrus industry started growing rapidly. For example, residents of the
City of Riverside, then located within San Bernardino County, started growing oranges in the 1870s after
promotional literature advertised a “Colony for California.” Eliza Tibbets, a resident of Riverside, is said
to be the first. Tibbets planted two Brazilian naval orange trees her property. The trees thrived in the
Riverside climate and caught the attention of many in local agriculture who began experimenting with
different citrus trees.30 Within a decade, the city was known as a citrus center and was famous for its
Washington navel oranges.31 The success of the industry in Riverside ultimately lead to the creation of
Riverside County, formed in 1893 from parts of San Diego and San Bernardino counties.
What started in California in 1875 as 90,000 citrus trees multiplied to nearly 2 million trees in 1885, and
to 4.5 million trees by 1901.32 With this success came the need for transportation to market. Several
railroad routes were established throughout Southern California; numerous packing houses, ice plants,
and storage areas were established along these railroads, which ultimately led to more growth.33
Pasadena-based horticultural land developer Adolph Petch and a group of associates purchased 160
acres of land in northern Alta Loma (the location of the subject property) in 1880 and named the area
Hermosa. In 1881, this group formed the Hermosa Land and Water Company and began selling off
swaths of land to farmers and ranchers, who ultimately began growing citrus.34 Nearby, the townsite of
Cucamonga developed as an agricultural community, with growers focusing on citrus and grapes. In the
early twentieth century over two-thirds of the citrus crops grown in Rancho Cucamonga were grown in
the Ioamosa/Alta Loma area. After the Pacific Electric Railway arrived in Ioamosa in 1914, four packing
27 Roger Vincent and Adrian G. Uribarri. “Getting the masses in the mood,” The Los Angeles Times, November 26,
2006.
28 Daniel Geisseler and William R. Horwath, Citrus Production in California. 2016.
29 Gilbert G. Gonzales, “Women, Work, and Community in the Mexican Colonies of Southern California Citrus Belt.”
California History 74, no. 1 (1995), 58-67.
30 Caltrans. A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Agricultural Properties in California, 2023.
31 Caltrans.
32 D.S. Brown and R.G. Platt. “Fruit and Nut Crops – Citrus.” in A Guidebook to California Agriculture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983).
33 Caltrans.
34 Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix A:
Historic Context Statement, 11.
Page 247
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
29
houses opened up: Ioamosa Foothill Building, Alta Loma Warehouse, Hillside Groves Packinghouse, and
American Fruit Growers Packinghouse.35
In 1893, citrus growers across southern California banded together to form the Southern California Fruit
Exchange, which was renamed the California Fruit Growers Exchange two years later. This cooperative
was organized to represent the growers and negotiate with the railroads. By 1909, the organization
began branding their oranges “Sunkist” and represented more than 15,000 orange and lemon growers.36
By the 1930s, citrus had become the predominant product of the Southern California economy; nearly
85 percent of the state’s citrus production was centered in this area.37 The intensive urbanization that
followed the end of World War II led to the rapid decrease in agricultural land across California. This,
along with the viral disease tristeza, which in 1956 affected citrus crops, reduced the total citrus acreage
in California to 230,000 acres.38 By the 1960s, California had lost its place as the number one citrus
producer in the country to Florida.
7.0 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
7.1 SPANISH REVIVAL, 1915-1940
The residence at the subject property is Spanish Revival in style. Therefore, the following presents a
historical overview of the style. It is excerpted from the A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia
Savage McAlester.39
Before about 1920, houses of Hispanic precedent were based on simple early Spanish
missions. It was the Panama-California Exposition held in San Diego in 1915 that
introduced the elaborate Spanish prototypes found in other countries. This exposition
was designed by Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue (1869-1924), who emphasized the
richness of Spanish Colonial precedents seen in the major buildings of other countries.
The exhibition was widely publicized and well received. Soon other architects were
inspired to look directly to Spain for source materials. World War I (1914-1918) caused
architects wishing to study and sketch in Europe to concentrate on Spain. There they
found a centuries-long and very rich sequence of architecture traditions that they could
meld into the quite varied Spanish Revival.
The range of decorative detail found in Spain was extraordinarily diverse. But of equal
interest was the way buildings were composed and massed, a subject studied
particularly in rural Andalusian houses. These vernacular dwellings resulted when
homes were gradually expanded in a very informal, additive way. Façades generally had
little decorative detail and instead emphasized their varied massing. This approach was
35 Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix A:
Historic Context Statement, 11.
36 Michael Goldsmith and Manuel Valladares. How Citrus Farming Became SoCal’s Main Squeeze. The LAist. Last
modified 2023. Electronic document available at https://laist.com/news/how-citrus-farming-became-socals-main-
squeeze. Accessed August 2, 2024.
37 Daniel Geisseler and William R. Horwath; Gilbert G. Gonzales.
38 Daniel Geisseler and William R. Horwath; Gilbert G. Gonzales.
39 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 522-534.
Page 248
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
30
favored by some high-style Spanish Revival architects such as George Washington Smith
(1876-1930) in Southern California.
The style uses decorative details borrowed from the entire history of Spanish
architecture. These may be of Moorish, Byzantine, Gothic, or Renaissance inspiration, an
unusually rich and varied series of decorative precedents. The typical roof tiles are of
two basic types: Mission tiles, which are shaped like half-cylinders, and Spanish tiles,
which have an S-curve shape. Both types occur in many variations depending on the size
of the tiles and the patterns in which they are applied. Dramatically carved doors are
typical of Spanish architecture; these are more common on high-style Spanish Revival
houses but also occur on modest examples. Doors are often emphasized by adjacent
spiral columns, pilasters, carved stonework, or patterned tiles. Less elaborate entrance
doors of heavy wood panels, sometimes arched above, are also common. Doors leading
to exterior gardens, patios, and balconies are usually paired and glazed with multiple
panes of rectangular glass. Many examples have at least one large focal window. These
are commonly of triple-arched or parabolic shape and may be filled with stained glass of
varying design. Decorative window grilles of wood or iron are common, as are similar
balustrades on cantilevered balconies, which occur in a variety of shapes and sizes.
Stucco walls could be smooth or have various rough or tooled finishes. Other typical
details include tile-roofed (and otherwise decorated) chimney tops; brick or tile vents;
fountains; arcaded walkways (usually leading to a rear garden); walled entry courtyards;
twisted spiral columns (officially Solomonic columns and informally barbershop-pole
columns); and round or square towers.40
Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features are the visual and physical qualities that give a building its distinctive
identity and that relate it to an area or period of significance. These features may include the overall
building shape, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details and features, and aspects of its site and
environment. Character-defining features of Spanish Revival architecture include:
• Façade normally asymmetrical
• Stucco cladding
• Wall surface extends into gable without break
• One or more prominent arches placed above door or principal window
• Focal windows that are triple-arched or parabolic arch shape; other windows
typically casement or double hung
• Window grilles of wood or metal
• Stucco or tile decorative vents
• Round, square, or polygonal towers
• Arcaded wing walls
40 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 522-534.
Page 249
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
31
• Walled entry courtyard
• Balconies; covered porches as exterior hallways
• Decorative tiles
• Elaborated chimney tops, often with small-tiled roof
• Low-pitched roof, usually with little or no eave overhang, finished with red tile,
• Walled entry courtyard 41
8.0 SITE HISTORY
The subject property was first developed and planted by Louis M. Ledig, Jr. Louis’s older brother
Gerhard “G.P.” (1858-1920) is credited with being the first of his family to settle in Ioamosa and
subsequently encouraging his siblings and parents to follow.42 In August 1895 L.B. Ross sold 20 acres at
the northwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Banyan Street, legally defined as Lot 6, Block 10, in
Cucamonga Homestead Association (of which the subject property is a portion), to Ledig for $2,400.43
This acquisition marked the start of a long and expansive Ledig family tradition of farming on Hellman
Avenue.44 Soon after acquiring the land, Louis built a Folk Victorian-style house (c. 1895, relocated) on
the property and developed the land as a citrus ranch. Circa 1896, he built a barn (extant) and, once the
trees became productive, he built a packing shed (non-extant).45 In 1930, Louis’s son Harry replaced this
house with the extant Spanish Revival-style house. The original home was later sold and moved.46 A
1938 historical aerial image, the earliest available, provides a visual record of the property that depicts
both the extant house and detached barn (Figure 23).
Louis M., Jr. and Christina H. Ledig (1895-1917)
Louis Michael Ledig, Jr. (1862-1943), was born in 1862 in Lee County, Iowa. On January 19, 1890, he
married Christina Emma Hirschler (1865-1941) in Iowa. The couple had two children: Harry A. and
Donald C. By 1900, Louis Jr. and his siblings Gerhard (1858-1920; 5759 Hellman, status code 5S1),
Adolph (1866-1947), and Henry (1870-1912), had all relocated to the area. The four Ledig brothers were
enumerated sequentially and all worked as farmers (no street name recorded).47 The 1910 U.S. Federal
Census (Census) enumerated the couple, and their son Harry, resided on Hellman Avenue (address not
recorded). Louis worked as a farmer on his own land. It also enumerated Louis Jr.’s parents, Louis M., Sr.
and Elizabeth C. Ledig, and their youngest son August (1873-1952), resided on Hellman Avenue (no
address recorded), where Louis Sr. worked as a farmer.48 In June 1917, The Upland News reported that
Louis Jr. and Christina had “turned over the old homestead” on Hellman Avenue to their son Harry. The
article noted that Harry had been busy installing electric lights and a gas plant. Louis Jr. and his wife
41 Virginia Savage McAlester.
42 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe, The History of Alta Loma (Alta Loma, CA: B & S
Publishing Co., 1981), 34.
43 “Real Estate Transfers,” San Bernardino County Sun, August 21, 1895, 3; Patricial Ledig.
44 “Harry Arthur Ledig” https://www.dailybulletin.com/obituaries/harry-arthur-ledig-ca-2/, accessed January 28,
2025.
45 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe, 36-37; Patricia Ledig.
46 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe, 36-37.
47 Ancestry.com. 1900 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2004.
48 Ancestry.com. 1910 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2006.
Page 250
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
32
moved to the “Kirk home place on First Avenue” in Upland.49 Louis Jr. was a “widely known” citrus
rancher and a member of the Upland Mennonite church.50 He was also very engaged in the community.
He was active in the development and formation of water companies and served as an officer and
director for many years. Louis served on the board of the Alta Loma Heights Citrus Packing House, was a
director of the Cucamonga Fumigation and Supply Co. (later Growers Service).51 Christina died on
October 12, 1941, in San Bernardino County.52 Louis Jr. died in a train accident on September 26, 1943,
in San Bernardino County.53
Harry A., Sr. and Onnie C. Ledig (1917-c. 1961)
Harry Arthur Ledig, Sr. (1894-1945) was born in Illinois on January 13, 1891.54 He relocated to the area
with his parents c. 1895. On June 16, 1917, he married Onnie C. Eymann (1891-1961).55 Like his father
and grandfather, Harry worked as a citrus farmer. The couple had two offspring: Constance (born 1920)
and Harry A., Jr. (born 1922). The 1920 Census enumerated the couple, and their daughter, resided on
Hellman Avenue (address not recorded).56 The 1940 Census was the first to enumerate the property as
being located at then 1626 Hellman Avenue.57 Harry Sr. was a partner in steel manufacturer Buehler,
Tank and Welding; was a board member of the Bank of America’s Ontario Branch; and was a director of
several companies including as a founding director of the Hellman Water Co.58 Like his parents, Harry Sr.
was a member of the Upland Mennonite church.59 Onnie was a piano instructor and the longtime
organist at the church.60 Her button collection was “considered one of the finest in California.”61 Harry
Sr. died on November 3, 1945.62 On April 11, 1948, Harry Jr. married Patricia Riley and soon after the
couple constructed their own home, on their own citrus grove, on Carnelian Street, approximately 0.75
mile west of Hellman Avenue.63 City directories listed Onnie resided at the subject property through at
least 1960. Onnie Ledig died on April 9, 1961, in San Bernardino County.64
In 1928 or 1929, Harry Sr. made plans to build a new house. He moved the existing house to the
“forward part of the ranch, put it on piers, and lived in it.”65 A February 1930 edition of The Daily Report
49 “Cucamonga District,” The Upland News, June 7, 1917, 3.
50 “Obituary of Louis M. Ledig,” The Daily Report, September 27, 1943.
51 Patricial Ledig.
52 “Obituary of Louis M. Ledig”; Ancestry.com. U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current. Ancestry.com Operations
Inc., 2012.
53 “Obituary of Louis M. Ledig.”
54 Ancestry.com. U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. 2005.
55 Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. California DPR 523 Series Forms for 6048 Hellman Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga.
56 Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2010.
57 Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2012.
58 Patricial Ledig; “Hellman Water Co. Files Articles of Incorporation,” The San Bernardino County Sun, February 7,
1930, 6.
59 “Obituary of Harry A. Ledig,” The Daily Report, November 3, 1945, 8.
60 “Obituary of Onnie C. Ledig,” The Daily Report, April 10, 1961, 15.
61 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe.
62 “Obituary of Harry A. Ledig.”
63 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe. And Patricia Ledig.
64 Ancestry.com. California, U.S. Death Index, 1940-1997. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000.
65 Harry and Patricia Ledig, interview by the Historic Preservation Commission, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. December
1, 1981. In City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark Designation/Historic Point of Interest for
the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Historic Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December
1981. Form on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 251
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
33
reported that the new house would be a “two story, stucco exterior Spanish type dwelling of ten rooms
on the site of their present home located in their orange grove, [and that] the old home [was] to be sold
and moved.”66 Neither an architect nor a builder was mentioned.67 Upon completion of the new house,
Harry Sr. sold his parents’ older home to Mr. Peters, who moved it to 9404 La Vine Street (status code
5S1, Rancho Cucamonga landmark #176).68 In 1941, Ted Krysto “braced” the barn and remodeled it.69
The hayloft was turned into a display room for Onnie’s button collection.70
Theordore “Ted” Krysto (1883-1979) was a Rancho Cucamonga-based builder. He is credited as having
built numerous houses in the Alta Loma community, including 9496 Le Vine Street (1927), and
elsewhere in southern California such as the Weatherty and Cook cabins in Bear Valley (1923).71 Among
his non-residential commissions was the Alta Loma Fire Hall. At least two of his commissions are
designated as Rancho Cucamonga historic landmarks. The c. 1912 house for his parents, “Krysto Ranch,”
at 5917 Archibold Avenue (Rancho Cucamonga landmark #unknown) was designated in 2001 for, among
other reasons, its design and unusual materials. Additionally, the 1942 Alta Loma Honor Roll was
designated in 1981 (Rancho Cucamonga landmark #138).72
Sometime in the early to mid-1960s, the Ledig family sold the property to Frederick and Cathryn Mack.73
Frederick W., Jr. and Cathryn Mack and Family (c. 1964-Present)
Frederick William Mack, Jr. (1920-2005) was born in Ontario, California on October 12, 1920.74 On
February 28, 1944, he married Cathryn Grabe (1922-2012) in Los Angeles.75 The couple had three
offspring: Susan (b. 1947), Deborah (b. 1950), and Frederick “Rick” W. III (b. 1952).76 Mr. Mack served in
the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946. From 1952 to his retirement in 1986, he worked for Pomona First
Federal Savings and Loan (now PFF Bank and Trust); retiring as President and CEO. He was very active in
civic activities as well. He served as president of the Pomona Junior Chamber of Commerce and of the
Upland Rotary. He served on the boards of the L.A. County Fair Association and of the San Antonio
Community Hospital. Frederick W. Mack, Jr. died on September 27, 2005, in La Verne, California. 77
66 “Another New Home,” The Daily Report, February 28, 1930; “Alta Loma to get Many New Houses,” The Upland
News, February 28, 1930, 1.
67 “Another New Home”; “Alta Loma to get Many New Houses.”
68 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe. And Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation,
Inc. and Historic Preservation Commission. City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark
Designation/Historic Point of Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Rancho Cucamonga.
December 1981. Form on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
69 Patricia Ledig.
70 Martha G. Stoebe, Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe.
71 Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix C:
Spreadsheet of 2009 Survey Findings, 11.
72 “Bear Valley Growing,” Los Angeles Sunday Times, August 19, 1923, part 5, 5; City of Rancho Cucamonga “Staff
report for 5917 Archibold Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,” August 2001, report on file with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga; “Of War and Remembrance,” The San Bernardino Sun, May 29, 1989, D2.
73 Frederick Mack III, interview by the author, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, February 9, 2025.
74 “Frederick W. Mack” https://www.dailybulletin.com/obituaries/frederick-w-mack-ca/, accessed January 28,
2025.
75 Ancestry.com. California, U.S., County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980, Ancestry.com Operations
Inc., 2017.
76 Ancestry.com. 1950 United States Federal Census, Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2022; “Frederick W. Mack”
77 “Frederick W. Mack”
Page 252
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
34
In October 2021, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District issued a Notice and Order to Abate the fire hazard
of the “dead or dying” citrus grove.78 Historical aerial images confirm that between August 2021 and
September 2022 the majority of the citrus trees on the property were removed.
Alterations
The subject property has received few alterations since its original constructions. The barn was originally
constructed c. 1896. Known alterations to the exterior include the concrete foundation (1941) and
changes in fenestration (1941). The residence was originally constructed in 1930. Known alterations to
the exterior include the replacement door on the north elevation (date unknown) and the trellis on the
west elevation of the north wing (date unknown). Research to date has not revealed when the missing
approximately 14.12 acres of Louis Jr.’s original 20-acre acquisition were sold. Historical directory results
are provided in Table 1. A 1938 historical aerial image of the property, the earliest available, provides a
visual record of the property (see Figure 23).
Table 1
DIRECTORY LISTING OF RESIDENTS AT 6048 HELLMAN AVENUE
1956 Ledig, Mrs. Harry A. Sr. N/A General Telephone Company Publishers
1960 Ledig, Mrs. Harry A., Sr. N/A General Telephone Company Publishers
1970 Mack, Frederick W., Jr. N/A General Telephone Company of California
1995 Mack, F. W. N/A Cole Information
2000 Mack, F. N/A Cole Information
2003 Mack, Frederick N/A Haines & Co. Publishers
2005 Mack, Frederick N/A Cole Information
2014 Mack, Cathryn N/A Cole Information
2017 Mack, Frederick N/A Cole Information
78 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, Letter to Mack, FW Jr & CG Rev Trust, October 28, 2021.
Page 253
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
35
Figure 23. Historical 1938 aerial image of the subject property, outlined in red (Environmental Data Resources).
Note that the residence exhibits its inverted T-shape plan and the barn exhibits its defining broken gable form.
9.0 EVALUATION
9.1 PREVIOUS EVALUATION
The subject property was previously recorded and evaluated as part of the 2009-2010 Survey, which
recommended the property is individually eligible for local listing or designation. It did not indicate
under which criterion/criteria the property possessed historic significance and eligibility.
9.2 NRHP AND CRHR ELIGIBILITY
Criteria A/1: Association with significant events or patterns of development
The subject property has a strong association with agricultural patterns of events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, regional, and state history. What started in
Page 254
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
36
California in 1875 as 90,000 citrus trees multiplied 50 times to 4.5 million trees by 1901.79 With this
success came the need for transportation to market, creation of railroads, and ultimately population
growth.80 In the early twentieth century the Ioamosa/Alta Loma section of Rancho Cucamonga produced
two-thirds of the future city’s citrus. The San Bernardino citrus industry was in its prime from the late
nineteenth century to middle twentieth century. As a former citrus ranch, the property has a strong and
direct association with the once prominent citrus industry in Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino
County. It is within this context that Louis Ledig Jr. acquired the subject property in 1895, and he and his
heirs operated a commercial citrus ranch on it for at least 50 years, until his son Harry Ledig Sr.’s death
in 1945. The barn was constructed c. 1896 and the residence was constructed in 1930, both during its
period of operation. Thus, the property possesses significance, at the local level, in the area of
agriculture under Criteria A/1 and, therefore, the property is recommended to be individually eligible for
listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The period of significance for this association is 1895 to 1945, the
years in which the property is known to have operated commercially.
Criteria B/2: Association with individuals significant in the history of the city, region, or nation
Research to date has revealed the subject property to have an association with the lives of significant
persons in our past. A review of historical literature and ancestry.com records indicates that both Louis
Ledig, Jr. and Harry Ledig, Sr. were active in the then developing Ioamosa/Alta Loma community
(present day Rancho Cucamonga). Both gentlemen contributed to local and regional history. Harry, Sr.
was a partner in steel manufacturer Buehler, Tank & Welding; was a board member of the Bank of
America’s Ontario branch; and was a director of several companies including as a founding director of
the Hellman Water Co.81 His father Louis, Jr. was active in the development and formation of water
companies and served as an officer and director for many years. He served on the board of the Alta
Loma Heights Citrus Packing House and was a director of the Cucamonga Fumigation and Supply Co.
(later Growers Service).82 However, the removal of his residence from the property diminishes, but does
not eliminate, its association with him. Thus, the property possesses significance, at the local level, in
the area of commerce under Criteria B/2 and, therefore, the property is recommended to be individually
eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The period of significance for this association is 1895 to
1945, reflecting the years in which Louis and Harry Ledig were associated with the property.
Criteria C/3: Embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value
Research to date has not revealed the architects, designers, or builders of the barn and the Spanish
Revival-style residence at the subject property. However, the residence was constructed in 1930, within
the 1915-1940 period of significance for the Spanish Revival style. It exhibits many of the style’s
character-defining features including the date of construction; stucco-clad asymmetrical façade,
casement windows, window grilles of wood and stucco; walled entry courtyard; covered porches as
hallways; a balcony; low-pitched roof, with minimal overhang, finished with red tile; and an elaborated
chimney top. Therefore, it reflects the characteristics of a type, period, region, and method of
construction. Although its individual details are not unique, the assemblage amounts to the residence
exemplifying the Spanish Revival style. The barn was built c. 1896 and was renovated in 1941 by locally
prominent builder Ted Krysto, two of whose commissions are already designated as Rancho Cucamonga
79 D.S. Brown and R.G. Platt. “Fruit and Nut Crops – Citrus.” in A Guidebook to California Agriculture (Berkely:
University of California Press, 1983).
80 Caltrans.
81 Patricial Ledig; “Hellman Water Co. Files Articles of Incorporation,” The San Bernardino Daily Sun, February 7,
1930, 6.
82 Patricial Ledig.
Page 255
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
37
historic landmarks. Research to date has revealed no other barns by Krysto. Thus, the property
possesses significance, at the local level, in the area of architecture under Criteria C/3 and is, therefore,
recommended to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The periods of significance
for the residence and barn are 1930 and c. 1896-1941, respectively, reflecting their years of construction
and renovation.
Criteria D/4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Criteria D/4 is applied most commonly to buildings, structures, or objects that have been used as a
source of archaeological data and are believed to contain more, yet unretrieved, data that cannot be
obtained from other sources. However, historical information about Rancho Cucamonga, citrus
orchards, and Spanish Revival-style architecture is prevalent and further study of the property would not
add any new information to the historic record. Thus, the property does not possess historic significance
under Criteria D/4 and, therefore, the property is recommended to not be individually eligible for listing
in the NRHP or the CRHR.
9.2.1 Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features are the visual and physical qualities that give a building its distinctive
identity and that relate it to an area or period of significance. These features may include the overall
building shape, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details and features, and aspects of its site and
environment.
Residence
• Inverted T-shape plan
• Asymmetrical stucco-clad façade
• Metal-framed multi-lite fixed and casement windows, generally in pairs
• Window grilles of wood and stucco
• Wood French and paneled doors
• Covered porches as exterior hallways
• Balcony
• Wood corbels
• Low-pitched hipped roof, with minimal eave overhang and exposed rafter tails, finished
with Spanish barrel-style red clay tiles
• Elaborate chimney tops
• Walled entry courtyard
Barn
• Broken gable barn type
• Weathered board-and-batten siding
• Fenestration covers on east elevation
Page 256
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
38
Property
• Spatial relationship between the residence and the barn
• Brick walls of the entry courtyard
• Brick posts and walls lining the driveway
• Remaining citrus trees
9.2.2 Integrity
In addition to a finding of historic significance, in order to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, a
property must retain integrity. Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin No. 15 as the “ability of a
property to convey its significance.” The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities of
integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain integrity,
a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities.
The property retains excellent integrity of location because the barn and residence have not been
moved. The property retains excellent integrity of design because the barn and residence are so
unaltered. The residence retains all of its character-defining features of the Spanish Revival style. The
barn retains its overall shape and form from its original construction and its 1941 alterations by Ted
Krysto. The property retains fair integrity of setting. Although the property, due to its size and the
presence of some extant citrus trees, preserves a somewhat agricultural setting, the area around it is
fully developed as suburban residential. The property retains good integrity of materials because the
residence is so unaltered. Likewise, the property retains good integrity of workmanship. Similar to the
discussion of the integrity of design and materials, the property retains good integrity of feeling because
the residence retains its feeling as a single-family Spanish Revival style residence from 1930 and because
the barn in its form and material still feels like an agricultural building of the late nineteenth to mid
twentieth centuries. The property retains excellent integrity of association because it was directly
associated with the prominent period and production of Ioamosa/Alta Loma’s citrus industry and its
barn and residence are sufficiently intact to convey that association. Therefore, the subject property at
6048 Hellman Avenue retains its ability to convey and embody its association with the citrus industry in
Rancho Cucamonga and with Harry Ledig, Sr. and Louis Ledig, Jr.
Summary
Based on the current evaluation and retention of sufficient integrity to convey its significance, the
property at 6048 Hellman Avenue is recommended to be individually eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria
A/1, B/2, and C/3 and to not be eligible under Criteria D/4.
9.3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
Criterion A: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1, as a former commercial citrus ranch, the
property has a strong and direct association with the once prominent citrus industry in Rancho
Cucamonga and San Bernardino County, within the larger industry in California. Both the barn and the
residence date from the period of operation at the property and within the primary period of the citrus
industry. Therefore, the property is recommended to be individually eligible for designation under
Criterion A as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Page 257
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
39
Criterion B: It is or was once associated with persons important to local, state, or national history.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2, the property was long associated with Harry
Ledig, Sr. and Louis Ledig, Jr., both of whom were important in local and regional history. Therefore, the
property is recommended to be individually eligible for designation under Criterion B as a Rancho
Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the property has a c. 1896 broken gable barn
and a 1930 Spanish Revival-style residence. Although the barn does not embody distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, the residence exhibits numerous character-
defining features of the Spanish Revival stye. Therefore, the property is recommended to be individually
eligible for designation under Criterion C as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Criterion D: It represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, research to date has not revealed the architect
and builder of the residence. However, local prolific builder Ted Krysto is credited with renovating the
barn in 1941. Neither building possesses high artistic value. Although the residence lacks individually
distinctive components, in its entirety, the large and somewhat grand residence exemplifies the Spanish
Revival style and thus represents a significant and distinguishable entity. Therefore, the property is
recommended to be individually eligible for designation under Criterion D as a Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Landmark.
Criterion E: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria D/4, the property has not yielded, nor has the
potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the
nation. Therefore, the property is recommended to not be individually eligible for designation under
Criterion E as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Summary
Based on the current evaluation, the property at 6048 Hellman meets Criteria A, B, C, and D, and,
therefore, is recommended to remain individually eligible for designation as a City of Rancho
Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Therefore, the property is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect
under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially
impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]). In turn, the significance of a
historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following:
(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
Page 258
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
40
(2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to
Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a historical resources survey
meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency
reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that
the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
eligibility for inclusion in the California Register.
In terms of future development of the property and alterations and/or substantial adverse changes to
the barn and residence, the following recommendations would help ensure that historic materials and
fabric are preserved and maintained and thus that the significance of a historical resource would not be
materially impaired.
1) The barn should be retained.
2) The barn should be retained in place, preserving its spatial relationship to the residence, as part
of one parcel.
3) Any alterations to either the residence or the barn should conform with the appropriate set of
standards and guidelines (preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction) from the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
4) Extant citrus trees should be identified by an arborist. Where feasible, the trees should be
protected during construction activities and retained as part of the final development.
The project would require the demolition of the barn, which has been recommended to be individually
eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, and for designation as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic
Landmark. As defined in CCR Section §15126.4(b)(2), “in some circumstances, documentation of a
historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for
the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur.”83 However, pursuant to the PRC, documentation of
a historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs, or architectural drawing, can still serve
to reduce the effect of the demolition of the resource, even though it will not mitigate the effects to the
point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. Thus, “CEQA requires that all
feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. In this
context, recordation serves a legitimate archival purpose.”84
The following mitigation measures are recommended.
• Prior to the initiation of any demolition activities of the barn, the project proponent should
submit its plans to fully document the barn. Plans shall include recording the building in
83 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section §15126.4(b)(2).
84 State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, “How Can Substantial Adverse Change be Avoided or
Mitigated?” https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21727; accessed May 9, 2024.
Page 259
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
41
accordance with HABS standards, which shall include but not be limited to historical narrative,
HABS photographs, historical photos, and original architectural plans.
• Upon approval by the City and completion of the HABS documentation, it should be submitted
to both the San Bernardino County Historical and Pioneer Society and to the SCCIC at California
State University, Fullerton, which is the CHRIS Information Center for San Bernardino County.
11.0 CONCLUSION
The 2009-2010 Survey assigned the property Status Code 5S3, meaning that the property appears
individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. It did not indicate under
which criterion/criteria the property possessed historic significance and eligibility.
Based on the preceding investigation and analysis, the property at 6048 Hellman Avenue possesses
significance at the local level under Criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3. Specifically, it possesses significance in the
area of agriculture (Criteria A/1) for its strong and direct association with the citrus industry in Rancho
Cucamonga and San Bernardino County. The period of significance for this association is 1895 to 1945,
the years in which the property is known to have operated commercially. It possesses significance in the
area of commerce (Criteria B/2) for its long association with Harry Ledig, Sr. and Louis Ledig, Jr. The
period of significance for this association is 1895 to 1945, reflecting the years in which Louis and Harry
Ledig were associated with the property. Lastly, the property possesses significance in the area of
architecture (Criteria C/3) for exemplifying the Spanish Revival style (residence) and as the work of
locally prolific builder Ted Krysto. The periods of significance for the residence and barn are 1930 and
c. 1896-1941, respectively, reflecting their years of construction and renovation. Therefore, the property
is recommended to be individually eligible for the NRHP and for the CRHR under Criteria A/1, B/2, and
C/3.
