27 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
§2. Objectives
The grievance procedure is established to accomplish the following objectives:
A. To settle disagreements at the employee-supervisor level, informally if possible.
B. To provide an orderly procedure to handle grievances.
C. To resolve grievances as quickly as possible.
D. To correct, if possible, the cause of grievances to prevent future similar complaints.
E. To provide for a two-way system of communication by making it possible for levels of supervision to address problems, complaints, and questions raised by employees.
F. To reduce the number of grievances by allowing them to be expressed and thereby adjusted and eliminated.
G. To promote harmonious relations generally among employees, their supervisors, and the administrative staff.
H. To assure fair and equitable treatment of all employees.
§3. General Provisions
A. Preparation of a grievance will be accomplished in such a manner and at a time that will not interfere with normally required work procedures.
B. The Board of Directors or its individual members shall not be approached by employees or their representatives at any time that the grievance is being processed.
C. Failure of the grievant to comply with time limitations specified in the grievance procedure shall constitute a withdrawal of the grievance, except upon a showing of good cause for such failure. Failure of District supervisory or administrative staff to comply with specified time limitations shall permit the grievant to proceed to the next step in the procedure. EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the above, an extension of time is permitted with the mutual consent of both parties.
D. In the event a grievant elects to represent himself or herself or is represented by counsel other than that provided by the employee organization, the employee organization shall be apprised of the nature and resolution of the grievance if the issues involved are within the scope of said organization's representation rights.
E. If an individual named in a dispute is unavailable within the time period specified in these procedures, time limitations can be extended by mutual agreement of the representatives of the respective parties.
F. Any period of time specified in this rule for the giving of notice or taking of any action exclude weekends and holidays.
G. Unless otherwise specifically provided for herein, the term "days" shall mean
28 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
business days of the District's Administrative offices.
H. An arbitrator shall not have authority to determine if a matter is within the definition of a "grievance" and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted on a timely basis.
§4. Informal Grievance Procedure
Most problems or complaints can be settled if the employee will promptly, informally and amicably discuss them with his or her immediate supervisor. Such an initial discussion shall precede any use of the formal grievance procedure. If the immediate supervisor fails to reply to the employee within ten (10) days, or the employee is not satisfied with the decision, the employee may utilize the Formal Grievance Procedure.
Although invocation of the Informal Grievance Procedure does not mandate submission of the grievance in writing, the immediate supervisor shall document the substance of the informal grievance meeting. Failure by the employee to advise the immediate supervisor of the grievable problem or complaint within seven (7) days of the date that the employee knew or should reasonably have known of the existence of the problem or complaint, shall constitute a waiver by the employee of the ability to utilize the grievance procedure. §5. Formal Grievance Procedure
A. Step I
The employee and/or representative shall present the grievance, in writing and signed, to his or her immediate supervisor within fifteen (15) days of the date that the employee knew or reasonably should have known of the events giving rise to the grievance. An official grievance form must be used stating names, dates, times, place, and nature of grievance, explaining how the grievance fits within the definition of "grievance" as set forth in § 1, above. The employee's supervisor shall attempt to resolve the grievance with the employee and shall submit his or her decision in writing to the employee within ten (10) days after receipt of the grievance. The employee shall have the right to appeal the decision of the supervisor to the Fire Chief.
B. Step II
(1) If the grievance is not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee, the grievant has seven (7) days following receipt of the written response from his or her supervisor to file a written appeal to the Fire Chief or designated representative.
(2) Written appeal to the Fire Chief or designated representative shall consist of the statement of the grievance and shall include a statement by the grievant's representative setting forth the reasons why the response of the employee's supervisor did not satisfactorily resolve the grievance and an indication of the action desired by the grievant. The written appeal shall explain why the grievance fits within the definition of "grievance" as set forth in §1, above. (3) After submission of the written appeal, the Fire Chief or designee shall reply within three (3) days, in writing, to the grievant regarding the grievance. In event of rejection, reasons for so doing will be included in the response.
C. Step III
(1) If the grievance is not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee, the grievant
29 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
has seven (7) days following receipt of the written response from the Fire Chief or designee to file a written appeal to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the District. The CEO may designate a representative to act in his or her stead.
(2) Written appeal to the CEO or designated representative shall consist of the statement of the grievance and shall include a statement by the grievant's representative setting forth the reasons why the response of the Fire Chief or designee did not satisfactorily resolve the grievance, and an indication of the action desired by the grievant. The written appeal shall explain why the grievance fits within the definition of "grievance" as set forth in §1 above. (3) After submission of the written appeal, the CEO or designee shall reply in writing within fifteen (15) days, to the grievant regarding the grievance. The reasons for the decision will be included in the response.
(4) Section 1 - PURPOSE defines a grievance as a claimed violation, misinterpretation, misapplication or noncompliance with existing District codes, resolutions, written rules, policies, procedures, orders and regulations, or this document. The decision by the CEO or designee shall address whether or not the complaint of the employee is grievable pursuant to the grievance definition set forth in § 1 above and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely basis. In the event that the CEO or designee determines that the employee's complaint is not defined by § 1 above as a grievance and/or is not timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely basis, the CEO or designee shall advise the employee that the complaint is not grievable and the grievance shall proceed no further unless or until on application by the employee, a judgment is entered at the trial court level, indicative of the complaint being jurisdictionally grievable pursuant to the definitions set forth in § 1 above and/or pursuant to requirements of timeliness.
D. Step IV
(1) If a grievance is not resolved by the CEO or designee and is deemed "grievable" pursuant to these rules and regulations, (a defined grievance and/or timely) then within seven (7) days of service by the CEO or designee of a grievance decision, the employee may further appeal the matter by filing with the office of the CEO or his/her designee a written appeal to binding arbitration. Said appeal shall be timely only if it is received in the office of the CEO or designee not later than seven (7) days after service of the grievable decision by the CEO or designee.
(2) The employee's appeal shall state with specificity the identification of the District Codes, resolutions, written rules or regulations or sections of this document which is claimed to have been violated. The appeal shall additionally state with specificity all allegations of facts upon which the grievance is based, and the specific relief sought.
(3) Within ten (10) days after receipt of a valid appeal, the CEO or his/her designee shall request of the California State Conciliation and Mediation Service, that it submit a list of seven (7) arbitrators for hearing of the grievance. The CEO or designee shall direct that a copy of the list of arbitrators be sent to the employee
30 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
and to the CEO or designee, as well.
(4) Absent mutual selection of an arbitrator from either the submitted list or otherwise, the arbitrator shall be chosen by an initial flip of the coin, with the prevailing employee or CEO/designee having the option of making the first strike or directing that the opposing party make the first strike. Following alternate striking, the one remaining arbitration candidate shall be deemed the appointed arbitrator.
(5) The arbitrator shall conduct the hearing at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the parties.
(6) The hearing shall be memorialized by use of a certified shorthand reporter. The shorthand reporter shall be selected by the employee.
(7) All fees and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the parties. (8) All fees and expenses related to the securing of a representative and/or legal counsel, the preparation of transcripts, witness fees and other expenses attendant to the presentation of evidence, shall be borne by the party at whose direction said expense is incurred.
(9) The per diem fee of the shorthand reporter shall be borne equally by the parties.
The cost of transcription shall be borne by the party ordering the transcript.
(10) Neither the Federal nor California State Rules of Evidence shall be binding upon evidentiary issues at the hearing. However, such authorities may be considered by the arbitrator in rendering evidentiary rulings. Further, the California Administrative Procedure Act shall specifically be of no application to the hearing process.
(11) Although the Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly adhered to, hearsay that would be inadmissible in a civil or criminal proceeding cannot in and of itself support a finding by the arbitrator without corroboration. In general, the arbitrator shall admit evidence which is of such reliability that reasonable persons rely upon it in the conduct of serious matters such as the hearing. (12) The burdens of proof and production of evidence shall be borne by the employee and shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
(13) Not later than ten (10) days prior to the date of commencement of the hearing, the parties shall exchange lists of witnesses each intends to call at the hearing, and a list of documents it intends to introduce at the hearing. Said documents shall be attached to the notifications provided for herein, and the notifications shall actually be in receipt of the opposing party on or before the tenth (10th) day prior to commencement of the hearing. Failure to comply with said requirements shall result in exclusion of witness testimony and/or rejection of exhibits not designated in the submissions.
(14) The arbitrator shall be empowered to issue subpoenas for the production of
31 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
persons and documents. The arbitrator shall designate the subpoena form to be utilized in such case. The California Code of Civil Procedure, the Evidence Code and other applicable statutes shall apply to the validity and processing of subpoenas and to the method of service of the same.
(15) Not later than thirty (30) days after closure of the record, the arbitrator shall render a binding opinion regarding the issues at dispute, and shall submit the binding opinion to the employee, Fire Chief, and the Chief Executive Officer of the District.
(16) The conduct of the arbitration proceedings shall be governed by this MOU, and not by CCP § 1280 et seq.
ARTICLE V DISCIPLINARY APPEAL
§1. Purpose
This article is intended to provide a fair, orderly, and due process compliant procedure whereby employees can seek review of disciplinary actions. Disciplinary actions shall be defined as: 1) oral warning, 2) written reprimand, 3) suspension without pay, 4) reduction in pay which is not the result of transfer or reassignment, 5) demotion, 6) dismissal.
Transfers or reassignments resulting in a reduction in bonus or related compensation shall not be considered disciplinary action and shall not be subject to review pursuant to either this MOU or any other District rules, policies and regulations. Further, oral warnings and written reprimands shall not be subject to appeal beyond the level of the Fire Chief or designee as set forth below. Performance evaluation reports and/or the discharge of probationary employees shall not be subject to review pursuant to this Article. §2. General Provisions
A. Preparation of an appeal will be accomplished in such a manner and at a time that will not interfere with normally required work procedures.
B. The Board of Directors or its individual members shall not be approached by employees or their representatives at any time that the appeal is being processed.
C. Failure of the appellant to comply with time limitations specified in the appeal procedure shall constitute a withdrawal of the appeal, except upon a showing of good cause for such failure. Failure of District supervisory or administrative staff to comply with specified time limitations shall permit the appellant to proceed to the next step in the procedure. EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the above, an extension of time is permitted with the mutual consent of both parties.
D. Any period of time specified in this rule for the giving of notice or taking of any action excludes weekends and holidays.
E. Unless otherwise specifically provided for herein, the term "days" shall mean business days of the District's Administrative offices.
32 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
F. Neither a hearing officer nor the CEO shall have authority to determine if a matter is within the definition of a disciplinable appeal and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely manner.
§3. Pre-Disciplinary Notice
A. Unless In those instances where a supervisor intends that a disciplinary action consisting of the loss of property (suspension, reduction, demotion or dismissal), the supervisor intending to issue said recommendation shall provide the affected employee with a written notice prior to imposition of any such disciplinary action.
Said written notice shall at a minimum, consist of the following:
(1) A statement of the disciplinary action that is being proposed. (2) The proposed date of imposition of said action.
(3) A statement of the basis for said proposed action.
(4) The Notice shall include as attachments, the materials upon which the proposed action is based (with the exception of the employee's personnel file, which need not be attached to the Notice).
(5) A statement of the method for participating in a pre-disciplinary review of the proposed action.
B. At the discretion of the Fire Chief, a Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action can be issued by the Fire Chief or his or her designee.
C. Not later than five (5) days after being served with the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action, the employee shall serve the Fire Chief or designee with a written request to convene such a meeting. The pre-disciplinary review meeting shall be conducted not later than five (5) days thereafter.
The employee has the option of waiving participation in a pre- disciplinary review meeting, and instead may respond to the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action in writing. If the employee so elects, the employee's substantive written response to the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action shall be served upon the Fire Chief or designee within five (5) days of service of the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action.
D. The pre-disciplinary review meeting shall be a non-evidentiary, informal meeting conducted pursuant to the principles in Skelly v. State Personnel Board. There shall be no subpoena power as regards said pre-disciplinary review meeting and there shall be no examination of witnesses. Rather, the purpose of the meeting is for the subject employee to provide the Fire Chief or designee with an informal rebuttal to the findings and conclusions set forth by the Fire Chief or designee.
E. If the employee does not elect to participate in a pre-disciplinary review meeting, then the Fire Chief or designee shall issue a Notice of Disciplinary Determination based upon a review of the Notice of Intended Disciplinary Action and the materials incorporated therein.
33 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
F. Regardless of whether or not the Notice Intended Disciplinary Action is issued by the Chief or a designee, the Chief shall preside over any timely requested pre disciplinary review proceeding and shall issue a determination either rejecting, modifying or sustaining the nature of the proposed action. However, the pre- disciplinary review proceeding shall not result in an increase in the severity of the proposed action without an amended Notice of Intended Action being first drafted and served and which so reflects the Fire Chief’s recommendation.
G. The Fire Chief shall cause the Notice of his/her post -review determination to be served upon the employee and/or the employee's representative.