Likewise, the property is recommended to remain individually eligible for designation as a Rancho
Cucamonga Historic Landmark. The result of this investigation and analysis is that the property is
individually eligible under Criteria A, B, C, and D.
As a historical resource, this HRA provides several recommendations to help avoid a substantial adverse
change in the significance to the historical resource, which occurs when the significance of a historical
resource is materially impaired. These recommendations include retaining the barn in place and, as part
of the same parcel, containing the residence, ensuring that any alterations to either conform with the
appropriate standards and guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings, and, lastly, retaining extant citrus trees whenever possible.
Mitigation for the proposed demolition of the barn is to record the building in accordance with HABS
standards, which shall include but not be limited to historical narrative, HABS photographs, historical
photos, and original architectural plans. This recording should be submitted to the City for review and
ultimately to both San Bernardino County Historical and Pioneer Society and to the SCCIC at California
State University, Fullerton.
Page 260
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
42
12.0 REFERENCES
Ancestry.com
1900 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2004.
1910 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2006.
1920 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2010.
1940 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2012.
1950 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2022.
California, U.S., County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980. Ancestry.com
Operations Inc., 2017.
California, U.S. Death Index, 1940-1997. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000.
U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2012.
U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. 2005.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith. “Gabrielino” in California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978.
Brown, D.S. and R.G. Platt. “Fruit and Nut Crops – Citrus” in A Guidebook to California Agriculture.
Berkely: University of California Press, 1983.
Caltrans. A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Agricultural Properties in California, 2023.
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. California DPR 523 Series Forms for 6048 Hellman
Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga.
Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix A: Historic Context Statement.
Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results, 2011 Update, Appendix C: Spreadsheet of 2009 Survey
Findings.
“City of Rancho Cucamonga History, Portal to the Past,” Storymaps.arcgis.com, last modified December
5, 2023, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8446a917d02145f48ed8c9eca30c7d5d. Accessed
August 2, 2024.
City of Rancho Cucamonga. “Staff report for 5917 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga.” August 2001.
Report on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 261
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
43
Daily Report, The.
“Another New Home,” February 28, 1930.
“Obituary of Harry A. Ledig,” November 3, 1945.
“Obituary of Louis M. Ledig,” September 27, 1943.
“Obituary of Onnie C. Ledig,” April 10, 1961.
“Frederick W. Mack.” 2005. Daily Bulletin. September 29, 2005.
https://www.dailybulletin.com/obituaries/frederick-w-mack-ca/. Accessed January 28, 2025.
Fickewirth, A.A. California Railroads. San Marino, CA: Golden West Books, 1992.
Geisseler, Daniel and William R. Horwath, Citrus Production in California. 2016.
Goldsmith, Michael. and Manuel Valladares. How Citrus Farming Became SoCal’s Main Squeeze. The
LAist. Last modified 2023. Electronic document available at https://laist.com/news/how-citrus-
farming-became-socals-main-squeeze. Accessed August 2, 2024.
Gonzales, Gilbert G. “Women, Work, and Community in the Mexican Colonies of Southern California
Citrus Belt.” California History 74, no. 1 (1995), 58-67.
“Harry Arthur Ledig.” 2005. Daily Bulletin. November 23, 2005.
https://www.dailybulletin.com/obituaries/harry-arthur-ledig-ca-2/. Accessed January 28, 2025.
Helmich, Mary. The Butterfield Overland Mail. California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2008.
Electronic document available at: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25444, accessed
September 3, 2020.
Historic Preservation Commission. City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark
Designation/Historic Point of Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Rancho
Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Lech, Steve. Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside
County, 1772–1893. Steve Lech, Riverside, CA, 2004.
Lech, Steve. Pioneers of Riverside County: The Spanish, Mexican and Early American Periods. Charleston,
SC.: The History Press, 2012.
Ledig, Harry and Patricia. Interview by the Historic Preservation Commission (unpublished), Rancho
Cucamonga, CA. December 1, 1981. In City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic
Landmark Designation/Historic Point of Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine
Street), Historic Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on file
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 262
Historical Resource Assessment: 6048 Hellman Avenue| March 2025
44
Ledig, Patricia. “Ledig Family History” (unpublished, 1981) in City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for
Historic Landmark Designation/Historic Point of Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La
Vine Street), Historic Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on
file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Los Angeles Sunday Times, The
“Bear Valley Growing,” August 19, 1923.
Mack, Frederick III. Interview by the author, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, February 9, 2025.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.
McCawley, William. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA.: Malki
Museum Press and Ballena Press, 2006.
Mills, James. “Journalistic Remarks on the Los Angeles and Tucson Mails,” San Diego Historical Society
Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1957).
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002.
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, Letter to Mack, FW Jr & CG Rev Trust, October 28, 2021.
San Bernardino County Sun, The.
“Hellman Water Co. Files Articles of Incorporation,” February 7, 1930.
“Real Estate Transfers,” August 21, 1895.
“Of War and Remembrance,” May 29, 1989.
Stoebe, Martha G., Hazel Stoebe Billings, and Wallace Stoebe. The History of Alta Loma. Alta Loma, CA: B
& S Publishing Co., 1981.
Stott, K.W. “Fifty Years of Stagecoaching in Southern California” in Brand book number one: The San
Diego Corral of the Westerners, ed. Ray Brandes. San Diego: Westerners San Diego Corral, 1968.
Upland News, The
“Alta Loma to get Many New Houses,” February 28, 1930.
“Cucamonga District,” June 7, 1917.
Vincent, Roger, and Adrian G. Uribarri. “Getting the masses in the mood,” The Los Angeles Times,
November 26, 2006.
Weber, David. The Spanish Frontier in North America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Willey, H.I. Report of the Surveyor General of the State of California from August 1, 1884, to August 1,
1886. Sacramento, CA, 1886. Electronic document available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Willey_1884_1886.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2024.
Page 263
Appendix A
Resumes of Key Personnel
Page 264
White Resume | 1
NELSON WHITE
Senior Architectural Historian
Mr. White is a federally qualified professional, with over 20
years of experience, who exceeds the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
architectural history and history (as defined in 36 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 61). He is knowledgeable in the
history and development of American cities and suburbs, with
a focus on residential development and design. His California
state-wide experience includes managing and conducting
dozens of historical resource surveys and evaluations in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Histroric Preservation Act, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local ordinances. He has prepared numerous
cultural resource studies that utilize federal, state, and local designation criteria to
recommend status as a hsitoric property for the purposes of Section 106, as a hsitorical
resource for the purposes of CEQA, or as resource under local ordinances. Mr. White
utilizes his understanding of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to facilitate
effective project compliance and design review for adaptive reuse and new
construction projects within urban and suburban settings. He works closely with
clients, lead agencies, and architects to preserve character-defining features of
buildings. He is a frequent volunteer for the California Preservation Foundation (CPF)
and has twice served on its annual conference steering committee.
Otay Water District 870-2 Reservoir Addendum (2024). Architectural Historian for the
proposed 870-2 Reservoir Project located in unincorporated San Diego County. The
project involves the removal and replacement of a 1963 potable water reservoir
consisting of earthen embankments with a geomembrane liner and floating cover.
HELIX prepared historic contexts of both the OWD and earthen reservoirs and
evaluated the reservoir under federal and state criteria. Conducted archival research.
Prepared historic contexts of the OWD and earthen reservoirs, and evaluation.
Prepared DPR 523 series resource forms.
Morgan Territory Road Bridges 5.0 and 5.2 Replacement County Project (2024).
Architectural Historian for a proposed bridge replacement project in Contra Costa
County. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department proposed to remove and
replace two functionally obsolete 1954 single-span timber stringer bridges. HELIX
conducted an archaeological and built environment records search and an intensive-
level field survey within the APE for prehistoric and/or historic resources and evaluated
the two bridges under federal and state designation criteria. Results were presented in
a combined Cultural Resources Assessment Report. Conducted archival research and
bridge evaluations. Co-authored report and prepared DPR 523 series resource forms.
Work performed for the Colusa County Department of Public Works with Caltrans as
the lead agency.
Finks Road Bridge Project (2023). Architectural Historian for a proposed bridge
replacement project in Colusa County. The Colusa County Department of Public Works,
EDUCATION
Master of Science,
Historic Preservation,
School of the Art
Institute of Chicago,
2006
Bachelor of Arts,
Architectural History and
Urban Design, DePaul
University, 1999
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation
Foundation
Society of Architectural
Historians
Page 265
White Resume | 2
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposed to remove and replace a functionally
obsolete 1930 four-span concrete bridge crossing the Glenn-Colusa Main Canal. Although the bridge was
previously determined by Caltrans to not be eligible for listing in the NRHP, SHPO guidance stipulated that the
canal be assumed eligible. HELIX conducted an intensive-level field survey within the APE for prehistoric and/or
historic resources. The methods and results of the survey were documented in the Historic Properties Survey
Report (HPSR), Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), and Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER). The
results of the records search, background research, Native American consultation, and archaeological survey
were presented in an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). The findings of effect were presented in the Findings
of No Adverse Effect (FNAE). All reports conformed to Caltrans specifications detailed in the Caltrans
Environmental Handbook, Volume 2. Revised and addressed Caltrans comments in all reports and prepared the
FNAE.
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Cultural Resources Management Plan Development. Project
Manager for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project No. 2916 boundary in Northern
California, including Calaveras, Amador, and San Joaquin counties. The results of an intensive -level survey were
compiled in a master survey report that documents the findings and evaluation of over 50 properties for
eligibility under NRHP and CRHR criteria for the purposes of review under the CEQA. The results w ill support the
development of a Historic Properties Management Plan. Conducted intensive-level survey, co-authored historic
contexts, peer-reviewed evaluations.
Sequoia National Park Compliance Services in the Rehabilitation of Public Transportation Infrastructure .
Architectural Historian for the South Fork Campground Determination of Eligibility. Mapped and researched the
historic campground and prepared a formal determination of eligibility on behalf of NPS. Conducted intensive -
level field survey of campground and archival research at SNP Archive and Sequoia – Kings Canyon National
Parks (SEKI) Cultural Resources Department. Co-Authored report.
US 101/Trinidad Area Access Improvements Project Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER).
Architectural Historian for preparation of a Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) for the Professional
Engineering Services part of the PA&ED Phase of the project located in Trinidad, Humboldt County, which entails
construction of a new interchange, roundabouts, and varies improvements to several secondary streets. The
HRER will comply with Caltrans’ First Amended Section 106 Programming Agreement (PA an d Standard
Environmental Reference, Volume 2: Cultural Resources (SER V2) for review under Section 106. Work includes
drafting the APE for Caltrans approval, survey and evaluation of 54 individual parcels with buildings of 45 years
of age or older, evaluation of a 1.5-mile original section of the Redwood Highway, and preparation of the HRER
and related DPR 523 series resource forms. Conducted reconnaissance-level field survey and research. Primary
author of HRER and prepared DPR 523 series resource forms.
Monterey Airport Infield Rehabilitation Cultural Resources Study. Architectural Historian for preparation of a
Historical Resources Survey for National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). Fifty buildings located at the Monterey Airport were documented, and 26 buildings
of age were evaluated. Surveyed and evaluated five additional buildings to reach the 45-year threshold since the
original survey. Efforts included archival research, site investigations, survey, and preparation of a historical
resources technical report summarizing the results. Authored the 2016 update. Prepared DPR 523 series
resource forms. Work performed for Coffman Associates, Inc.
Page 266
Appendix B
DPR 523 Series Forms
Page 267
Page 1 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 3S, 3CS, 5S3
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date _
P1. Other Identifier: None
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ◼ Unrestricted
*a. County San Bernardino and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Cucamonga Peak, CA Date 1996 T 1N; R 7W of unsectioned
c. Address 6048 Hellman Avenue City Rancho Cucamonga Zip 91737
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11S, 444345 mE/ 3778376 mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate)
APN: 1062-271-01-0000
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
The subject property consists of an approximately 5.88-acre rectangular parcel that was historically used as a citrus orchard. Situated on
the property is the one- and two-story Spanish Revival-style single-family residence and a detached barn. The residence was originally
constructed in 1930. The broken gable barn was constructed circa (c.) 1896 and was renovated in 1941.
See Continuation Sheet
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP33. Farm/ranch;
*P4. Resources Present: ◼ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #)
Primary façades, view southwest, February
7, 2025. IMG_8612
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: ◼ Historic Prehistoric
Both
1930; “Another New Home,” The Daily
Report, February 28, 1930, 5.
*P7. Owner and Address:
Mack, FW Jr & CG Rev Trust
PO Box 8309
Alta Loma, CA 91701
*P8. Recorded by:
Nelson White, M.S.H.P.
HELIX Environmental Planning
7578 El Cajon Blvd.
La Mesa, CA 91942
*P9. Date Recorded:
February 15, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive Survey
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.")
6048 Hellman Avenue Historical Resource Assessment (HELIX Environmental Planning, February 2025)
*Attachments: NONE ◼ Location Map ◼ Continuation Sheet ◼ Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
Page 268
Page 2 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Map Name: Cucamonga Peak *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1996
DPR 523J (9/2013) * Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 269
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue *NRHP Status Code 3S, 3CS, 5S3
Page 3 of 10
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Trinomial #
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name: Harry A. Ledig House
B2. Common Name: 6048 Hellman Avenue
B3. Original Use: Citrus orchard and single-family home B4. Present Use: Single-family home
*B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
The subject property has received few alterations since its original constructions. The broken gable barn was originally constructed circa
1896 and was renovated in 1941. Known alterations to the exterior include the concrete foundation (1941) and changes in fenestration
(1941). The residence was originally constructed in 1930. Known alterations to the exterior include the replacement door on the north
elevation (date unknown) and the trellis on the west elevation of the north wing (date unknown).
*B7. Moved? ◼ No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A
*B8. Related Features: Barn; remaining citrus trees
B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Agriculture, Commerce, Architecture Area Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga
Period of Significance 1895-1945; 1895-1945; 1930, c. 1896-1941 Property Type Single-family, agriculture
Applicable Criteria A/1, B/2, C/3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,
period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
See Continuation Sheet
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family property
*B12. References:
6048 Hellman Avenue Historical Resource Assessment (HELIX Environmental Planning, February 2025)
Daily Report. “Another New Home,” February 28, 1930.
Daily Report. “Obituary of Harry A. Ledig,” November 3, 1945.
Daily Report. “Obituary of Onnie C. Ledig,” April 10, 1961.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.
San Bernardino County Sun. “Real Estate Transfers,”, August 21, 1895, 3.
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. California DPR 523 Series Forms for
6048 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. February-September 2009. Form on
file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Survey Results,
2011 Update, Appendix C: Spreadsheet of 2009 Survey Findings, 10.
B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator: Nelson White, M.S.H.P.
*Date of Evaluation: February 15, 2025
Page 270
Page 4 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial #
*P3a. Description:
Residence
The residence has an inverted T-shape plan consisting of west, north, and east wings. The residence is clad in stucco. Fenestration consists of all original
metal-framed fixed and casement multi-lite windows with sills. The standard of which is a pair of four-lite casements. Doors are wood and mostly French
style. It is capped by low-pitched hipped roofs, with exposed rafter tails, finished with Spanish barrel-style red clay tiles. The architectural description of the
residence begins with the northeast corner (primary) façades and proceeds clockwise to the east, south, west, northwest corner, and north elevations.
Northeast Corner (Primary) Façades
The northeast corner consists of the east- and north-facing facets of the one-story north and east wings, respectively. The east-facing facet of the north
wing is asymmetrical. Beginning at the north end, it has two pairs of casement windows, with three lites each. To the south is a tripartite window with a
fixed center sash flanked on either side by a casement window, all with four lites each. The south end of the facet consists of the primary entrance, which is
located at the end of a covered colonnade. The primary entry door has eight panels and a rounded top. The north-facing facet of the east wing is
symmetrical. It is fronted by a recessed colonnade with terra cotta tile floor and square stucco posts. Situated near each corner is a single standard window
with a fixed transom above.
The northeast corner is fronted by an enclosed courtyard. It is paved with red brick laid in a herringbone pattern. The wall to the north is approximately four
feet high, with a single opening at center. The wall to the east is approximately two feet high.
East Elevation
The east elevation is asymmetrical and consists of the east end of the one-story east wing. The north corner of the elevation entails the open end of the
primary entry colonnade. The remainder is occupied by an otherwise centered picture window consisting of three fixed sashes with six lites each. It is
fronted by a wood grille of seven turned spindles.
South Elevation
The south elevation consists of the south elevations of the west and east wings of the inverted T plan. The elevation is asymmetrical and has four distinct
sections. From east to west, the elevation begins with the one-story east wing. This portion is symmetrical with a projecting stucco and brick chimney at
center. The broad chimney is capped by a design of three recessed rectangular panels with a projecting row of bricks above and below. A shed, clad in
vertical wood siding, projects from the chimney. It has a single matching door on the east-facing facet. The chimney and shed are flanked on either side by a
pair of five-lite casement windows. To the west, the next section projects approximately two feet and is slightly taller. Centered within this section are two
pairs of standard windows. The next section to the west is two stories. On the ground story it has three evenly spaced pairs of casement windows, the
easternmost of which has three lites each while the other two are standard. The second story projects approximately one foot with 12 contoured wood
corbels beneath the overhang. The second story has two symmetrically arranged standard windows. The fourth and final section of the south elevation
projects approximately four feet. The ground story has a single standard window at the center. On the second story there is a single three-lite casement
window at the east corner and a standard window at the west corner.
West Elevation
The east elevation is asymmetrical and consists of the two-story west wing. On the ground story are three one-car garages, each with a paneled wood
sectional garage door. On the second story there are a pair of standard windows at the south corner and a standard window at the north corner.
Northwest Corner
The northwest corner consists of the north-facing facet of the two-story west wing and the west-facing facet of the one-story north wing. The north-facing
facet of the west wing is divided into three sections. On the ground story of the west section there is a standard window at center. On the second story of
this section there is a pair of standard windows at center. To the west, the next section of the elevation is recessed approximately four feet as a colonnade.
On the east-facing facet is a single paneled door leading to the garage. On the north-facing facet there is another single paneled door, flanked to the west by
a single window with a stucco grille. On the west-facing facet there is a single French door with a screen door, leading to the house. On the second story
there is a wood balcony. It is, in part, supported by a large wood beam with contoured corbels at each end. The balcony has a wood railing and square wood
posts, with a rough-hewn surface and chamfered corners. The balcony is accessed from the east-facing facet by a single French door with screen door. To
the east of the balcony, the third and final section has a standard window on the second story (above the north wing). The west-facing facet of the north
wing is asymmetrical. The elevation begins at the south end with four French doors with ten lites each and four wood screen doors. To the north there is a
pair of casement windows with three lites each. Near the north corner there is stucco repair work with a partially embedded electricity meter. A terra cotta
tile patio spans the length of this facet. A non-original wood trellis projects over the patio.
North Elevation
The north elevation is asymmetrical and consists of the north end of the one-story north wing. Roughly at center is a single non-original wood pedestrian
door consisting of four wood panels beneath nine lites glazed with wavy yellow glass. To the west of it is a small window with a stucco grille.
Page 271
Page 5 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial #
*P3a. Description:
Barn
The broken gable barn was constructed circa 1896 and was renovated in 1941 (see Figure 1).1 It consists of a two-story center section with
one-story sheds projecting to either side. It is clad in weathered board-and-batten. Fenestration is largely missing but appears to have
consisted of wood-framed hung windows. Vehicular/equipment-sized doors are board-and-batten. The barn is capped by the defining
broken gable roof with a central gable roof flanked by shed roofs. All roofs are finished with composition shingles. A red brick chimney
projects above the gable roof at both ends.
The east elevation is asymmetrical. From north to south, the north shed is blind. On the ground story of the middle section t here is a wood
French door (missing its glazing) with an adjoining window to the north. A single window is situated approximately three feet to the south.
Two windows are symmetrically arranged on the second story. The south shed has a single window. All doors and windows on the east
façade have hinged board-and-batten covers matching the building cladding.
The south elevation has a vehicular/equipment door at the east corner and a window at the west corner. The west elevation is
asymmetrical. The south shed has a vehicular/equipment door of unknown operation type. Immediately north appears to be a pair of
windows, covered by laminated board lumber, that spans across the shed to the middle section. Further north in the middle section is a
single window opening missing its sashes. The second story of the middle section has two symmetrically arranged window openings
missing their sashes. The north shed has a single doorway. The north elevation is blind.
Figure 1. East elevation, view west.
1 Patricial Ledig. “Ledig Family History ” (unpublished, 1981) in City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark Designation/Historic Point of
Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Historic Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on file with the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 272
Page 6 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial #
*P3a. Description:
Property
The approximately 5.88-acre rectangular parcel was historically primarily devoted to a citrus orchard (see Figure 2). Although most of the
orchard was removed in 2021-2022, a few citrus trees remain. Additional landscaping consists of ornamental trees and shrubs near the
residence. Hardscaping is limited to the gravel driveway that curves from Hellman Avenue around the north elevation of the residence
west to the garage and barn. Low brick walls line the driveway and the entry courtyard.
Figure 2. Overview of the property, view north from Banyan Street.
Setting
The subject property is located on a suburban residential two-lane section of Hellman Avenue between Banyan Street to the south and
Golden Street to the north. Both sides of the street exhibit one- and two-story single-family homes on standard suburban lots. With only a
few exceptions, most of the surrounding houses post-date the subject property by 40 to 50 years and date from a period of subdividing
agricultural land.
Page 273
Page 7 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
UPDATE SHEET Trinomial #
*B10. Significance:
NRHP/CRHR Eligibility
Previous Evaluation
The subject property was previously recorded and evaluated as part of the 2009-2010 Survey, which recommended the property is individually eligible for
local listing or designation. It did not indicate under which criterion/criteria the property possessed historic significance and eligibility.
Criteria A/1: Association with significant events or patterns of development
The subject property has a strong association with agricultural patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local,
regional, and state history. What started in California in 1875 as 90,000 citrus trees multiplied 50 times to 4.5 million trees by 1901.1 With this success came
the need for transportation to market, creation of railroads, and ultimately population growth.2 In the early twentieth century the Ioamosa/Alta Loma
section of Rancho Cucamonga produced two-thirds of the future city’s citrus. The San Bernardino citrus industry was in its prime from the late nineteenth
century to middle twentieth century. As a former citrus ranch, the property has a strong and direct association with the once prominent citrus industry in
Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County. It is within this context that Louis Ledig, Jr. acquired the subject property in 1895, and he and his heirs
operated a commercial citrus ranch on it for at least 50 years, until his son Harry Ledig, Sr.’s death in 1945. The barn was constructed c. 1896 and the
residence was constructed in 1930, both during its period of operation. Thus, the property possesses significance, at the local level, in the area of agriculture
under Criteria A/1 and, therefore, the property is recommended to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The period of significance
for this association is 1895 to 1945, the years in which the property is known to have operated commercially.
Criteria B/2: Association with individuals significant in the history of the city, region, or nation
Research to date has revealed the subject property to have an association with the lives of significant persons in our past. A review of historical literature
and ancestry.com records indicates that both Louis Ledig, Jr. and Harry Ledig, Sr. were active in the then developing Ioamosa/Alta Loma community (present
day Rancho Cucamonga). Both gentlemen contributed to local and regional history. Harry, Sr. was a partner in steel manufacturer Buehler, Tank & Welding;
was a board member of the Bank of America’s Ontario branch; and was a director of several companies including as a founding director of the Hellman
Water Co.3 His father Louis, Jr. was active in the development and formation of water companies and served as an officer and director for many years. He
served on the board of the Alta Loma Heights Citrus Packing House and was a director of the Cucamonga Fumigation and Supply Co. (later Growers
Service).4 However, the removal of his residence from the property diminishes, but does not eliminate, its association with him. Thus, the property
possesses significance, at the local level, in the area of commerce under Criteria B/2 and, therefore, the property is recommended to be individually eligible
for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The period of significance for this association is 1895 to 1945, reflecting the years in which Louis and Harry Ledig were
associated with the property.
Criteria C/3: Embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic value
Research to date has not revealed the architects, designers, or builders of the barn and the Spanish Revival-style residence at the subject property.
However, the residence was constructed in 1930, within the 1915-1940 period of significance for the Spanish Revival style. It exhibits many of the style’s
character-defining features including the date of construction; stucco-clad asymmetrical façade, casement windows, window grilles of wood and stucco;
walled entry courtyard; covered porches as hallways; a balcony; low-pitched roof, with minimal overhang, finished with red tile; and an elaborated chimney
top. Therefore, it reflects the characteristics of a type, period, region, and method of construction. Although its individual details are not unique, the
assemblage amounts to the residence exemplifying the Spanish Revival style. The barn was built c. 1896 and was renovated in 1941 by locally prominent
builder Ted Krysto, two of whose commissions are already designated as Rancho Cucamonga historic landmarks. Research to date has revealed no other
barns by Krysto. Thus, the property possesses significance, at the local level, in the area of architecture under Criteria C/3 and is, therefore, recommended
to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The periods of significance for the residence and barn are 1930 and c. 1896-1941,
respectively, reflecting their years of construction and renovation.
1 D.S. Brown and R.G. Platt. “Fruit and Nut Crops – Citrus.” in A Guidebook to California Agriculture (Berkely: University of California Press, 1983).
2 Caltrans. A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Agricultural Properties in California, 2023.
3 Patricial Ledig. “Ledig Family History” (unpublished, 1981) in City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark Designation/Historic Point of
Interest for the Louis M. Ledig Home (9404 La Vine Street), Historic Preservation Commission. Rancho Cucamonga. December 1981. Form on file with the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.; and “Hellman Water Co. Files Articles of Incorporation,” The San Bernardino Daily Sun, February 7, 1930, 6.
4 Patricial Ledig.
Page 274
Page 8 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
UPDATE SHEET Trinomial #
*B10. Significance:
NRHP/CRHR Eligibility
Previous Evaluation
The subject property was previously recorded and evaluated as part of the 2009-2010 Survey, which recommended the property is
individually eligible for local listing or designation. It did not indicate under which criterion/criteria the property possessed historic
significance and eligibility.
Criteria D/4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Criteria D/4 is applied most commonly to buildings, structures, or objects that have been used as a source of archaeological data and are
believed to contain more, yet unretrieved, data that cannot be obtained from other sources. However, historical information about
Rancho Cucamonga, citrus orchards, and Spanish Revival-style architecture is prevalent and further study of the property would not add
any new information to the historic record. Thus, the property does not possess historic significance under Criteria D/4 and, therefore, the
property is recommended to not be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.
Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features are the visual and physical qualities that give a building its distinctive identity and that relate it to an area or
period of significance. These features may include the overall building shape, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details and features,
and aspects of its site and environment.
Residence
• Inverted T-shape plan
• Asymmetrical stucco-clad façade
• Metal-framed multi-lite fixed and casement windows, generally in pairs
• Window grilles of wood and stucco
• Wood French and paneled doors
• Covered porches as exterior hallways
• Balcony
• Wood corbels
• Low-pitched hipped roof, with minimal eave overhang and exposed rafter tails, finished with Spanish barrel-style red clay tiles
• Elaborate chimney tops
• Walled entry courtyard
Residence
• Inverted T-shape plan
• Asymmetrical stucco-clad façade
• Metal-framed multi-lite fixed and casement windows, generally in pairs
• Window grilles of wood and stucco
• Wood French and paneled doors
• Covered porches as exterior hallways
• Balcony
• Wood corbels
• Low-pitched hipped roof, with minimal eave overhang and exposed rafter tails, finished with Spanish barrel-style red clay tiles
• Elaborate chimney tops
• Walled entry courtyard
Property
• Spatial relationship between the residence and the barn
• Brick walls of the entry courtyard
• Brick posts and walls lining the driveway
• Remaining citrus trees
Page 275
Page 9 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
UPDATE SHEET Trinomial #
*B10. Significance:
NRHP/CRHR Eligibility
Integrity
In addition to a finding of historic significance, in order to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, a property must retain integrity.
Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin No. 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance.” The National Park Service
recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain
integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities.
The property retains excellent integrity of location because the barn and residence have not been moved. The property retains excellent
integrity of design because the barn and residence are so unaltered. The residence retains all of its character-defining features of the
Spanish Revival style. The barn retains its overall shape and form from its original construction and its 1941 alterations by Ted Krysto. The
property retains fair integrity of setting. Although the property, due to its size and the presence of some extant citrus trees, preserves a
somewhat agricultural setting, the area around it is fully developed as suburban residential. The property retains good integrity of
materials because the residence is so unaltered. Likewise, the property retains good integrity of workmanship. Similar to the discussion of
the integrity of design and materials, the property retains good integrity of feeling because the residence retains its feeling as a single-
family Spanish Revival style residence from 1930 and because the barn in its form and material still feels like an agricultural building of the
late nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries. The property retains excellent integrity of association because it was directly associated with
the prominent period and production of Ioamosa/Alta Loma’s citrus industry and its barn and residence are sufficiently intact to convey
that association. Therefore, the subject property at 6048 Hellman Avenue retains its ability to convey and embody its association with the
citrus industry in Rancho Cucamonga and with Harry Ledig, Sr. and Louis Ledig, Jr.
Summary
Based on the current evaluation and retention of sufficient integrity to convey its significance, the property at 6048 Hellma n Avenue is
recommended to be individually eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3 and to not be eligible under Criteria D/4.
Page 276
Page 10 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 6048 Hellman Avenue
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 15, 2025 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
UPDATE SHEET Trinomial #
*B10. Significance:
Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark Eligibility
Criterion A: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1, as a former commercial citrus ranch, the property has a strong and direct
association with the once prominent citrus industry in Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County, within the larger industry in
California. Both the barn and the residence date from the period of operation at the property and within the primary period of the citrus
industry. Therefore, the property is recommended to be individually eligible for designation under Criterion A as a Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Landmark.
Criterion B: It is or was once associated with persons important to local, state, or national history.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2, the property was long associated with Harry Ledig, Sr. and Louis Ledig, Jr., both of
whom were important in local and regional history. Therefore, the property is recommended to be individually eligible for designation
under Criterion B as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the property has a c. 1896 broken gable barn and a 1930 Spanish Revival-style
residence. Although the barn does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, the residence
exhibits numerous character-defining features of the Spanish Revival stye. Therefore, the property is recommended to be individually
eligible for designation under Criterion C as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Criterion D: It represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, research to date has not revealed the architect and builder of the residence.
However, local prolific builder Ted Krysto is credited with renovating the barn in 1941. Neither building possesses high artistic value.
Although the residence lacks individually distinctive components, in its entirety, the large and somewhat grand residence exemplifies the
Spanish Revival style and thus represents a significant and distinguishable entity. Therefore, the property is recommended to be
individually eligible for designation under Criterion D as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Criterion E: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California , or
the nation.
As previously discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria D/4, the property has not yielded, nor has the potential to yield, information important
to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Therefore, the property is recommended to not be individually
eligible for designation under Criterion E as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Summary
Based on the current evaluation, the property at 6048 Hellman meets Criteria A, B, C, and D, and, therefore, is recommended to remain
individually eligible for designation as a City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark.
Therefore, the property is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Page 277
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT20756, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2024-00416, VARIANCE
DRC2025-00093, MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025-00096, AND TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2025-00094, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.7
ACRE LOT INTO 13 NUMBERED LOTS AND 1 LETTERED LOT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PRESERVATION OF AN EXISITNG HISTORIC RESIDENCE,
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BANYAN STREET AND
HELLMAN AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND
THE EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY AT 6048 HELLMAN AVENUE; APN:
1062-271-01.
A.Recitals.
1.The applicant, Manning Homes, filed an application for Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20756, Major Design Review DRC2024-00416, Variance DRC2025-00093, Minor
Exception DRC2025-00096, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2025-00094, as described in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred
to as "the application."
2.On the 27th day of May 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on May 27, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The project site consists of approximately 6.7-acres of land developed with an
existing historic single-family residence and barn and is located on the northwest corner of
Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue; and
b.The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
Exhibit E
Page 278
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
c. The project includes the subdivision of 6.7-acres of land located into 13 numbered
lots and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of development of single-family residential development
and preservation of an existing historic residence. The application consists of five entitlements,
including a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the existing parcel into 13 numbered lots for
residential development and one lettered lot for water quality management, a Major Design
Review for site and architectural review of the lots and proposed residences, a Variance to
address various development standards that are unable to be met due to existing conditions
related to the location of the historic residence that will be preserved, a Minor Exception for
additional wall height at three locations on the project site due to existing grade differences
between the site and adjacent properties as well as internally within the development due to
grading required to preserve the existing historic residence, and a Tree Removal Permit to
request removal of 12 heritage trees that are either in poor health or cause conflict with the site
layout.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20756,
pursuant to the Subdivisions Code Section 16.16.100 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is to subdivide a property with an
area of approximately 6.7 acres of land into 13 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the
development of 12 single-family residences, preservation of one existing historic single-family
residence, and a lot for water quality management. The underlying General Plan designation is
Semi-Rural Neighborhood, which is intended to maintain and promote single-family housing in
neighborhoods that strengthen the semi-rural character of existing neighborhoods. The designation is
intended for the development of single-family residences with a maximum density range of two
dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of two dwelling units per acre, which is
compliant with the existing General Plan land use designation allowable density.
b. The project site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision at the
proposed density. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will subdivide an existing residential lot into
13 numbered and 1 numbered lot for the development of 12 single- family, detached residences,
preservation of one existing historic single-family residence and a lot for water quality
management purposes. The project site permits a maximum density of two dwelling units per
acre and the project proposes a density of two dwelling units per acre, making the site physically
suitable for the proposed subdivision at the proposed density.
c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Single-Family
Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood
North Single-Family
Dwellings
Semi-Rural
Neighborhood
Very Low (VL)
Residential
West Single-Family
Dwellings
Semi-Rural Neighborhood
Very Low (VL)
Residential
South Single-Family
Dwellings
Suburban Neighborhood
Very Low
Low (L)
Residential
East Single-Family
Dwellings Semi-Rural Neighborhood
Page 279
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat. The project site was
previously developed with a single-family residence and the site is surrounded by other urban
development in the form of single-family residences. The City’s environmental consultant
prepared a section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and further determined that the project
would not generate any significant environmental effects that were not already considered in the
General Plan’s certified Environmental Impact Report.
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
problems. Per the Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum prepared for the project, effects
related to health outcomes were found to be not significant and standard mitigation measures
are applied to ensure compliance.
e. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements related to the project
will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large 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 any existing easements on or surrounding the site. Two public
roads provide public access to the site as well. A public equestrian trail easement along Banyan
Street will also provide public access along the frontage of the development.
4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings for Major Design Review DRC2024-
00416, pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.20.040 in support of the
recommendation:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan. The General Plan land use designation is Semi-Rural Neighborhood, which allows
for and is intended for the development of single-family residences with a maximum density of
two dwelling units per acre. The project is for the development of 12 single-family residences and
preservation of an existing historic single-family residence with an overall density of two units
per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.
b. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the
Very Low (VL) Residential zone and Equestrian Overlay, which permits the development of single-
family residences and requires development of equestrian trails in accordance with the City’s
adopted trail map, respectively. The project proposes the development of single-family residences
and proposes a compliant public equestrian trail easement as well as private equestrian trail
easements, consistent with the objectives of the zone in which the site is located.
c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code. The project complies with each of the requirements of the Development Code
for the site, including, but not limited to density, building height, front yard setbacks, side yard
setbacks, and design. The applicant has requested a total of eight deviations from the
development standards, including lot area, net average lot coverage, lot width, lot depth, street
side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, and cut and fill through the associated
Variance request. The Development Code permits the issuance of a Variance, subject to
specific findings being made, allowing the site to be in compliance with the applicable provisions
of the Development Code upon approval of the Variance.
Page 280
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
d. The proposed project, together with any applicable conditions, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project is consistent with the existing developments
in the area and has been determined to not generate significant environmental impacts on the
site or to surrounding properties, with any significant and unavoidable impacts being subject to
standard mitigation measures in order to ensure impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent
feasible.
5. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings for Variance DRC2025-00093, pursuant
to the Development Code Section 17.20.030 in support of the recommendation:
a. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this code. The proposed project would be unable to be developed at the allowable
density that the zoning and General Plan land use designation would permit if strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations, including lot area, net average lot
area, lot width, lot depth, rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, street side yard setbacks, and cut
and fill, were applied as an existing single-family residence is located on the site and has been
determined to be of historic significance on a local and state level. The historic residence
creates hardship on the site as the existing location of the structure limits the available options
for a site design and a through street layout that will still allow for the maximum density to be
developed.
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone. The presence of a historic residence on the project site is
not typical of other properties in the same zone and preservation of the structure is supported
by goals outlined in the General Plan as well as the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance as
the intended method of historic preservation when feasible.
c. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
zone. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would not allow
for the applicant to develop the site at the same density that owners of other properties in the
same zone are able to achieve as the constraints that the location of the existing historic
residence create affect site development to a significant extent.
d. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Other properties
within the same zone generally do not have to develop a site to accommodate preservation of a
historic residence and the granting of the variance requests do not constitute a special privilege
as the site is unable to be developed to the maximum allowable density otherwise. The site
contains an extraordinary circumstance with the historic residence being located onsite and the
variance requests will allow for the applicant to develop the site with the intended density of the
zone as relief will be provided from the constraints.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project
Page 281
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
is developed with a compatible density to that of the surrounding properties and neighborhoods
and has been determined, through a Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, to not have
significant impacts to the environment or is able to mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts
to the greatest extent feasible.
6. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings for Minor Exception DRC2025-00096,
pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.16.110 in support of the:
a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan or any applicable
specific plan or development agreement. The General Plan does not specify a maximum wall
height for the purpose of providing privacy for developments with grade differences with
adjacent properties or the street. The proposed increase in wall height by no more than two feet
is necessary to construct the single-family development in compliance with the proposed plans
such that the development is consistently enclosed from adjacent properties and the public
street, allowing the neighborhood and individual lots privacy.
b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses
in the surrounding area. The project site is adjacent to other single-family residences, which are
permitted to utilize a Minor Exception for wall height should it be necessary to accommodate
unique site conditions or allow for creative design solutions. Given the grade differences between
many properties in the area due to the sloped topography found in the northern areas of the City, a
Minor Exception for increased wall height would be compatible with other properties in the larger
neighborhood as it has been previously issued for other properties in the general are and may be
necessary for other properties in the future for the purposes of retaining earth and providing
privacy.
c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to
allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or
accommodate unique site conditions. The existing grade difference between the project site and adjacent
properties as well as the specific grading that is proposed onsite due to location of the existing historic
residence prevents the development and individual properties from having six-foot walls as measured from the
lots with the lower grade. Further, the grade differences between properties creates privacy concerns with
which the proposed height increase aims to alleviate. Thus, the proposed exception to the maximum wall
height is necessary to allow the applicant to construct functional privacy walls as is common in single-family
residential developments.
d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, and will not be
detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity Other properties in the surrounding area are permitted to receive
and have previously been approved for similar exceptions to wall height should it be determined
necessary to accommodate unique site conditions or allow for creative design solutions in
relation to accommodating existing grade differences that result in privacy or earthwork issues.
The proposed wall height increase shall not result in impacts to public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as the applicant will be
required to comply with all applicable building standards to ensure structural integrity with the
increased height.
Page 282
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
7. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings for Tree Removal Permit DRC2025-
00094, pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.16.080 in support of the
recommendation:
a. For a development project, every effort has been made to incorporate the
tree(s) into the design of the project and the only appropriate alternative is removal of the tree.
The project has attempted to incorporate all existing heritage trees into the development to the
greatest extent feasible, but the existing location of 12 of the trees pose conflicts with building
locations, grading, and street placement or are in poor health and unable to be brought into a
health status. As such, the trees proposed for removal are requested out of necessity and are
not being removed for any such other reasons.
b. The tree will not have a negative impact of the health, safety, or viability of
surrounding trees, nor will it negatively impact the aesthetics or general welfare of the
surrounding area. The heritage trees proposed for removal will have a positive impact on the
health, safety, and viability of surrounding trees as removal of them will reduce any structural
integrity issues that could result from leaving them in place. Additionally, some of the trees are in
poor health and could cause damage to persons, property, or other trees should they fall or
spread disease. The aesthetics and general welfare of the surrounding area will be improved
with the development as a one-to-one tree replacement will take place and a total of 109 trees
will be added to the site, creating a positive aesthetic impact for the area.
8. Planning staff has determined that the project is not subject to further
environmental review in accordance in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15183 – Projects Consistent with a
Community Plan or Zoning. The exemption applies to projects that are consistent with the
development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies
for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified, except as might be necessary to
examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or
its site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) specifies that examination of environmental effects
for a project consistent with the development density established in the existing zoning,
community plan, or General Plan shall be limited to those effects that:
1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;
2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action,
General Plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent with;
3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts, which were
not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the General Plan, community plan, or
zoning action or;
4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new
information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are
determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior
EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c) further specifies that if an impact is not peculiar to the
Page 283
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
parcel or the proposed project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or
can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or
standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for that project solely based on that
impact.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted an updated General Plan in December 2021 and this
document includes a land use plan for the City. Potential environmental effects of development
consistent with the land use plan to serve projected population growth were disclosed in the
City’s General Plan update and General Plan EIR, which was certified in December 2021 under
State Clearing House (SCH) Number 2021050261. The certified EIR provided information on
the probable environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the General Plan
comprehensive update as well as identified General Plan policies and implementation programs
that would reduce those potential effects with additional mitigation measures necessary to
minimize significant impacts on the environment. Impacts related to agriculture and forest
resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, noise, and transportation were determined to be significant and unavoidable even in
the presence of all feasible mitigation measures.
In a Compliance Memorandum report prepared by an on-call CEQA consultant in 2026, Helix, it
was determined that the project is consistent with the environmental analysis performed in the
General Plan EIR. It was found that the existing EIR described the impacts of the project,
identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent feasible, and
that the project would implement the applicable EIR mitigation measures. The project was
determined to qualify for the exemption from further environmental review as:
1) The project is consistent with the development density established by existing
zoning and General Plan policies for which the EIR was certified. The 6.7-acre
site with 13 residential units will contain a density of 1.94 dwelling units per acre,
which is compliant with the maximum permitted density of two dwelling units per
acre;
2) There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site,
and which the EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The only exception
identified was for the historic resource located on the site, but the General Plan
EIR adequately determined that potential project impacts to historic resources
were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures were
identified in the Historic Resources Assessment and will be applied to the
greatest extent feasible, with any remaining significant and unavoidable impacts
being consistent with the EIR;
3) There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the
EIR failed to evaluate. The General Plan EIR considered the incremental impacts
of the project in combination with the buildout of the General Plan and no
potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts related to the project were
identified that were not already previously disclosed in the EIR;
4) There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts
than anticipated by the General Plan EIR;
Page 284
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-014
SUBTT20756, DRC2024-00416, DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00096,
DRC2025-00094 – BANYAN 13
MAY 27, 2026
5) The project will undertake feasible mitigation measures as specified in the
General Plan EIR. The project will incorporate relevant, feasible mitigation
measures specified in the EIR as standard conditions of approval. The project
will also be required to comply with applicable regulations and ordinances in
place that prevent adverse environmental effects.
9. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, and 8 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every
condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
10. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 285
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, Variance, Minor Exception, and Tree Removal Permit
authorize the subdivision of a 6.7 acre lot into 13 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of
developing 12 new single -family residences and preservation of 1 existing historic residence within the
Very Low (VL) Residential and Equestrian Overlay zones on the northwest corner of Banyan Street and
Hellman Avenue at 6048 Hellman Avenue; APN: 1062-271-01
1.
2.
3.
The associated Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders
Office prior to the issuance of Building Permits .
4.
5.
Standard Conditions of Approval
For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit /lot and a pull box to connect to the street .
Provide interior structured wiring for each house /building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio
Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the
building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for Planning Director and Building Official review and
approval prior to issuance of Building Permits.
6.
7.
8.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 286
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
9.
10.
Approval of Tentative Tract No . 20756 is granted subject to the approval of SUBTT20756.11.
12.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 287
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 288
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 289
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All above ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or
masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For
single-family residential developments, transformers shall also be above ground, pad mounted, meeting
current SCE design standards.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.40.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 290
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted
for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
All existing overhead utility service lines located along the project frontages shall be undergrounded as
part of the project. This requirement includes the utility poles situated at the corners of the subject
property where overhead lines cross Banyan Street and Hellman Avenue .
Where overhead lines cross the street, the applicant shall underground the lines from the corner pole on
the project side to the next adjacent pole located on the opposite side of the street, or to the nearest
appropriate termination point as determined by the serving utility provider. This may include installation
of a guy wire, anchor, riser pole, or other utility ?approved termination method to avoid undergrounding
the pole across the street while ensuring proper structural support and compliance with utility standards.
All design, engineering, and construction related to undergrounding, termination, and support structures
shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable utility companies and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
1.
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 291
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
CFD District: The developer shall enter into an Annexation Proceeding and sign a Consent and Waiver
to join Community Facilities District CFD 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) and shall be filed by
Special Districts prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any
annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. For any questions and /or processing coordination of
the CFD please contact Kelly Guerra at (909) 774-2582 or by email at kelly.guerra@cityofrc.us
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 292
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Private Drainage Easement:
The applicant shall dedicate a private drainage easement across Lots 13, 12, 11, 10, and 9 to
accommodate the project’s internal drainage system. This easement shall allow for the installation ,
operation, access, and maintenance of private drainage improvements serving the subdivision. The
easement shall be privately owned and privately maintained, as specified in the CC &Rs. The drainage
easement alignment and associated maintenance responsibilities shall be shown on the final map and
approved by the City Engineer.
8.
9.
10.
www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 293
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Final Map Submittal Requirement
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a complete Final Map application to the
Engineering Services Department. The Final Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Tract
Map for SUBTT20756 and shall incorporate all Conditions of Approval associated with the tentative
map. All Conditions of Approval for SUBTT20756 shall be shown and referenced on the plans for
DRC2024?00416.
Required Documentation:
A complete Final Map application shall include , at minimum, the following materials:
1. A Preliminary Title Report dated within sixty (60) days of submittal, including active hyperlinks to all
referenced documents.
2. The approved Tentative Tract Map for SUBTT 20756.
3. The Final Tract Map prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and City standards .
4. Closure calculations for all lots, boundaries, easements, and rights?of?way.
5. A complete copy of the Conditions of Approval for SUBTT 20756.
6. Any related map documents, including recorded or proposed easements, agreements, dedications,
or supporting exhibits required to demonstrate compliance with the Conditions of Approval .
No Final Map shall be scheduled for City Council consideration until all required documents have been
submitted, reviewed, and deemed complete by the Engineering Services Department.
11.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards .12.
13.
14.
15.
www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 294
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
16.
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CVWD
SoCal Edison
SoCal Gas
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 295
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
HELLMAN AVE:
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Sidewalk
Drive Appr.
(4) Streetlights
Street Trees
Street Widening
(5) Utility Pole Undergrounding
Signing and Striping
Fiber Optic
BANYAN ST:
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Sidewalk
(1) Streetlight
Comm Trail
Street Widening
(3) Utility Pole Undergrounding
Signing and Striping
Fiber Optic
STREET A:
Street Name
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt (New Street)
Sidewalk
Drive Appr.
(3) Streetlights
Street Trees
Signing and Striping
Fiber Optic
STREET B:
Street Name
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt (New Street)
Sidewalk
27.
www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 296
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Drive Appr.
(4) Streetlights
Signing and Striping
Fiber Optic
INTERSECTION OF HELLMAN AND STREET A:
ADA Curb Ramps
INTERSECTION OF HELLMAN AND BANAYAN:
ADA Curb Ramps
INTERSECTION OF STREET B AND BANYAN:
ADA Curb Ramps
28.
www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 297
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees and streetlights, 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, and street name signing shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart ,
unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified.
e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA
standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate
detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be
provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to
City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check.
29.
30.
www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 298
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street
trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public
landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape
improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees :
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City
inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as
determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
31.
32.
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.33.
34.
35.
36.
www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 299
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
HOA Maintained BMP Easement (Lots 8 and 9):
The applicant shall dedicate a permanent BMP easement across Lots 8 and 9 for the construction ,
access, operation, and long-term maintenance of an HOA maintained stormwater BMP facility. The
easement shall provide sufficient area for BMP infrastructure, maintenance access, and any required
setbacks. The HOA shall be responsible for all ongoing inspection, operation, and maintenance
activities. The easement location and maintenance responsibilities shall be shown on the final map and
included in the project CC&Rs, subject to approval by the City Engineer.
37.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Fire sprinklers are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3.
Residential fire sprinkler systems shall comply with the State Water Resources Control Board 's Cross
Connection Control Policy and CVWD guidelines.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 300
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Due to the type of construction, construction materials, the floor area of the project, and known risks
associated with projects of this nature, a Fire Protection and Site Safety Plan is recommended for this
project. See Fire District Standard for Fire Protection and Site Safety During Construction.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and a soils
report. Architect’s/Engineer’s stamp and “wet” signature are required prior to plan check submittal .
1.
2.
3.
Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls.4.
5.
6.
www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 301
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer’s “high wind” instructions .7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be
included within the engineered wall plans and calculations.
1.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The
Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual
Grading and Drainage Plan.
2.
3.
4.
5.
www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 302
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust
control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be
located outside of the public right of way.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 303
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (xx Avenue) must drain under the sidewalk through a
parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and
drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 304
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage acceptance
easements(s) from adjacent downstream property owner (s) or discharge flows in a natural condition
(concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage
study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a grading or
building permit.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 305
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance
of all storm water quality structural /treatment best management practices (BMP) devices, as provided
for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC &R’s or deeds
and shall be recorded prior to the issuance a grading permit. Said CC &R’s and/or deeds shall be
included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to
approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water
Quality Management Plan.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 306
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance
agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment
devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements
executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included
within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states
that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the
maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment
device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall
include maintenance agreement (s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the
maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP
document.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 307
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Section 1.5.1, Table 1-1 Priority Projects, Category No. 1, of the San Bernardino County Technical
Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans reads “All significant re -development
projects – defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet (sq. ft.) of impervious
surface on an already developed site subject to discretionary approval of the permitting jurisdiction. In
addition: Where re-development results in an increase of 50% or more of the impervious surfaces of a
previously existing developed site, the numeric sizing criteria discussed in Section 4 applies to the
entire development.
47.
www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 308
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No .
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements ).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to
primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer
strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect
groundwater:
a.Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b.Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater
quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior
to infiltration.
c.Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial
parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes’).
d.Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment
BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity {77}, areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other
high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e.Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular {78} repair or
maintenance activities {79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used
car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does
any vehicular repair work.
f.Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
h.The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high
groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial
uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained.
i.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
48.
www.CityofRC.us Page 24 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 309
Project #: DRC2024-00416 DRC2025-00093, DRC2025-00094, DRC2025-00096
Project Name: Banyan 13
Location: 6048 HELLMAN AVE - 106227101-0000
Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE –
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water
drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards
Code:
Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of
development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during
construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following
measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil
runoff on the site .
1.Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site .
2.Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter or similar
disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by
the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga).
3.Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance.
49.
50.
www.CityofRC.us Page 25 of 25Printed: 5/14/2026
Page 310
DATE:May 27, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Table
17.30.030-1, Table 17.38.060-1, and Table 17.136.020-1 to Expand the
Zones That Allow Child Day Care Facilities/Centers Upon Approval of a
Minor Use Permit, Reduce the Level of Review to a Minor Use Permit When
Already Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit, or Allow Child Day Care
Facilities/Centers as an Accessory Use Upon Approval of a Minor Use
Permit When an Approved Assembly Use is Present. This Project is
Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This Item will be
Forwarded to City Council for Final Action (DRC2026-00029).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council
adoption of the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code to clarify and expand
child day care facilities/centers.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Andresen Architecture on behalf of Crosslight Family Ministries, has requested a
Municipal Code Text Amendment to allow pre-schools and other child-care services, such as
daycares, within the Very Low (VL) Residential zone, where such uses are not currently permitted
under the Child Day Care Facility/Center use. Assembly uses are currently allowed to operate
private schools (K-8) with a Minor Use Permit, however, child care facilities such as preschools
have a different land use definition and are currently not permitted in most residential zones,
except for family day care homes.
Although the request was specific to the Very Low (VL) Residential zone, staff determined that
the constraint is not unique to that designation and applies across other zoning designations as
well. As a result, staff evaluated the allowance of Child Day Care Facility/Center uses more
broadly to apply to other residential, overlay, and form-based zones. The proposed text
amendments would apply citywide to all qualifying properties within the affected zoning
designations.
ANALYSIS:
The Development Code defines Child Day Care Facility/Center as “a facility installed, operated,
and maintained for the nonresidential care of children as defined under applicable state licensing
requirements for the facility. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, infant centers, pre-
schools, extended day-care facilities, or school-age child-care centers as defined in this title.” Per
Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code, Child Day Care Facility/Center uses are not
permitted within the Conventional zones of Very Low (VL), Low (L), Low Medium (LM), Medium
(M), and Medium High (MH) Residential zones. The use is permitted within the High (H)
Page 311
Page 2
3
5
2
0
Residential zone upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Expand the zones that allow the Child Day Care Facility/Center use, subject to issuance
of a Minor Use Permit;
Reduce the level of review to a Minor Use Permit in zones where a Child Day Care
Facility/Center use is already permitted with a Conditional Use Permit;
Allow a Child Day Care Facility/Center use as an accessory use to an approved Assembly
use upon issuance of a Minor Use Permit.
Page 312
Page 3
3
5
2
0
identified community need.
Page 313
Page 4
3
5
2
0
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed text amendment is not anticipated to result in a direct fiscal impact to the City.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed amendment addresses the City Council core value of family-oriented atmosphere
as it would allow for additional child-care and early education programs to be introduced into the
City, creating greater access to an essential service that promotes early childhood development
and supports working parents.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Proposed Redline Code Changes
Exhibit B – Draft Resolution 2026-013
Page 314
Exhibit A
6
8
2
7
Table 17.30.030-1 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone
Land
Use/Zoning
District
VL L L
M M MH H NI IE OS
C HR P FC/UC
Service and Office Uses
(16)
Table Notes:
Page 315
Redlined Table 17.30.030-1 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base
Zone
Land Use/Zoning
District VL L L
M M MH H NI IE OS
C HR P FC/UC
Service and Office Uses
Child Day Care
Facility/Center(16)(17
)
N N N N M M P P N N C N
Table Notes:
1. (Reserved)
2. See additional regulations for home occupations in chapter 17.92.
3. See additional regulations for mobile homes in chapter 17.96.
4. Permitted or requires minor use permit. See regulations for animal keeping in
chapter 17.88.
5. Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid
pipeline development require approval of a conditional use permit.
6. See additional regulations for adult entertainment businesses in chapter 17.86.
Adult-oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue.
7. See additional regulations for special regulated uses in chapter 17.102.
8. See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in chapter 17.90.
9. Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. See additional
regulations for wind energy systems in chapter 17.76.
10. See additional regulations for emergency shelters in chapter 17.110.
11. Retail sales from the premises require a conditional use permit.
12. Massage establishment permit required. See additional regulations for massage
establishments in chapter 5.18.
13. A short-term rental must be a single-family residence in zoning districts other
than VL, L, and LM. See additional regulations for short-term rentals in chapter 8.34.
14. Auto and vehicle storage is permitted as an on- or off-site accessory use to any
manufacturing use upon issuance of a minor use permit. The minor use permit may
also permit truck storage as an accessory use to manufacturing.
15. See additional regulations for agricultural uses.
16. Minimum 1,000 feet from a use in an Industrial Zone that accommodates more
than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration
units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week.
Page 316
17. A Child Care Facility/Center use may be permitted as an accessory/secondary
use to an approved Assembly Use when located within the Very Low (VL)
Residential, Low (L) Residential, Low Medium (LM) Residential, or Medium (M)
Residential zones upon issuance of a Minor Use Permit.
Table 17.38.060-1: Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetype
Placetype VN CL UN T MU Re
c
MU
Overlay*
Retail, Service, and Office Uses
Child day care facility/center N N N C C C C
Redlined Table 17.38.060-1: Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by
Placetype
Placetype VN CL UN T MU Re
c
MU
Overlay*
Retail, Service, and Office Uses
Child day care facility/center N N N M M M M
Page 317
Table 17.136.020-1 Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones
Land
Use/Zoning
District
NE-2 NG3
L NG3 CE1 CE1-
SWC
ME
1
ME
2
CO
1
CO
2
CE2
L CE2
Service and Office Uses
Child Day Care
Facility/Center N M M P P M M M M M P
Notes:
1. See additional regulations for ground floor uses in section 17.130.040.
2. See additional regulations for home occupations in chapter 17.92.
3. See additional regulations for mobile homes in chapter 17.96.
4. Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid
pipeline development require approval of a conditional use permit.
5. See additional regulations for special regulated uses in chapter 17.102.
6. See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in chapter 17.90.
7. Massage establishment permit required. See additional regulations for massage
establishments in chapter 5.18.
8. Allowed with a conditional use permit only on sites with frontage on an auto priority
street as defined in the general plan.
9. Allowed with a minor use permit only on sites with frontage on an auto priority street as
defined in the general plan.
10. MUP granted only for existing businesses within existing structures in operation prior
to October 2023. Applies solely to CE1-SWC subzone.
11. See additional regulations for industrial uses in section 17.48.050.
Page 318
Redlined Table 17.136.020-1 Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones
Land
Use/Zoning
District
NE-2 NG3
L NG3 CE1 CE1-
SWC
ME
1
ME
2
CO
1
CO
2
CE2
L CE2
Service and Office Uses
Child Day Care
Facility/Center(12)N M M P P M M M M M P
Notes:
1. See additional regulations for ground floor uses in section 17.130.040.
2. See additional regulations for home occupations in chapter 17.92.
3. See additional regulations for mobile homes in chapter 17.96.
4. Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid
pipeline development require approval of a conditional use permit.
5. See additional regulations for special regulated uses in chapter 17.102.
6. See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in chapter 17.90.
7. Massage establishment permit required. See additional regulations for massage
establishments in chapter 5.18.
8. Allowed with a conditional use permit only on sites with frontage on an auto priority
street as defined in the general plan.
9. Allowed with a minor use permit only on sites with frontage on an auto priority street as
defined in the general plan.
10. MUP granted only for existing businesses within existing structures in operation prior
to October 2023. Applies solely to CE1-SWC subzone.
11. See additional regulations for industrial uses in section 17.48.050.
12. A Child Day Care Facility/Center use may be permitted as an accessory/secondary
use to an approved Assembly Use when located within the Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE2)
zone upon issuance of a Minor Use Permit.
Page 319
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND TABLE
17.30.030-1, TABLE 17.38.060-1, AND TABLE 17.136.020-1 OF
TITLE 17 (“DEVELOPMENT CODE”) OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE CHILD DAY
CARE FACILITY/CENTER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, AND
MAKE A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3)
OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
GUIDELINES.
A.Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2026-
00029, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as “the application”.
2.On the 27th day of May 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on May 27, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The Articles/Chapter/Sections of the Municipal Code subject to the Amendment
are as follows:
(1)Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed land uses and permit requirements) of
Section 17.30.030 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of
Chapter 17.30 (Allowed Land Use by Base Zone) of Article III (Zones,
Allowed Uses, and Development Standards) of Title 17 (Development
Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended
to include a new table note to allow a Child Day Care Facility/Center
use as an accessory/secondary use to an approved Assembly use upon
approval of a Minor Use Permit within the Very Low (VL), Low (L), Low
Medium (LM), or Medium (M) Residential zones and revising the
Exhibit B
Page 320
2
allowed landed uses in the Medium High (MH) and High (H) Residential
zones to allow a Child Day Care Facility/Center use upon approval of a
Minor Use Permit; and
(2) Table 17.38.060-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by
Placetype) of Section 17.38.060 (The Resort) of Chapter 17.38
(Overlay Zones and Other Special Planning Areas) of Article III (Zones,
Allowed Uses, and Development Standards) of Title 17 (Development
Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended
to revise the required entitlement for a Child Day Care Facility/Center
use in the Transit (T), Mixed Use (MU), Recreation (REC), and the
Mixed Use Overlay (MU Overlay) zones of the Resort to be a Minor Use
Permit; and
(3) Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) of
Section 17.136.020 (Allowed Land Uses) of Chapter 17.136 (Land Use
Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Code) of Title 17 (Development
Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended
to include a new table note to allow a Child Day Care Facility/Center
use as an accessory/secondary use to an approved Assembly use
upon approval of a Minor Use Permit within the Neighborhood Estates
2 (NE2) zone.
b. The Amendments conform to and do not conflict with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs of the General Plan, including, without limitation, the
Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a
manner consistent with the General Plan.