H. The decision by the Fire Chief or designee shall address whether or not the appeal of the employee is appealable pursuant to the definition set forth in § 1 above and/or is timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely manner.
In the event that the Fire Chief or designee determines that the employee's appeal is not defined as such by § 1 above and/or is not timely filed or otherwise administratively prosecuted in a timely manner, the Fire Chief or designee shall advise the employee that the matter is not appealable and the appeal shall proceed no further unless or until on application by the employee, a judgment is entered at the trial court level, indicative of the matter being jurisdictionally appealable pursuant to the definitions set forth in § 1above and/or pursuant to requirements of timeliness.
§4. Hearing Officer Appeal
A. The following steps shall only be applicable to an appeal of disciplinary actions consisting of a deprivation of property (suspension, reduction, demotion, or dismissal).
B. If an appeal is not resolved by the Fire Chief following a pre-disciplinary review meeting, the employee may further appeal the matter by filing with the office of the Fire Chief or his/her designee a written appeal to an advisory hearing officer. Said appeal shall be timely only if it is received in the office of the Fire Chief or designee not later than seven (7) days after service of the appealable decision by the Fire Chief or designee.
C. The employee's appeal shall state with specificity all allegations of facts and law upon which the appeal is based, and the specific relief sought.
D. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a valid appeal, the Fire Chief or his/her designee shall request of the California State Conciliation and Mediation Service, that it submit a list of seven (7) hearing officers for hearing of the appeal. The Fire Chief or designee shall direct that a copy of the list of hearing officers be sent to the employee and to the Fire Chief or designee, as well.
E. Absent mutual selection of a hearing officer from either the submitted list or otherwise, the hearing officer shall be chosen by an initial flip of the coin, with the prevailing employee or Fire Chief/designee having the option of making the first strike or directing that the opposing party make the first strike. Following alternate striking, the one remaining hearing officer candidate shall be deemed the
34 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
appointed hearing officer.
F. The hearing officer shall conduct the hearing at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the parties.
G. The hearing shall be memorialized by use of a certified shorthand reporter. The shorthand reporter shall be selected by the employee.
H. All fees and expenses of the hearing officer shall be borne equally by the parties.
I. All fees and expenses related to the securing of a representative and/or legal counsel, the preparation of transcripts, witness fees and other expenses attendant to the presentation of evidence, shall be borne by the party at whose direction said expense is incurred.
J. The per diem fee of the shorthand reporter shall be borne equally by the parties.
The cost of transcription shall be borne by the party ordering the transcript.
K. Neither the Federal nor California State Rules of Evidence shall be binding upon evidentiary issues at the hearing. However, such authorities may be considered by the hearing officer in rendering evidentiary rulings. Further, the California Administrative Procedure Act shall specifically be of no application to the hearing process. Additionally, the Fire Chief or designee shall be specifically authorized to call the employee or any other individual as a witness during the case in chief or otherwise as the Fire Chief or designee may deem appropriate.
L. Although the Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly adhered to, hearsay that would be inadmissible in a civil or criminal proceeding cannot in and of itself support a finding by the hearing officer without corroboration. In general, the hearing officer shall admit evidence which is of such reliability that reasonable persons rely upon it in the conduct of serious matters such as the hearing.
M. The burdens of proof and production of evidence shall be borne by the Fire Chief.
The standard of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
N. Not later than ten (10) days prior to the date of commencement of the hearing, the parties shall exchange lists of witnesses each intends to call at the hearing, and a list of documents it intends to introduce at the hearing. Said documents shall be attached to the notifications provided for herein, and the notifications shall actually be in receipt of the opposing party on or before the tenth (10th) day prior to commencement of the hearing. Failure to comply with said requirements shall result in exclusion of witness testimony and/or rejection of exhibits not designated in the submissions.
O. The hearing officer shall be empowered to issue subpoenas for the production of persons and documents. The hearing officer shall designate the subpoena form to be utilized in such case. The California Code of Civil Procedure, the Evidence Code and other applicable statutes shall apply to the validity and processing of subpoenas and to the method of service of the same.
35 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
P. Not later than thirty (30) days after closure of the record, the hearing officer shall render a written advisory opinion regarding the issues at dispute, and shall submit the advisory opinion to the employee, to the Fire Chief and to the Chief Executive Officer of the District.
§5. CEO Decision
A. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the Chief Executive Officer shall advise the parties in writing pursuant to paragraph 4, below, of whether or not the hearing officer's recommendation is adopted. If adopted, the Chief Executive Officer need not review transcripts of the proceedings. If the Chief Executive Officer adopts the hearing officer's recommendation, then it shall be considered a final determination.
B. In the event that the Chief Executive Officer determines that the hearing officer's recommendation may be subject to rejection or modification, the Chief Executive Officer shall within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal so notify the parties and shall order a transcript of the proceedings before the hearing officer with copies to the employee and the Fire Chief. In such case, the cost of producing the transcript of the proceedings shall be borne equally by the parties. Within thirty (30) days of service of the transcript, the employee and the Fire Chief may submit to the Chief Executive Officer, a written memorandum of points and authorities in support of their respective positions.
C. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the legal briefs, the Chief Executive Officer shall render a final determination either sustaining, modifying, or rejecting the hearing officer's recommendation. The Chief Executive Officer's decision shall be submitted to the parties in writing and shall be final upon service being made by mail.
D. Allowable judicial review of the Chief Executive Officer's decision shall be sought within the time constraints of CCP § 1094.6 (mandating that a petition for peremptory writ of mandate shall be filed not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which the Chief Executive Officer's decision is mailed by first -class mail, postage pre paid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing).
ARTICLE VI SAFETY
§1. Compliance
District and employees in Association shall conform to and comply with all health, safety, and sanitation requirements imposed by District , state or federal law or regulations adopted under state or federal law.
§2. No Discrimination
No employee shall be in any way discriminated against as a result of reporting any condition believed to be a violation of 1 of this Article V.
§3. Safety Equipment
Should the employment duties of an employee in the unit, in the estimation of OSHA, require use of any equipment or gear to ensure the safety of the employee or others, District agrees to furnish such equipment or gear.
36 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
§4. Employee Responsibility
In the course of performing their normally assigned work, employees will be alert to observe unsafe practices, equipment, and conditions; as well as environmental conditions in their immediate area which represent health hazards and will report such conditions to their immediate supervisor. All employees shall make certain that all power machinery is equipped with safety devices properly installed and in working condition and that co- workers use utmost care in the handling of tools and equipment. Employees shall report all accidents immediately to their immediate supervisors. Reports shall be submitted on forms provided by District.
§5. Smoking Policy
Members of Association agree to accept and comply with the District’s Smoking Policy as written and approved by the Fire Chief.
§6. Work Related Injuries
Any employee within the bargaining unit covered herein who is receiving disability payments under the "Workers Compensation Act of California" for on-the-job injuries sustained while engaged in the performance of duties of any such District position, shall receive from the District during the first three months of such disability absence, payments in an amount equal to the difference between the disability payments received under Workers Compensation Act and the employee's full salary.
Such payments by the District should be made without any deduction from accrued sick leave benefits. The District 's obligation for such payments shall commence on the first (1st) day of such disability absence. In the event the employee's disability absence should exceed three months, an employee shall be allowed to supplement the Workers Compensation benefit received under State law with available accrued sick leave, accrued vacation leave, accrued compensatory time. The total number of leave hours, along with the Workers Compensation benefit, shall not exceed the employee's base pay for each day of the leave. For this purpose, accrued leave hours can only be used in one-hour increments.
ARTICLE VII MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
§1. Scope of Rights
It is understood and agreed that District possesses the sole right and authority to operate and direct the employees of District in all aspects, except as modified in this Memorandum of Understanding. These rights include, but are not limited to:
A. The right to determine its mission, policies, and standards of service to be provided to the public;
B. To plan, direct, control, and determine the operations or services to be conducted by employees of District;
C. To determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed to carry out District’s mission;
D. To direct the working forces;
37 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
E. To hire, assign, or transfer employees within District; F. To promote, suspend, discipline, or discharge employees;
G. To layoff or relieve employees due to lack of work or funds or for other legitimate reasons, (Any provision within this MOU, City rules or regulations or any other policy or procedure promulgated by the City or any Department of the City which prohibits the imposition of layoffs, is deemed null and void);
H. To make, publish, and enforce rules and regulations; I. To introduce new or improved methods, equipment, or facilities;
J. To contract out for goods and services;
K. To take any and all actions as may be necessary to carry out the mission of District in situations of civil emergency as may be declared by the Board of Directors or Fire Chief;
L. To schedule and assign work; and,
M. To establish work and productivity standards.
§2. Emergency Conditions
If in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors or Fire Chief it is determined that extreme civil emergency conditions exist, including, but not limited to, riots, civil disorders, earthquakes, floods, or other similar catastrophes, the provisions of this MOU may be suspended during the time of the declared emergency, provided that wage r ates and monetary fringe benefits shall not be suspended.
ARTICLE VIII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
§1. Scope of Rights
All employees shall have the following rights which may be exercised in accordance with State Law, applicable ordinances, rules and regulations:
A. To The right to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer- employee relations.
B. The right to be free from interference, intimidation, restraint, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal on the part of an appointing authority, supervisor, other employees, or employee organizations as a result of their exercise of rights granted in this Article.
The provisions of Section 3500 et seq. of the Government Code are hereby incorporated as such provisions may apply to employees within the Support Services Association.
§2. New Employee Orientation
The District shall provide thirty (30) minutes at a mutually agreeable time during the employee onboarding process for a Fire Support Services Association representative to
38 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
meet with a new Association covered employee and present the benefits of being a member of the Association. Onboarding of new employees occurs during the first working day at the start of a new pay period up to 26 times per year.
The District will provide the designated Association representatives with all available information about the employees as required under AB 119 within 30 days of the employees start date and the District will provide the required information on all Association covered employees again as required under AB 119 at least three (3) times per year.
ARTICLE IX
MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS
All wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment specifically provided for in this memorandum of understanding, shall remain in full force and effect during the term of the MOU, unless modified pursuant to written agreement of the parties.
ARTICLE X APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This MOU is subject to approval by the Board of Directors of District. The parties hereto agree to perform whatever acts are necessary both jointly and separately to urge the Board to approve and enforce this MOU in its entirety. Following approval of this MOU by the Board, its terms and conditions shall be implemented by appropriate ordinance, resolution, or other lawful action.
ARTICLE XI
PROVISIONS OF LAW
It is understood and agreed that this MOU and employees are subject to all current and future applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and the current provisions of District law. If any part or provisions of this MOU is in conflict or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of those Federal, State, or District enactments or is otherwise held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such part or provision shall be suspended and superseded by such applicable law or regulations, and the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected thereby. If any substantive part or provision of this MOU is suspended or superseded, the parties agree to re-open negotiations regarding the suspended or superseded part or provisions with the understanding that the total compensation to employees under this MOU shall not be reduced or increased as result of this Article.
District and Association recognize that under this MOU and in personnel matters not covered in this contract, the current District Personnel Rules as amended and effective shall apply. The Personnel Rules applicable to the Association shall not be changed for the duration of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XII TERM
The term of this MOU shall commence on July 1, 2025 and will continue for a two year period, ending on June 30, 2027.
ARTICLE XIII NEGOTIATION OF SUCCESSOR MOU
The parties agree that negotiation of a successor to this MOU shall commence not later January 1, 2027.
39 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
40 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
EXHIBIT A
FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES
Administrative Assistant
Communications Technician
Community Affairs Senior Coordinator
Emergency Management Coordinator
Emergency Medical Services Administrator
Emergency Medical Services Administrator – Quality Improvement Nurse Executive Assistant
Executive Assistant II
Fire Business Manager
Fire Equipment Apprentice Mechanic
Fire Equipment Lead Mechanic
Fire Equipment Mechanic
Fire Information Systems Technician
Fire Prevention Specialist Inspection I
Fire Prevention Specialist Inspection II
Fire Prevention Supervisor
Fire Shop Supervisor
Maintenance Officer
Management Aide
Management Analyst I
Management Analyst II
Management Analyst Ill
Plans Examiner - Fire
Public Education Specialist
41 Fire Support MOU 2025-2027
Association District
Date Date
Shane Adams Robert Neiuber
Fire Prevention Supervisor Senior Human Resources Director
Peter Castro
Deputy City Manager
Approved by action of the Board of Directors the day of , 2025
DATE:June 4, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. 1041
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2025-
00044, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP DESIGNATION OF 2 PARCELS LOCATED AT 9750 AND 9720 7TH STREET FROM
CENTER 1 – SOUTHWEST CUCAMONGA (CE1-SWC) TO NEO-
INDUSTRIAL (NI), IN ORDER BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. APN: 0209-211-68, -69
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1041.
BACKGROUND:
The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of May 21, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Hutchison, Scott and Stickler.
Absent: Michael and Kennedy.
ANALYSIS:
Please refer to the May 21, 2025 City Council staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Please refer to the May 21, 2025 City Council staff report.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
Please refer to the May 21, 2025 City Council staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 1041
1 ORDINANCE NO. 1041
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT DRC2025-00044, A REQUEST TO AMEND
THE ZONING MAP DESIGNATION OF 2 PARCELS
LOCATED AT 9750 AND 9720 7TH STREET FROM
CENTER 1 – SOUTHWEST CUCAMONGA (CE1-SWC)
TO NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI), IN ORDER TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. APN:
0209-211-68, -69
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) is proposi ng to update the official Zoning Map to address zone changes for the properties located on property addressed 9720 and 9750 7 th Street, APNs: 0209 -211-68 and 0209 -211-69, generally located on the northeastern corner of Archibald Avenue and 7th Street. .
B. The City has prepared Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00044, as described in the title of this Ordinance , to implement the zone changes . Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Zoning Map Amendment is referred to as the “application” or “Amendment.”
C. The City is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California.
D. The project site consists of two parcels with a combined size of approximately 2.16 acres, which are improved with two existing industrial warehouse buildings with a combined total square footage of 42,050 square feet.
E. This amendment changes the zoning designation of the subject parcels from Center 1 – Southwest Cucamonga (CE1-SWC) to Neo-Industrial (NI).
F. On April 9, 2025 , the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed continued public hearing with respect to the amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted Resolution No. 25-10 recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said amendments.
G. On May 21, 2025 , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the amendment and concluded said hearing on that date.
H. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
ATTACHMENT 1
2 SECTION 2. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
A. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts s et forth in the Recitals, Section 1, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
B. Findings.
1) Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. The existing General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcels is Neo-Industrial Employment. The subject parcels were rezoned in error to Center 1 - Southwest Cucamonga (CE1 -SWC) as part of a previous ordinance (Ordinance 1023) approved in 2024. Prior to the passage of Ordinance 1023, the subject parcels were zoned Neo -Industrial (NI), consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designation. Thus, the proposed amendment will correct a discrepancy between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map.
2) The Zoning Map Amendment w ill not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The amendment will only revert the subject parcels to a previous zoning designation to be consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation.
Further, the action does not include any additional development of the site and all existing buildings will remain in their existing condition, thus the Zoning Map Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3) The Amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
C. CEQA. The City finds that the Project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The applicat ion is for a Zoning Map Amendment only, with no new physical development associated with the proposed amendment. Further, the zone changes are intended to ensure consistency with the General Plan, thus no change in the baseline environmental conditions because the General Plan is the highest authority of land use planning within the City. Therefore, the application will not have any specific impacts on the environment.
D. Determination on Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-0044. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-0044 as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3 E. Zoning Map Amendment . The City Council hereby amends the official Zoning Map reflecting the amendments set forth in Exhibit A.
F. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such dec ision 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 thereo f, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
G. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a wa iver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
H. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption, and shall be published or posted as required by law.
I. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
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 held on the 21st day of May, 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
4 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
5 Exhibit A: Amended Zoning Map
DATE:June 4, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Rick Snawder, Fire Marshal
Shane Adams, Deputy Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. FD 059
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES,
ESTABLISHING THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA,
AND MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO DEFENSIBLE SPACE
REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council/ Fire Board waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. FD 059.
BACKGROUND:
The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of May 21, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Hutchison, Scott and Stickler.
Absent: Michael and Kennedy.
ANALYSIS:
Please refer to the May 21, 2025 City Council staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Please refer to the May 21, 2025 City Council staff report.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
Please refer to the May 21, 2025 City Council staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. FD 059
Ordinance No. FD 059
3 5
6 8
7 ORDINANCE NO. FD 059
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
ZONES, ESTABLISHING THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
FIRE AREA, AND MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO
DEFENSIBLE SPACE REQUIREMENTS
The Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Establishment of Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Designation of the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
A. In accordance with Government Code Section 51178, the State Fire Marshal has identified Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Fire District's jurisdiction and has notified the Fire District of such Zones.
B. The Fire Hazard Severity Zones recommended by the State Fire Marshal were received by the Fire District on March 24, 2025 and in accordance with Government Code Section 51178.5 within 30 days after receiving the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the State Fire Marshal, the Fire District made the information available for public review and comment and presented the information in a format that was understandable and accessible to the general public including, but not limited to, maps.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 51179(a), the Fire District is required to designate, by ordinance, Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in its jurisdiction, within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.
D. The map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones designated by the Fire District is hereby attached as Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference, and entitled: the Rancho Cucamonga Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area dated 2025.
E. The District's Board of Directors hereby designates as Fire Hazard Severity Zones, all areas identified by the State Fire Marshal as Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the District's jurisdiction.
F. In order to more fully protect the public health, safety, and welfare, any parcel with more than one Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation, as identified by the State Fire Marshal, shall be classified to the highest Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation assigned to the parcel, in its entirety and with all Fire Safe Regulations contained within Title 14, California Code of Regulations, commencing at Section 1270, applicable to such designation. The District’s Board of Directors finds that adoption of the requirements of this Subsection F is necessary in order to provide effective fire protection since the State Fire Marshal’s fire zone maps generally do not follow parcel boundaries.
SECTION 2. Map Adoption.
The District's Board of Directors hereby adopts as the official map of the Rancho Cucamonga ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. FD 059
3 5
6 8
7 Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, the Rancho Cucamonga Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area Map dated 2025, effective January 1, 2026, and on file in the office of the Secretary of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
SECTION 3. Fire Protection and Prevention
Notwithstanding the provisions of Government Code Section 51182(a)(1), and as permitted by Government Code Section 51182(a)(1)(B), the Fire District shall be authorized to increase the required 100 foot defensible space on a case by case basis, whenever deemed necessary by the Chief or designee to provide comparable fuel reduction, modification, and/or management defense to wildfire when fire behavior models applicable to Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Fire District's jurisdiction establish such need.
The Fire District's Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that requiring such additional defensible space, based on specific circumstances, is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite nearby structures, and that there are no other feasible mitigation measures possible to reduce the risk of such ignition or spread of wildfire. The Board further finds that requiring such additional defensible space is made necessary as a result of unusually high wind speeds in the District's jurisdiction.
SECTION 4. Prior Maps Superseded.
Any and all provisions in any previously adopted District ordinances designating Fire Severity Zones within the District’s jurisdiction, are superseded by the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Successor Provisions.
It is the intent of the District's Board of Directors that in the event any of the California statutes or regulations referenced in this Ordinance are renumbered or recodified, any successor statutes and/or regulations containing substantially the same requirements as the predecessor statutes and regulations, shall fully apply as though set forth herein, and the same shall be read to the extent necessary to give full meaning and effect to this Ordinance, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
SECTION 6. Certification.
The Secretary of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Furthermore, in accordance with Government Code Section 51179(g), the Secretary shall post a notice at the office of the county recorder, county assessor and county planning agency, identifying the location of the map provided by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, as may be amended by the District.
Please see the following page for
formal adoption, certification and signatures
Ordinance No. FD 059
3 5
6 8
7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this XX day of May, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST:
DATE: June 4, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/ City Engineer Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1042, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Section 10.20.010 and Deleting Section 10.20.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Regarding Declared Prima Facie Speed Limits on Non-Local Streets. (ORDINANCE NO. 1042) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1042, to be read by title only, amending Section 10.20.010 and deleting Section 10.20.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding Declared Prima Facie Speed Limits on Non-Local Streets.
BACKGROUND:
Speed limits along most of the roadways in any city are established by an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) conducted in compliance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and supported by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) 2014 Edition, Revision eight (8).
Depending on the type of enforcement needed and on road condition changes, the CVC requires engineering and traffic surveys be completed at least every five (5), seven (7) or fourteen (14) years to support enforcement of the prima facie speed limits.
Per the CVC, prima facie speed limits refer to the default speed limit unless the street is posted with a different speed limit. Under CVC 22352, the prima facie speed limit of 25 mph applies to businesses, residential areas, and school zones and may not be altered by a local jurisdiction.
Under CVC 22358, prima facie is 65 mph or 55 mph, except under certain situations such as school zones or at rail crossings, however, local jurisdictions can declare a lower prima facie speed limit on local roads by ordinance or resolution when an engineering and traffic survey shows that the prima facie speed limit is not applicable for the existing conditions on the local road.
Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) was passed in 2021 and amended some sections of the CVC related to speed limits, including extending the period that a speed limit is justified by an E&TS to fourteen (14) years, consideration of pedestrians when conducting an E&TS, and allowing local authorities to reduce speed limits if “after completing and engineering and traffic survey”, the local authority finds that the speed limit is more than reasonable and safe per the existing road conditions. While this legislation provided additional tools for Cities as they set speed limits, it still requires establishing based on prescribed methodologies as described above.
2 8
4 4
In a review of citywide speed limits completed in early 2024, staff noted a number of streets in the city that had outdated engineering and traffic surveys. With the passing of AB43, in order to build an up-to-date and comprehensive database and tracking system, staff determined that a complete citywide speed limit update was necessary. Having updated and valid engineering and traffic surveys allows police officers to enforce the posted speed limits using radar and lidar, one of the key tools in maintaining a safer driving environment. Setting proper speed limits also affects traffic flow and is important when creating timing programs for signalized intersections. In addition, proper speed limits are important for pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. The comprehensive update also allows staff to better manage when engineering and traffic surveys are approaching expiration to plan accordingly for re-surveying.
ANALYSIS:
In the Fall of 2024, the city hired HR Green, a traffic engineering consultant, to review the E&TS for all the streets within the city. The consultant reviewed three hundred and five (305) street segments and determined that engineering and traffic surveys for two hundred and thirty-five (235) of the segments could be extended to fourteen (14) years from the date of the last performed survey, per the guidelines set in AB 43. The consultant conducted new E&TS for the remaining seventy (70) street segments. Of the seventy (70) new surveys conducted, it was recommended that sixty-two (62) street segments be maintained at the existing posted speed limit, and that eight (8) segments be modified from their current posted speed limit to be properly enforced. The changes for the eight (8) segments are summarized in the following table, and include seven (7) segments where speeds are proposed to be lowered and one (1) segment where speed is proposed to be raised:
Segment From To Existing
Speed Limit
(mph)
New Declared
Speed Limit
(mph)
Banyan Street West End Sapphire Street 40 30
Church Street Haven Avenue Terra Vista Parkway
(West) 45 40
Church Street Terra Vista
Parkway (West) Elm Avenue (West) 45 40
Church Street Elm Avenue
(West) Spruce Avenue 45 40
Church Street Spruce Avenue Elm Avenue (East) 45 40
Foothill Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 55 50
Spruce Avenue Foothill Boulevard Elm Avenue 40 35
Victoria Street Ramona Avenue Hermosa Avenue 30 35
When compiling the changes and upon further review of the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 “Special Speed Zone”, it was determined that an update to the Municipal Code was necessary to provide a clearly defined list of speeds on all road segments under one section of the code versus providing two separate sections with the city’s posted speed limits.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance including changes to speeds along the street segments listed above. All other street segment speeds in the ordinance shall remain as currently posted.
2 8
4 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fiscal impact is expected to be minimal and will include installation of new speed limit signs and removal of pavement markings along the eight street segments proposed for change. The cost for this work is expected to be minimal and will be absorbed within current operating budgets.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 1042
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 1 of 14
5 7
4 5
ORDINANCE NO. 1042
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.010 AND
DELETING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DECLARED
PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON NON-LOCAL STREETS
I. Recitals.
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22357 Provides that The City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) may, by ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of any street not a state highway upon making the required findings following preparation of an engineering and traffic survey.
B. The City Engineer has conducted and engineering and traffic survey, of certain streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga dated May 14, 2025, and on file in the Office of the City Engineer, as specified in this Ordinance.
C. The determinations concerning prima facie speed limits set forth in this Ordinance, below, are based upon the engineering and traffic survey identified in Section I (B), above.
D. The City Council is only amending the prima facie speed limit of those street segments underlined in proposed Section 10.20.010 below, which underlines shall not be codified in the official Municipal Code. The remainder of the street segments are included for convenience and are not intended to be re-adopted by this Ordinance.
II. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 10.20.010 of Chapter 10.20 (“Special Speed Zone”) of Title 10 (“Vehicles” and Traffic”) of the Rancho Cucamonga City Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read, in words and figures, as follows:
“10.20.010 Declared Prima Facie Speed Limits on Non-Local Streets A. It is determined by the City Council and upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the speed permitted under state law is greater than reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist upon such streets, and it is declared the prima facie speed limit, shall be set forth in this section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice hereof:
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 2 of 14
5 7
4 5
Segment From To Declared Prima
Facie Speed
Limit (MPH)
4th Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 50
4th Street Archibald Avenue Haven Avenue 50
4th Street Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue 55
4th Street Milliken Avenue I-15 Freeway 50
4th Street I-15 Freeway Etiwanda Avenue 55
6th Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 45
6th Street Archibald Avenue Haven Avenue 45
6th Street Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 45
6th Street Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
6th Street Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue 45
6th Street Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 45
7th Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 45
8th Street Grove Avenue Baker Avenue 45
8th Street Baker Avenue Vineyard Avenue 45
8th Street Vineyard Avenue Hellman Avenue 45
8th Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 45
8th Street Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 45
8th Street Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
9th Street Grove Avenue Baker Avenue 35
9th Street Baker Avenue Vineyard Avenue 40
9th Street Vineyard Avenue Hellman Avenue 40
9th Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 40
19th Street Sapphire Street Carnelian Street 45
19th Street Carnelian Street Beryl Street 45
19th Street Beryl Street Hellman Avenue 45
19th Street Hellman Avenue Amethyst Street 45
19th Street Amethyst Street Archibald Avenue 45
19th Street Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 45
19th Street Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 3 of 14
5 7
4 5
19th Street Haven Avenue San Benito Avenue 45
Amethyst Street Base Line Road 19th Street 35
Amethyst Street 19th Street Lemon Avenue 35
Amethyst Street Banyan Wilson Avenue 35
Amethyst Street Lemon Avenue Banyan Street 35
Amethyst Street Lemon Avenue Wilson Avenue 35
Amethyst Street Wilson Avenue Hillside Road (North End) 35 Amethyst Street Wilson Avenue Valley View Street 35
Archibald Avenue 4th Street 6th Street 45
Archibald Avenue 6th Street 8th Street 45
Archibald Avenue 8th Street Arrow Route 45
Archibald Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 45
Archibald Avenue Foothill Boulevard Church Street 45
Archibald Avenue Church Street Base Line Road 45
Archibald Avenue Base Line Road 19th Street 45
Archibald Avenue 19th Street Banyan Street 45
Archibald Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 50
Archibald Avenue Wilson Avenue City Limits (North) 50
Arrow Route Grove Avenue Baker Avenue 45
Arrow Route Baker Avenue Vineyard Avenue 45
Arrow Route Vineyard Avenue Hellman Avenue 45
Arrow Route Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 45
Arrow Route Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 45
Arrow Route Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
Arrow Route Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue 50
Arrow Route Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 50
Arrow Route Rochester Avenue Etiwanda Avenue 50
Arrow Route Etiwanda Avenue Hickory Avenue 50
Aspen Avenue Red Oak Street Foothill Boulevard 35
Baker Avenue 8th Street Arrow Route 35
Baker Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 35
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 4 of 14
5 7
4 5
Banyan Street Sapphire Street Carnelian Street 40
Banyan Street Carnelian Street Beryl Street 40
Banyan Street Beryl Street Hellman Avenue 35
Banyan Street Hellman Avenue Amethyst Street 35
Banyan Street Amethyst Street Archibald Avenue 35
Banyan Street Ramona Avenue Hermosa Avenue 30
Banyan Street Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 30
Banyan Street Ramona Avenue Haven Avenue 30
Banyan Street Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue 45
Banyan Street Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 45
Banyan Street Rochester Avenue Day Creek Boulevard 45
Banyan Street Day Creek Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue 40
Banyan Street West End Sapphire 30
Banyan Street Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 45
Banyan Street East Avenue Wardman Bullock Road 45
Base Line Road City Limits (West) Carnelian Street 45
Base Line Road Carnelian Street Hellman Avenue 40
Base Line Road Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 40
Base Line Road Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 40
Base Line Road Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
Base Line Road Haven Avenue Spruce Avenue 45
Base Line Road Spruce Avenue Milliken Avenue 50
Base Line Road Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 50
Base Line Road Rochester Avenue Victoria Park Lane 50
Base Line Road Victoria Park Lane Etiwanda Avenue 50
Base Line Road Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 50
Beryl Street Base Line Road 19th Street 40
Beryl Street 19th Street Lemon Avenue 40
Beryl Street Lemon Avenue Banyan Street 40
Beryl Street Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 45
Beryl Street Wilson Avenue Hillside Road 45
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 5 of 14
5 7
4 5
Beryl Street Hillside Road Reales Street 45
Bluegrass Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 40
Buffalo Avenue 4th Street 6th Street 45
Camino Predera Red Hill Country Club
Drive (West)
Red Hill County Club
Drive (East)
25 Canistel Avenue Antietam Drive Wilson Avenue 35
Canistel Avenue Wilson Avenue Hillside Road 35
Carnelian Street Vineyard Avenue Vivero Street 45
Carnelian Street Vivero Street Base Line Road 45
Carnelian Street Base Line Road 19th Street 45
Carnelian Street 19th Street Highland Avenue 45
Carnelian Street Highland Avenue Lemon Avenue 45
Carnelian Street Lemon Avenue Banyan Street 45
Carnelian Street Banyan Avenue Hillside Road 45
Carnelian Street Hillside Road Almond Street 45
Center Avenue 26th Street Arrow Route 35
Center Avenue Foothill Boulevard Church Street 40
Cervantes Place Wilson Avenue Altura Drive 30
Church Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 40
Church Street Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 40
Church Street Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 40
Church Street Haven Avenue Terra Vista Parkway
(West)
40 Church Street Terra Vista Parkway
(West)
Elm Avenue (West) 40
Church Street Elm Avenue (West) Spruce Avenue 40
Church Street Spruce Avenue Elm Avenue (East) 40
Church Street Elm Avenue (East) Milliken Avenue 45
Church Street Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 45
Church Street Rochester Avenue Day Creek Boulevard 45
Church Street Day Creek Boulevard Victoria Park Lane 40 Church Street Victoria Park Lane Etiwanda Avenue 40
Civic Center Drive Haven Avenue Red Oak Street 35
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 6 of 14
5 7
4 5
Civic Center Drive Red Oak Street White Oak Avenue 40
Day Creek Boulevard Foothill Boulevard Church Street 45 Day Creek Boulevard Church Street Base Line Road 50
Day Creek Boulevard Base Line Road Victoria Park Lane 50 Day Creek Boulevard Victoria Park Lane Highland Avenue 50 Day Creek Boulevard 1-210 Banyan Street 45
Day Creek Boulevard Highland Avenue Banyan Street 45
Day Creek Boulevard Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 45
Day Creek Boulevard Wilson Avenue Coyote Drive 45
Day Creek Boulevard Coyote Drive Etiwanda Avenue 45
East Avenue Foothill Boulevard Miller Avenue 45
East Avenue Miller Avenue Base Line Road 45
East Avenue Base Line Road Victoria Street 45
East Avenue Victoria Street Highland Avenue 45
East Avenue Highland Avenue Banyan Street 45
East Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 45
Ellena Drive Base Line Road (West) Base Line Road (East) 35 Elm Avenue (West) Town Center Drive Spruce Avenue 35
Elm Avenue (East) Spruce Avenue Foothill Boulevard 35
Elm Avenue Foothill Boulevard White Oak Avenue 40
Etiwanda Avenue 4th Street Arrow Route 55
Etiwanda Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 50
Etiwanda Avenue Foothill Boulevard Base Line Road 45
Etiwanda Avenue Base Line Road Highland Avenue 45
Etiwanda Avenue Highland Avenue Banyan Street 45
Etiwanda Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 45
Etiwanda Avenue Wilson Avenue End (North) 40
Fairmont Way Kenyon Way Victoria Park Lane (West) 35
Fairmont Way Victoria Park Lane (West) Milliken Avenue 35 Fairmont Way Milliken Avenue Victoria Park Lane (East) 35 Foothill Boulevard Grove Avenue Baker Avenue 45
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 7 of 14
5 7
4 5
Foothill Boulevard Baker Avenue Vineyard Avenue 45
Foothill Boulevard Vineyard Avenue Hellman Avenue 45
Foothill Boulevard Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 45
Foothill Boulevard Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 45
Foothill Boulevard Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
Foothill Boulevard Haven Avenue Spruce Avenue 50
Foothill Boulevard Spruce Avenue Milliken Avenue 50
Foothill Boulevard Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 50
Foothill Boulevard Rochester Avenue Day Creek Boulevard 50 Foothill Boulevard Day Creek Boulevard I-15 Freeway 50
Foothill Boulevard I-15 Freeway Etiwanda Avenue 50
Foothill Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 50
Fredericksburg Avenue Banyan Street Seven Pines Drive 35 Grove Avenue 8th Street Arrow Route 40
Grove Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 40
Haven Avenue 4th Street 6th Street 50
Haven Avenue 6th Street 7th Street 50
Haven Avenue 7th Street Jersey Boulevard 50
Haven Avenue Jersey Boulevard Arrow Route 50
Haven Avenue Arrow Route Civic Center Drive 50
Haven Avenue Civic Center Drive Foothill Boulevard 50
Haven Avenue Foothill Boulevard Church Street 50
Haven Avenue Church Street Base Line Road 50
Haven Avenue Base Line Road Victoria Street 50
Haven Avenue Victoria Street 19th Street 50
Haven Avenue 19th Street Lemon Avenue 45
Haven Avenue Lemon Avenue Banyan Street 45
Haven Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 45
Haven Avenue Wilson Avenue End (North) 45
Hellman Avenue 6th Street 8th Street 45
Hellman Avenue 8th Street Arrow Route 45
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 8 of 14
5 7
4 5
Hellman Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 45
Hellman Avenue Foothill Boulevard Church Street 40
Hellman Avenue Church Street Base Line Road 35
Hellman Avenue Base Line Road 19th Street 35
Hellman Avenue 19th Street Lemon Avenue 35
Hellman Avenue Lemon Avenue Banyan Street 35
Hellman Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 35
Hellman Avenue Wilson Avenue End (North) 40
Hermosa Avenue 4th Street 6th Street 45
Hermosa Avenue 6th Street 8th Street 45
Hermosa Avenue 8th Street Arrow Route 45
Hermosa Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 45
Hermosa Avenue Foothill Boulevard Church Street 45
Hermosa Avenue Church Street Base Line Road 45
Hermosa Avenue Base Line Road 19th Street 45
Hermosa Avenue 19th Street Lemon Avenue 45
Hermosa Avenue Lemon Avenue Wilson Avenue 45
Hermosa Avenue Wilson Avenue End (North) 40
Highland Avenue Sapphire Street Carnelian Street 40
Highland Avenue Amethyst Street Archibald Avenue 35
Highland Avenue Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 35
Highland Avenue Hermosa Avenue Mayberry Avenue 35
Highland Avenue Woodruff Place Rochester Avenue 45
Highland Avenue Rochester Avenue Day Creek Boulevard 45 Highland Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue 45
Highland Avenue Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 40
Hillside Road Ranch Gate Road Carnelian Street 35
Hillside Road Carnelian Street Beryl Street 40
Hillside Road Beryl Street Amethyst Street 35
Hillside Road Amethyst Street Archibald Avenue 40
Hillside Road Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 40
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 9 of 14
5 7
4 5
Hillside Road Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 40
Hillside Road Haven Avenue Carriage Place 35
Hillview Loop Vintage Drive (West) Vintage Drive (East) 30 Jersey Boulevard Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue 45
Jersey Boulevard Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 45
Kenyon Way Fairmont Way Milliken Avenue 35
Kenyon Way Milliken Avenue Victoria Park Lane 35
Kenyon Way Victoria Park Lane Ellena Drive 35
Lark Drive Kenyon Way Rochester Avenue 35
Lemon Avenue Sapphire Street Carnelian Street 35
Lemon Avenue Carnelian Street Beryl Street 35
Lemon Avenue Beryl Street Hellman Avenue 35
Lemon Avenue Hellman Avenue Amethyst Street 35
Lemon Avenue Amethyst Street Archibald Avenue 35
Lemon Avenue Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 40
Lemon Avenue Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 40
Lemon Avenue Haven Avenue Marbella Drive 40
Manzanita Drive Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 35
Miller Avenue Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 40
Milliken Avenue 4th Street 6th Street 50
Milliken Avenue 6th Street Jersey Boulevard 50
Milliken Avenue Jersey Boulevard Arrow Route 50
Milliken Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 50
Milliken Avenue Foothill Boulevard Base Line Road 50 Milliken Avenue Base Line Road Kenyon Way 50 Milliken Avenue Kenyon Way Banyan Street 50 Milliken Avenue Banyan Street Wilson Avenue 45 Morning Place Meadow Glen Place
(Vintage)
Banyan Street 30
Mountain View Drive Spruce Avenue Milliken Avenue 40 Mountain View Drive Milliken Avenue Terra Vista Parkway 35 Mountain View Drive Terra Vista Parkway Base Line Road 40
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 10 of 14
5 7
4 5
Netherlands View Loop Vintage Drive (West) Vintage Drive (East) 30 North Victoria Windrows
Loop
Victoria Park Lane (West) Rock Rose Avenue 35
North Victoria Windrows
Loop
Rock Rose Avenue Victoria Park Lane (East) 35
Palo Alto Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 30 Plum Way North Victoria Windrows Lo
Coral Tree Road 25
Ramona Avenue Foothill Boulevard Church Street 35 Ramona Avenue Church Street Base Line Road 35 Ramona Avenue Base Line Road Victoria Street 35 Ramona Avenue Victoria Street 19th Street 35 Red Hill Country Club
Drive
Foothill Boulevard Alta Cuesta 35
Red Oak Street Jersey Boulevard Arrow Route 40 Red Oak Street Arrow Route Spruce Avenue 40 Rochester Avenue 6th Street Arrow Route 45
Rochester Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 45 Rochester Avenue Foothill Boulevard Base Line Road 45 Rochester Avenue Base Line Road Highland Avenue 45 Rochester Avenue Highland Avenue Banyan Street 45 San Bernardino Road Vineyard Avenue Hellman Avenue 35 San Bernardino Road Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue 35 San Sevaine Road Wilson Avenue Crescenta Way 35 Sapphire Street 19th Street Banyan Street 40 Sapphire Street Banyan Street Hillside Road 45 Sapphire Street Hillside Road Almond Street 45 Sierra Crest View Loop Vintage Drive (West) Vintage Drive (East) 30 South Victoria Windrows
Loop
Victoria Park Lane (West) Victoria Park Lane (East) 35
Spruce Avenue Foothill Boulevard Elm Avenue 35 Spruce Avenue Elm Avenue Base Line Road 40 Sugar Gum Street Hillside Road Almond Street 30 Sugar Gum Street Day Creek Boulevard South Victoria Windrows Loop
30 Terra Vista Parkway Town Center Drive Church Street (West) 40