3. The Planning Department Staff have determined that the project is statutorily exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which
includes activity covered by the common sense exemption when a project does not have potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment and it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. As the
proposed amendments are administrative in nature and further actions or projects facilitated by
the amendments would be required to perform environmental evaluation at time of site-specific
project submittal, it has been determined that the proposed text amendments would not have the
potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed
the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent
judgement, concurs in the staff determination of exemption.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,
this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment
DRC2026-000269 as indicated in Exhibit A incorporated herein by this reference.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF MAY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Page 321
BY:
Alvin C. Boling, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 322
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2026-
00029, AMENDING TABLES 17.30.030-1, 17.38.060-1, AND
17.136.020-1 OF CHAPTERS 17.30, 17.38, AND 17.136,
RESPECTIVELY, OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
FOR CHILD-CARE FACILITY/CENTER USES, MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND FINDING AN
EXEMPTION FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF
THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
I. Recitals.
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) is proposing to amend the
Development Code to expand the zones that allow Child Day Care Facilities/Centers upon
approval of a Minor Use Permit, reduce the level of review to a Minor Use Permit when already
permitted with a Conditional Use Permit, or allow child day care facilities/centers as an
accessory/secondary use upon approval of a Minor Use Permit when an approved Assembly use
is present in conventional residential zones, the Resort Overlay zones, and a form-based zone.
B. The City has prepared Development Code Amendment (DRC2026-00029), as
described in the title of this Ordinance, to amend Municipal Code Table 17.30.030-1, Table
17.38.060-1, and Table 17.136.020-1 to amend the permit requirements for a Child Day Care
Facility/Center use. Hereafter in this Ordinance, the subject Development Code amendment is
referred to as the “Amendment.”
C. On May 27, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment, opened and concluded the hearing on
that date, and thereafter, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-013,
recommending that the City Council adopt the Amendment.
D. On , 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on the Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date.
E. 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 , 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. The Tables of the Development Code subject to the Amendments are as
follows, and as set forth in Exhibit 1:
Page 323
Page 2 of 3
a. Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
by Base Zone) of Section 17.30.030 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of Chapter
17.30 (Allowed Land Use by Base Zone) of Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development
Standards) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby
amended to amend the permit requirements by Base Zone for child day care facility/center uses
and add a new footnote 17 concerning child day care facility/center uses;
b. Table 17.38.060-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
by Placetype) of Section 17.38.060 (The Resort) of Chapter 17.38 (Overlay Zones and Other
Special Planning Areas) of Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards) of Title
17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to amend
the permit requirements by Placetype for child-care facility/center uses; and
c. Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) of
Section 17.136.020 (Allowed Land Uses) of Chapter 17.136 (Land Use Standards) of Article VIII
(Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
is hereby amended to add a new footnote 12 to child-care facility/center use.
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. The proposed Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the proposed Amendment, as described in this Part II of and Exhibit A to this
Resolution, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Amendment is
administrative processes of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the
environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the proposed
Amendment and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment,
finds that the Amendment is not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
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 II 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
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.
Page 324
Page 3 of 3
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 day of , 2026, 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 325
Exhibit 1
1. Added to and Amended Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit
Requirements by Base Zone) of Section 17.30.030 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit
Requirements) of Chapter 17.30 (Allowed Land Use by Base Zone) of Article III
(Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards) of Title 17 (Development
Code):
(16)(17)
M/N M/N M/
N
M/
N
M P N N C N
Table Notes:
to an approved assembly use when located within the VL, L, LM or M zones
with a minor use permit.
2. Amended Table 17.38.060-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by
Placetype) of Section 17.38.060 (The Resort) of Chapter 17.38 (Overlay Zones
and Other Special Planning Areas) of Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses, and
Development Standards) of Title 17 (Development Code):
N N N M M M M
3. Amended Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses In Form-Based Zones) of
Section 17.136.020 (Allowed Land Uses) of Chapter 17.136 (Land Use
Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Code) of Title 17 (Development Code):
Page 326
Land Use/Zoning
District
NE-
2
NG3
L
NG
3
CE1 ME1 ME2 CO2 CE2
(12)
Table Notes:
to an approved assembly use within the NE2 zone with a minor use permit.
Page 327
3
4
5
8
DATE:May 27, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Justine Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering Services
Brittany Gulley, Management Analyst I
SUBJECT:Consideration of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Major Projects Program
for Fiscal Year 2026/27. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2026-XXX, which finds
the Major Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2026/27 in conformity with the adopted General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Government Code Section 65401 (Exhibit A) requires that the City Council adopt a Capital
Improvement Plan outlining the anticipated major improvement projects and programs for the
upcoming fiscal year. This program is branded as the Major Projects Program (MPP) that is
prepared as part of the annual budget planning process. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
is required to confirm that the MPP (Index attached with General Plan references as Exhibit B) is
in accordance with the General Plan. The MPP document includes a General Plan Policy section
that evidences the specific policy references found in the General Plan. The MPP is a vital
component of the City’s annual budget as it dictates major capital expenditures committed in any
given fiscal year. The MPP consists of a multi-year plan for citywide infrastructure improvements.
The list of projects and programs outlined in the MPP addresses both the City’s short and long-
term capital needs spanning a five-year period. The document demonstrates how planned fiscal
expenditures are aligned with community vision and values.
ANALYSIS:
The MPP Summary Index contains a snapshot of important project or program details, including
project or program type, Department and staff carrying out the project, and nominated funding
sources. Individual projects or program sheets (Exhibit C) contain supplementary information
including a short summary, cost breakdown, and estimated timelines. The Resolution (Exhibit D)
affirms that the Major Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2026/27 is in alignment with the adopted
General Plan Goals and Policies (Exhibit E).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Individual projects are funded from a variety of sources including Development Impact Fees,
Measure I, Gas Tax, state grants, and local funds. The MPP for Fiscal Year 2026/27 proposes 42
projects totaling $52,526,965 to be implemented in the upcoming fiscal year. The MPP Budget
will be presented to City Council for final review and approval.
Page 328
3
4
5
8
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The City’s Engineering staff collaborates with all Departments within the City to develop and
implement a comprehensive MPP that guides the ongoing improvement of the City’s public
capital and infrastructure needs. The MPP addresses the City Council’s mission to continuously
ensure and advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision-making by
ensuring the construction of high-quality and economically responsible public improvements.
The MPP supports the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and
healthy community for all, and supporting excellent quality of life for the community.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A. Government Code 65401
Exhibit B. Fiscal Year 2026/27 Major Projects Program Index Summary Sheet
Exhibit C. Fiscal Year 2026/27 Major Projects Program Individual Project Sheets
Exhibit D. Resolution 26-xxx of Approval for Finding the Major Projects Program for Fiscal Year
2026/27 in Conformity with the Adopted General Plan
Exhibit E. General Plan Goals and Policies
Page 329
3
4
5
8
Page 2
Page 330
Exhibit A
Government Code
65401. If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, within such time as may be
fixed by the legislative body, each county or city officer, department, board, or
commission, and each governmental body, commission, or board, including the
governing body of any special district or school district, whose jurisdiction lies wholly
or partially within the county or city, whose functions include recommending, preparing
plans for, or constructing, major public works, shall submit to the official agency, as
designated by the respective county board of supervisors or city council, a list of the
proposed public works recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the
ensuing fiscal year. The official agency receiving the list of proposed public works shall
list and classify all such recommendations and shall prepare a coordinated program of
proposed public works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program shall be
submitted to the county or city planning agency for review and report to said official
agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereof.
Page 331
INDEX SHEET MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
General Plan
Reference Project Manager Project Proponent Department Project Name Fund Name Prior Year
Funding
Fiscal Year
2026/27
Fiscal Year
2027/28
Fiscal Year
2028/29
Fiscal Year
2029/30
Fiscal Year
2030/31
Future
Years
Total Project
Cost
PF-4.1 Veronica Fincher Veronica Fincher Animal Care Services Animal Center Kennel Project Development Impact Fee - Animal Center (F125)15,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 215,000$
PF-4.1 Veronica Fincher Veronica Fincher Animal Care Services Animal Center Play Yard Project Development Impact Fee - Animal Center (F125)-$ -$ 15,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 115,000$
LC-4.2 Ted Morales Nathan Hunt Community Services The Resort Joint Use Public Facility Project Development Impact Fee - Community and Recreation Centers (F113)-$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ 9,520,000$ -$ -$ 11,220,000$
Development Impact Fee - Library (F123)-$ -$ -$ -$ 2,040,000$ -$ -$ 2,040,000$
Development Impact Fee - Police (F127)-$ -$ -$ -$ 3,740,000$ -$ -$ 3,740,000$
PF-1.1 Darci Vogel Mike McCliman Fire District Amethyst Fire Station 171 Rebuild and Expansion Project Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)1,824,300$ 981,750$ 10,799,250$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,605,300$
Development Impact Fee - Fire (F160)-$ 803,250$ 8,835,750$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,639,000$
PF-1.1 Chad Comeau Mike McCliman Fire District Banyan Fire Station 175 ADA Improvements Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)335,390$ 924,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,259,390$
PF-1.1 Chad Comeau Mike McCliman Fire District Day Creek Station 173 ADA Improvements Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)332,190$ 924,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,256,190$
S-1.1 Chad Comeau Mike McCliman Fire District EOC Relocation Project Law Enforcement Reserve (F017)34,220$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34,220$
Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)288,180$ 516,800$ -$ 2,945,670$ -$ -$ -$ 3,750,650$
PF-1.1 Chad Comeau Mike McCliman Fire District Fire Administration Headquarters Project Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)1,118,470$ 1,522,890$ 14,416,410$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17,057,770$
Law Enforcement Reserve (F017)34,220$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34,220$
PF-1.1 Chad Comeau Mike McCliman Fire District Jersey Station 174 ADA Improvements Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)92,430$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 92,430$
CFD 85-1 (F282)239,760$ 1,474,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,713,760$
S-1.1 Chad Comeau Lt. Jeffrey Allison Fire District RCPD Facility Modernization Project Law Enforcement Reserve (F017)433,300$ 5,372,370$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,805,670$
PF-3.1 Cara Vera Wess Garcia Library Services Diane Williams Library at Lions Park Emergency Preparedness Project TBD -$ -$ -$ 2,232,500$ -$ -$ -$ 2,232,500$
PF-3.1 Cara Vera Wess Garcia Library Services Diane Williams Library at Lions Park Expansion Project Library Capital Fund (F329)19,700,000$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,300,000$
Community Benefit Fund (F030)4,635,690$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,635,690$
Development Impact Fee - Library (F123)700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$
PF-3.1 Angelica Trummell Wess Garcia Library Services Paul A. Biane Infrastructure Project Library Capital Fund (F329)1,200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$
PF-1.4 Lt. Mauricio Hurtado Lt. Mauricio Hurtado Police Department Drone as First Responder Project General Fund (F001)479,995$ 479,995$ 479,995$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,439,986$
PF-1.1 Andy Miller Maritza Martinez Public Works City Hall and Council Chambers Glass Entry Door Replacement Project Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)75,000$ 215,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 290,000$
PF-1.4 Andy Miller Behrang Abadi Public Works City Hall Server Room Data Air Units Replacement Project Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)-$ 185,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 185,000$
PF-1.1 Fily Reyes Maritza Martinez Public Works Citywide HVAC and Lighting Controls Project City Capital Reserve (F025)282,000$ 3,306,200$ 2,074,600$ 1,843,600$ 1,936,000$ -$ -$ 9,442,400$
PF-1.4 Andy Miller Maritza Martinez Public Works Civic Center Parking Deck Resurface and Restripe Project Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)-$ -$ 60,000$ 660,000$ -$ -$ -$ 720,000$
PF-1.1 Fily Reyes Maritza Martinez Public Works Civic Center Sewer Line Replacement Project Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)75,000$ 962,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,037,500$
PF-1.1 Fily Reyes Darci Vogel Public Works Fire Stations 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177 Painting Project Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)375,000$ 405,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 780,000$
PF-1.4 Fily Reyes Maritza Martinez Public Works Public Works Corporate Yard Screen Wall Project City Capital Reserve (F025)-$ -$ -$ 88,238$ 882,375$ 882,375$ -$ 1,852,988$
PF-1.4 Fily Reyes Wessley Garcia and Public Works Various City and Fire District Roof Repairs Project City Capital Reserve (F025)-$ 379,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 379,500$
Mike McCliman Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)22,125$ 113,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 135,975$
General Fund (001)25,375$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,375$
PF-1.1 Fily Reyes Maritza Martinez Public Works VGCC A/C Package Unit Replacement Project City Capital Reserve (F025)100,000$ 1,375,000$ 605,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,080,000$
S-5.6 Krystal Lai Jason Welday Engineering Services Base Line Road Utility Undergrounding Project Underground Utilities (F129)-$ 75,000$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 675,000$
MA-5.2 Michael Scott Behrang Abadi Department of Innovation City Data Network Infrastructure Refresh Project Computer Equipment and Technology Replacement (F714)3,645,320$ 179,680$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,825,000$
and Technology Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)3,645,320$ 179,680$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,825,000$
LC-3.5 Michael Scott Behrang Abadi Department of Innovation Phone System Upgrade Project Computer Equipment and Technology Replacement (F714)-$ -$ 670,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 670,000$
and Technology Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)-$ -$ 330,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 330,000$
S-1.7 Mike Parmer Mike Parmer Engagement and Special Programs Wildfire Early Detection System Project State Grants Fund (F274)1,500,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,900,000$
PF-7.1 Mike Parmer Mike Parmer Engagement and Special Programs RC Fiber Extension Project - Amethyst Avenue Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)2,500$ -$ 77,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$
Fiber Optic Network (F711)2,500$ -$ 77,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$
Page 1 of 3Exhibit B
Page 332
INDEX SHEET MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
General Plan
Reference Project Manager Project Proponent Department Project Name Fund Name Prior Year
Funding
Fiscal Year
2026/27
Fiscal Year
2027/28
Fiscal Year
2028/29
Fiscal Year
2029/30
Fiscal Year
2030/31
Future
Years
Total Project
Cost
S-1.1 Trina Valdez Chris Beeman Engagement and Special Programs RCMU Electrical Outage Communications Improvement Project Municipal Utility (F705)120,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 520,000$
PF-7.1 Derek Eastman Derek Eastman Engagement and Special Programs RCMU Line Extension Project - Etiwanda Heights Municipal Utility (F705)-$ 100,000$ 8,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,800,000$
PF-7.1 Derek Eastman Derek Eastman Engagement and Special Programs RCMU Line Extension Project - Etiwanda North Phase 2 Municipal Utility (F705)10,000$ -$ 2,640,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,650,000$
PF-7.1 Derek Eastman Derek Eastman Engagement and Special Programs RCMU Line Extension Project - Milliken Avenue South of Jersey Blvd Municipal Utility (F705)-$ 1,920,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,920,000$
PF-7.1 Derek Eastman Derek Eastman Engagement and Special Programs RCMU Line Extension Project - Sixth Street Municipal Utility (F705)10,000$ 5,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,510,000$
PF-1.1 Chris Beeman Chris Beeman Engagement and Special Programs RCMU New Southeast Industrial Electric Substation Project Municipal Utility (F705)215,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 230,000$
Financing -$ -$ 48,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 48,000,000$
OS-1.8 Chris Sorensen Nathan Hunt Community Services Central Park Backbone Infrastructure Project Development Impact Fee - Park Improvement (F119)-$ -$ 800,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,800,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000,000$ -$ -$ 6,000,000$
OS-1.7 Ted Morales Nathan Hunt Community Services Civic Center Area Park Project Development Impact Fee - Park Land Acquisition (F111)-$ -$ 7,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,000,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,125,450$ 9,125,450$
OS-1.7 Ted Morales Nathan Hunt Community Services East Side Area Park Development Project Development Impact Fee - Park Land Acquisition (F111)-$ -$ 6,600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,600,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,760,000$ 6,760,000$
OS-1.7 Ted Morales Nathan Hunt Community Services Etiwanda Creek Park - Phase 2 Project Development Impact Fee - Park Improvement (F119)-$ -$ -$ 5,440,000$ -$ -$ -$ 5,440,000$
Development Impact Fee - Park Development (F120)-$ -$ 870,000$ 5,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 5,870,000$
PF-1.1 Ted Morales Nathan Hunt Community Services The Bark at Central Park Restroom and Shade Project Development Impact Fee - Park Improvement (F119)-$ -$ -$ 80,000$ 720,000$ -$ -$ 800,000$
LC-1.4 Vishal Lad Jason Welday Engineering Services Heritage Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project Phase 2 PD-85 Red Hill and Heritage Parks (F848)409,690$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,409,690$
PF-1.4 Fily Reyes Maritza Martinez Public Works Citywide Site Lighting Repairs and Upgrades Program LMD 2 Victoria Neighborhood Parks (F131)-$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 350,000$ -$ 850,000$
OS-1.3 Hank Merenda Maritza Martinez Public Works Parks Playground and Surfacing Replacements Program LMD 2 Victoria Neighborhood Parks (F131)-$ 800,000$ -$ 800,000$ -$ 1,600,000$
LMD 4-R Terra Vista Planned Community (F134)800,000$ -$ 800,000$ 800,000$ -$ 2,400,000$
OS-1.3 Hank Merenda Maritza Martinez Public Works Parks Shade Structure Replacement Program LMD 4-R Terra Vista Planned Community (F134)-$ 165,000$ -$ -$ -$ 165,000$
LC-1.1 Fily Reyes Daniel Akers Public Works Red Hill South Beautification Project PD-85 Capital Replacement Fund (F847)39,360$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39,360$
PD-85 Red Hill and Heritage Parks (F848)88,225$ 510,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 598,225$
RC-2.6 Hank Merenda Maritza Martinez Public Works Water Conservation Landscape Renovation Program LMD 2 Victoria Neighborhood Parks (F131)250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$
LMD 4-R Terra Vista Planned Community (F134)150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$
LMD 6-R Caryn Planned Community (F136)100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$
LMD 7 North Etiwanda (F137)50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$
MA-2.2 Lelani Gnaster Jason Welday Engineering Services 6th Street at BNSF Spur Crossing Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)56,000$ 215,000$ 440,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 711,000$
Industrial Area Traffic Fund (F199)-$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
LC-5.1 Romeo David Jason Welday Engineering Services Almond Street Improvements Project Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)3,233,430$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,233,430$
Fire Protection Capital Fund (F288)450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$
LC-1.4 Vishal Lad Jason Welday Engineering Services Banyan Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements Project Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)-$ -$ 67,000$ 598,000$ -$ -$ -$ 665,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ -$ 57,000$ 506,000$ -$ -$ -$ 563,000$
TBD -$ -$ 68,000$ 605,000$ -$ -$ -$ 673,000$
LC-1.4 Krystal Lai Jason Welday Engineering Services Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancement Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ -$ 216,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 216,000$
Transportation Development Act (F214)-$ 75,000$ 175,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)-$ -$ 206,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 206,000$
LC-1.4 Lelani Gnaster Jason Welday Engineering Services Church Street Buffered Bike Lanes Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ -$ 71,000$ 636,000$ -$ -$ -$ 707,000$
TBD -$ -$ 169,000$ 1,513,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,682,000$
MA-2.3 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services City Center Boulevards Project Phase 1 Federal Grants Fund (F275)529,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 529,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)74,000$ -$ 1,348,000$ 6,437,000$ -$ -$ -$ 7,859,000$
TBD -$ -$ 3,206,000$ 15,311,000$ -$ -$ -$ 18,517,000$
MA-2.3 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services City Center Boulevards Project Phase 2 Federal Grants Fund (F275)126,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 126,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)16,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,539,000$ -$ -$ 1,555,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,661,000$ -$ -$ 3,661,000$
Page 2 of 3
Page 333
INDEX SHEET MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
General Plan
Reference Project Manager Project Proponent Department Project Name Fund Name Prior Year
Funding
Fiscal Year
2026/27
Fiscal Year
2027/28
Fiscal Year
2028/29
Fiscal Year
2029/30
Fiscal Year
2030/31
Future
Years
Total Project
Cost
MA-2.3 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services City Center Boulevards Project Phase 3 Federal Grants Fund (F275)1,013,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,013,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)129,000$ -$ -$ 386,000$ -$ 12,674,000$ -$ 13,189,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ 918,000$ -$ 30,143,000$ -$ 31,061,000$
MA-2.3 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services City Center Boulevards Project Phase 4 Federal Grants Fund (F275)770,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 770,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)99,000$ -$ 2,709,000$ -$ 9,416,000$ -$ -$ 12,224,000$
TBD -$ -$ 6,443,000$ -$ 22,395,000$ -$ -$ 28,838,000$
MA-2.3 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services City Center Boulevards Project Phase 5 Federal Grants Fund (F275)739,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 739,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)95,000$ -$ -$ 3,269,000$ -$ 9,325,000$ -$ 12,689,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ 7,774,000$ -$ 22,178,000$ -$ 29,952,000$
MA-2.3 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services City Center Boulevards Project Phase 6 Federal Grants Fund (F275)798,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 798,000$
Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)102,000$ -$ -$ 2,912,000$ -$ -$ 10,037,000$ 13,051,000$
TBD -$ -$ -$ 6,924,000$ -$ -$ 23,872,000$ 30,796,000$
LC-6.5 Krystal Lai Jason Welday Engineering Services Civic Center Drive Improvement Project Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)85,250$ 302,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 387,750$
State Grants Fund (F274)-$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$
MA-3.4 Lelani Gnaster Jason Welday Engineering Services Etiwanda Creek Bridges Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)1,200,000$ -$ 12,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,200,000$
LC-5.1 Romeo David Jason Welday Engineering Services Etiwanda East Side Widening Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)1,793,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,793,000$
MA-3.1 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services Fairmont Way and Highland Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian State Grants Fund (F274)-$ 349,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 349,000$
AB 2766 Air Quality Improvement (F105)-$ 139,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 139,000$
LC-5.6 Krystal Lai Jason Welday Engineering Services Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane Restriping Project Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)-$ 91,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 91,000$
Transportation Development Act (F214)-$ 342,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 342,000$
LC-1.4 Lelani Gnaster Jason Welday Engineering Services Hermosa Avenue Complete Streets Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ 50,000$ 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 375,000$
Transportation Development Act (F214)-$ 71,000$ 466,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 537,000$
MA-3.1 Vishal Lad Jason Welday Engineering Services Jasper Street Pedestrian Improvements Project Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)-$ 274,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 274,000$
PF-1.4 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services Local Streets Paving Program Highway Users Tax Account (F174)-$ 1,345,000$ 1,462,500$ 1,580,000$ 2,697,500$ 2,815,000$ -$ 9,900,000$
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)-$ 2,345,000$ 2,462,500$ 2,580,000$ 2,697,500$ 2,815,000$ -$ 12,900,000$
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (F179)-$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,000,000$
PF-1.4 Sarine Hazarshahian Jason Welday Engineering Services Major Arterial Paving Program Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (F179)-$ 7,318,000$ 8,113,600$ 4,026,360$ 5,373,020$ 4,270,000$ -$ 29,100,980$
PF-1.4 Krystal Lai Jason Welday Engineering Services Pecan Avenue Street Improvements Project Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)22,000$ 1,739,900$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,761,900$
MA-3.1 Lelani Gnaster Jason Welday Engineering Services Southwest Cucamonga Safe Routes to School Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ -$ -$ -$ 108,000$ 1,612,000$ -$ 1,720,000$
Industrial Area Traffic Fund (F199)-$ -$ -$ -$ 317,000$ 753,000$ -$ 1,070,000$
Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,447,000$ -$ 2,447,000$
PF-1.4 John Standi Maritza Martinez Public Works Citywide Concrete Repair Program Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)420,000$ 370,000$ 427,500$ 375,000$ 250,000$ 1,842,500$
Highway Users Tax Account (F174)370,000$ 370,000$ 370,000$ 370,000$ 370,000$ 1,850,000$
Measure I Fund (F177)150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 750,000$
Community Development Block Grant (F204)700,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 2,700,000$
LC-2.3 John Standi Maritza Martinez Public Works Park and Facility Parking Lot Rehabilitation Program City Capital Reserve (F025)1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
Citywide Infrastructure Improvement (F198)-$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
TBD -$ -$ 372,460$ 253,000$ 253,000$ 878,460$
MA-5.4 Krystal Lai Jason Welday Engineering Services Advanced Traffic Management System Program Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ -$ 5,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000,000$
Federal Grants Fund (F275)-$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
MA-3.2 Alberto Felix Jason Welday Engineering Services Church Street and Ramona Avenue Roundabout Project Development Impact Fee - Transportation (F124)-$ -$ -$ 300,000$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,550,000$
MA-3.2 Alberto Felix Jason Welday Engineering Services Local Roadway Safety Plan Improvements Program State Grants Fund (F274)-$ 459,090$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 459,090$
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)-$ 51,010$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 201,010$
Page 3 of 3
Page 334
MAJORPROJECTSPROGRAM
1-909-477-2740
www.CityofRC.us
10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
FISCAL YEAR2026-2027
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Engineering Services Department
Exhibit C
Page 335
Page 336
FACILITIES
MPP 2026
2027
Page 337
Page 338
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Animal Center (F125)215,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Routine operations and maintenance on the expanded facility.$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 15,000
$ -
$ 200,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Animal Center Kennel Project
Installation of 15-20 additional outdoor kennels at the Animal Services Center. Project will
include determination of location within the external gated area of the Animal Center,
installation of kennels, and plumbing necessary for sanitization. Design/Build funding will be
provided by the Animal Center Foundation.
Additional outdoor kennels are needed for dog enrichment and to add capacity to the Animal
Services Center as the City's population increases.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Animal Care Services
Facilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
11780 Arrow Route
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2027
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 339
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Animal Center (F125)115,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Routine operations and maintenance on the expanded facility.$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 15,000
$ -
$ 100,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
Animal Center Play Yard Project
Construction of a new play yard at the Animal Service Center to expand capacity for caring for
animals and adoptions services. Project will include determining the area of placement for the
yard either in the outdoor gated area of the center or expanding into the parking lot adjacent
to the current yards. Design/Build funding will be provided by the Animal Center Foundation.
Additional outdoor play yard is needed to add capacity to the Animal Services Center as the
City's population increases.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Animal Care Services
Facilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
11780 Arrow Route
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2029
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 340
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Community and Recreation
Centers (F113)11,220,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Library (F123)2,040,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Police (F127)3,740,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ 1,700,000 $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,900,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700,000 $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700,000 $ -
Total Costs:-$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ 15,300,000$ -$
annual O&M costs to maintain facility and equipment.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 17,000,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ 1,700,000
$ -
$ -
$ 11,900,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
The Resort Joint Use Public Facility Project
This project located within The Resort community will establish a new public facility providing
recreational and cultural programs and public safety services for the community.
As the City works with private developers to meet the housing needs of current and future
residents, the City mandates that developers provide additional funding to be used for the
benefit and improvement of the entire community.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Community Services
Facilities
Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 1,700,000
$ 1,700,000
7th Street and The Resort Parkway
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2030
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 341
Amethyst Fire Station
Project ID Spend Category
2090
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)13,605,300$
Development Impact Fee -
Fire (F160)9,639,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 1,724,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 17,850,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 1,785,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 1,785,000 $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 1,724,300
$ -
$ -
$ 17,850,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Amethyst Fire Station 171 Rebuild and Expansion Project
Replacement of an existing fire station with a two-story, 10,500 sq ft fire station utilizing the
design-bid-build process. RCMU will extend fiber to the property as part of the project.
maintenance and repair expenses. It lacks ADA compliance and the functionality and physical
space needed to accommodate the District's diverse and growing workforce. The station is
unsecured with no fence/gate to prevent public access. The project will expand the station
square footage by 45%. This will allow for additional staffing at the station and potential
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ 100,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 1,785,000
$ 1,785,000
6627 Amethyst Street
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2029
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 342
Project ID Spend Category
2111
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)1,259,390$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 95,630 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 840,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 239,760 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 84,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 95,630
$ -
$ -
$ 840,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Banyan Fire Station 175 ADA Improvements
Replacement of existing gender specific, communal style restrooms with non-gender specific,
single use restrooms. New restrooms will be ADA accessible and remodeled in coordination
with projects at Fire Stations 173 and 174.
growing workforce, ensuring equitable access to restroom facilities. The existing restrooms
are gender specific, consisting of one single use restroom for female personnel and a larger
communal style restroom for male personnel. Any crews comprised of greater than one
female can present operational delays to achieve the post-fire shower within the hour
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 239,760
$ 84,000
11108 Banyan Street
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 343
Project ID Spend Category
2093
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)1,256,190$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 92,430 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 840,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 239,760 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 84,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 92,430
$ -
$ -
$ 840,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Day Creek Station 173 ADA Improvements
Replacement of existing gender specific, communal style restrooms with non-gender specific,
single use restrooms. New restrooms will be ADA accessible and remodeled in coordination
with projects at Fire Stations 174 and 175.
growing workforce, ensuring equitable access to restroom facilities. The existing restrooms
are gender specific, consisting of one single use restroom for female personnel and a larger
communal style restroom for male personnel. Any crews comprised of greater than one
female can present operational delays to achieve the post-fire shower within the hour
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 239,760
$ 84,000
12270 Firehouse Court
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 344
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Law Enforcement Reserve
(F017)34,220$
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)3,750,650$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 322,400 $ 81,250 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 2,355,440 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 400,550 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ 590,230 $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2029
Expenditure Category
$ 35,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 400,550
$ 590,230
EOC Relocation Project
This project will be a multi-year effort to assess, plan, and relocate the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) from RC Police Station to City Hall.
Relocating and expanding the EOC will enhance access, provide greater flexibility of the use of
space, and facilitate future growth for the City and the Police Department. Relocating the EOC
will enable the police station, constructed in the 1980s, to be modernized to current public
safety standards.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 403,650
$ -
$ -
$ 2,355,440
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
Routine operations and maintenance on the new facility.$
$ 3,784,870
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 345
Project ID Spend Category
2223
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)17,057,770$
Law Enforcement Reserve
(F017)34,220$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 1,152,690 $ 217,920 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 12,906,690 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 1,184,970 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 1,509,720 $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2029
Expenditure Category
$ 120,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 1,184,970
$ 1,509,720
Fire Administration Headquarters Project
The project involves the construction of a headquarters (HQ) facility to the house the
administrative operations of the Fire District. The three-story building will be located adjacent
to the City Council Chambers and is approximately 11,100 square feet.