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 11 of 14
5 7
4 5
Terra Vista Parkway Church Street (West) Spruce Avenue 40 Terra Vista Parkway Spruce Avenue Milliken Avenue 40 Terra Vista Parkway Milliken Avenue Mountain View Drive 40 Terra Vista Parkway Mountain View Drive Church Street (East) 40 Terrace View Loop Vintage Drive (West) Vintage Drive (East) 30 Thoroughbred Street Sapphire Street Carnelian Street 30 Town Center Drive Haven Avenue Elm Avenue 40
Town Center Drive Elm Avenue Spruce Avenue 40
Valencia Avenue Haven Avenue Base Line Road 35
Victoria Street Archibald Avenue Ramona Avenue 35
Victoria Street Ramona Avenue Hermosa Avenue 35
Victoria Street Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 30
Victoria Street Haven Avenue Mendocino Place 40
Victoria Street Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue 40
Victoria Street East Avenue I-15 Freeway 40
Victoria Gardens Lane Day Creek Boulevard Church Street 35 Victoria Park Lane Fairmont Way Milliken Avenue 35
Victoria Park Lane Milliken Avenue Kenyon Way 35
Victoria Park Lane Kenyon Way Rochester Avenue 35
Victoria Park Lane Rochester Avenue Day Creek Boulevard 40 Victoria Park Lane Day Creek Boulevard Base Line Road 40 Victoria Park Lane Base Line Road Church Street 45
Vineyard Avenue 8th Street 9th Street 45
Vineyard Avenue 9th Street Arrow Route 45
Vineyard Avenue Arrow Route Foothill Boulevard 45
Vineyard Avenue Foothill Boulevard Carnelian Street 45
Vineyard Avenue Carnelian Street Base Line Road 40
Vintage Drive Meadow Glen Place Milliken Avenue 35
Vintage Drive Milliken Avenue Rochester Avenue 35
Wardman Bullock Road End (South) Wilson Avenue 40
Wardman Bullock Road Wilson Avenue Glendora Drive 40
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 12 of 14
5 7
4 5
White Oak Avenue Jersey Boulevard Arrow Route 40
White Oak Avenue Arrow Route Spruce Avenue 40
Whittram Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Hickory Avenue 40
Wilson Avenue Carnelian Street Beryl Street 40
Wilson Avenue Beryl Street Amethyst Street 40
Wilson Avenue Amethyst Street Archibald Avenue 40
Wilson Avenue Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue 45
Wilson Avenue Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue 45
Wilson Avenue Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue 45
Wilson Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue 45
Wilson Avenue East Avenue Wardman Bullock Road 45
Wilson Avenue Wardman Bullock Road City Limits (East) 45 B. 1. The miles per hour stated above in subsection A are the prima facie speeds which are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are speed limits which are reasonable and safe on said streets or portions thereof;
2. The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima facie speed limits on said streets; and
3. The traffic engineer is hereby authorized and declared to install appropriate signs upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie speed limit declared herein.” SECTION 2. Section 10.20.020 (“Decrease of State Law Maximum Speed”) of Chapter 10 (“Special Speed Zone”) of Title 10 (“Vehicles and Traffic”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. The remainder of Chapter 10 shall be renumbered in accordance with this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, this Ordinance is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance,
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 13 of 14
5 7
4 5
and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1042 – Page 14 of 14
5 7
4 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2025. _____________________________________
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 _______________, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
DATE:June 4, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit – Goree Architects for Cal Box - A Request for Site Plan and Architectural Review of a 45,993 Square Foot Addition to an Existing 98,406 Square Foot Industrial Building and a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Manufacturing Use within Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone, at 8949 Toronto Avenue; APN: 0209-401-05. The Project Qualifies as a Class 32 Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. The Project also Qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288). (RESOLUTION NOS. 2025-020 AND 2025-021) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny appeal DRC2025-00107 and uphold the Planning Commission’s April 23, 2025, approval of the Cal Box II Warehouse Expansion Project, including Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) DRC2024-00288.
BACKGROUND:
On April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission approved Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288 for the Cal Box II Warehouse Expansion Project, located at 8949 Toronto Avenue (APN: 0209-401-05). The approved Project includes a 45,993-square- foot addition to an existing 98,406-square-foot industrial building. In addition, the Conditional Use Permit authorizes the continued operation of the existing manufacturing use on the site.
Prior to the hearing, a comment letter dated April 21, 2025, was submitted by the law firm Lozeau Drury on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). The letter was distributed to the Planning Commission ahead of the meeting for their consideration. After reviewing the staff report, staff’s presentation of the project which addressed the comments submitted by Lozeau Drury, public comment, and submitted rebuttal materials, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Project.
On April 30, 2025, SAFER filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The appeal challenges the City’s reliance on CEQA exemptions for the Project, asserting that an initial
2 8
4 6
study and preparation of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or environmental impact report (EIR) are required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ANALYSIS:
SAFER’s appeal argues that use of the CEQA Class 32 and Class 1 Exemptions is improper because (i) the Project will have cumulatively significant air quality impacts, which precludes reliance on the Class 32 (Infill Development Projects) Exemption, and (ii) the Project does not consist of a “minor alteration” and therefore exceeds the scope of a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Exemption. With respect to the Class 32 Exemption, SAFER asserts that the Project could have potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality, given its location in a census tract with high existing pollution burdens, and anticipated use of diesel trucks during construction. With respect to the Class 1 Exemption, SAFER asserts that the scale of the proposed building addition exceeds the scope of what is permitted under the CEQA Guidelines. The following analysis addresses each exemption and explains why staff finds the CEQA review to be appropriate and legally supported.
As a preliminary matter, lead agencies may apply multiple exemptions to a single project under CEQA review. The project will be exempt from further review under CEQA so long as the combined effect of the exemptions places the project as a whole outside the purview of CEQA.
Here, the City applies separate CEQA Exemptions for two different components of the Project, which, in combination, exempt the entire Project from further review. Those components are discussed in further detail below.
1. CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) Applies to the CUP for the Continuation of an Industrial Use in the Existing Warehouse.
The City applied the Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 in connection with the CUP for the continuation of the permitted industrial use in the existing warehouse. The CUP does not authorize a new use, or physical expansion of the existing use, and the Class 1 Exemption does not relate to uses within the proposed building expansion. This application is consistent with CEQA, which allows use of a Class 1 Exemption for regulatory actions involving the continuation of existing uses.
Under CEQA, exemptions are valid unless an exception applies under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. No such evidence that an exception applies has been presented here.
Finding: The CUP does not constitute an expansion of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving the expansion of an existing or former use. Because there is no expansion of the existing use authorized by the CUP, a Class 1 Exemption applies. No exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
2. CEQA Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) Applies to the Construction of the Warehouse Expansion for Storage Use.
The City applied the Class 32 Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 in connection with approval of the construction of an expansion to the existing warehouse for storage uses. The Class 32 Exemption is supported by a CEQA technical memorandum (See Exhibit D to Attachment 1), and environmental consultant analysis. The CEQA technical memorandum concludes that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 Exemption because it meets the five required conditions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
2 8
4 6
Importantly, the proposed 45,993-square-foot warehouse expansion is well below the 75,000- square-foot screening threshold for potentially cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, as identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, the proposed warehouse will simply provide an indoor space to store cardboard inventory and other materials that are currently kept outdoors and will not result in an increase in traffic to or from the Project site. The City’s environmental consultant notes that operational efficiencies caused by the warehouse expansion may reduce fugitive emissions.
With respect to air quality impacts caused by construction, the City’s environmental consultant notes that short-term construction impacts are not typically considered cumulatively considerable unless they result in significant, prolonged environmental degradation. Here, emissions would be temporary, localized, and regulated by existing air quality laws and best management practices.
Further, the nearest sensitive receptor is located more than 2,000 feet from the site, further reducing any concern of direct health risk during construction activities.
Finding: Use of the Class 32 Exemption applies to the expansion of the warehouse for storage uses and is supported by substantial evidence. No exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
This item was advertised as a public hearing item with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on May 21, 2025, the property was posted on May 21, 2025, and notices were mailed to 14 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on May 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Project site is currently assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed building addition will increase the value of the Project site, and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The Project supports the City Council's core value of the relentless pursuit of improvement by increasing the operational efficiency of an existing manufacturing use within the City. The CUP will allow existing manufacturing uses to continue, while the warehouse expansion will allow for the relocation of outdoor storage into an enclosed building, reducing visual clutter and enhancing site aesthetics.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Staff Report, Exhibits, Signed Resos and PC Minutes Attachment 2 – Lozeau Drury, LLP Comment Letter Dated 4-21-25 and Appeal Letter Dated 4- 24-25
Attachment 3 – UES Response Letter Dated 4-23-25
Attachment 4 – City Council Resolution No. 2025-020, Appeal Design Review DRC2023-00379 Attachment 5 – City Council Resolution No. 2025-021, Appeal CUP DRC2024-00288
DAT
E: April 23, 2025
T
O: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
F
ROM: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GOREE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a manufacturing use wit hin Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone, at 8949 Toronto Avenue; APN: 0209-401-05. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. The project also qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (Design Review DRC2023 -00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288).
RE
COMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions of approval for Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024- 00288, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
BA
CKGROUND:
The project site is located at 8949 Toronto Avenue and is developed with a 98,406- square-foot industrial building constructed in 1995 by Cal Box. Cal Box manufactures and distributes custom designed corrugated boxes for businesses. They are proposing an expansion of their existing facility to store raw materials and finished goods manufactured on site. The parcel is approximately 532 feet from east to west and 613 feet from north to south, with an area of approximately 336,283 square feet (7.7 acres). The right -of-way improvements , including sidewalk, curb, gutter, landscaping, and utility undergrounding along Toronto Avenue, have been completed and will remain as part of this project. 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 Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
North BNSF/Metrolink
Right of Way - -
South Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
Attachment 1
ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes constructing a 45,993 -square-foot addition along the west elevation of the existing 98,406-square-foot industrial building. The addition will be used to store raw materials and finished goods related to the site's primary manufacturing use, which is proposed to continue in relation to the subject request for entitlements. While the use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.136.020 (Allowed Land Uses), the existing building is nonconforming in terms of street-side setbacks.
Development Code Section 17.62.030-B (Alterations and Additions to Nonconforming Uses and Structures) states:
“No nonconforming structure shall be altered or reconstructed in a way that increases the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures, distances between structures, and parking facilities.”
The proposed addition will reduce the discrepancy between current conditions (190-foot setback from the face of the curb on Toronto Avenue) and the required setbacks (15 feet minimum), as the addition will bring the overall building closer to the street (70 feet from the face of the curb).
Figure 1: Site Plan
Design
The proposed building addition will be of concrete tilt -up construction and designed to match the existing building, including the use of form lines and high windows. A two-story design element with glazing has been added to the southwest corner of the addition to create an office-like appearance, along with new landscaping along the west and south elevations and decorative paving at the main vehicle entrance.
The landscaping in the existing parking lot area will be enhanced to meet current landscape requirements, including the addition of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The existing and new loading areas , dock doors, and trailer parking stalls will be located on the north and south elevations of the building and screened from public view by an existing wall and by the building.
Figure 2: Colored Rendering
Development Code Conformity
The project was designed to bring the site into closer conformance with development standards of the Mixed Employment 2 (Zone) including building and parking setbacks, number of parking spaces, and floor area ratio as shown in the following tables:
Required Provided Compliant?