Construction of the Fire Administration Headquarters is necessary in order to allow for the
expansion of the Police Headquarters to the current Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and
the relocation of EOC to the current Fire Headquarters in the lower level of City Hall.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 1,370,610
$ -
$ -
$ 12,906,690
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
O&M will include utilities, property insurance, etc.$
$ 17,091,990
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 346
Project ID Spend Category
2092
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)92,430$
CFD 85-1 (F282)1,713,760$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 92,430 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,340,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 239,760 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 134,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 239,760
$ 134,000
Jersey Station 174 ADA Improvements
Replacement of existing gender specific, communal style restrooms with non-gender specific,
single use restrooms. New restrooms will be ADA accessible and remodeled in coordination
with projects at Fire Stations 173 and 175.
growing workforce, ensuring equitable access to restroom facilities. The existing restrooms
are gender specific, consisting of one single use restroom for female personnel and a larger
communal style restroom for male personnel. Any crews comprised of greater than one
female can present operational delays to achieve the post-fire shower within the hour
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 92,430
$ -
$ -
$ 1,340,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 1,806,190
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 347
Project ID Spend Category
1348
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Law Enforcement Reserve
(F017)5,805,670$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 433,300 $ 116,520 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 3,324,740 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 1,087,480 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 808,630 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Routine operations and maintenance on the modernized facility.$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 5,805,670
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ 549,820
$ -
$ -
$ 3,324,740
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
RCPD Facility Modernization Project
This project will modernize the RC Police Station building to allow for growing staff and office
space needs.
The current Police Station building, constructed in the 1980s, requires updates to bring the
facility to public safety standards. Improvements will include expansion of lobby,
reconfiguration of office space, and increased and improved lockers. To accommodate
planned improvements, the EOC will be relocated from its current location on the third floor
of the Police Station to City Hall.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Fire District
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ 35,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 1,087,480
$ 808,630
10510 Civic Center Drive
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2027
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 348
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
TBD 2,232,500$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:2,232,500$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ 340,000 $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 1,892,500 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2029
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
Diane Williams Library at Lions Park Emergency Preparedness Project
The relocation of library services to the renovated Diane Williams Library at Lions Park creates
an opportunity to enhance the facility’s resilience.
This project proposes adding upgrades to the facility and installing solar power generation
with battery backup systems to ensure the building can continue operating during and after a
evacuation center or emergency services site, providing a safe and reliable resource for the
community in times of need.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Library Services
Facilities
Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 340,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,892,500
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
$ 2,232,500
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 349
Project ID Spend Category
2114
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Library Capital Fund (F329)20,300,000$
Community Benefit Fund
(F030)4,635,690$
Development Impact Fee -
Library (F123)700,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 1,783,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 20,228,330 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 1,617,110 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ 1,407,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 1,783,250
$ -
$ -
$ 20,728,330
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Diane Williams Library at Lions Park Expansion Project
This project enhances library services for the City’s westside area through significant building
and system upgrades, expanded space for library collections, and the addition of a central
courtyard. A major component of this project incorporates an enclosed, climate controlled
patrons.
evaluations have determined that, despite potential site improvements, the property is not
adequately suited to meet the community's current and future needs. Further investment in
the facility would not be fiscally prudent due to the site's inherent limitations. The courtyard
addition will improve ADA accessibility, promote walkability, and serve as a versatile outdoor
PROJECT FUNDING*
Library Services
Facilities
Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 1,617,110
$ 1,507,000
9161 Base Line Rd
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2027
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 350
Project ID Spend Category
2115
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Library Capital Fund (F329)1,200,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:1,200,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 24,780 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 1,017,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ 108,060 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 50,000
$ 108,060
Paul A. Biane Infrastructure Project
The long-term impact of the Paul A. Biane Library infrastructure project is an updating and
readying of the building for the next 20 years of service.
20 years of age. When constructed, much of the building’s design and infrastructure were
state of the art, however through normal wear and tear and sustained levels of high usage,
several critical life systems and significant building features have reached irreparable, end-of-
life conditions requiring refurbishment, upgrade, or replacement.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Library Services
Facilities
Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 24,780
$ -
$ -
$ 1,017,160
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 1,200,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 351
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
General Fund (F001)1,439,986$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:1,439,986$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 479,995 $ 479,995 $ 479,995 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2026
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
Drone as First Responder Project
This program enables drones to autonomously launch from strategic locations throughout the
Visual Line of Sight by certified remote pilots.
The program would provide real-time video to responding deputies. It would aid PD in quicker
response times and provide intelligence resources for investigations.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Police Department
Facilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,439,986
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
3-year contract includes installation, service, repairs and replacement, maintenance,
hardware refresh, and software updates. Contract amendment will be required to
drone operations and attend ongoing training.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,439,986
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 352
Project ID Spend Category
2202
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)290,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 75,000 $ 215,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 290,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
City Hall and Council Chambers Glass Entry Door Replacement Project
Replacement of glass entry doors to City Hall and Council Chambers to meet ADA accessibility.
The current weight of the doors is an issue in being able to open doors manually. Along with
this problem, the weight causes strain on the automatic door openers that falter regularly.
Removing and replacing them with lighter doors will address the ADA accessibilty issues along
with easing the load on the automatic door openers.
The glass entry doors to City Hall and Council Chambers are original to the building and have
exceeded their life expectancies. Currently, the doors are not operating consistently, resulting
in downtime, extensive repair costs, and intermittent ADA access issues.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
City Hall
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 353
Project ID Spend Category
2203
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)185,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 185,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
The existing Data Air units are original to the City Hall server room and have exceeded their
life expectancies. They are currently utilized as redundant cooling and are emergency cooling
back-ups if the main server room AC units fail.
IMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
$ 185,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 185,000
No Impact
City Hall Server Room Data Air Units Replacement Project
Replacement of two existing back-up air conditioning units for City Hall server room.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilites
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2025
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 354
Project ID Spend Category
1978
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
City Capital Reserve (F025)9,442,400$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:9,442,400$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 282,000 $ 204,200 $ 182,600 $ 193,600 $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 2,820,000 $ 1,720,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,760,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 282,000 $ 172,000 $ 150,000 $ 176,000 $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2030
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 780,000
Citywide HVAC and Lighting Controls Project
Design for new lighting and HVAC controls and replacement of flourescent and HID
technology with FY 26/27: Construction CP & VGCC, , Design Civic Center; FY 27/28:
Construction Stadium/Sports Center; Design ACAC, PWSC, RCFRC, Lions; FY 28/29
Construction Civic Center, FY 29/30 Construct ACAC, PSWC, RCFRC, Lions.
Replacement parts are no longer available, same is true for other City facilities. Out-of-date
HVAC controls are another problem for City facilities. Project goal is to standardized HVAC
and upgrade to LED lighting. This will support cost savings through energy conservation and
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 862,400
$ -
$ -
$ 7,800,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 9,442,400
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 355
Project ID Spend Category
2205
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)720,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 60,000
$ -
$ -
$ 660,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Civic Center Parking Deck Resurface and Restripe Project
Installation of new vehicular traffic coating and paint striping on Civic Center visitior parking
deck.
The current traffic coating and paint striping was last applied in 2009 and maintenance
patching was conducted in 2016. The current product has exceeded its life expectancy and is
currently failing. Existing cracks are increasing in size, new cracks are beginning to form, and
water is penetrating and lifting the coating.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
City Hall
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2026
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 356
Project ID Spend Category
2207
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)1,037,500$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 875,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 87,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 87,500
Civic Center Sewer Line Replacement Project
Replacement of all sewer and storm drain cast iron piping.
The exisiting cast iron sewer and storm drain lines at the Civic Center are over 30 years old
and have exceeded their life span. Leaks are becoming a regular occurence due to cracking
pipes with sewage and dirty water continuing to intrude into occupied spaces causing health
and safety concerns.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 75,000
$ -
$ -
$ 875,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 1,037,500
Page 357
Project ID Spend Category
2209
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)780,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 300,000 $ 405,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 75,000
$ -
$ -
$ 705,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Fire Stations 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177 Painting Project
Interior and exterior painting for Fire Stations 173, 174, 175, 176 and 177. Project will be split
Phase II FY26/27: Construction at Stations 174, 175, and 177.
The deteriorating paint at fire stations—both interior and exterior—is causing cracks and
peeling, which invites moisture and further damage. As essential emergency response
facilities and living quarters for fire personnel, these stations must be maintained in a safe,
healthy condition. Promptly addressing the paint issues will prevent further deterioration,
reduce long-term repair costs, and ensure a functional, comfortable environment for staff.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
Fire Stations 173, 174, 175, 176, 177
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2026
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 358
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
City Capital Reserve (F025)1,852,988$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:1,852,988$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ 88,238 $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 882,375 $ 882,375
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 88,238
$ -
$ -
$ 1,764,750
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Public Works Corporate Yard Screen Wall Project
Build a screen Wall at the Public Works Corporate Yard
materials required to maintain the city infrastructure. The south side of the building is
currently separated from the public with a chainlink fence. This fence has been breached
countless times as visibility is high for those who wish to break in and steal equipment and
materials from the public works yard. This screen wall would offer protection from visibility
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
Public Works Corporate Yard
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2031
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 359
Project ID Spend Category
2213
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
City Capital Reserve (F025)379,500$
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)135,975$
General Fund (F001)25,375$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 47,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 448,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 44,850 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 44,850
Various City and Fire District Roof Repairs Project
Conduct roof repairs at Victoria Gardens Cultural Center (VGCC), Public Works Service Center
(PWSC), Fire Station 174, Fire Station 175, Fire Station 176, and Fire Station 177.
The various City and Fire District facilities listed are in varying levels of disrepair. All existing
roofing systems are at or near end of life and are curently leaking. Each is in need of either
built up roof (BUR) repair, standing seam roof repair, and/or tile roof repair.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 47,500
$ -
$ -
$ 448,500
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 540,850
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 360
Project ID Spend Category
2214
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
City Capital Reserve (F025)2,080,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:2,080,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 125,000 $ 55,000 $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 180,000
VGCC A/C Package Unit Replacement Project
This project will replace nine existing A/C package units with high-efficiency models to
improve reliability, energy efficiency, and temperature control. The upgrades will reduce
operating and maintenance costs, enhance comfort for guests and performers, and ensure
compliance with current building and environmental standards.
The nine existing A/C units at the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center have exceeded their useful
life and suffer frequent failures due to obsolete components that are no longer
manufactured. Repairs are costly and unreliable, requiring temporary fixes that disrupt
events, with approximately $125,000 spent annually to keep the system operational.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Facilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 100,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,800,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 2,080,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 361
Page 362
MISCELLANEOUS
MPP 2026
2027
Page 363
Page 364
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Underground Utilities (F129)675,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:675,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2028
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
Base Line Road Utility Undergrounding Project
Underground the overhead utilities along north side Base Line Road.
This project is funded by the Underground Utility Fund (129) as part of SCE allocation of utility
underground funds to each City. The use of these funds is governed by SCE's Rule 20A
regulations. Rule 20A funds are reserved for heavily used and/or scenic streets and the efforts
to remove overhead utilities will improve the appearance along Base Line Road.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Miscellaneous
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 75,000
$ -
$ -
$ 500,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
$ 675,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 365
Project ID Spend Category
2225
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Technology Replacement
(F714)3,825,000$
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)3,825,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ 7,290,640 $ 359,360 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 7,650,000
$ -
$ -
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
City Data Network Infrastructure Refresh Project
Our current network hardware and systems will be 10 years old in June 2025. The original life
expectancy was 7 – 10 years old and we have reached our full life from the equipment. The
network replacement will be an estimated total of $7,650,000 over the next two years for
hardware, software, and support. We will be building on hyperconverged model and adding
software defined network technology that allows for additional security and flexibility.
The Data Network is the core platform for all our digital connectivity. This network facilitates
access to all computers and servers, software systems, alerting, notification, camera, phones,
remote access, data, mapping, and all other digital services that run over our network. This
will be completed in two phases: Phase 1 FY2025/2026 and Phase 2 FY2026/2027.
PROJECT FUNDING*
DoIT
Miscellaneous
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
City Hall, Offsite, and Fire Station
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2027
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 366
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Technology Replacement
(F714)670,000$
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)330,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Depending on the type of phone system we implement, there will be a yearly
reoccurring license or subscription cost, likely based on quantity of users or phone
extensions.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,000,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 1,000,000
$ -
$ -
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Phone System Upgrade Project
Replace the enterprise platform that powers the City's phone systems. Items in scope
includes server hardware and software, and potentially, new desk phones.
The City's phone system will reach end of life in the coming years. The platform will no longer
receive udpates, including critical security patches, once the product hits end of life. A
replacement is required to maintain a critical service while also ensuring adequate
cybersecurity protections.
PROJECT FUNDING*
DoIT
Miscellaneous
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
City Hall, Offsite, and Fire Station
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2029
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 367
Project ID Spend Category
2122
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
State Grants Fund (F274)1,900,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:1,900,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 1,500,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Impact on operations will be moderate with annual costs of an annual subscription
and license to webportal, cellular data, training, and cell tower lease(s).
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,900,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,900,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
Wildfire Early Detection System Project
Installation of a 30-camera unit, early wildfire detection system along the City's nothern
boundary. Includes a 6-year subscription and license, cell data access, and training for staff.
The system will provide rapid detection, reporting, and response to wildfires along City’s
northern boundary, following the wildland-urban interface to the Alta Loma and Etiwanda
neighborhoods along the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains. The system will save
significant resources, money, and most importantly, lives. The project will provide for initial
construction as well as ongoing training, maintenance, and implementation.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Miscellaneous
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
North Wildland Urban Interface
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2027
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 368
MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES
MPP 2026
2027
Page 369
Page 370
Project ID Spend Category
2096
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)80,000$
Fiber Optic Network (F711)80,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 135,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ -
Minimal impact to O&M $
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 160,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 5,000
$ -
$ -
$ 135,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
RC Fiber Extension Project - Amethyst Avenue
Installation of approximately 6,000 LF of fiber optic cable to be installed along Base Line
Road/Amethyst Street in existing fiber conduit to be extended to Fire Station 171.
Connecting all City and Fire facilities to the City's fiber optic network will optimize
communication and uniform connectivity. This project also provides options to expand to
potential new customers in the area.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Municipal Utilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 20,000
Amethyst Avenue - Base Line Road Road to Fire Station 171
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2027
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 371
Project ID Spend Category
2181
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Municipal Utility (F705)520,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:520,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ 120,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
RCMU Electrical Outage Communications Improvement Project
Develop a plan to purchase and install outage notification equipment in connection with
mass communication technology to improve electrical outage information communication
with RCMU customers.
RCMU's existing outage response process is insufficient for today's technology requirements
and expectations. With the technology readily available, we will need to evolve to leverage
available technology to communicate customer outage information.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Municipal Utilities
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 520,000
$ -
$ -
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Communications software subscription renewal will be expected annually and
equipment will need to be maintained and updated. Need for designated City staff to
oversee program.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 520,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 372
Project ID Spend Category
2215
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Municipal Utility (F705)8,800,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:8,800,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 7,200,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2028
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 1,500,000
RCMU Line Extension Project - Etiwanda Heights
Installation of 15,000' of (2) new 12 kV electric distribution circuits and fiber optic line
extension heading north from the Arbors Substation on Rochester Avenue and Stadium Way
to Banyan Street, completing a circuit loop feed.
This line extension project will complete a circuit loop feed that will serve the Etiwanda
Heights neighborhood.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Municipal Utilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 100,000
$ -
$ -
$ 7,200,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Minimal O&M for the first few years.$
$ 8,800,000
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 373
Project ID Spend Category
2126
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Municipal Utility (F705)2,650,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:2,650,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 2,200,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 440,000 $ - $ - $ -
Minimal O&M for the first few years.$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ 2,200,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
RCMU Line Extension Project - Etiwanda North Phase 2
Installation of 4,500' of new 12 kV electric distribution and fiber optic line extension to
connect to existing second circuit to complete a circuit loop feed from Foothill Blvd. and
Etiwanda Ave. to the switch on Victoria Gardens Lane. in front of Bass Pro shop.
This phase 2 extension project will complete a circuit loop feed heading north on Etiwanda
Ave to Church Street and west to Bass Pro Shops. This loop will provide redundancy in
RCMU's existing electric distribution system. It will also be required for the future Napa
substation circuits.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Municipal Utilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 440,000
Etiwanda Ave - Foothill Boulevard to Church Street
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2028
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 374
Project ID Spend Category
2179
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Municipal Utility (F705)1,920,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:1,920,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 320,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Minimal O&M for the first few years.$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,600,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
RCMU Line Extension Project - Milliken Avenue South of Jersey Boulevard
Installation of 1,800' of new 12 kV electric distribution and fiber line extension to connect to
existing RCMU circuit to prepare for Brightline West's temporary construction and permanent
power needs and connect to an existing 2nd circuit on 6th Street. A significant portion of the
project's funding is reimbursable via Brightline West.
This RCMU extension project will provide electric service to the future Brightline West station,
parking garage and EV charging stalls. The 2nd phase construction loop will provide
redundancy in RCMU's existing electric distribution system for the resort.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Municipal Utilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 320,000
Milliken Avenue - Jersey Boulevard to Azusa Court
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2027
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 375
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Municipal Utility (F705)5,510,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:5,510,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 4,400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Minimal O&M for the first few years.$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ 4,400,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
RCMU Line Extension Project - Sixth Street
Installation of 9,200' line extension along Sixth Street from Catherine Bridge Parkway to The
Resort Parkway, also crossing railroad spur to extend future two (2) circuits from new
substation.
Ensure system reliability for any potential outages by connecting the existing Arbors circuits
50 and 60. This will also accommodate the future Napa Substation circuit expansion that will
be necessary to extend new circuits.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engagement & Special Programs
Municipal Utilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 1,100,000
Sixth Street, West of Etiwanda Avenue
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2027
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 376
Project ID Spend Category
2177
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Municipal Utility (F705)230,000$
Financing 48,000,000$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:48,230,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 40,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 8,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Annual O&M costs will be included in RCMU's budget. Annual debt service may be
needed if construction is financed.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 48,230,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 200,000
$ -
$ -
$ 40,000,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
RCMU New Southeast Industrial Electric Substation Project
Development of a new RCMU substation in the Southeast Industrial area to be interconnected
with SCE's existing transmission/sub-station line and RCMU's existing distribution line in order
to increase RCMU's capacity to service new electrical load.
Construction of a new RCMU substation will be needed in order to meet the potential new
residential load demand of the area once development occurs.
PROJECT FUNDING*
RCMU
Municipal Utilities
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ 30,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 8,000,000
Southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Napa Street
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2028
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 377
PARKS
MPP 2026
2027
Page 378
Page 379
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Park Improvement (F119)2,800,000$
TBD 6,000,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ 800,000 $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY 2030
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
Central Park Backbone Infrastucture Project
Design and construct backbone infrastructure such as water, sewer, electrical, storm drain
mainline, and roads needed for further development of Central Park.
Future phases of Central Park are difficult to develop without backbone infrastructure
requiring each project to take on additional costs that are not competitive for typical park
grant opportunities. Construction of the backbone infrastructure will better utilitze future
park development funds and allow for better opportunities for grant funding.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Community Services
Parks
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ 800,000
$ -
$ -
$ 8,000,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
N/A
Expenditure Category
No Impact
$ 8,800,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 380
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Park Land Acquisition (F111)7,000,000$
TBD 9,125,450$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ 7,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Costs:-$ -$ 7,000,000$ -$ -$ -$
maintenance costs.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 16,125,450
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ 600,000
$ -
$ 7,000,000
$ 7,000,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
Civic Center Area Park Project
This project involves acquiring land located within the Civic Center Focus Area in the General
Plan and developing the land into an a new park space.
Acquisition and renovation of this land into will enhance quality of life by providing a shared
public space with opportunity for informal play, family activities, and quiet recreation, where
people can socialize and build connections.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Community Services
Parks
Providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 59,500
$ 1,465,950
West of Deer Creek Channel, Between Devon Street and Civic Center Drive
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2030
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 381
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Park Land Acquisition (F111)6,600,000$
TBD 6,760,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ 6,600,000 $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Costs:-$ -$ 6,600,000$ -$ -$ -$
maintenance costs.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 13,360,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ 520,000
$ -
$ 6,600,000
$ 5,200,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
East Side Area Park Development Project
Leveraging the City’s park-related Impact Fees, this project aims to develop and enhance
parkland within the Etiwanda area. The effort includes land acquisition and the future
development of a new park, with the specific location to be determined. The project will
designed with sustainability and accessibility in mind to ensure all residents can enjoy and
benefit from this new public amenity.
underutilized green spaces, and enhance the overall quality of life for residents.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Community Services
Parks
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 520,000
$ 520,000
TBD
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2030
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 382
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Park Improvement (F119)5,440,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Park Development (F120)5,870,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ 870,000 $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 8,700,000 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ 870,000 $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ 870,000 $ - $ -
As a newly developed park and facilities, this project is anticipated to incur new
operating and maintenance costs.$$
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 11,310,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
$ 870,000
$ -
$ -
$ 8,700,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
Etiwanda Creek Park - Phase 2 Project
Utilizing Park Improvement Impact Fees, this project represents Phase 2 of the Etiwanda
Creek Park development. It will develop and improve the land located East of the existing
park, further expanding and enhancing recreational opportunities for the community. Initial
rendering proposes a new ballfields w/lights, shade structures, a small public works yard, a
community center, tennis courts and parking.
underutilized green spaces, and enhance the overall quality of life for residents.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Community Services
Parks
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 870,000
$ 870,000
East Avenue and 23rd Street
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2030
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 383
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Park Improvement (F119)800,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 560,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 80,000
$ 80,000
The Bark at Central Park Restroom and Shade Project
Install a restroom facility and shade structure. The infrastruture for the restroom is present,
which will streamline the project to meet the community need.
The absence of restrooms has been a longstanding concern, raising both health and
accessibility concerns from residents. This limitation also restricts the City’s ability to offer
programming at the park. Additionally, many park users have expressed a strong need for
shade in the park to improve comfort and usability.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Community Services
Parks
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 80,000
$ -
$ 560,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY26/27
Expenditure Category
This project will result in minor ongoing operational and maintenance costs
associated with the new restroom facility.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 800,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 384
Project ID Spend Category
2218
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
PD-85 Red Hill and Heritage
Parks (F848)2,409,690$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 409,690 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 240,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 240,000
$ 160,000
Heritage Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project Phase 2
Replace two (2) existing damaged pedestrian and equestrian bridges within Heritage Park that
span Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel. An interfund loan agreement was
approved by City Council to advance the funds for the Project from the Citywide
Infrastructure Fund (F198) to the PD-85 Red Hill and Heritage Parks Fund (F848).
Both bridges were evaluated in 2019 and it was determined they required replacement as
Creek and required immediate closure. The bridges need to be replaced to maintain access to
the equestrian facilities and trails within the park.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Parks
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 409,690
$ -
$ -
$ 1,600,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to operation costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
pedestrian bridge improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 2,409,690
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 385
Project ID Spend Category
2169
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
LMD 2 Victoria
Neighborhood Parks (F131)-$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 300,000 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Citywide Site Lighting Repairs and Upgrades Program
Rewiring or replacement of existing lighting infrastructure and installation of LED site, paseo
and parking lot lighting. FY27/28 Victoria Arbors Park; FY28/29 Victoria Groves Park;
FY29/30 LMD 2 Paseo Lighting Retrofits.
This project addresses critical infrastructure needs by resolving major issues from aged
wiring and light fixtures that are no longer functional, as well as upgrades to LED lighting for
improved energy efficiency and sustainability.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Public Works
Parks
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Total Costs:
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
PROGRAM PHOTOPROGRAM PHOTOPROGRAM PHOTO
Page 386
Project ID Spend Category
2210
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
LMD 2 Victoria
Neighborhood Parks (F131)-$
LMD 4-R Terra Vista Planned
Community (F134)800,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,600,000 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Parks Playground and Surfacing Replacements Program
Replace the Playgrounds at FY26/27 West Greenway Park (LMD4); FY27/28 Victoria
and Ralph M Lewis Park (LMD4).
The existing rubberized surfaces at these parks will need to be replaced so the City is taking
the opportunity to replace the existing play equipment that will set each of our parks apart
from all of the others.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Public Works
Parks
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Total Costs:
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
PROGRAM PHOTO
Page 387
Project ID Spend Category
2217
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
LMD 4-R Terra Vista Planned
Community (F134)-$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
Parks Shade Structure Replacement Program
This program provides for the planned upgrade, replacement,and repair of the 49 shade
structure roofs throughout City parks. Funding in FY 27/28 is proposed for the Ralph M.
Lewis Park (LMD 4) location.
The City currently maintains 49 shade structures that require periodic rehabilitation due to
aging materials, weather-related wear, and ongoing safety and usability needs. Shade
structures have an expected useful life based on the materials and construction.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Public Works
Parks
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
PROGRAM PHOTO
Page 388
Project ID Spend Category
2130
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
PD-85 Capital Replacement
Fund (F847)39,360$
PD-85 Red Hill and Heritage
Parks (F848)598,225$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 39,360 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 88,225 $ 51,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 382,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 76,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 139,225
$ -
$ -
$ 382,500
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
Expenditure Category
Red Hill South Beautification Project
Refresh of the south side of Red Hill Park. Reduce the depth of the water feature, replace
planters and floating island, and incorporate other design elements.
This project will provide the solution to the inefficiencies of our current water feature while
also providing an opportunity to incorporate other design elements, creating a more versatile
space and increasing the quality of visitors' experiences.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Public Works
Parks
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ 39,360
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ 76,500
Red Hill Park
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 389
Project ID Spend Category
1787
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
LMD 2 Victoria
Neighborhood Parks (F131)250,000$
LMD 4-R Terra Vista Planned
Community (F134)150,000$
LMD 6-R Caryn Planned
Community (F136)100,000$
LMD 7 North Etiwanda
(F137)50,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Water Conservation Landscape Renovation Program
Continuation of previous work to remove turf and replace with drought tolerant landscaping
and hardscape. This will be to replace non-functional and dying turf areas in the Landscape
Maintenance Districts. LMD funding may be adjusted and added to based on pending state
and federal grant opportunities.
This project will reduce water usage and labor costs to irrigate and maintain landscaping.
will need to continue to be reduced in the future.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Public Works
Parks
Providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Total Costs:
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
PROGRAM PHOTO
Page 390
STREETS
MPP 2026
2027
Page 391
Page 392
Project ID Spend Category
1839
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)711,000$
Industrial Area Traffic Fund
(F199)1,000,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 56,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ 165,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2028
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
6th Street at BNSF Spur Crossing Project
Constructing an at grade crossing at 6th Street and the BNSF Railroad Spur. Improvements will
include railroad crossing signals and safety measures, two vehicular lanes and bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity.
The project will improve traffic circulation, movement of goods, and emergency response in
the area as part of the industrial area redevelopment and as envisioned in the General Plan.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 106,000
$ -
$ 165,000
$ 1,200,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
This project will involve minimal maintenance of new pavement, striping, and
sidewalk.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,711,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 393
Project ID Spend Category
2101
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)3,233,430$
Fire Protection Capital Fund
(F288)450,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 314,455 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 304,755 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 11,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 2,516,260 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 285,330 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ 251,630 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 3,683,430
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 304,755
$ -
$ 11,000
$ 2,516,260
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY26/27
Expenditure Category
Almond Street Improvements Project
The Almond Street project includes constructing a new local road consisting of one lane in
each direction, to complete the connection of Almond Street between Carnelian Street and
Via Verde Street.
Completion of these improvements would provide an additional east-west street connection
north of SR-210, improving traffic circulation and public safety access, in an area identified as
a high fire hazard zone with limited access, in support of the goals of the General Plan.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ 314,455
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 285,330
$ 251,630
Almond Street from Carnelian Street to east of Via Verde Street
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2026
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 394
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)665,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)563,000$
TBD 673,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ 192,000 $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 1,367,000 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ 171,000 $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ 171,000 $ - $ -
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,901,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 192,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,367,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
Banyan Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements Project
This project proposes pavement rehabilitation on Banyan Street from Rocking Horse Place to
Day Creek Boulevard, from Laurel Blossom Place to Etiwanda Avenue, and from East Avenue
to Golden Lock Place, along with slurry seal on certain portions of the corridor. It also includes
constructing buffered bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements from Rochester Avenue to the
eastern city limit, such as a high-visibility crosswalk, installation of RRFBs, ADA-compliant curb
ramps, and sidewalk improvements.
This project will improve ADA accessibility and increase pedestrian and bicycle safety with a
high visibility crosswalk and a buffered bicycle lane.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 171,000
$ 171,000
Banyan Street from Rochester Ave to Golden Lock Place
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2028
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 395
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)216,000$
Transportation
Development Act (F214)250,000$
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)206,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ 47,000 $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 672,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 75,000
$ -
$ -
$ 500,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancement Project
Installing a traffic signal at the crossing for the Deer Creek Channel Bike Trail at Base Line
Road. Other improvements include installing high visibility continental crosswalk striping,
modification of the existing median island, and curb ramp upgrades.
This project will enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity by installing a new
protected crossing across Base Line Road, as recommended in the Connect RC Active
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 47,000
$ 50,000
Base Line Road and Deer Creek Channel
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2028
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 396
Project ID Spend Category
SC7004
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)707,000$
TBD 1,682,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ 240,000 $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 1,720,000 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ 215,000 $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ 214,000 $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2028
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 215,000
$ 214,000
Church Street Buffered Bike Lanes Project
Installing buffered bike lanes on Church Street from Deer Creek Channel to Haven Avenue and
from Mayten Avenue to East Avenue.
This project will enhance bicycle safety and connectivity as recommended in the Connect RC
Active Transportation Plan.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 240,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,720,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 2,389,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 397
Project ID Spend Category
2186
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Federal Grants Fund (F275)529,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)7,859,000$
TBD 18,517,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 21,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 562,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 20,000 $ - $ 4,554,000 $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 14,547,000 $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ 2,182,000 $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ 5,019,000 $ - $ -
Upon project completion, there will be a need for maintenance on traffic signals,
landscaping and street lights.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 26,905,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 562,000
$ -
$ 4,574,000
$ 14,547,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
City Center Boulevards Project Phase 1
Project includes complete street elements with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities. Multiway frontage roads are included to accommodate on-street parking, while
providing access to key work, retail, and recreation designations along the corridor.