Building Setback (Street) 5 to 15 Feet 70 Feet Yes*
Building Setback (Side) N/A 40 and 50 Feet Yes
Building Setback (Rear) N/A 135 Feet Yes
Parking Setback 10 Foot Minimum 81 Feet Yes
Landscape Coverage N/A 10.8 Percent Yes
Floor Area Ratio .4 – 2.0 Percent 43 Percent Yes
Building Height 4 Stories (Maximum) 1 Story Yes
*The proposed addition will bring the building into greater conformance with the required streetside setback in compliance with Development Code Section 17.62.030-B related to Nonconforming Uses and Structures.
Parking Ratio Required
Parking
Provided
Parking
Office Parking
1:250 SF 22 Spaces 22 Spaces
Manufacturing
2:1,000 SF 24 Space 24 Space
Warehouse Parking
1:1,000 for 1st 20,000 SF
1:2,000 for 2nd 20,000 SF
1:4,000 for the Remaining SF
48 Spaces 48 Spaces
Total Vehicle
Parking 94 Spaces 94 spaces
Trailer Parking
1 per Dock High Door 11 Spaces 11 Spaces
Conditional Use Permit
Per Development Code Table 17.136.020 -1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form -Based Zones), manufacturing facilities exceeding 50,000 square feet are classified as Light Manufacturing Large and require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). With the proposed expansion, the existing manufacturing use is required to obtain a CUP to comply with this requirement.
Cal Box operates 24 hours a day, Monday through Friday, with up to 64 employees working in two shifts. During peak periods, up to two Saturday shifts may be added per month between 2:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Office personnel work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
On average, 20 trucks access the site daily.
The expansion will not increase the number of employees or vehicles accessing the site but will relocate existing outdoor activities indoors. The site has sufficient parking to accommodate the current staff, trucks, and trailers.
Design Review Committee
The Design Review Committee (DRC – Daniels and Boling) reviewed the project on October 1, 2024. Staff presented the item, and committee members inquired about nonconforming setbacks and compliance with other development standards.
Committee members also asked the applicant about their business history in Rancho Cucamonga and operations related to the proposed addition. They noted that colored renderings were missing from the plan set and requested that the applicant provide a rendering before the item goes to the Planning Commission. The full set of plans attached as Exhibit B includes the requested color renderings.
Public Art
This project is required to comply with the public art ordinance as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the area of the proposed addition, the total art value required
per Section 17.124.020.C. is $45,993 ($1 per square foot). A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be fulfilled prior to occupancy.
Environmental Assessment
Planning staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under:
• Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects): Covers infill developments on sites less than 5 acres, with no significant impact on traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
• Section 15301 (Existing Facilities): Covers the Conditional Use Permit requirement for a Manufacturing Use (Large) over 50,000 square feet in the ME2 Zone.
A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by UES ( April 2025), an environmental consultant hired by the City (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption). Staff reviewed the exemption and confirmed that the project meets CEQA criteria and does not significantly impact biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. While the overall site is approximately 7.7 acres in area, the area disturbed by the proposed improvements is significantly below the 5- acre limit permitted by the Section 15332 exemption. The proposed addition will replace a paved area currently used for outdoor storage with an enclosed building. The Planning Director independently reviewed and concurred with staff’s findings.
Correspondence
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on April 8, 2025, the property was posted on April 9, 2025, and notices were mailed to 15 property owners within a 660 -foot radius of the project site on April 8, 2025. To date, Staff has not received any comments related to the project to date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project site is currently assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed building addition will increase the value of the project site, and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The project supports the City Council's core value of the relentless pursuit of improvement by increasing the operational efficiency of an existing manufacturing use within the city. The addition will allow for the relocation of outdoor storage into an enclosed building, reducing visual clutter and enhancing site aesthetics.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Project Location
Exhibit B – Project Plans
Exhibit C – DRC Comments and Meeting Minutes dated October 1, 2024 Exhibit D – Section 15332 Categorical Exemption Memorandum Exhibit E – Draft Resolutions of Approval with Conditions of Approval
• .. ..
p
... ,, T "" §)�•�o. ... � . ! ,,... · .
p � ..
Project Location
Exhibit A
$352-(&7)25
$5&+,7(&76352-(&7
7+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(%,0&$'),/()520:+,&+,7+$6%((1*(1(5$7('$5(3529,'('$6$1,167580(172)6(59,&()257+,6352-(&7 7+(6('2&80(176$5(7+(62/(3523(57<*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&$1<86(2)7+(6('2&80(176'$7$$1''(6,*16)25385326(627+(57+$17+26($662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,7+2877+((;35(66(':5,77(13(50,66,212)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&,6352+,%,7(' &2168/7$176
67$036,*1$785(
)25,17(5,05(9,(:
127,17(1'(')25
%,'',1*3(50,725
&216758&7,21385326(6
58'2/)253$*6$1-$1
-5
&$/%2;
7252172$9(18(5$1&+2&8&$021*$&$
&$/%2;,,:$5(+286((;3$16,21
&
'(6,*15(9,(:
&'5
72:1&(17(5'5,9(68,7(
&267$0(6$&$
:::&'5:(67&20
'$//<$662&,$7(6
5,&+021'$9(18(68,7(
+2867217;
'$//<$662&,$7(6&20
*.(1*,1((56
:/223668,7(
%(//$,57;
*.0(3&20
&,9,/ 6758&785$/0(3
([KLELW%3URMHFW3ODQV
LOT LT
LOT LT
LOT LT
LOT LT LOT LT
LOT LT LOT LT
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
WV WV
WVWV
WV
WV
FH
WV
FH
PP
WV
WV
SMH
SMH
PP
SIGN
SIGN SIGN
FH
2 PROPANE
TANKS
CO
UTILITY MH
EDISON MH
SD MH
RAILROAD SPUR
CONCRETE SWALE
TRANSFORMERS ON
CONCRETE PAD
GV
UTL BX
4" FIRE
2" BFP
WMWM
WM
SMH
WM
SMH
4" FIRE
8" FIRE
2" BFP
UTL BX
EDISON BX
8" DRN
8" DRN
4" PIPE
TRANSFORMER AND
EDSION BX ON
CONCRETE PAD
STRUCTURAL STEEL POST ON
CONCRETE PIER ON CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL STEEL POST ON
CONCRETE PIER ON CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL STEEL
POST ON CONCRETE
STLT
SCO
1109
1108
1107 1106
1106
1104
1103
1101
1103
1102
1106
1107
1108
1104
1108
1108
1109
1111
GUY POLE
1111
1108
14.7'
16.0'
221.5'
345.2'
285.4'
8.0'
9.7'
62.0'
FH
WV
1103
LOADING DOCK
AIR
AIR
UTI UNIT
GTE BX
AIR
AIR
FIRE SERVICE
FIRE SERVICE
4" FIRE
CO
FF 1110.16
4" TRENCH
DRN
FF 1109.87
RF 1147.77
FF 1109.38FF 1109.29
FF 1109.12
FF 1109.04
FF 1109.24
FF 1109.74
FF 1109.99
FF 1110.20
FF 1110.86
FF 1111.40
FF 1111.43
FF 1111.86
FF 1111.75
FF 1111.30
297.0'
FF 1110.32
FF 1110.55
RF 1141.86
RF 1146.02
RDRD
RF 1145.25
GATE
K RAIL
GATE GATE
GATE
GATE
N00°28'27"E 458.73'
N00°06'28"W 613.18'
N89°31'52"W 531.99' N89°31'15"W 507.89'
N15°28'27"E 87.51'
PARCEL 27
PARCEL MAP NO, 6194
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
CLEVELAND AVENUE (VACATED)
TORONTO AVENUE
110311021101 1100
1104
FF 1110.12
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
CG-01
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
01 NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
AM
AMACHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PLANS PREPARED BY:
AARON M. ALBERTSON
R.C.E. 65513, EXP. 9/30/25
05/01/2024
05/01/24
SHEET
OF 04
CAL BOX
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
EASEMENT NOTES
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. NCS-1166801-ONT1
FEBRUARY 6, 2023
EASEMENT TO CUCAMONGA WATER COMPANY RECORDED FEBRUARY 10, 1888 IN BOOK 69 OF DEEDS, PAGE 314.
LOCATION CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORD INFORMATION
EASEMENT TO METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 1936 AS BOOK1168, PAGE 50 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-94, VACATION OF CLEVELAND AVENUE RECORDED JUNE 29, 1981 AS DOCUMENT NO. 81-142194 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
CCR
GRANT OF RAILROAD EASEMENTS RECORDED JUNE 21, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-136515 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
RESOLUTION NO, 83-99, VACATION OF 8TH STREET RECORDED JULY 5, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-148882 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
COVENANTS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-160413 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EASEMENT TO CADILLAC FAIRVIEW/CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR RAILROAD AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85-027233 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
CCR
EASEMENT TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECORDED JUNE 15, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-206651 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EASEMENT TO METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORDED JULY 7, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT ON.95-231996 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15
1109
1108
1107 1106
1106
1104
1103
1101
1103
1102
1106
1107
1108
1104
1108
1108
1109
1111
1111
1108
1103
N00°28'27"E 458.73'
N00°06'28"W 613.18'
N89°31'52"W 531.99' N89°31'15"W 507.89'
N15°28'27"E 87.51'
ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD
CLEVELAND AVENUE (VACATED)
TORONTO AVENUE
EIGHT STREET (VACATED)
110311021101 1100
1104
APN:
0209-401-05-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-401-04-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-401-23-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-401-06-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-272-20-0000
CITY CENTER
APN:
0209-272-30-0000
CITY CENTER
CENTER 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-143-13-0000
NEO INDUSTRIALAPN:
0209-143-11-0000
NEO INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-143-08-0000
NEO INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-143-05-0000
NEO INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-401-03-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-143-10-0000
RAILROAD
INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-143-14-0000
RAILROAD
INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-401-22-0000
21ST CENTURY
EMPLOYMENT MIXED
EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-411-18-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-411-19-0000
21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT
MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 ZONE
APN:
0209-272-26-0000
GENERAL OPEN SPACE
FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORRIDOR
APN:
0209-143-27-0000
NEO INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-143-26-0000
NEO INDUSTRIAL
APN:
0209-143-07-0000
NEO INDUSTRIAL
6' 6'
CIVIL ENGINEER
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
695 TOWN CENTER DR. SUITE #110
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: AARON ALBERTSON, P.E.
TEL: 949-351-5325
1. PER FEMA MAP NO. 06071C8635J, EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN AND LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X.
2. NOT SUBJECT TO LIQUEFACTION OR OTHER GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS, SAID PROPERTY IS NOT IN ANY SPECIAL STUDY ZONES.
3. SETBACKS OF SLOPES TO PROPERTY LINES SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS.
4. NO EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED ON SITE.
5. ALL SLOPES ARE AT A MAXIMUM OF 2:1 RATIO
6. TOTAL PARCEL ACREAGE: 336,283 SF / 7.72 AC
PROJECT INFORMATION
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
SURVEY
CG-02
UTILIZATION MAP
02 OWNER/APPLICANT
ARCHITECT
GOREE
5151 SAN FELIPE ST. SUITE 1700
HOUSTON, TX 77056
CONTACT: RUDY PAGSANJAN
TEL: 713-660-6102
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
695 TOWN CENTER DR. SUITE #110
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: AARON ALBERTSON, P.E.
TEL: 949-351-5325
NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
AM
AMACHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PLANS PREPARED BY:
AARON M. ALBERTSON
R.C.E. 65513, EXP. 9/30/25
05/01/2024
05/01/24
SHEET
OF 04
CAL BOX
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
PARCEL/USE DATA
PARCEL MAP NO. APN ZONING USE
ORANGE EMPIRE ACRES
M.B. 20/1 0209-143-05-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL MAP 20032
P.M. 251/83-84 PAR. 1 0209-143-07-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL MAP 19637
P.M.247/93-94 PAR.3 0209-143-08-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL MAP 19637
P.M.247/93-94 PAR. 4 0209-143-10-0000 INDUSTRIAL RAILROAD MAP 19637
P.M.247/93-94 PAR. 5 0209-143-11-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL MAP 19637
P.M.247/93-94 PAR. 2 0209-143-13-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL MAP 19637
P.M.247/93-94 PAR. 6 0209-143-14-0000 INDUSTRIAL RAILROAD MAP 19637
P.M.247/93-94 PAR. 1 0209-143-26-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL
ORANGE EMPIRE ACRES
M.B. 20/1 0209-143-27-0000 NEO INDUSTRIAL NEO INDUSTRIAL
ORANGE EMPIRE ACRES
M.B. 20/1 0209-272-20-0000 EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN CITY CENTER
ORANGE EMPIRE ACRES
M.B. 20/1 0209-272-26-0000 FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY
CORRIDOR GENERAL OPEN SPACE
MAP 148-36-63A PAR. 1 0209-272-30-0000 CENTER 2 ZONE CITY CENTER MAP 148-36-63A PAR. 1 0209-401-03-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 20032
P.M. 251/83-84 PAR. 1 0209-401-04-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 872-36-112 PAR. 2 MRO 0209-401-05-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 19762
P.M. 250/72-74 PAR. 1 0209-401-06-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 19762
P.M. 250/72-74 PAR. 2 0209-401-22-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 19762
P.M. 250/72-74 PAR. 3 0209-401-23-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 148-36-63B PAR. 1 0209-411-18-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT MAP 148-36-63B PAR. 1 0209-411-19-0000 MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 21ST CENTURY EMPLOYMENT CALIFORNIA BOX 2
8949 TORONTO AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
*PER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ARCGIS ZONING PLAN VIEWER (ZONING) & GENERAL PLAN VIEWER (LAND USE)
1109
1108
1107 1106
1106
1104
1103
1101
1103
1102
1106
1107
1108
1104
1108
1108
1109
1111
1111
1108
1103
N00°28'27"E 458.73'
N00°06'28"W 613.18'
N89°31'52"W 531.99' N89°31'15"W 507.89'
N15°28'27"E 87.51'
PARCEL 27
PARCEL MAP NO, 6194
CLEVELAND AVENUE (VACATED)
TORONTO AVENUE
110311021101 1100
1104
1108
1108
110110
1011
1108
1108
1107
1107
1106
1106
110303
110303
1104
1104
6' 6'
6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
9.24FF
9.22FS
9.24FF
9.22FS
9.24FF
9.22FS 9.24FF
9.22FS
(7.65FS)
9.24FF
9.22FS
8.20 DOOR 9.24FF
9.22FS
(5.27TC)
(5.52TC)
(5.69TC)
(5.81TC)
(6.06TC)
(6.36TC)
(6.34TC)
(6.46TC)
5.39 FS
6.51 FS
6.53 FS
5.36 FS
(9.74FF)
(9.99FF)
(10.20FF)
(9.24FF)
(4.34TC)
(3.84FS)
(4.14TC)
(4.19TC)
(3.77FS)
(4.31TC)
(4.06TC)
(3.82TC)
(4.44TC) (5.54TC)
(5.07FS)
5.20 TC-FS
(6.00FS)(5.37FS)(4.08FS) (5.53FS)(4.37FS)
(6.07FS)(5.45FS)(4.16FS) (5.54FS)(4.40FS)
4.57TC
(4.07FS)
4.48TC
(3.98FS)
(2.88TC)
2.43FS
(2.92TC)
(2.47FS)
2.03TC
1.53FL
1.65FS
2.00TC
1.50FL
1.62FS
9.24FF
9.22FS
PROP. BUILDING ADDITION
FFE "C" =1109.24PAD=1108.74
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
(9.90FS)
(10.30FS)
9.24 FF-GB
9.24 FF-GB
(1.6%)
(1.7%)
(3.3%)
(3.9%)
1.36TC
(0.88FS)
1.53TC
(1.03FS)
(3.5%)
2.2%
1.0%
1.0%
9.12TS
(7)-6-1/4"
RISERS
5.48 FS-BS
8.50FS
DOOR
INTERIOR
RAMP TO @
10% MAX
9.24FF
8.57FG
8.57FG
EX. TRANSFORMER
TO BE RELOCATED
7.58 FS-GB
EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
FFE VARIES: (+-9.74)
PROP.
UNDERGROUND
INFILTRATION BMP.
SEE PWQMP/HYD
PROP. STORM DRAIN
FOR ROOF DRAIN
DOWNSPOUT
PROP. STORM DRAIN
FOR ROOF DRAINAGE
PROP.
6" SEWER LATERAL POC
TO EX. SEWER MH
EX. 8" FIRE SERVICE
DCDA
TO REMAIN
EX. WATER
METERS & BACKFLOWS
TO REMAIN
PROP. ADA
ACCESS RAMP
EX. WALL TO
BE REMOVED.
NEW EXT. CURB TO
BE INSTALLED
4.9% 4.9%
2.8%
EX. SSMH
TO REMAIN
1100.25INV (APPROX.)
PROP. ADA
ACCESSIBLE PATHWAY
TO PUBLIC ROW.
RESTRIPE STALLS
9'
TYP.
18'
TYP.
40'
5'
LIMITS OF SAWCUT/DEMO
FOR NEW CONCRETE PAVEMENT
(6.58TC)
(6.08FS)
7.41TC
(6.91FS)
PROPOSED
LPG
STATION
C
C
B B
A
A
DD
EX. SSMH
TO REMAIN
66 PROPOSED SS LATERAL
MIN INV = 1101.6067
TOP OF PIPE = 1102.1067
PIPE COVER = 6.20 FEET
3.0%
PROP. 26-FT WIDE MULTI-USE TRAIL.
FINAL LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED BY CITY ENGINEER
9.12TS
(5)-6"
RISERS
6.62 FS-BS
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING PROPANE
TANKS TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING 8" DRAIN
INLETS TO BE REMOVED
(10.14FS)
10.12FF
ADJUST INTERIOR
SLAB TO 9.24 FF
9.03 FS
110
1108
1108
110
8 9.16FS-GB
(8.50FS)
(10.16FF)
10.14FS
(8.12FS)
8.2%
3.0% (1.8%)
8.16TC
(7.68FS)
(7.12FS)
(7.26TC)
(6.75FS)
(6.85FS)
7.24TC
(6.74FS)
7.22TC
(6.72FS)
(7.29TC)
(6.82FS)
(7.99FS)
(7.35FS)
(7.00FS)
(8.12TC)
(7.90FS)
(7.55FS)
(7.48FS)
(7.83FS)
(7.57FS)
1.8%
(8.16FS)
(7.84FS)
(8.38TC)
END
CURB
(7.88FS) (7.98FS)
(8.06FS) (8.08FS)(7.59FS)
(1.1%)
1.5%7.24TC
(6.74FS)
(6.77FS)
(8.47TC)
(7.21FS)
1.8%
(1.1%)
(1.1%) 2.0%
8.24TC
7.74FS
8.22TC
7.72FS
MATCH
(7.94TC)
(7.44FS)
MATCH
(6.65FS)
7.58FS-GB
7.36FS-GB
1.8%
(6.67FS)
(8.04TC)
7.54FS
7.51FS-GB
7.80FS
7.48FS1.9%1.9%
1.0%
(2.5%)
MATCH
(6.80FS)
5.0%
MATCH
(7.01FS-GB)
4.5%
1.4%
MATCH
(7.46FS)
MATCH
(8.46TC)
(7.96FS)
4.8%
(1.5%)
10.04 FS-GB
9.27 FS-GB
9.66TC
9.16FS-GB 9.66TC
9.16FS-GB
4.0%
MATCH
(9.05TC)
(8.68FS)
MATCH
(8.63TC)
(8.13FS)
1.8%
EX. RAMP TO BE
REMOVED
& REPLACED
W/ ADA ACCESS RAMP
4.8%
3.2%
35'
5'
5' 9' 6'
9'
(7.79FS)
8'
18'
7.64FS
PROP.
LIMITS
OF SAWCUT
(XX.XX) EXISTING ELEVATION
BOW BACK OF WALK
CF CURB FACE
ELEV ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
EX EXISTING
FF FINISH FLOOR
FL FLOW LINE
FG FINISH GRADE
FS FINISH SURFACE
GB GRADE BREAK
INV INVERT
MAX MAXIMUM
ABBREVIATIONS:
MH MANHOLE
MIN MINIMUM
MWD MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
OC ON CENTER
TC TOP OF CURB
TG TOP OF GRATE
TYP TYPICAL
W WIDTH
WM WATER METER
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED DISTURBED AREA: 65,430 SF
PROPOSED/REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 57,128 SF
PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA: 8,302 SF
TOTAL SITE AREA: 321,374 SF (7.37 ACRES)
PERVIOUS/IMPERVIOUS AREAS:
CG-03
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
03 ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 800-655-4555 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS 800-427-2200
WATER: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 909-944-6000
CABLE: SPECTRUM 888-892-4357
UTILITY PROVIDERS
NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
AM
AMACHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PLANS PREPARED BY:
AARON M. ALBERTSON
R.C.E. 65513, EXP. 9/30/25
05/01/2024
05/01/24
SHEET
OF 04
CAL BOX
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
CIVIL ENGINEER
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
695 TOWN CENTER DR. SUITE #110
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: AARON ALBERTSON, P.E.
TEL: 949-351-5325
1. PER FEMA MAP NO. 06071C8635J, EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN AND LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X.
2. NOT SUBJECT TO LIQUEFACTION OR OTHER GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS, SAID PROPERTY IS NOT IN ANY SPECIAL STUDY ZONES.
3. SETBACKS OF SLOPES TO PROPERTY LINES SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS.
4. ALL SLOPES ARE AT A MAXIMUM OF 2:1 RATIO
5. TOTAL PARCEL ACREAGE: 336,283 SF / 7.72 AC
PROJECT INFORMATION
SURVEY
OWNER/APPLICANT
CHRIS WALDERA, PRESIDENT
CALIFORNIA BOX II
8949 TORONTO AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
TEL: 909-944-9202
ARCHITECT
GOREE
5151 SAN FELIPE ST. SUITE 1700
HOUSTON, TX 77056
CONTACT: RUDY PAGSANJAN, AIA
TEL: 832-463-0007
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
695 TOWN CENTER DR. SUITE #110
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: AARON ALBERTSON, P.E.
TEL: 949-351-5325
LEGEND:
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING LANDSCAPE
PROP. CONCRETE
PROP. LANDSCAPE
PROP. MULTI-USE TRAIL
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING WALL
PROPERTY LINE
CENTERLINE
PROP. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL
PROP. CONTOUR
PROP. WATER LATERAL
PROP. SEWER LATERAL
PROP. STORM DRAIN
LIMITS OF WORK
EXISTING EASEMENT
SEE CG-01 FOR FURTHER DETAILS
XXXX
:
66 6';;
SOILS ENGINEER
NORCAL ENGINEERING
10641 HUMBOLT ST
LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720
CONTACT: SCOTT SPENSIERO
TEL: 562-799-9469
DETAIL A: ADA PARKING
IMPROVEMENTS
SCALE: 1":10'
DETAIL A: PROPOSED ADA
ACCESS/PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK
RAW CUT: 80 CY
RAW FILL: 2543 CY
EXPORT: 2463 CY FILL
THESE ARE ENGINEERING ESTIMATES ONLY AND THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM THEIR OWN TAKE-OFFS FOR EARTHWORK.
EXISTING
DRIVE AISLE
114
112
110
108
106
104
116
51.2'
EXISTING
STORAGE AREA
65.7'
EXISTING
GRADE EXISTING
GRADE
2.1%
2.8%
1102.66
EG
102
100
98 1103.91TC
1103.41FL
3.0%
1105.27TC
1104.88FS
1105.63TC
1105.45FL1105.50
FS1105.52
FS
2.7%
3.2%
ADA
PATH
OF
TRAVEL
5.0'
1.9%
0.4%
3.6%
8.0'
114
112
110
108
106
104
116
102
100
98 SOUTH
PL
EXISTING
LANDSCAPE
EXISTING
DRIVE AISLE
EXISTING
PARKING STALL
EXISTING
LANDSCAPE
EXISTING
PARKING STALL
18.0' 24.6' 19.9' 5.9'EXISTING
BUILDING
1109.15FF
EXISTING
DRIVE AISLE116
114
112
110
108
106
118
EXISTING
BUILDING
1110.31FF
EAST
PL
1.9' 26.1'
EXISTING
GRADE
116
114
112
110
108
106
118
SIDEWALK
1111.09TC
1110.67FS
1110.44TC
1109.72FL
3.4%
2.2%
15.9'
EX.
LANDSCAPE 1113.87
EG
STORAGE
AREA
EXISTING
LANDSCAPE
NORTH
PL
EXISTING
BUILDING
1110.86FF
EXIST.
GUTTER
19.2' 23.6' 3.0'
1110.78
EG
EXISTING
GRADE
0.6'
116
114
112
110
108
106
118
116
114
112
110
108
106
118
EXISTING
GRADE
4.6%
2.4% 1110.53
FS
1.1%
1110.52
FS
1110.40
FL
23.5'
1110.84
FS
1.4%
EXISTING
DRIVE AISLE
1111.46
EG
EXISTING
EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
EXIST. PARKING
STALL
PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE
EXIST. DRIVE
AISLE
WEST
PL
EXIST.