This project is part of the PlanRC to transform Haven Avenue from a suburban arterial and
historic highway to an active city center boulevard.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ 21,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 2,182,000
$ 5,019,000
West side of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Jersey Boulevard
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2030
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 398
Project ID Spend Category
2186
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Federal Grants Fund (F275)126,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)1,555,000$
TBD 3,661,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 133,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,478,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 522,000 $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2031
Expenditure Category
$ 5,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 522,000
$ 1,200,000
City Center Boulevards Project Phase 2
Project includes complete street elements with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities. Multiway frontage roads are included to accommodate on-street parking, while
providing access to key work, retail, and recreation designations along the corridor.
This project is part of the PlanRC to transform Haven Avenue from a suburban arterial and
historic highway to an active city center boulevard.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 133,000
$ -
$ 4,000
$ 3,478,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
Upon project completion, there will be a need for maintenance on traffic signals,
landscaping and street lights.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 5,342,000
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 399
Project ID Spend Category
2186
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Federal Grants Fund (F275)1,013,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)13,189,000$
TBD 31,061,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 39,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 1,066,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 37,000 $ - $ - $ 1,304,000 $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 28,640,000
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,296,000
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,881,000
Upon project completion, there will be a need for maintenance on traffic signals,
landscaping and street lights.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 45,263,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 1,066,000
$ -
$ 1,341,000
$ 28,640,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
City Center Boulevards Project Phase 3
Project includes complete street elements with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
faciliites. Multiway frontage roads are included to accommodate on-street parking, while
providing access to key work, retail, and recreation designations along the corridor.
This project is part of the PlanRC to transform Haven Avenue from a suburban arterial and
historic highway to an active city center boulevard.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ 39,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 4,296,000
$ 9,881,000
East Side of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Jersey Boulevard
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
N/A
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 400
Project ID Spend Category
2186
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Federal Grants Fund (F275)770,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)12,224,000$
TBD 28,838,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 811,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 28,000 $ - $ 9,152,000 $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,278,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,192,000 $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,341,000 $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2031
Expenditure Category
$ 30,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 3,192,000
$ 7,341,000
City Center Boulevards Project Phase 4
Project includes complete street elements with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities with design options for an eventual center running, dedicated transit lane on Foothill
Boulevard. Multiway frontage roads are included to accommodate on-street parking, while
providing access to key work, retail, and recreation designations along the corridor.
This project is part of the PlanRC to transform Foothill Boulevard from a suburban arterial and
historic highway to an active city center boulevard.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 811,000
$ -
$ 9,180,000
$ 21,278,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
Upon project completion, there will be a need for maintenance on traffic signals,
landscaping and street lights.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 41,832,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 401
Project ID Spend Category
2186
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Federal Grants Fund (F275)739,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)12,689,000$
TBD 29,952,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 29,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 778,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 27,000 $ - $ - $ 11,043,000 $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,072,000
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,161,000
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,270,000
Upon project completion, there will be a need for maintenance on traffic signals,
landscaping and street lights.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 43,380,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 778,000
$ -
$ 11,070,000
$ 21,072,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
City Center Boulevards Project Phase 5
Project includes complete street elements with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities with design options for an eventual center running, dedicated transit lane on Foothill
Boulevard. Multiway frontage roads are included to accommodate on-street parking, while
providing access to key work, retail, and recreation designations along the corridor.
This project is part of the PlanRC to transform Foothill Boulevard from a suburban arterial and
historic highway to an active city center boulevard.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ 29,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 3,161,000
$ 7,270,000
Foothill Boulevard from Spruce Avenue to Milliken Avenue
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
N/A
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 402
Project ID Spend Category
2186
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Federal Grants Fund (F275)798,000$
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)13,051,000$
TBD 30,796,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 31,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 840,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 29,000 $ - $ - $ 9,836,000 $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
N/A
Expenditure Category
$ 31,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 3,402,000
$ 7,825,000
City Center Boulevards Project Phase 6
Project includes complete street elements with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities with design options for an eventual center running, dedicated transit lane on Foothill
Boulevard. Multiway frontage roads are included to accommodate on-street parking, while
providing access to key work, retail, and recreation designations along the corridor.
This project is part of the PlanRC to transform Foothill Boulevard from a suburban arterial and
historic highway to an active city center boulevard.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 840,000
$ -
$ 9,865,000
$ 22,682,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY30/31
Expenditure Category
Upon project completion, there will be a need for maintenance on traffic signals,
landscaping and street lights.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 44,645,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 403
Project ID Spend Category
2123
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)387,750$
State Grants Fund (F274)350,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 85,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 544,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 54,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 54,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2026
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 54,000
$ 54,000
Civic Center Drive Improvement Project
This project includes relocating the existing crosswalk on Civic Center Drive, construction of a
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB), a median refuge island, curb ramp upgrades, a
Class II buffered bike lane, and bulbouts. The City was awarded a grant the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 12.
This project will provide pedestrians and cyclists a safe and accessible path along Civic Center
Drive. The project will promote a more comfortable walking and biking environment in the
areas around City Hall, the County Courthouse, and adjacent commercial sites per the General
Plan and the Civic Center Master Plan.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 85,250
$ -
$ -
$ 544,500
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY26/27
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to maintenance of the newly constructed improvements. $
$ 737,750
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 404
Project ID Spend Category
2184
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)13,200,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2028
Expenditure Category
$ 100,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
Etiwanda Creek Bridges Project
This project includes widening the existing crossings at Etiwanda Creek and constructing a
scope includes street reprofiling, constructing drainage culverts, catch basins, sidewalks,
driveways, curb ramps, pavement replacement and repair, and signing and striping.
This project proposes roadway improvements and widening at the Etiwanda Creek crossings
on Arrow Route and Whittram Avenue to support the redevelopment in the southeast
industrial area and the additional needed capacity of these roadways. It will additionally
improve drainage and prevent localized flooding.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 1,100,000
$ -
$ -
$ 10,000,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
Maintenance of new bridge.$
$ 13,200,000
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 405
Project ID Spend Category
2002
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)1,793,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ 423,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 1,125,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ 122,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ 122,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q1 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 122,500
$ 122,500
Etiwanda East Side Widening Project
This project involves street widening on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue including
constructing curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, utility relocations, and pavement
rehabilitation.
This project will increase capacity and address traffic circulation challenges on Etiwanda
Avenue by providing an additional lane for northbound vehicle lanes and completing the
sidewalk gap closure.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ 423,000
$ 1,125,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,793,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 406
Project ID Spend Category
2190
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
State Grants Fund (F274)349,000$
AB 2766 Air Quality
Improvement (F105)139,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ 41,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 312,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 41,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 94,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Prior YearsExpenditure Category
Fairmont Way and Highland Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project
Installing Class II bike lanes, a Class III bike route, continental crosswalks and refreshing
Way from Fairmont Way to Woodruff Place, Woodruff Place, and Highland Avenue from
Woodruff Place to Day Creek Boulevard. The City was awarded a grant the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 12.
Connect RC reported that there were gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian, particularly near
will enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Est. Construction End
Est. Construction Start
Project Location
Council Districts
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Fairmont Way, Kenyon Way and Highland Avenue
Project
Description
Justification
Operations & Maintenance
$ 41,000
$ -
$ -
$ 312,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
$
Impact Begins
FY27/28
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 41,000
$ 94,000
$ 488,000
$ -
Personnel Services
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 407
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)91,000$
Transportation
Development Act (F214)342,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 370,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 31,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 31,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 433,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 370,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane Restriping Project
This project includes restriping of the existing buffered bike lane along Foothill Boulevard from
Baker Avenue to Haven Avenue and installing vertical barriers to reflect the current City
standards.
This project will enhance comfort for cyclists along Foothill Boulevard by providing protected
bike lanes and improving visibility of the bike lane.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 31,500
$ 31,500
Foothill Boulevard from Baker Avenue to Haven Avenue
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q3 2027
Page 408
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)375,000$
Transportation
Development Act (F214)537,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ 121,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ 650,000 $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ 70,500 $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ 70,500 $ - $ - $ -
Maintenance of vertical barriers, new sidewalks, signing and striping, and crossing
treatments.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 912,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 121,000
$ -
$ -
$ 650,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY28/29
Expenditure Category
Hermosa Avenue Complete Streets Project
This project includes removing a vehicular lane in order to construct a buffered bike lane and
sidewalk and crossing improvements for pedestrians along Hermosa Avenue between Foothill
Boulevard and Base Line Road, Base Line Road to Highland Avenue, and Lemon Avenue to
Banyan Street.
Completion of these improvements will enhance pedestrian connectivity to nearby Hermosa
Park and Hermosa Elementary School while promoting slower vehicular speeds to improve
bicycle and pedestrian comfort and safety along and crossing Hermosa Avenue.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 70,500
$ 70,500
Various Locations along Hermosa Avenue
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2028
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 409
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)274,000$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:274,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ 37,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 184,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2026
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 28,000
$ 25,000
Jasper Street Pedestrian Improvements Project
This project includes pedestrian improvements such as high-visibility crosswalks and bulb-outs
with new curb ramps at both intersections.
Completion of these improvements would improve pedestrian connectivity to the nearby
Jasper Elementary School.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 37,000
$ -
$ 184,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 274,000
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 410
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
Highway Users Tax Account
(F174)1,345,000$
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)2,345,000$
Rehabilitation Account
(F179)1,000,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 4,000,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,800,000
$ 400,000 $ 420,000 $ 440,000 $ 460,000 $ 480,000
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
Local Streets Paving Program
The program consists of slurry seal and grind and overlay on local neighborhood streets
throughout the City to preserve and extend the life of pavement. This program will also
include upgrading existing curb ramps to ADA compliant curb ramps.
This pavement program will restore the existing road surface to a substantially new
condition, extending pavement life and improving use and rideability. Streets selected for
this program for overlay have an average pavement condition index of 45 and those
selected for slurry seal have an average pavement condition index of 65.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
PROGRAM PHOTO
Page 411
Project ID Spend Category
SC7004
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
Road Maintenance and
7,318,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 6,100,000 $ 6,770,000 $ 3,302,000 $ 4,439,000 $ 3,500,000
$ 610,000 $ 677,000 $ 330,200 $ 443,900 $ 350,000
Major Arterial Paving Program
This program includes pavement rehabilitation and associated improvements including
upgrades to the video detection system, curb ramps, and striping. FY 2026/2027 includes
portions of Etiwanda Avenue, 4th Street, Highland Avenue and Sapphire Street. FY27/28
includes portions of Etiwanda Avenue, 8th Street and Arrow Route.
This program will restore the existing road surface to a substantially new condition,
extending the pavement life and improving use and rideability. Streets selected for this
program generally have a pavement condition index of 35 to 48.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Total Costs:
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
PROGRAM PHOTO
Page 412
Project ID Spend Category
2038
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)1,761,900$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:1,761,900$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ 22,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,444,900 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ 145,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2027
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 150,000
$ 145,000
Pecan Avenue Street Improvements Project
This project includes pavement rehabilitation and major reconstruction in some areas.
This project will enhance vehicular safety by reconstructing the existing road into new road
and pavement rehabilitation those areas that are paved by the development to extend
pavement useful life and match newly reconstruction road surface.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Relentless pursuit of improvement
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
DIF Required Project
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 22,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,444,900
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY27/28
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to operations costs for maintenance of the newly resurfaced
pavement.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 1,761,900
PROJECT PHOTO
Page 413
Project ID Spend Category
SC7004
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)1,720,000$
Industrial Area Traffic Fund
(F199)1,070,000$
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)2,447,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 425,000 $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,316,000
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 516,000
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 980,000
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q2 2029
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ 516,000
$ 980,000
Southwest Cucamonga Safe Routes to School Project
This project includes constructing buffered bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements including
curb extensions, installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), and sidewalk
improvements on various streets in the southwestern portion of the city.
This project will improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists by removing existing gaps in
the network, using contributions from Development Agreement No. DRC2022-00266 (9th and
Vineyard Warehouse Development Project, Panattoni).
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ -
$ 425,000
$ -
$ 3,316,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
Minimal increases to operation costs for maintenance of the newly constructed
improvements.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 5,237,000
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 414
Project ID Spend Category
1991
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)420,000$
Highway Users Tax Account
(F174)370,000$
Measure I Fund (F177)150,000$
Community Development
Block Grant (F204)700,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 1,312,000 $ 1,112,000 $ 1,158,000 $ 1,116,000 $ 1,016,000
$ 164,000 $ 139,000 $ 144,750 $ 139,500 $ 127,000
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
Citywide Concrete Repair Program
Improving our sidewalks enhances overall safety, increases accessibility for individuals using mobility devices
and strollers, supports local businesses by encouraging walkability, and promotes long-term community well-
being. Investing in sidewalk maintenance strengthens our infrastructure, improves public access, and
contributes to a more vibrant and inclusive neighborhood.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Public Works
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
This project will replace damaged sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and drive approaches that pose public safety concerns.
Work will be completed citywide in high-impact areas and along key corridors, including Sapphire St to Haven Ave from
Wilson Ave to Base Line Rd (Citywide 2026/27) Milliken Ave to Rochester Ave from Victoria Park Ln and Base LIne Rd
(CDBG 2026/27); Haven Ave to East Ave from Wilson Ave to Base Line Rd (Citywide 2027/28); Deerbrook St Hellman Ave
to Archibald Ave (CDBG 2027/28); Haven Ave to East AVe from Wilson Ave to Base Line Rd (Citywide 2028/29); Lark Dr
from Milliken Ave to Rochester Ave (CDBG 2028/29); Lemon Avenue between Hellman and Archibald (Citywide
2029/30); 26th Street between Hermosa and Haven (CDBG 2029/30); Split Rein between Day Creek Boulevard and
Bluegrass Drive (Citywide 2030/31); and Lemon Avenue between Archibald and Hermosa (CDBG 2030/31).
PROGRAM PHOTOPROGRAM PHOTO
Page 415
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
City Capital Reserve (F025)1,000,000$ Citywide Infrastructure
Improvement (F198)-$
TBD -$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 782,000 $ 350,000 $ 271,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000
$ 90,000 $ 50,000 $ 33,860 $ 23,000 $ 23,000
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
Impact Begins
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
Various Locations
Program
Description
Justification
Park and Facility Parking Lot Rehabilitation Program
Improve Park Accessibility and Safety Through Parking Lot Repaving. 26/27 Grind, overlay,
update curb ramps, and restripe Red Hill Park. 27/28 Grind, overlay, update curb ramps, and
restripe Quakes Stadium. 28/29 Grind, overlay, update curb ramps, and restripe Milliken and
Spruce Park. 29/30 Slurry seal and restripe Central and Kenton Park. 30/31 Slurry seal and
This project will update parking lots for city park and facility parking lots. Notably, the
$500,000 in funding programmed for FY 2027/28 is anticipated to be reimbursable through
the California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA).
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Public Works
Streets
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
PROGRAM PHOTOPROGRAM PHOTO
Page 416
TRAFFIC
MPP 2026
2027
Page 417
Page 418
Project ID Spend Category
2216
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)-$
Federal Grants Fund (F275)-$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 4,800,000 $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 480,000 $ - $ - $ -
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
$$
Impact Begins
N/A
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
Program costs include O&M agreements for ongoing diagnostics of network and
coordination issues and maintenance of hardware.
Base Line Road, Archibald Avenue
Program
Description
Justification
Advanced Traffic Management System Program
Integration of new signals into the City's Traffic Management Center per the Traffic Signal
Communication Master Plan (TSCMP). ATMS Phase 3 will include installation on Base Line
Road, Archibald Avenue, and coordination with Caltrans to bring all phases live into the
improvements and maintenance of ATMS.
Implementation of this program will enable real time reactivity and improve monitoring,
retiming, and coordination of the City's traffic signal system as a part of a multiphase
program to implement the TSCMP adopted in 2018.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Traffic
Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
PROGRAM PHOTO
Page 419
Project ID Spend Category
0000
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Development Impact Fee -
Transportation (F124)2,550,000$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
Environmental/NPDES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design/Plan Review $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ -
Design/Build $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Right-of-Way $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,250,000 $ -
Inspection & Administration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Moderate increases to operation costs for maintenance of newly constructed
roundabout.
Lead Department
Project Type
Est. Construction Start
$ 2,550,000
*For conciseness, this includes the project's total funding or total cost estimates (i.e., [Prior Years] + [Current 5-Year Projection] + [Future Years]).
5-YEAR PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Personnel Services
Prior Years
Operations & Maintenance
$ 300,000
$ -
$ -
$ 2,250,000
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Impact Begins
FY29/30
Expenditure Category
Church Street and Ramona Avenue Roundabout Project
Reconstructing the intersection to install a roundabout at Church Street and Ramona Avenue.
The project is recommended in the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan. The Plan conducted a
citywide collision analysis to identify collision patterns. The highest collision patterns noted
and countermeasures are proposed to address the issues.
PROJECT FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Traffic
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Project Proponent
ADA Tag
Council Districts
Project Location
Expenditure Category
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT
COST*
$ -
$ -
Church Street and Ramona Avenue
Project
Description
Justification
Description of Impact
CY Q4 2029
PROJECT PHOTOPROJECT PHOTO
Page 420
Project ID Spend Category
2183
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Council Goal
Funding Source
State Grants Fund (F274)459,090$
Measure I 2010-2040 (F177)51,010$
-$
-$
-$
Total Funding:510,100$
2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 2030/2031
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 463,700 $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction
Inspection & Administration
Contingency
Expenditure Category
Environmental/NPDES
Design/Plan Review
Design/Build
Right-of-Way
5-YEAR PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES
$
Impact Begins
N/A
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
No ImpactIMPACT ON OPERATIONS
Expenditure Category Description of Impact
Moderate increases to operation costs for maintenance of newly constructed
improvements.
Citywide Improvements
Program
Description
Justification
Local Roadway Safety Plan Improvements Program
The LRSP creates a framework to identify and analyze potential safety issues and
10 signalized intersections by installing retro-reflective borders on signal heads and
crosswalk striping upgrades. Update the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan in 2027.
A citywide collision analysis was conducted to identify prominent collision patterns. The
highest collision patterns are identified and countermeasures are proposed to address the
issues.
PROGRAM FUNDING*
Engineering Services
Traffic
Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all
Program Proponent
ADA Tag
DIF Required Project
PROGRAM PHOTOPROGRAM PHOTO
Page 421
Page 422
PROJECTS IN
THE ROUGH
MPP 2026
2027
Page 423
Page 424
No.Department Project Type Project Title Project Location Project Description Project
Estimate
1 Community Services Facilities Central Park Furniture and Office
Cubicles Project 11200 Base Line Road
Purchase new office furniture (tables,
seating, and new office cubicles). For FY
27/28, the City will apply for CDBG funds
(using 50% local match) to cover the
public-facing areas of Central Park.
$ 330,000
2 Community Services Facilities Central Park Interior Wallpaper
Project 11200 Base Line Road
This project will remove the original
wallpaper throughout the Central Park
Community and Senior Center’s two
large event halls and all hallways.
Surfaces will be repaired, prepped, and
repainted to restore a clean, modern
aesthetic consistent with the building’s
character and community standards.
$ 260,000
3 Community Services Facilities Epicenter Sound System
Replacement Project 8408 Rochester Avenue
Replacement of the audio processing
system and four main speakers serving
the Epicenter Stadium.
$ 135,000
4 Community Services Facilities Lewis Family Playhouse Lobby and
Theater Redesign Project 12505 Cultural Center Drive
The redesign of the lobby and theater
areas, including new flooring, paint,
carpeting, theater seating, and ADA-
related improvements. Additional
upgrades will address aging
infrastructure and enhance the patron
and performer experience.
$ 5,000,000
5 Community Services Facilities RC Sports Center Monument Sign
Digital Display Project 8303 Rochester Avenue
Replacement of the outdoor non-
functional LED digital display at the main
entrance of the RC Sports Center.
$ 250,000
6 Engagement &
Special Programs Facilities RCPD VG Substation Relocation and
Expansion Project 12505 N Mainstreet Assess, plan, and relocate a new Police
Substation to enhance capacity. $ 15,000,000
7 Fire District Facilities Day Creek Station 173 Urban Park 12771 Firehouse Court
An urban park space in the SE corner of
Fire Station 173 property utilizing the
design-build process in coordination with
projects at Fire Stations 171, 174, and
175.
$ 1,188,991
8 Human Resources Facilities Team RC Break Room Refresh
Project 10500 Civic Center Drive
Update the furniture, appliances,
flooring, and wall coverings of the
employee break room at City Hall using a
50th year anniversary theme.
$ 123,600
9 Public Works Facilities Central Park Cabinet and Countertop
Replacement Project 11200 Base Line Road
This project involves removing and
replacing existing cabinets and
countertops at Central Park facilities.
The upgrades will improve storage,
functionality, and longevity while
meeting current safety, building, ADA,
and maintenance standards.
$ 191,280
10 Public Works Facilities Central Park Restroom Partition
Replacement Project 11200 Base Line Road
This project will replace damaged and
outdated restroom partitions throughout
Central Park facilities. The upgrades will
improve safety, accessibility, sanitation,
and long-term maintenance while
meeting current building code and ADA
standards, resulting in a cleaner, more
reliable restroom environment and
reduced operational costs.
$ 115,350
11 Public Works Facilities Fleet EV Work Station
Reconfiguration Project Public Works Service Center
Reconfigure the current fleet and
warehouse workspaces to incorporate an
EV workstation.
TBD
PROJECTS IN THE ROUGH
MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
FACILITIES
Page 425
PROJECTS IN THE ROUGH
MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
12 Public Works Facilities Fleet Shop - Rental Space 9153 9th Street
Remodel front office areas of the old
Public Works building for rental space,
including a complete remodel of the
interior.
TBD
13 Public Works Facilities PW Warehouse Expansion 8794 Lion Street
Build a new warehouse with the same
footprint as the existing warehouse at
the Public Works Service Center. This will
provide additional storage for all
departments.
TBD
14 Public Works Facilities Quakes Stadium Bowl
Waterproofing Project 8408 Rochester Avenue
Phase 1 weatherproofing was completed
before the 2025 season to protect
recently upgraded locker rooms. Phase 2
will begin in Q4 2025 to seal areas above
concessions and the team store,
followed by Phase 3 in Q4 2026 to
complete sealing of the lower bowl and
concourse, ensuring long-term
protection of the facility.
$ 1,889,520
15 Public Works Facilities Quakes Stadium Exterior Concourse
Upgrade Project 8408 Rochester Avenue
Removal of existing palm trees and road
pavers and replace with shade trees and
stamped concrete.
$ 726,000
16 Public Works Facilities Quakes Stadium Painting Project 8408 Rochester Avenue
Re-paint stadium interior and exterior.
This project includes re-sealing of
exterior joints and waterproofing of
exterior vertical surfaces.
$ 1,475,000
$ 26,684,741
No.Department Project Type Project Title Project Location Project Description Project
Estimate
17 City Manager's Office Miscellaneous Citywide Wayfinding Project TBD
This project will address wayfinding
city-wide, focused on improving and
reinforcing the visual identity and
accessibility of Rancho Cucamonga,
cleaning up inconsistencies, and
determining how to approach District
designations.
1,092,000$
1,092,000$
No.Department Project Type Project Title Project Location Project Description Project
Estimate
18 Engagement &
Special Programs
Municipal
Utilities
RCMU Line Extension Project -
Rochester Avenue to Sixth Street
Sixth Street to Jersey
Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue
RCMU line extension from Sixth Street
project to intersection of Jersey and
Rochester Avenue to provide path for
new circuits from new substation to
transfer Arbors sub load.
$ 1,690,000
$ 1,690,000
No.Department Project Type Project Title Project Location Project Description Project
Estimate
19 Community Services Parks Bear Gulch Park Improvements
Project 9094 Arrow Route
Replacement of the playground and
playground surface; addition of shade
structure over playground,
demonstration garden, and parking lot
(south side).
$ 1,696,000
20 Community Services Parks Central Park Adventure Playground 11200 Base Line Road Additional recreational facilities at
Central Park. $ 7,000,000
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
Municipal Utilities Total:
PARKS
Facilities Total:
MISCELLANEOUS
Miscellaneous Total:
Page 426
PROJECTS IN THE ROUGH
MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
21 Community Services Parks Don Tiburcio Tapia Park Project Buena Vista Drive and Valle
Vista Drive
Involves the development of a new
community park that will expand and
enhance local recreational facilities. The
park will be constructed on land leased
from the Cucamonga Valley Water
District, located south of Base Line Road
between Cucamonga Creek and Alta
Cuesta Drive. The site encompasses a
portion of Lot 11 of the Red Hill
Subdivision, as identified in the lease
agreement.
$ 5,070,450
22 Community Services Parks Olive Grove Park Inclusive
Playground Project 13931 Young's Canyon Road
Replacement of the playground at Olive
Grove Park with a fully inclusive
playground and shade structures.
$ 1,908,000
23 Community Services Parks Pickleball Courts Overlay of Existing
Lighted Tennis Court Project TBD
Convert one (1) tennis court at a location
to be determined. Converting is cost
effective and will provide four (4)
additional pickleball courts for the
community with lights for evening play.
$ 90,100
24 Engineering Parks Cucamonga Creek Channel Bike Trail
Project
Foothill Boulevard to Demens
Creek Channel Trail
connection
Resurfacing the existing trail from
Foothill Boulevard to where it connects
to the Demens Creek Channel Trail.
Improvements include installing
signalized crossings at Base Line Road
and 19th Street, curb ramp upgrades and
signing and striping modifications.
$ 1,999,000
25 Engineering Parks Day Creek Channel Bike Trail
Improvements Project Phase 3
Day Creek Bike Trail between
Jack Benny Drive and
Highland Avenue
Improve and beautify the bike trail.
Includes crossing and sidewalk
improvements at Base Line Road and
Foothill Boulevard, and installation of
benches, lights, and landscaping.
$ 2,725,000
26 Public Works Parks Tree Planting on the Pacific Electric
Trail Project
Pacific Electric Trail north of
Central Park
Planting 60 trees and providing irrigation
to 75 trees on the Pacific Electric Trail
north of Central Park.
TBD
27 Public Works Parks Quakes Stadium Field Grading
Project 8408 Rochester Avenue
Completion of field survey, laser grading,
drainage improvements, and
reestablishment of turf.
$ 1,602,000
$ 22,090,550
No.Department Project Type Project Title Project Location Project Description Project
Estimate
28 Engineering Streets Archibald Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project
Archibald Avenue between
Fourth Street and Base Line
Road
Installing streetscape improvements such
as Class II buffered bike lanes, lighting,
lanscaping, signage, and striping in both
directions on Archibald Avenue from
Fourth Street to Base Line Road.
$ 5,142,000
29 Engineering Streets Base Line Road Pedestrian and
Bicycle Improvements
Base Line Road from Deer
Creek Channel to east of Day
Creek Boulevard
Installation of buffered bike lanes and
pedestrian improvements including
refuge islands and high visibility
crosswalk striping along Base Line Road
from Deer Creek Channel to East of Day
Creek Boulevard.
$ 1,574,000
30 Engineering Streets Bear Gulch Road Improvements Bear Gulch Road at Bear
Gulch Park
Construction of curb ramps and new
striping for a crosswalk from Bear Gulch
Park to Bear Gulch Elementary.
$ 237,000
31 Engineering Streets
Cucamonga Town Center to
Cucamonga Station Bicycle
Improvements Project
8th Street (Hellman Avenue
to Center Avenue) and Center
Avenue to 7th Street and 7th
Street to North Resort.
Improves bicycle connectivity between
the Cucamonga Town Center and
Cucamonga Station by creating a
continuous, clearly defined bicycle route.
$ 1,552,000
32 Engineering Streets Day Creek Boulevard Buffered Bike
Lanes Project
Day Creek Boulevard from
Etiwanda Avenue to Foothill
Boulevard
Installation of a Class IV buffered bike
lane on Day Creek Boulevard from
Etiwanda Avenue to Foothill Boulevard.
$ 1,295,700
STREETS
Parks Total:
Page 427
PROJECTS IN THE ROUGH
MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
33 Engineering Streets East Avenue and Highland Avenue
Roundabout Project
East Avenue and Highland
Avenue Intersection
This project proposes to replace the
three-way stop and install a roundabout
at the intersection. The project consists
of reconstruction of new asphalt
pavement, new curb and gutter, new
curb ramps, new sidewalk, new
landscape, utility relocation and striping.
$ 2,940,000
34 Engineering Streets Hellman Avenue Buffered Bicycle
Lanes Project
Hellman Avenue from Base
Line Road to southern city
limit
Reducing vehicular lane width in order to
construct class II bike lane south of
Foothill and installing sidewalk and
crossing improvements to create a traffic
calming effect between Base Line Road
and the southern city limit.
$ 345,000
35 Engineering Streets Mountain View Drive Street
Improvements Project
Mountain View Drive from
Spruce Avenue to Base Line
Road
Constructing a buffered bike lane,
median pedestrian refuge islands,
upgraded curb ramps, upgrading
crosswalk striping, and pavement
rehabiliation.
$ 1,250,000
36 Engineering Streets Palo Alto Street Pedestrian
Improvements Project
Palo Alto Street from
Hermosa Avenue to Marine
Avenue
Constructing upgraded curb ramps and
high-visibility crosswalks. $ 514,000
37 Engineering Streets Terra Vista Parkway Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements Project
Terra Vista Parkway from
Town Center Drive to Church
Street
Remove a vehicular lane on Terra Vista
Parkway between Town Center Drive and
Mountain View Drive to accomodate a
Class IV, protected bike lane and the
installation of a high visbility crosswalk in
front of Ruth Musser Middle School.
$ 398,300
38 Engineering Streets Terra Vista Parkway and Town
Center Drive Roundabout Project
Terra Vista Parkway and
Town Center Drive
This project proposes replacing the four-
way stop with a roundabout at the
intersection. Including the reconstruction
of the asphalt pavement, installation of
new curb and gutter, curb ramps,
sidewalks, landscaping, utility relocation,
and striping.
$ 3,724,000
39 Engineering Streets Victoria Park Lane Bike and Ped
Enhancements Project Victoria Park Lane
Constructing buffered bike lanes and
pedestrian enhancements, including a
high-visibility crosswalk, Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), curb ramp
upgrades, and sidewalk improvements.
$ 3,100,000
40 Engineering Streets Victoria Street Median Refuge Island
Project
Victoria Street near Etiwanda
High School
Constructing two median refuge islands
at the existing mid-block crosswalk near
the frontage of Etiwanda High School.
$ 55,000
41 Engineering Streets Vintage Drive Street Improvements
Project
Vintage Drive from Milliken
Avenue to Rochester Avenue
Constructing upgraded curb ramps, high
visibility striping for crosswalks,
shoulder striping for traffic calming, and
installing a Rapid Rectangular Flashing
Beacon (RRFB).
$ 845,000
42 Engineering Streets Whittram Avenue Street
Improvement Project
Whittram Avenue between
Etiwanda Avenue and Pecan
Avenue
This project includes constructing
pavement rehabilitation, new sidewalks
with curb and gutter, and drainage
improvements.
$ 4,311,000
43 Engineering Streets Wilson Avenue Ped and Bike Gap
Closure Project
Wilson Avenue from west of
Buckthorn Avenue to Miliken
Avenue
Constructing buffered bike lanes and
pedestrian enhancements improvements
including a high-visibility crosswalk,
install a Rapid Rectangular Flashing
Beacon (RRFB), curb ramp upgrades, and
sidewalk improvements.
$ 1,000,000
$ 28,283,000 Streets Total:
Page 428
PROJECTS IN THE ROUGH
MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) - FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
No.Department Project Type Project Title Project Location Project Description Project
Estimate
44 Engineering Traffic Milliken Avenue and 4th Street
Improvements Milliken Avenue at 4th Street
Traffic signal modification, right-of-way,
install eastbound right turn overlap, add
westbound left turn lane, add
southbound left turn lane, add
southbound right turn lane, add
eastbound right turn lane, add
westbound through lane. Convert
eastbound right turn lane to a through
lane. Requires coordination with City of
Ontario.
6,905,000$
45 Engineering Traffic Milliken Avenue and 6th Street
Improvements Milliken Avenue at 6th Street
Traffic signal modification, install
eastbound right turn overlap, add fourth
northbound through lane.
2,624,400$
46 Engineering Traffic Milliken Avenue and 7th Street
Improvements Milliken Avenue at 7th Street
Traffic signal modification, install
Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) for
eastbound left and westbound left turns,
add second northbound turn lane. Widen
westbound 7th Street to two lanes.
3,352,400$
47 Engineering Traffic Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route
Improvements
Milliken Avenue at Arrow
Route
Traffic signal modification, update signal
timing, install northbound right turn
overlap. Add second eastbound left turn
lane, add second westbound left turn
lane, add fourth northbound through
lane.
3,808,400$
48 Engineering Traffic Milliken Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard Improvements
Milliken Avenue at Foothill
Boulevard
Traffic signal modification, update signal
timing, install northbound right turn
overlap.
158,000$
16,848,200$
96,688,491$
TRAFFIC
Traffic Total:
CITYWIDE TOTAL:
Page 429
Page 430
DIF PROJECTS
MPP 2026
2027
Page 431
Page 432
FY2024/25 FY2025/26 FY2026/27 FY2027/28 FY2028/29 FY2029/30 Total
Whittram Extension - W/O Etiwanda DEV 15,000,000$ 15,000,000$
Wilson & Day Creek Channel Bridge DEV 4,300,000$ 4,300,000$
Wilson Extension W/O Day Creek Blvd DEV 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$
Project Activities During
Plan Period
Estimated Expenditures
Impact Fee (124)
Page 433
Page 434
i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONA
GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL
LC-1
A CITY OF PLACES.
A beautiful city with a diversity and balance of unique and well-connected places.
LC-1.1 Complete Places. Ensure that a broad range of recreational,
commercial, educational, arts, cultural, and civic amenities are nearby and
easily accessible to residents and workers in each neighborhood and each
employment district.
LC-1.2 Quality of Place. Ensure that new infill development is compatible
with the existing, historic, and envisioned future character and scale of each
neighborhood.
LC-1.3 Quality of Public Space. Require that new development incorporate
the adjacent street and open space network into their design to soften the
transition between private and public realm and creating a greener more
human-scale experience.
LC-1.4 Connectivity and Mobility. Work to complete a network of
pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets and trails, designed in concert with adjacent
land uses, using the public realm to provide more access options.
LC-1.5 Master Planning. When planning a site, there must be meaningful
efforts to master plan the site so as to ensure a well-structured network and block
pattern with sufficient access and connectivity to achieve the placemaking goals
of this General Plan.
LC-1.6 Disadvantaged Communities. Prioritize development appropriate
to the needs of disadvantaged communities, particularly south of Foothill
Boulevard.
LC-1.7 Design for Safety. Require the use of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques such as providing clear lines of sight,
appropriate lighting, and wayfinding signs to ensure that new development is
visible from public areas and easy to navigate.
LC-1.8 Public Art. Require new construction to integrate public art in
accordance with the City Public Arts Program.
LC-1.9 Infill Development. Enable and encourage infill development within
vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and
potential incentives.
LAND USE & COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Exhibit D
Page 435
ii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
LC-1.10 Development Incentives. Consider incentives for new development
that provides substantial economic and placemaking benefit to the community
and prohibit the provision of incentives that outweigh the direct benefits of the
development and its use.
LC-1.11 Compatible Development. Allow flexibility in density and intensity
to address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new development
with adjacent context.
LC-1.12 Adaptive Reuse. Support the adaptive reuse of historic properties
consistent with neighborhood character.
LC-1.13 Improved Public Realm. Require that new development extend
the “walkable public realm” into previously vacant and/or parking lot-dominant
large single-use parcels of land.
LC-1.14 Street Amenities and Lighting. Modify pedestrian and street
amenities, lighting styles and intensities to be compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhoods.
LC-1.15 Historic Route 66. Build on the history and significance of Historic
Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard) by incorporating design features, such as public
art, signage, and architecture, that reflect its history and heritage.
LC-1.16 Healthy Development. Ensure that the design and development
of our communities supports the health and well-being of our residents. Use the
Healthy Development Checklist, or similar assessment tool, to assess the overall
health performance and supportiveness of new development projects.
GOAL
LC-2
HUMAN SCALED.
A city planned and designed for people fostering social and economic interaction,
an active and vital public realm, and high levels of public safety and comfort.
LC-2.1 Building Orientation. Require that buildings be sited near the street
and organized with the more active functions —entries, lobbies, bike parking,
offices, employee break rooms and outdoor lunch areas—facing toward and
prominently visible from the street and visitor parking areas.
LC-2.2 Active Frontages. Require new development abutting streets and
other public spaces to face the public realm with attractive building facades,
and entries to encourage walking, biking, and public transit as primary—not
“alternative”—mobility modes.
LC-2.3 Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through streetscape
improvements such as enhanced street lighting, street trees, and easement
dedications to increase the widths of the sidewalks, provide side access parking
lanes, and other pedestrian and access amenities.
Page 436
iii
LC-2.4 Tree Planting. Require the planting of predominantly native and
drought-tolerant trees that shade the sidewalks, buffer pedestrians from traffic,
define the public spaces of streets, and moderate high temperatures and wind
speeds throughout the city.
LC-2.5 Gradual Transitions. Where adjacent to existing and planned
residential housing, require that new development of a larger form or intensity,
transition gradually to complement the adjacent residential uses.
LC-2.6 Commercial Requirements. Require development projects in non-
residential and mixed-use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian activity
through the following techniques:
•Require that the ground floor of buildings where retail uses are allowed
have a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height.
•Require that the ground floor of the building occupy the majority of the lot’s
front, with exceptions for vehicular access where necessar y.
•Require that most of the linear ground floor retail frontage (where such
occurs) be visually and physically “open” to the street, incorporating
windows and other design treatments to create an engaging street front.
•Minimize vehicle movements across the sidewalk.
•Allow for and encourage the development of outdoor plazas and dining
areas.
LC-2.7 Shared Parking. Encourage structured and shared parking solutions
that ensure that parking lots do not dominate street fronts and are screened
from public views whenever possible.
LC-2.8 Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high
quality, predominantly native and drought-tolerant landscaping to extend and
enhance the green space network of the city.
LC-2.9 Buffer Zones. Require development projects to incorporate buffer
zones when determined to be necessary or desirable to serve as managed
open space for wildfire safety and vegetation fuel modification.
LC-2.10 Pedestrian-Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses. 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.
Page 437
iv | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
LC-3
FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE.
A fiscally sound and sustainable City.
LC-2.11 Park-Once. Allow and encourage strategies that enable adjacent
uses and properties to flexibly share parking facilities, so that users can park
once and pursue multiple activities on foot before returning to their car, such as:
•Unbundling parking from development.
•Considering parking “districts” demonstrating sufficient parking within a
convenient walking distance.
•Design parking facilities to be architecturally compatible and integrated
with adjacent buildings so as to not dominate or detract from the character
of the area.
LC-3.1 Community Value. Actively manage growth and investments in the
community to maximize the value of new development, seeking value-per-acre
outcomes of up to six times higher.
LC-3.2 Community Benefit. Require a community benefit and economic
analysis for large projects that abut existing neighborhoods or for any project at
the maximum density, with a focus on resolving physical, economic, long-term
fiscal, and aesthetic impacts.
LC-3.3 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development,
density, and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood
and community amenities and design features.
LC-3.4 Institutional Land Uses. Site new institutional land uses based on
all forms of access available to the service population. Satellite offices that are
disbursed in the community may be necessary to ensure equitable access.
LC-3.5 Efficient Growth. Manage growth in a manner that is fiscally
sustainable, paced with the availability of infrastructure, and protects and/
or enhances community value. Discourage growth and development that will
impact the City’s ability to sustainably maintain infrastructure and services.
LC-3.6 Diverse Economy. Guide development and public investments to
maintain a fiscally sound city with a diverse and sustainable tax base.
LC-3.7 Developing Our Economy. Actively promote and encourage
opportunities for local economic development, education, housing, locally
hiring, internships and employment from cradle to career so as to increase
resident retention, improve and grow a strong local economy, achieve a positive
jobs-housing match; retain critical educational resources and human capital,
reduce regional commuting, gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
and ensure equitable opportunities for all residents of the City and region to
thrive.
Page 438
v
LC-3.8 Jobs-housing match. Encourage new employment generating uses
and businesses that improve the jobs-housing match in the city.
LC-3.9 Infrastructure Funding. Actively investigate and support new
funding mechanisms that enable the City to maintain services and infrastructure.
Discourage the formation of bonded Community Facilities Districts unless there
are compelling and substantial wide-spread community benefits.
LC-3.10 Economic Synergy. Encourage businesses and development
that will support and/or enhance the operations of existing businesses when
complimentary to the General Plan Vision while discouraging new development
and businesses that will have detrimental impacts to existing businesses and
development.
GOAL
LC-4
COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS.
A diverse range of unique neighborhoods, each of which provides an equitable
range of housing types and choices with a mix of amenities and services that
support active, healthy lifestyles.
LC-4.1 Neighborhood Preservation. Preserve and enhance the character
of existing residential neighborhoods.
LC-4.2 Complete Neighborhoods. Strive to ensure that all new
neighborhoods, and infill development within or adjacent to existing
neighborhoods, are complete and well-structured such that the physical layout,
and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, and have
the following characteristics:
•Be organized into human-scale, walkable blocks, with a high level of
connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles.
•Be organized in relation to one or more focal activity centers, such as a
park, school, civic building, or neighborhood retail, such that most homes
are no further than one-quarter mile.
•Require development patterns such that 60 percent of dwelling units are
within 1/2-mile walking distance to neighborhood goods and services.
•Provide as wide a diversity of housing styles and types as possible, and
appropriate to the existing neighborhood context.
•Provide homes with entries and windows facing the street, with driveways
and garages generally deemphasized in the streetscape composition.
LC-4.3 Connected Neighborhoods. Require that each new increment
of residential development make all possible street, trail, and open space
connections to existing adjoining residential or commercial development and
provide for future connections into any adjoining parcels.
Page 439
vi | General Plan Annual Report 2025
LC-4.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Within the density ranges and housing
types defined in this General Plan, promote a range of housing and price levels
within each neighborhood to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
LC-4.5 Equitable Housing Opportunities and Diversity of Housing
Types. Within the density ranges and housing types defined in this General
Plan, promote a diversity of land tenure opportunities to provide a range of
choices on the types of property estate available and ready access to an
equitable array of opportunities at a variety of price points. For projects five
acres or larger, require that diverse housing types be provided and intermixed
rather than segregated by dwelling type.
LC-4.6 Block Length. Require new neighborhoods to be designed with blocks
no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions can
be made if mid-block pedestrian and bicycle connections are provided, or if the
neighborhood is on the edge of town and is intended to have a rural or semi-
rural design character.
LC-4.7 Intersection Density. Require new neighborhoods to provide
high levels of intersection density. Neighborhood Center and Semi-Rural
Neighborhoods should provide approximately 400 intersections per square
mile. Suburban Neighborhoods should provide at least 200 intersections per
square mile.
LC-4.8 Solar Orientation. Street, block, and lot layouts should orient a
majority of lots within 20 degrees of a north-south orientation for increased
energy conservation.
LC-4.9 Public Art. Encourage public art that reflects the culture, history, and
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
LC-4.10 Minimize Curb Cuts. Require new commercial development, and
residential to the extent possible, to have common driveways and/or service
lanes and alleys serving multiple units, to minimize the number of curb cuts
along any given block to improve pedestrian safety.
LC-4.11 Neighborhood Transitions. Require that new neighborhoods
provide appropriate transitions in scale, building type and density between
different General Plan designations, Place Types and Community Planning
Areas.
LC-4.12 Conventional Suburban Neighborhood Design. Discourage
the construction of new residential neighborhoods that are characterized by
sound walls on any streets, discontinuous cul-de-sac street patterns, long block
lengths, single building and housing types, and lack of walking or biking access
to parks, schools, goods, and services.
Page 440
vii
GOAL
LC-5
CONNECTED CORRIDORS.
A citywide network of transportation and open space corridors that provides a
high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, motorists, and
transit users.
LC-4.13 Neighborhood Edges. Encourage neighborhood edges along
street corridors to be characterized by active frontages, whether single-family or
multifamily residential, or by ground floor, neighborhood-service non-residential
uses. Where this is not possible due to existing development patterns or
envisioned streetscape character, neighborhood edges shall be designed based
on the following policies:
•Strongly discourage the construction of new gated communities except in
Semi-Rural Neighborhoods.
•Allow the use of sound walls to buffer new neighborhoods from existing
sources of noise pollution such as railroads and limited access roadways.
Consider sound walls as sites for public art.
•Prohibit the use of sound walls to buffer residential areas from arterial or
collector streets. Instead design approaches such as building setbacks,
landscaping and other techniques shall be used.
•In the case where sound walls might be acceptable, require pedestrian
access points to improve access from the Neighborhoods to nearby
commercial, educational, and recreational amenities, activity centers and
transit stops.
•Discourage the use of signs to distinguish one residential project from
another. Strive for neighborhoods to blend seamlessly into one another. If
provided, gateways should be landmarks and urban design focal points, not
advertisements for home builders.
LC-5.1 Improved Street Network. Systematically extend and complete
a network of complete streets to ensure a high-level of multi-modal connectivity
within and between adjacent Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts. Plan and
implement targeted improvements to the quality and number of pedestrian and
bicycle routes within the street and trail network, prioritizing connections to
schools, parks, and neighborhood activity centers.
LC-5.2 Connections Between Development Projects. Require
the continuation and connectivity of the street network between adjacent
development projects and discourage the use of cul-de-sacs or other dead-end
routes.
Page 441
viii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
LC-5.3 Green Public Realm. Ensure that a significant tree canopy and
landscaping is provided along corridors, and linkages between land uses, to
provide shade and wind protection for pedestrians and bicyclists, and to define
these corridors as the “outdoor living rooms” of the City.
LC-5.4 Multi Family Development. Focus new multifamily housing
development along corridors between commercial nodes and centers and
ensure that it is well-connected to adjoining neighborhoods and centers by high
quality walking and biking routes.
LC-5.5 Foothill Boulevard as a Gateway. Transform the ends of Foothill
Boulevard near the city boundary to a unique gateway environment through
street improvements and coordinated infill development along both sides of
Foothill Boulevard.
LC-5.6 Foothill Boulevard as a Connector. Transition Foothill Boulevard
from a “divider” to a “connector” that brings the north and south sides together.
Ensure that new development along the Foothill Corridor generates a high-
quality pedestrian- and transit-oriented environment and a concentration of
commercial and civic amenities and community gathering places for residents
from all parts of the city.
LC-5.7 Public Arts Master Plan. Develop a citywide master plan that
integrates the arts into the transportation, trails, open space and greenways
network to enhance the public realm and creatively connect communities
through innovative arts and cultural amenities and programming.
LC-5.8 Equestrian Uses. Continue to protect equestrian uses and to
implement the Equestrian Overlay Zone.
GOAL
LC-6
ACTIVE CENTERS.
A rich variety of commercial and mixed-use centers throughout the city, which
bring a range of opportunities for shopping, dining, recreations, commerce,
employment, arts and culture within easy reach of all neighborhoods.
LC-6.1 Diverse Centers. Encourage the development of neighborhood-
serving, community-serving and city-wide serving centers that address the full
range community needs and market sectors.
LC-6.2 Small Scale Centers. Support one or more very small-scale Centers
on well-located under-developed parcels within walking, biking, or horseback
riding distance of neighborhoods in Alta Loma and Etiwanda.
LC-6.3 Evolving Centers. Encourage the improvement of existing
commercial centers to provide more active, human scale environments and
community gathering places, including the potential for infill housing and office
use.
Page 442
ix
GOAL
LC-7
ROBUST DISTRICTS.
A series of unique, employment-oriented environments for a range of business
activities, shopping and entertainment, arts and culture activities, and community
events and gathering.
LC-6.4 Access to Transit. Encourage the development of commercial and
mixed-use centers that are located at and organized in relation to existing or
planned transit stops, especially along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.
LC-6.5 Walkable Environments. Centers should include very walkable and
pedestrian-friendly streets with active building fronts along primary corridors
and internal streets. In some cases, side access lanes may be inserted between
existing major streets and building fronts, providing a low-speed environment
that is very safe and comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists, with pedestrian-
oriented frontages.
LC-6.6 Outdoor Commerce. Encourage outdoor activities such as farmers
markets, small performances, visual arts and culture events, dining, and gatherings
that take advantage of the Centers and the relation to the public realm.
LC-7.1 Gateway & Employment Hub. Establish the Central South
Community Planning Area as the City’s main “gateway from the I-10 Freeway”
and an employment hub of regional significance. Haven Avenue and 4th
Street, in particular, is a significant gateway location that is envisioned as a
higher intensity urban environment with iconic architecture and a mix of uses
that can include luxury or full-service hotel, high rise office building, fine dining
restaurant, and/or a public recreation amenity in addition to higher density
residential uses.
LC-7.2 Unify and Connect Development. Require that new development
in the 21st Century Employment District land use designation unify and connect
development along the Haven Avenue Corridor.
LC-7.3 Campus Design. Encourage employment areas to be developed like
a college campus with buildings oriented toward an internal roadway, buffer
landscaping along the perimeter, and ample opportunities for paths and trails
connecting to the City system, as well as relaxation areas for employees.
LC-7.4 Compatibility. Discourage large industrial projects within 1,000 feet
of existing and planned residential development.
LC-7.5 Adaptive Industrial Reuse. Encourage adaptive reuse with
residential and live/work units, and local serving commercial, in existing
industrial structures, particularly in the Central South Community Planning Area.
LC-7.6 Loading Docks. Require that parking lots, loading docks, outdoor
storage, and processing, be located behind or beside buildings, not in front,
and be screened from public views.
Page 443
x | General Plan Annual Report 2025
OS-1.1 Equitable Access to Parks. Strive to ensure that at least one park
or other public open space is within safe, comfortable walk from homes and
jobs, without crossing major streets except at signalized crossings. Equitable
access to parks should be determined based on the fundamental character
of the place (rural, suburban, urban) and corresponding transportation
infrastructure.
OS-1.2 Underserved Communities. Prioritize the provision of new
trails, parks, plazas, and other open space types in areas of the city that are
underserved by parks, services, and amenities.
OS-1.3 Accessible Parks. Require parks be designed with special attention
to usability by and safety for small children, seniors, and those with mobility,
sight, hearing or other special needs.
OS-1.4 Design Character and Public Art. Require neighborhood
parks, greens, and playgrounds to be designed as an integral element of their
Community Planning Area, reflecting the design character, art, and culture, of
that neighborhood, center or district.
OS-1.5 Design for Safety. Require the use of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) design techniques such as providing clear lines
of sight, appropriate lighting, and wayfinding signs to ensure that parks are
safe and easy to navigate.
OS-1.6 New Development. Ensure that new residential and non-residential
developments provide adequate on-site recreational and open space amenities
consistent with applicable General Plan Designations, and the needs of new
development.
OS-1.7 New Parks. Provide adequate park and recreational facilities that
meet the City standard of 5.0 acres of parkland (including trails and special
facilities) for every 1,000 persons.
OS-1.8 Central Park. Continue to develop Central Park as envisioned in the
Central Park Master Plan.
OS-1.9 Joint Use. Pursue and expand joint use of public lands that are
available and suitable for recreational purposes, including school district
properties and flood control district, water district, and other utility properties.
GOAL
OS-1
OPEN SPACE.
A complete, connected network of diverse parks, trails, and rural and natural
open space that support a wide variety of recreational, educational, and outdoor
activities.
OPEN SPACE
Page 444
xi
GOAL
OS-2
TRAILS.
A complete, connected network of diverse trails and connected open space that
improves access to all areas of the city and encourages non-motorized activities.
OS-1.10 Buffer Zones. Provide buffer zones, as appropriate and necessary,
to serve as managed open space for wildfire safety and vegetation fuel
modification. Buffer zones may include trails, small recreational amenities,
information kiosks and signage, and even staging points for fire vehicles.
OS-1.11 Locally Grown Food. Support small-scale locally grown food in
front/backyard gardens, community gardens, parks/open space areas, and
utility and flood control easements.
OS-2.1 Trail Corridors. Extend, improve and complete the multi-purpose
trail network, wherever possible, by utilizing existing flood control channel and
utility corridor rights-of-way as public trail corridors.
OS-2.2 Connectivity. Connect trails in Rancho Cucamonga to trails in the
San Bernardino National Forest and other hillside open space areas.
OS-2.3 Trailheads. Provide trailhead amenities such as parking, restrooms,
information boards, and maps.
OS-2.4 Equestrian Trails. Continue to maintain and pursue the development
of planned trails and facilities for equestrian use.
OS-2.5 Utility Corridors. Preserve the primary function of utility corridors
while providing every reasonable opportunity for shared public use for active
mobility and recreational purposes.
OS-2.6 Design for Heat. Consider extreme heat in the design of streets,
parks, trails, and playgrounds to support activity throughout the year and in all
weather conditions by including shade trees, shade structures, water fountains,
splash pads, lighting for night play in most spaces.
OS-2.7 Access. Require new development to provide access to existing or
future trails and provide appropriate trail amenities (e.g., benches, drinking
fountains, hitching posts, bike stands, and other amenities).
OS-2.8 Art and Education. Require public art, education, and recreation
features on trails, where appropriate.
OS-2.9 Trail and Park Sponsorship. Support the creation of partnerships
with organizations to sponsor and maintain green spaces, parks, trails, and
community gardens.
Page 445
xii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
MA-1
REGIONAL MOBILITY HUB.
A multimodal transportation hub that connects regional and local destinations.
MOBILITY AND ACCESS
MA-1.1 Transportation Leadership. Take a leadership role in local and
regional transportation related planning and decision making.
MA-1.2 Cucamonga Station Redevelopment. Support redevelopment in
and around the Cucamonga Station to support transit-oriented development.
MA-1.3 Funding. Support federal, statewide, and regional infrastructure
funding for transit and transportation.
MA-1.4 Local Mobility Hub. Require new development at mobility hubs
and key stops along the future bus rapid transit and future transit circulator
system to facilitate first mile/last mile connectivity to neighborhoods.
MA-1.5 Provide Mobility Options. Provide roadway connections and
local mobility hubs designed to capture 80% of the population and employment
south of Base Line Road.
MA-1.6 Boulevard Implementation. Require boulevards with high-quality
transit to not only account for how transit service is impacted by the geometry
of the corridor, but also by signal timing, signal phasing, turns, and other
operations that may jeopardize the quality of service.
GOAL
MA-2
ACCESS FOR ALL.
A safe, efficient, accessible, and equitable transportation system that serves the
mobility needs of all users.
MA-2.1 Complete Streets. Require that new roadways include provisions
for complete streets, balancing the needs of all users of all ages and
capabilities.
MA-2.2 New Streets. To achieve the vision for transportation and mobility in
the city, the final design, location, and alignment of streets shall provide levels
of access, connectivity, and circulation consistent with the conceptual layouts
shown in this Mobility and Access Chapter.
MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs
to maximize efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist
in implementing complete street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts,
curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure.
MA-2.4 Street Connectivity. Require connectivity and accessibility to a mix
of land uses that meets residents’ daily needs within walking distance.
Page 446
xiii
MA-2.5 Street Vacations. Prioritize pedestrian and utility connectivity over
street vacations.
MA-2.6 Context. Ensure that complete streets applications integrate the
neighborhood and community identity into the street design. This can include
special provisions for pedestrians and bicycles.
MA-2.7 Roadway Scale. Balance roadway size and design configuration
to ensure that vehicular speeds, volumes and turning movements do not
compromise the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists.
MA-2.8 Facility Service Levels. Maintain level of service (LOS) D for
priority modes on each street; LOS E or F may be acceptable at intersections
or segments for modes that are not prioritized. The City will develop a list
of intersections and roadways that are protected from this level of service
policy where 1) maintaining the standard would be a disincentive to walking,
biking or transit; 2) constructing facilities would prevent the City from VMT
reduction goals or other priorities, and ; 3) maintaining the standard would be
incompatible with adjacent land uses and built forms.
MA-2.9 High-Quality Pedestrian Environment. Enhance sidewalks
to create a high-quality pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks,
improved pedestrian crossings, buffers between sidewalks and moving traffic,
pedestrian lighting, wayfinding signage, shade trees, increased availability of
benches, end of cul-de-sac access, etc.
MA-2.10 Block Pattern. Require development projects to arrange streets in
an interconnected block pattern, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are
not forced onto arterial streets for inter- or intra- neighborhood travel.
MA-2.11 Master Planning. Master plan sites so as to ensure a well-
structured network and block pattern with sufficient access and connectivity;
especially in all focus areas, including the Cucamonga Town Center, Etiwanda
Heights Town Center, and the Southeast Industrial Area.
MA-2.12 Transportation Demand Management. Require new projects
to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies, such as employer
provided transit pass/parking credit, high-speed communications infrastructure
for telecommuting, carpooling incentives, etc.
MA-2.13 Healthy Mobility. Provide pedestrian facilities and class II
buffered bike lanes (or separated bikeways) on auto-priority streets where
feasible to promote active transportation.
MA-2.14 Bicycle Facilities. Enhance bicycle facilities by maintaining and
expanding the bicycle network, providing end-of-trip facilities (bike parking,
lockers, showers), improving bicycle/transit integration, wayfinding signage,
etc.
Page 447
xiv | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
MA-3
SAFETY.
A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs while preserving
sustainable community values.
MA-3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. Maintain the Active
Transportation Plan supporting safe routes to school, and a convenient
network of identified pedestrian and bicycle routes with access to major
employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit centers, and residential
neighborhoods.
MA-3.2 Traffic Safety. Prioritize transportation system improvements that
help eliminate traffic-related fatalities and severe injury collisions.
MA-3.3 Vulnerable User Safety. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in the
Pedestrian Priority Area to promote safety in the southwest area of the city.
MA-3.4 Emergency Access. Prioritize development and infrastructure
investments that work to implement, maintain, and enhance emergency access
throughout the community.
GOAL
MA-4
GOODS MOVEMENT.
An efficient goods movement system that ensures timely deliveries without
compromising quality of life, safety and smooth traffic flow for residents and
businesses.
MA-4.1 Truck Network. Avoid designating truck routes that use collector or
local streets that primarily serve residential uses and other sensitive receptors.
MA-4.2 Southeast Area Connectivity. Require new development in the
Southeast Area to provide the necessary infrastructure to maintain access and
public safety.
MA-4.3 Future Logistics Technology. Support and plan for electrification
and autonomy of the truck fleet.
MA-4.4 Rail Access. Avoid abandonment of rail access to industrial parcels
or utilize such right of way to balance and enhance other connectivity goals
within the City (such as pedestrian/bicycle trails).
MA-4.5 Grade Separation. Support the construction of grade separations
of roadways and trails from rail lines.
Page 448
xv
GOAL
MA-5
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION.
A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs.
MA-5.1 Land Use Supporting Reduced VMT. Work to reduce VMT
through land use planning, enhanced transit access, localized attractions, and
access to non-automotive modes.
MA-5.2 Emerging Technologies. Prioritize investments in critical
infrastructure and pilot programs to leverage proven new transportation
technology.
MA-5.3 Funding. Remain flexible in the pursuit and adoption of
transportation funding mechanisms that fund innovative transportation solutions.
MA-5.4 Intelligent Systems Preparation. Upgrade the City’s ATMS
and communications systems to ensure that the City meets the intelligent
transportation system demands of today while planning for future demands
associated with AVs and CVs.
GOAL
H-1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
A diverse community with a broad range of housing types and opportunities to
accommodate expected new households.
HOUSING
H-1.1 RHNA Requirement. Encourage the development of a wide range of
housing options, types, and prices that will enable the City to achieve its share
of the RHNA.
H-1.2 Elderly and Disabled Household Needs. Recognize the unique
characteristics of elderly and disabled households and address their special needs.
H-1.3 Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate the development of accessory
dwelling units to provide additional housing opportunities pursuant to State law
and established zoning regulations.
GOAL
H-2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
A city where housing opportunities meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments
of the community.
H-2.1 Rental Assistance Programs. Encourage the use of rental
assistance programs to assist lower income households and support the Housing
Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) applications for additional
vouchers to meet the needs of lower income households.
Page 449
xvi | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
H-3
HOMELESSNESS.
A compassionate community with a wide range of options and support for the
housing insecure and those experiencing homelessness.
H-3.1 Homeless Services. Provide assistance as it becomes available
towards efforts of local organizations and community groups to provide
emergency shelters, transitional housing opportunities, and services to the City’s
homeless population and those at-risk of homelessness.
H-3.2 Homeless Programs. Participate with adjacent communities toward
the provision of a sub-regional shelter program and encourage the County to
develop a comprehensive homeless program.
H-2.2 Mobile Home Park Accord. Support the Mobile Home Park Accord
voluntary rent stabilization as a means of keeping rents at reasonable levels.
GOAL
H-4
HOUSING QUALITY.
A community with quality, healthy housing.
H-4.1 Mills Act Contracts. Encourage rehabilitation and preservation of
historic residences through participation in Mills Act contracts.
H-4.2 Substandard Housing. Encourage the revitalization and
rehabilitation of substandard residential structures.
H-4.3 Residential Rehabilitation. Focus rehabilitation to neighborhoods
with deteriorating units.
H-4.4 Home Improvement Programs. Implement the Home Improvement
Programs to benefit lower income single-family homeowners and mobile
homeowners.
H-4.5 Housing Maintenance. Actively encourage the maintenance of
existing housing as to maintain the housing stock in sound condition.
H-4.6 Code Enforcement. Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs
to target specific areas or problems when the need and community support
warrants such activity.
Page 450
xvii
GOAL
H-5
GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS.
A city with an efficient process for improving and developing housing.
H-5.1 Development Review Processes. Consider new policies, codes,
and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide
information early in the development process regarding development costs,
and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public
services and improvements.
H-5.2 Fee Schedule. Periodically review and update the City’s fee schedule
and the methodology on which the fees are based to determine the necessary
costs for providing adequate public services and public improvements to ensure
the continued health, safety, and welfare of the community.
H-5.3 Development Review Process. Facilitate the development review
process for new housing through multiple techniques, including staff assistance,
public information, articles in the City’s newsletter, informal meetings with
applicants, and Preliminary Review applications to address technical issues and
facilitate the production of quality housing.
H-5.4 Development Standards. Evaluate and adjust as appropriate
residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures
that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing
opportunities for lower and moderate income households and for persons with
special needs.
GOAL
H-6
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
An equitable community that provides equal housing opportunities for all residents.
H-6.1 Reduce Housing Discrimination. Explore and consider programs
that will reduce the incidence of housing discrimination within the City.
H-6.2 Land Use Plan. Facilitate development projects that will improve a
neighborhood’s access to resources and opportunities.
H-6.3 Fair Housing Outreach and Education. Support outreach and
education efforts to actively further fair housing practices and understanding
of fair housing rights, with emphasis on proactive education and voluntary
compliance, as well as through legal enforcement on a case-by-case basis,
including, but not limited to, assistance with the resolution of tenant/landlord
disputes and housing discrimination complaints.
H-6.4 Accessible or Barrier-Free Housing. Encourage the provisions of
disabled-accessible units and housing for the mentally and physically disabled.
Page 451
xviii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
PF-1
STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITIES.
Residents enjoy state-of-the-art public and community facilities that support existing
programs, accommodate future needs, and are accessible to all members of the
community.
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
PF-1.1 New Building Standards. Continue to implement high-quality
standards for new public facilities and improvements to existing buildings.
PF-1.2 Underserved Neighborhoods. Prioritize new community facilities
in underserved neighborhoods and centers.
PF-1.3 Facility Collaboration. Maximize public facility use by sharing with
nonprofit organizations, school districts, and community organizations. Look for
opportunities to create joint-use community space at facilities owned by private
organizations such as faith-based groups and service clubs.
PF-1.4 Capital Improvements Program. Coordinate, plan, and
manage a comprehensive capital improvements program for expansion and
improvement of critical facilities and infrastructure in response to the needs of a
growing community.
GOAL
PF-2
EDUCATION.
All residents have access to high-quality educational opportunities.
PF-2.1 Schools. Consider the needs of the school districts that serve Rancho
Cucamonga in future planning and development activities.
PF-2.2 Colleges. Partner with local public and private schools and Chaffey
Community College to maintain effective educational, vocational, and
workforce programs for all residents.
GOAL
PF-3
LIBRARIES.
High-quality library resources are provided to meet the educational, cultural, civic,
and general business needs of all residents.
PF-3.1 Library. Continue to improve the local libraries system, complete with
community facilities that provide knowledgeable, service-oriented staff and
offer access to information, books, and other materials in a variety of formats,
including emerging technologies. Consider future options for providing library
services that are flexible and will maximize library services while keeping costs
affordable.
Page 452
xix
GOAL
PF-4
ANIMAL CARE.
Animal care and services are provided, including facilitation of adoptions,
promotion of animal health and safety, and animal awareness education.
PF-4.1 Animal Care. Continue to maintain and improve the Animal Care
and Adoption Center facility.
GOAL
PF-5
WATER-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE.
Water and wastewater infrastructure facilities are available to support future
growth needs and existing development.
PF-5.1 Water Treatment. Support the efforts of the Cucamonga Valley
Water District (CVWD) and San Bernardino County agencies to provide and
expand water treatment facilities to treat local water sources from canyon
surface waters and groundwater.
PF-5.2 Wastewater Treatment. Consult with the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency and CVWD to ensure that the treatment facility has sufficient capacity
to meet future wastewater treatment needs.
PF-5.3 Recycled Water. Work with the CVWD to expand the recycled water
program to include existing private development.
GOAL
PF-6
SOLID WASTE.
The volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills is minimized and the
amount of recycling increased.
PF-6.1 Recycling. Encourage Recycling and Organics collection and
processing in all sectors of the community to divert items from entering landfills.
PF-6.2 Refuse Facilities. Consult with public agencies and private
contractors to ensure adequate organics processing facilities are available.
GOAL
PF-7
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
Protect and expand utility infrastructure in a sustainable and innovative manner
to serve the current and future needs of the community while ensuring that natural
and environmental resources are available for future generations.
PF-7.1Communications. Expand access to high quality established and
emerging communications technologies for individuals, businesses, educational
institutions, and government functions.
Page 453
xx | General Plan Annual Report 2025
PF-7.2 High Speed Internet. Prioritize extending high speed internet into
underserved lower income neighborhoods.
PF-7.3 Utility Equipment. To the extent possible, ensure that utility boxes,
above-ground equipment, and utility entrances to buildings are located at the
rear or side of the building, not the front. Ensure that utility boxes and other
above-ground equipment do not block or impair the safe and effective use of
trails, sidewalks, and streets.
PF-7.4 Planned Streets Segments and Utility Facilities. When
planned street segments, as shown in the Focus Areas and Mobility & Access
chapters, would unreasonably interfere with the primary utility function on utility
owned parcels, allow the final location and design of those street segments to
accommodate the current and prospective utility needs of the community to the
greatest extent possible.
PF-7.5 Secondary (Non-Utility) Uses of Utility Facilities and Sites.
Ensure compatibility of secondary uses on utility owned parcels that are not
related to the primary utility function of utility owned parcels with adjacent land
uses and the utility needs of the community.
PF-7.6 Phasing of Public Facilities. Require new parks, open spaces,
infrastructure, and other facilities be funded by and/or provided by new
development as necessary so as to ensure services can be provided to new
development.
GOAL
RC-1 VISUAL RESOURCES.
A beautiful city with stunning views of the San Gabriel Mountains and the
Inland Empire.
RC-1.1 View Corridors. Protect and preserve existing signature public views
of the mountains and the valleys along roadways, open space corridors, and at
other key locations.
RC-1.2 Orient toward View Corridors. Encourage new development to
orient views toward view corridors, valley and mountains.
RC-1.3 Transfer of Development Rights. Allow the transfer of development
rights from conservation areas to select development areas throughout the city
and Sphere of Influence to protect hillsides, natural resources, and views and to
avoid hazards and further the City’s conservation goals.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Page 454
xxi
RC-1.4 Dark Sky. Limit light pollution from outdoor sources, especially in the
rural, neighborhood, hillside, and open spaces to maintain darkness for night
sky viewing.
RC-1.5 Transit Corridor Views. Require that new development along major
transit routes and travel corridors include 360-project design and landscape
or design screening of outdoor activity, and storage, including views from the
transit routes and travel corridors.
RC-1.6 Hillside Grading. Grading of hillsides shall be minimized, following
natural landform to the maximum extent possible. Retaining walls shall be
discouraged and if necessary screened from view.
RC-1.7 Preservation of Natural Land Features. Preserve significant
natural features and incorporate into all developments. Such features may
include ridges, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and
riparian areas, steep topography, important or landmark trees and views.
GOAL
RC-2
WATER RESOURCES.
Reliable, readily available, and sustainable water supplies for the community and
natural environment.
RC-2.1 Water Supplies. Protect lands critical to replenishment of
groundwater supplies and local surface waters.
RC-2.2 Groundwater Recharge. Preserve and enhance the existing system
of stormwater capture for groundwater recharge.
RC-2.3 Riparian Resources. Promote the retention and protection of natural
stream courses from encroachment, erosion, and polluted urban runoff.
RC-2.4 Waterways as Amenities. When considering new development
applications and infrastructure improvements where waterways are on-site,
adjacent, or nearby, incorporate the waterway into the design as a feature.
RC-2.5 Water Conservation. Require the use of cost-effective methods
to conserve water in new developments and promote appropriate water
conservation and efficiency measures for existing businesses and residences.
RC-2.6 Irrigation. Encourage the conversion of water-intensive turf/
landscape areas to landscaping that uses climate- and wildfire-appropriate
native or non-invasive plants, efficient irrigation systems, greywater, and water
efficient site maintenance.
RC-2.7Greywater. Allow and encourage the use of greywater to meet or
offset on-site non-potable water demand.
Page 455
xxii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
RC-3
HABITAT CONSERVATION.
Wildlife habitats that support various plants, mammals, and other wildlife species.
RC-3.1 Sensitive Habitat. Encourage the preservation of the integrity of
sensitive land resources that have significant native vegetation and/or habitat
value such as riparian habitat areas, creek corridors, Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub (RAFSS), wetlands, and sensitive wildlife habitat that supports
biological resources.
RC-3.2 Biological Preserves. Allow and encourage the expansion of
sensitive biological preserve areas (e.g., North Etiwanda Preserve, Day Creek
Preserve, and San Sevaine Preserve) and other important habitat areas with
an emphasis on wildlife connectivity between habitats and connectivity to the
national forest.
RC-3.3 Wildlife Corridors. Encourage the creation, maintenance, and
protection of open space areas that provide strategic wildlife corridors and vital
connectivity between habitat areas.
RC-3.4 Landscape Design. Encourage new development to incorporate
native vegetation materials into landscape plans and prohibit the use of species
known to be invasive according to the California Invasive Plant Inventory.
RC-3.5 Buffers from New Development. Require new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to establish and maintain
a protective buffer.
RC-3.6 Grading and Vegetation Removal. Limit grading and vegetation
removal of new development activities to the minimum extent necessary for
construction and to reduce erosion and sedimentation.
RC-3.7 Urban Forestry Plan. Minimize damage associated with wind- and
fire-related hazards and risks and address climate change and urban heat
island effects through the development of an urban forestry plan that addresses
and proper and appropriate landscaping, plant and tree selection and
replacement, planting and vegetation management techniques.
GOAL
RC-4
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
A community rich with historic and cultural resources.
RC-4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains. In areas where there is a high
chance that human remains may be present, the City will require proposed
projects to conduct a survey to establish occurrence of human remains, and
measures to prevent impacts to human remains if found.
Page 456
xxiii
RC-4.2 Discovery of Human Remains. Require that any human remains
discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the city
be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.
RC-4.3 Protected Sites. Require sites with significant cultural resources to be
protected.
RC-4.4 Preservation of Historic Resources. Encourage the preservation
of historic resources, buildings, and landscapes.
RC-4.5 Historic Buildings. Encourage the feasible rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse of older buildings.
RC-4.6 Paleontological Resources. Require any paleontological artifacts
found within the city or the Sphere of Influence to be preserved, reported, and
offered for curation at local museums or research facilities.
GOAL
RC-5
LOCAL AIR QUALITY.
Healthy air quality for all residents.
RC-5.1 Pollutant Sources. Minimize increases of new air pollutant emissions
in the city and encourage the use of advance control technologies and clean
manufacturing techniques.
RC-5.2 Air Quality Land Use Compatibility. Avoid siting of homes,
schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities and land uses within 500 feet of land
uses that are considered large emitters.
RC-5.3 Barriers and Buffers. Require design features such as site and
building orientation, trees or other landscaped barriers, artificial barriers,
ventilation and filtration, construction, and operational practices to reduce air
quality impacts during construction and operation of large stationary and mobile
sources.
RC-5.4 Health Risk Assessment. Consider the health impacts of
development of sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, rail line,
arterial, collector or transit corridor sources using health risk assessments to
understand potential impacts.
RC-5.5 Impacts to Air Quality. Ensure new development does not
disproportionately burden residents, due to age, culture, ethnicity, gender,
race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, with health effects from air
pollution. Prioritize resource allocation, investments, and decision making that
improves air quality for residents disproportionately burdened by air pollution
because of historical land use planning decisions and overarching institutional
and structural inequities.
Page 457
xxiv | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
RC-6
CLIMATE CHANGE.
A resilient community that reduces its contributions to a changing climate and is
prepared for the health and safety risks of climate change.
RC-5.6 Community Benefit Plan. Require that any land use generating
or accommodating more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with
operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit
operations exceed 300 hours per week, provide a community benefit plan
demonstrating an offset to community impacts of the truck traffic.
RC-5.7 New Sensitive Receptors Near Existing Industrial Uses.
Avoid placing homes, schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities within 1,000
feet of a land use that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than
40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where
TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week.
RC-5.8 New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive
Receptors. Avoid placing land uses that accommodate more than 100 trucks
per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs)
per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week within
1,000 feet of homes, schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities.
RC-5.9 Truck Hook-Ups at New Industrial or Commercial
Developments. Require new industrial or commercial developments at which
heavy-duty diesel trucks idle on-site to install electric truck hook-ups in docks,
bays, and parking areas.
RC-5.10 Clean and Green Industry. Prioritize non-polluting industries and
companies using zero or low air pollution technologies.
RC-5.11 Dust and Odor. Require new construction to include measures to
minimize dust and odor during construction and operation.
RC-6.1Climate Action Plan. Maintain and implement a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) that provides best management practices for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
RC-6.2 Renewable Energy. Encourage renewable energy installations and
facilitate green technology and business.
RC-6.3 Reduce Energy Consumption. Encourage a reduction in
community-wide energy consumption.
RC-6.4 Urban Forest. Protect the city’s healthy trees and plant new ones to
provide shade, carbon sequestration, and purify the air.
Page 458
xxv
RC-6.5 GHG Reduction Goal. Reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
RC-6.6 Co-Benefits. Prioritize the development and implementation of GHG
reduction measures that also achieve economic, health, social, environmental,
and other co-benefits for the City and its residents and businesses.
RC-6.7 Structural Equity. Encourage GHG reduction and climate
adaptation measures such as trail completion, equipment upgrade, sidewalk
connectivity, tree planting, and buffers be included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) to improve areas of the city where these features
are lacking.
RC-6.8 Reduce Vehicle Trips. Require Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies, such as employer provided transit pass/parking credit,
bicycle parking, bike lockers, high-speed communications infrastructure for
telecommuting, and carpooling incentives, for large office, commercial, and
industrial uses.
RC-6.9 Access. Require pedestrian, vehicle, and transit connectivity of streets,
trails, and sidewalks, as well as between complementary adjacent land uses.
RC-6.10 Green Building. Encourage the construction of buildings that are
certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or equivalent,
emphasizing technologies that reduce GHG emissions.
RC-6.11 Climate-Appropriate Building Types. Encourage alternative
building types that are more sensitive to and designed for passive heating and
cooling within the arid environment found in Rancho Cucamonga.
RC-6.12 Reduced Water Supplies. When reviewing development
proposals, consider the possibility of constrained future water supplies and
require enhanced water conservation measures.
RC-6.13 Designing for Warming Temperatures. When reviewing
development proposals, encourage applicants and designers to consider
warming temperatures in the design of cooling systems.
RC-6.14 Designing for Changing Precipitation Patterns. When
reviewing development proposals, encourage applicants to consider stormwater
control strategies and systems for sensitivity to changes in precipitation regimes
and consider adjusting those strategies to accommodate future precipitation
regimes.
RC-6.15 Heat Island Reductions. Require heat island reduction strategies
in new developments such as light-colored paving, permeable paving, right-
sized parking requirements, vegetative cover and planting, substantial tree
canopy coverage, and south and west side tree planting.
Page 459
xxvi | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
RC-7
ENERGY.
An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non-
polluting energy sources.
RC-6.16 Public Realm Shading. Strive to improve shading in public
spaces, such as bus stops, sidewalks and public parks and plazas, through
the use of trees, shelters, awnings, gazebos, fabric shading and other creative
cooling strategies.
RC-6.17 Offsite GHG Mitigation. Allow the use of creative mitigation
efforts such as offsite mitigation and in lieu fee programs as mechanisms for
reducing project-specific GHG emissions.
RC-6.18 Water Sources with Low GHG Emissions. Encourage local
and regional water utilities to obtain water from sources with low or no GHG
emissions.
RC-7.1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging on City Property. As funding
is available, encourage the installation of publicly available electric vehicle
charging stations at City-owned buildings, facilities, property, and in the public
right-of-way.
RC-7.2 New EV Charging. Require new multifamily residential, commercial,
office, and industrial development to include charging stations, or include the
wiring for them.
RC-7.3 EV Charging Retrofits. Encourage existing development to retrofit
to include charging stations.
RC-7.4 New Off-Road Equipment. When feasible, require that off-road
equipment such as forklifts and yard tugs necessary for the operations of all
new commercial and industrial developments be electric or fueled using clean
fuel sources.
RC-7.5 Municipal Vehicle Fleet. Reduce fossil fuel consumption of the
City’s vehicle fleet by increasing the number of electric or zero emissions
vehicles.
RC-7.6 Efficiency Retrofits. Encourage existing private property owners to
implement energy efficiency retrofits during substantial improvement as defined
by the California Building Code.
RC-7.7 Sustainable Design. Encourage sustainable building and site
design that meets the standards of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED), Sustainable Sites, Living Building Challenge, or similar
certification.
Page 460
xxvii
RC-7.8 Farmers Market, Fork to Table. Support microscale agriculture
and farmers markets, and similar methods of encouraging locally grown and
consumed produce.
RC-7.9 Passive Solar Design. Require new buildings to incorporate
energy efficient building and site design strategies for the arid environment that
include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight and
ventilation, and shading.
RC-7.10 Alternative Energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of
alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private
development.
RC-7.11 Community Development Subdivisions. When reviewing
applications for new subdivisions, require residences be oriented along an east-
west access, minimizing western sun exposure, to maximize energy efficiency.
RC-7.12 Solar Access. Prohibit new development and renovations that
impair adjacent buildings’ solar access, unless it can be demonstrated that
the shading benefits substantially offset the impacts of solar energy generation
potential.
RC-7.13 Energy-Efficient Infrastructure. Whenever possible, use
energy-efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city
infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or
other public infrastructure.
RC-7.14 Energy Storage Facilities. The City of Rancho Cucamonga
supports the development of energy storage facilities on property owned or
controlled by Southern California Edison and will cooperate with Southern
California Edison on the development of such facilities in a manner that
balances the interests of the community with the need for clean, reliable energy.
RC-7.15 Utility Preservation. Public and private development within the
City, including multi-purpose trails, shall not interfere with safe and reliable
transmission, storage, and generation of electricity. With the exception of utility
infrastructure and other public improvements that do not interfere with such
infrastructure, permanent structures are not allowed within utility corridors.
Page 461
xxviii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
GOAL
S-1
LEADERSHIP.
A city that is recognized for its leadership role in resilience and preparedness.
S-1.1 City Staff Readiness. Ensure City staff and departments demonstrate
a readiness to respond to emergency incidents and events.
S-1.2 Culture of Preparedness. Promote a culture of preparedness for
businesses and residents that empowers them to increase their resilience to
hazard related events and a changing climate.
S-1.3 Evacuation Capacity. Require new developments, redevelopments,
and major remodels to enhance the City’s evacuation network and facilities and
comply with the City’s Evacuation Assessment.
S-1.4 WUIFA Access Points. Require all new developments and
redevelopments within the WUIFA to provide a minimum of two points of access
by means of public roads that can be used for emergency vehicle response and
evacuation purposes.
S-1.5 Enhanced Circulation. In areas of the city with limited access routes
and circulation challenges, require additional roads and improvements to
ensure adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuation.
S-1.6 Evacuation Road Widths. Require any roads used for evacuation
purposes to provide at least 26 feet of unobstructed pavement width.
S-1.7 Maintenance of Plans. Maintain and regularly update the City’s
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as an integrated component of the
General Plan, in coordination with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP), the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the Evacuation Plan, and
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) compliant disaster plans
to maintain eligibility for grant funding.
S-1.8 Regional Coordination. Ensure regional coordination continues with
neighboring jurisdictions, County, State, and Federal agencies on emergency
management and risk reduction planning and activities.
S-1.9 Mutual Aid. Ensure mutual aid agreements with Federal, State, local
agencies, and the private sector establish responsibility boundaries, joint
response services, and multi-alarm and station coverage capabilities.
SAFETY
Page 462
xxix
GOAL
S-2
SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.
A built environment that minimizes risks from seismic and geologic hazards.
S-2.1 Fault Setbacks. Require minimum setbacks for structures proposed
for human occupancy within State and City Special Study Zones. Setbacks
will be based on minimum standards established under State law and
recommendations of a Certified Engineering Geologist and/or Geo-technical
Engineer.
S-2.2 Building Functionality. Require enhanced siting, design, and
construction standards that focus on building functionality for new critical public
facilities and key essential (private) facilities after a seismic event.
S-2.3 Seismically Vulnerable Buildings. Prioritize the retrofit by private
property owners of seismically vulnerable buildings (including but not limited to
unreinforced masonry, soft-story construction, and non-ductile concrete) as better
information and understanding becomes available.
S-2.4 Transfer of Development Rights. Allow the transfer of development
rights from areas of significant seismic and geologic hazards to select
development areas throughout the City and Sphere of Influence.
S-2.5 Hillside Hazards. Prioritize regulations and strategies that reduce
geologic hazard risk to properties and loss of life.
GOAL
S-3
WILDFIRE HAZARDS.
A community where wildfire impacts are minimized or reduced through
investments in planning and resilience.
S-3.1 Fire Risk Reduction. Apply all state and local codes and regulations
(fire safe design, adherence to Standard 49-1) to new development,
redevelopment, and major remodels in the WUIFA.
S-3.2 Fire Protection Plans. All new development, redevelopment, and
major remodels in the WUIFA will require the preparation of Fire Protection
Plans (FPPs) to reduce fire threat, in accordance with Fire District policies and
procedures.
S-3.3 Vegetation Management. Owners of properties and public/
private roads within and adjacent to the WUIFA are required to conduct brush
clearance and fuel modification to reduce fire ignition potential and spread.
S-3.4 Buffer Zones. Require development projects to incorporate buffer
zones as deemed necessary by the City’s Fire Marshal for fire safety and fuel
modification.
Page 463
xxx | General Plan Annual Report 2025
S-3.5 Water Supply. All developments will meet fire flow requirements
identified in the Fire Code.
S-3.6 Coordination with Agencies. Coordinate with State, regional,
and local agencies and service providers on fire risk reduction planning and
activities.
S-3.7 Wildfire Awareness. Assist residents and property owners with being
better informed on fire hazards and risk reduction activities in the WUIFA.
S-3.8 New Essential Facilities (WUIFA). Prohibit the siting of new
essential public facilities (including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care
facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency
communications facilities) within the WUIFA, unless appropriate construction
methods or strategies are incorporated to minimize impacts.
GOAL
S-4
FLOOD HAZARDS.
A community where developed areas are not impacted by flooding and
inundation hazards.
S-4.1 New Essential Facilities (Flood). Prohibit the siting and construction
of new essential public facilities within flood hazard zones, when feasible. If an
essential facility must be located within a flood hazard zone, incorporate flood
mitigation to the greatest extent practicable.
S-4.2 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development
to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that
prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of
runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains.
S-4.3 500-Year Floodplain. Promote the compliance of 100-year
floodplain requirements on properties located within the 500-year floodplain
designation.
S-4.4 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to implement and
enhance the Storm Drain Master Plan by constructing stormwater management
infrastructure downstream of the proposed site.
S-4.5 Property Enhancements. Require development within properties
located adjacent, or near flood zones and areas of frequent flooding to reduce
or minimize run-off and increase retention on-site.
S-4.6 Regional Coordination. Promote regional flood management and
mitigation projects with other agencies (San Bernardino County Flood Control,
Army Corps of Engineers, and adjacent jurisdictions) to address flood hazards
holistically.
S-4.7 Dam Operators. Coordinate with agencies operating or managing
dam facilities that can inundate the city, on operations, maintenance, and
training activities and provide the latest Emergency Action Plans annually.
Page 464
xxxi
GOAL
S-5
EMERGING HAZARDS.
A built environment that incorporates new data and understanding about
changing hazard conditions and climate stressors.
S-5.1 Future Conditions. Ensure future climatic conditions and public health
emergencies are considered as part of community resilience and investment
efforts.
S-5.2 Urban Forestry Plan. Minimize damage associated with wind-related
hazards and address climate change and urban heat island effects through the
development of an urban forestry plan and proper landscaping planting and
management techniques.
S-5.3 Soil Transport. Require that properties with high wind-blown soil
erosion potential such as agricultural operations and construction sites prevent
soil transport and dust generation wherever possible.
S-5.4 Extreme Heat Vulnerabilities. Require that new developments,
major remodels, and redevelopments address urban heat island issues and
reduce urban heat island effects for the proposed project site and adjacent
properties.
S-5.5 Resilience Resources. Require new developments and
redevelopments to incorporate resilience amenities such as, but not limited to
community cooling centers, emergency supplies, and backup power that can be
used by residents and businesses within a 1/4-mile radius of the location.
S-5.6 Underground Utilities. Promote the under-grounding of utilities for
new development, major remodels, and redevelopment.
S-5.7 Future Adaptation. Future climate adaptation-oriented projects will
incorporate natural infrastructure to the greatest extent practicable.
S-5.8 Climate Resiliency. Address climate resiliency and inequities through
the planning and development process.
S-5.9 Address High Winds. Require buildings and developments exposed
to high wind conditions to incorporate design elements and features that
minimize or reduce damage to people, structures, and the community.
Page 465
xxxii | General Plan Annual Report 2025
S-6.1 Planned Development. Promote development patterns that integrate
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles that reduce
the potential for human-caused hazards.
S-6.2 Neighboring Properties. Encourage properties that store, generate,
or dispose of hazardous materials to locate such operations as far away as
possible from areas of neighboring properties where people congregate.
S-6.3 Site Remediation. Encourage and facilitate the adequate and timely
cleanup of existing and future contaminated sites and the compatibility of future
land uses.
S-6.4 Airport Planning. Protect Rancho Cucamonga interests regarding
land use and safety by participating in the airport land use planning process for
Ontario International Airport.
S-6.5 Height Restrictions. Require proposed developments within the
Ontario Airport Influence Area meet the height requirements associated with
FAR Part 77 standards.
S-6.6 Development Near Airport. New development within the Ontario
Airport Influence Area shall be consistent with the approved Airspace Protection
Zones identified in the latest version of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
S-6.7 Railroad Safety. Minimize potential safety issues and land use
conflicts when considering development adjacent to the railroad right-of-way.
GOAL
S-6
HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS.
A community with minimal risk from airport hazards and hazardous materials.
Page 466
xxxiii
N-1.1 Noise Levels. Require new development to meet the noise
compatibility standards.
N-1.2 Noise Barriers, Buffers and Sound Walls. Require the use of
integrated design-related noise reduction measures for both interior and exterior
areas prior to the use of noise barriers, buffers, or walls to reduce noise levels
generated by or affected by new development.
N-1.3 Non-Architectural Noise Attenuation. Non-architectural noise
attenuation measures such as sound walls, setbacks, barriers, and berms shall
be discouraged in pedestrian priority areas (or other urban areas or areas
where pedestrian access is important).
N-1.4 New Development Near Major Noise Sources. Require
development proposing to add people in areas where they may be exposed
to major noise sources (e.g., roadways, rail lines, aircraft, industrial or other
non-transportation noise sources) to conduct a project level noise analysis and
implement recommended noise reduction measures.
N-1.5 Urban and Suburban Development Near Transit. Allow
development located in infill areas, near transit hubs, or along major roadways
an exemption from exterior noise standards for secondary open space areas
(such as front yards, parking lots, stoops, porches, or balconies), if noise
standards can be met for primary open space.
N-1.6 Rail Crossing Quiet Zones. Allow the establishment of a full or
partial at-grade rail crossing or quiet zone near transit hubs or residential
development.
N-1.7 Entertainment. Establish different standards for exterior noise
consistent with the place type.
N-1.8 Vibration Impact Assessment. Require new development to reduce
vibration to 85 VdB or below within 200 feet of an existing structure.
GOAL
N-1
NOISE.
A city with appropriate noise and vibration levels that support a range of places
from quiet neighborhoods to active, exciting districts.
NOISE
Page 467
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM THAT IS INCORPORATED
INTO THE MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRAM (MPP) FOR FISCAL YEAR
2026/27 IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65103 (c) and 65401 of the State of California Government
Code, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that is
incorporated into the Major Projects Program (MPP) for Fiscal Year 2026/27 as to its consistency with
the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the CIP that is incorporated into the MPP was reviewed in accordance with the
criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Approval of the Capital Improvement Plan included in the MPP is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3), Section 15306, Class 6, and 15378(b)(4) of State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, under Section 15061(b)(3), these actions involve the adoption of a CIP and no
specific development is authorized by its adoption. Furthermore, the MPP is a prioritizing and funding
allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment. No physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the
time the physical improvements prioritized in the MPP are undertaken at a future, unspecified date.
Therefore, the approval of the MPP does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. The MPP is covered by the “common sense” CEQA exemption because it can be seen
with certainty that the guidance would not result in a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt (Section 15306-Class 6) from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Section 15306, Class 6, exemption consists of basic
data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major
disturbance to an environmental resource; and
WHEREAS, approval of the MPP is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but
involves the creation of government planning mechanism or other government fiscal activities that do
not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical
impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the analysis and recommendations of
Engineering Services Department staff, contained in their Staff Report dated May 27, 2026.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND that the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, finds the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) that is incorporated into the Major Projects Program (MPP) for
Fiscal Year 2026/27 in conformity with the adopted General Plan.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Exhibit E
Page 468
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
Page 2 of 2
Page 469