BUILDING
1109.74FF
1.5'
12.6' 28.3'
EXISTING
GRADE
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
1.5'
PROPOSED
BUILDING EXPANSION
1109.24FF
PROPOSED
GRADE EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING
CONCRETE
GUTTER
(1104.12FL)
(1104.22FS)
(1105.63TC)
(1105.13FS)
18.0'
1109.24FF
1108.57FS
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
114
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTINGGRADE
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
CG-4
SITE SECTIONS
4 NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
AM
AMACHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PLANS PREPARED BY:
AARON M. ALBERTSON
R.C.E. 65513, EXP. 9/30/25
05/01/2024
05/01/24
SHEET
OF 04
CAL BOX
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
SECTION "D-D"
SCALE:1"=10'
SECTION "C-C"
SCALE:1"=5'
SECTION "B-B"
SCALE:1"=5'
SECTION "A-A"
SCALE:1"=10'
1109
1108
1107 1106
1106
1104
1103
1101
1103
1102
1106
1107
1108
1104
1108
1108
1109
1111
1111
1108
1103
N00°28'27"E 458.73'
N00°06'28"W 613.18'
N89°31'52"W 531.99' N89°31'15"W 507.89'
N15°28'27"E 87.51'
PARCEL 27
PARCEL MAP NO, 6194
CLEVELAND AVENUE (VACATED)
TORONTO AVENUE
110311021101 1100
1104
6666
66 EXISTING 8" DCDA
EXISTING PUBLIC
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EX
FIR
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING 4" FIRE
SERVICE FH
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING PRIVATE
FIRE HYDRANT TO
BE REMOVED
26.2'
FIRE LANE
PROPOSED
BUILDING ADDITION
1109.24FF
EXISTING
BUILDING
35.0'
FIRE LANE
150.0'
HOSE PULL
31.0'
FIRE LANE
45.2'
FIRE LANE
27.7'
FIRE LANE
EX. 8"
FIRE LINE
SERVICE DCDA
BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
(XX.XX) EXISTING ELEVATION
BOW BACK OF WALK
CF CURB FACE
ELEV ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
EX EXISTING
FF FINISH FLOOR
FL FLOW LINE
FG FINISH GRADE
FS FINISH SURFACE
GB GRADE BREAK
INV INVERT
MAX MAXIMUM
ABBREVIATIONS:
MH MANHOLE
MIN MINIMUM
MWD MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
OC ON CENTER
TC TOP OF CURB
TG TOP OF GRATE
TYP TYPICAL
W WIDTH
WM WATER METER
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
FM-01
FIRE ACCESS PLAN
01 LEGEND:
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING LANDSCAPE
PROP. CONCRETE
PROP. LANDSCAPE
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING WALL
PROPERTY LINE
CENTERLINE
150' FIRE HOSE HOSE PULL
RADIUS
XXXX
PROJECT DATA:
CAL BOX WAREHOUSE EXPANSION
EXISTING GROSS BLDG AREA: +-99,400 SF
PROPOSED GROSS BLDG AREA: +-47,000 SF
TOTAL GROSS BLDG AREA: +-146,400 SF
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE-IIIB FULLY SPRINKLERED
NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
AM
AMACHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PLANS PREPARED BY:
AARON M. ALBERTSON
R.C.E. 65513, EXP. 9/30/19
09/25/2023
09/25/23
SHEET
OF 01
CAL BOX
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
LOT LT
LOT LT
LOT LT LOT LT
LOT LT LOT LT
FH
FH
V
V
WV
WV
SMH
SMH
SIGN
SIGN SIGN
FH
WM
SMH
WM
SMH
4" FIRE
8" FIRE
2" BFP
8" DRN
8" DRN
4" PIPE
STRUCTURAL STEEL POST ON
CONCRETE PIER ON CONCRETE
STLT
SCO
1109
1108
1107 1106
1106
1104
1103
1101
1103
1102
1106
1104
1108
1108
1109
14.7'
16.0'
221.5'
8.0'
9.7'
62.0'
1103
GTE BX
AIR
FF 1110.16
4" TRENCH
DRN
FF 1109.87
RF 1147.77
FF 1109.38FF 1109.29
FF 1109.12
FF 1109.04
FF 1109.24
FF 1110.32
FF 1110.55
RF 1141.86
RF 1146.02
RDRD
RF 1145.25
GATE
N00°06'28"W 6
N89°31'15"W 507.89'
N15°28'27"E 87.51'
TORONTO AVENUE
110311021101 1100
1104
330303
11031103
03 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6'
6'
6' 6' 6' 6' 6'
6'
6'
6'
6666
66 66666666
66 66
66 666666
4444444444444444444&
&
&
&
PEPEPPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP&
&
&
&
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP&
&
&
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
888"8"8"8"8"88"8"88888888(S
(S
8"8"8"8"8"8"8"88888888888
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
& & & &
& & &
& & &
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
LLLLLLOLLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL& &
&
&
&
&
6666666666666
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
6666666666666666666666&
''''''''''''''''
&
&
&
&
& 6666&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
TOTOTOTOTOTTTTTTTTTTTT
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
TLTLTLLTLTLTLTTLTLTLTLLTLLTLLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLLTLTLTLLTLTLTLTLTLTLLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLLTL& &
&
&
&
&6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666''''''''''''''''''& &
&
& 6666666666666666&'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&66666666666666666666666666666666666'''''''''''''''''''& &
&
&
& & & &
&
&
&
(S(S(S(S
5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F
5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F
5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F
5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F
5F
5F
5F
555555555FFF 555555FF 5FF 5FF 55FF 5FF 5FF 5FF 55FFF 5FF 55FFF 5FF 555FF 5FFF 5FFF 5FF 5FF 55FFFF 5FFF 5FFF5F 5555555FFF 5FF 55FFFFF 5FF 5FFF 55FFFFFFF 5FFFF 5FFFFFFF 5FFFF 55FFFFFFF 5FFF 5FFFFF 5FF 55FF 5FFF 5FF 5FF 5FFF 55FFFF 5FFF 5FFFFFF 55F 5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F5F
& & & & & & & &
& & & & & & &
& & & & & & & &
& & & & & & & &
& & & & & &
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
&
&
&
& & & & LLLLLLLLLLLL& TTTTTTTTTTT&
& & & & &
&
& & & & & & &
& & & & & &
&
&
LTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLTLLT
&
&
&
&
&
LTLLTLTLTTLTLTLTLTLTLT&
&
&
&
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
66666666666666666666'6'6'6'6'6'''&
& (S
&
&
6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''&
666666666666&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
66666666666666666666666666&''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''& &
&
&
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666'''''''''''''''''& 5F
5F
NEW BUILDINGEXPANSION
EXISTINGBUILDING
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED LPG STATION
(;,67,1*3$/06 47< %27$1,&$/&200211$0(
6<$*586520$1=2)),$1$
48((13$/0
:$6+,1*721,$52%867$
0(;,&$1)$13$/0
(;,67,1*75((6 47< %27$1,&$/&200211$0(
%5$&+<&+,721;
0$-(67,&%($87<
0$-(67,&%($87<%277/(75((
&,11$02080&$03+25$
&$03+2575((
/$*(56752(0,$,1',&$
&5$3(0<57/(
0$*12/,$*5$1',)/25$
6287+(510$*12/,$
3,186&$1$5,(16,6
&$1$5<,6/$1'3,1(
3,186+$/(3(16,6
$//(323,1(
3/$176&+('8/(/3
6+58%6 47< %27$1,&$/&200211$0( :8&2/6 6,=( 5(0$5.6
&$5,66$0$&52&$53$
*5((1&$53(7
*5((1&$53(71$7$/3/80
/ *$/ #C2&
(/$($*186381*(16
7+251<(/$($*186
/0 *$/ #C2&
5+$3+,2/(3,6,1',&$
&/$5$
&/$5$,1',$1+$:7+251
/ *$/ #C2&
&
(S
5F
3/$176&+('8/(/3
5(0$5.6
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
5(0$5.6
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
D
KEY MAP
N.T.S.
RAIL ROAD
TORONTO
AVE
NORTH
AREA
SOUTH
AREA
0 Scale: 1"=20'
10 20 40
NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
PC
BHCHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE: 09/25/23
SHEET
OF 03
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
BRANDON HANNA, RLA EXP. 9/30/25 DATE
09/25/2023%UDQGRQ+DQQD
%UDQGRQ+DQQD
16672 Millikan Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
T: (949) 224-0040
www.missionlandscape.com
09/25/23 AGENCY SUBMITTAL
/$1'6&$3(&21&(37
3/$17,1*3/$16287+
/32
2 Under Ground
Service Alert
of Southern California
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
811
CONTACT
MATCHLINE
REFER TO SHEET # LP-02
MATCHLINE
REFER TO SHEET # LP-02
MATCHLINE
REFER TO SHEET # LP-02
ITEM:LEGEND A B C
DESCRIPTION:
TAG:
INFILL / EXTEND / REPAIR EXISTING TURF AND
IRRIGATION BASED ON INSTALLATION OF NEW
WALKWAY
E
REMARKS
REPAIR / REPLACE EXISTING LANDSCAPE AND TURF
BASED ON INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALK AND
CURB.
-
-
REFER TO GENERAL PLANTING
AND IRRIGATION NOTES #3 THIS
SHEET.
PLANTING AREA - INSTALL 3" DEEP LAYER OF
PLANTER MULCH IN ALL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER
AREA
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PHOTOS OF EACH VARIETY OF PLANT MATERIAL. FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PHOTOS SHALL SHOW THE REPRESENTATIVE SIZE, QUALITY, AND CHARACTER OF EACH VARIETY.
2. THE QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE PLANTING LEGEND ARE FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL QUANTITIES OF PLANT MATERIAL AS DRAWN OR CALLED OUT ON THE PLAN.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 3" DEEP LAYER OF PLANTER MULCH IN ALL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS.
SUBMIT SAMPLE AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
4. NEW WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ON AUTOMATED TIMERS AND SENSORS SHALL BE USED AND ABIDE BY ALL APPLICABLE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WATER USE PROHIBITIONS.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER OF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.
GENERAL PLANTING AND IRRIGATION NOTES:
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
D
EXISTING CANARY ISLAND PINES
- PROTECT-IN-PLACE
J
A
B B
H
DRIVE ISLE OR PARKING AREA REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
ADA PATH OF TRAVEL
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE PAVING WALKWAY
G
L
C B D
-EXISTING PLANTING AREA
F -EXISTING TURF AREA
K PARKING STALL
F F
F
E
F
E
E
E
E
EE
E
F
E
E
D
G
G
H
JJ
K
K
-
L EXTEND EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE PROPER
COVERAGE FOR NEW LANDSCAPE AREA
-
M REPAIR / REPLACE EXISTING LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION BASED ON INSTALLATION OF NEW CURB
-
N REPAIR / REPLACE EXISTING TURF, LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION AS REQUIRED BASED ON INSTALLATION
OF NEW ADA RAMP
M
N
N
LOT LT
FH
FH
FH
FH
V
WV
FH
PP
WV
WV
PP
2 PROPANE
TANKS
CO
UTILITY MH
EDIS
SD M
GTE MH
RAILROAD SPUR
CONCRETE SWALE
STRUCTURAL STEEL POST ON
CONCRETE PIER ON CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL STEEL
POST ON CONCRETE
1106
1107
1108
1104
1111
G
1111
1108
345.2'
285.4'
LOADING DOCK
AIR
AIR
UTI UNIT
AIR
AIR
FIRE SERVICE
FIRE SERVICE
4" FIRE
CO
FF 1109 24
FF 1109.74
FF 1109.99
FF 1110.20
FF 1110.86
FF 1111.40
FF 1111.43
FF 1111.86
FF 1111.75
FF 1111.30
297.0'
FF 1110.32
K RA
GATE GATE
N00°28'27"E 458.73'
N00°06'28"W 613.18'
N89°31'52"W 531.99'
PARCEL 27
PARCEL MAP NO, 6194
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
CLEVELAND AVENUE (VACATED)
FF 1110.12
110111111
TE ATT
6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6'
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
66666 (S
(S
6''''' (S
(S
'
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
666666666'
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
& & & &
& & &
& & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
& & &
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&666666666666666666666666666666666666'''''''''''''''''''& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& 66666666666666666666&''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
&
&
&
&666666666666666666666666666''''''''''''''''&
&
&
&
& & & &
& & & &
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
OTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOOTOTOTOOOOOOOOO&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666'''''''''''''''''& &
&
&'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
&666666666666&
&
&
&66666666666666666666666666666666''''''''''''''&
&
&
&''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
&66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
NEW BUILDINGEXPANSION
EXISTINGBUILDING
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
(;,67,1*75((6 47< %27$1,&$/&200211$0(
%5$&+<&+,721;
0$-(67,&%($87<
0$-(67,&%($87<%277/(75((
3,186&$1$5,(16,6
&$1$5<,6/$1'3,1(
3/$176&+('8/(/3
6+58%6 47< %27$1,&$/&200211$0( :8&2/6 6,=( 5(0$5.6
&$5,66$0$&52&$53$
*5((1&$53(7
*5((1&$53(71$7$/3/80
/ *$/ #C2&
(/$($*186381*(16
7+251<(/$($*186
/0 *$/ #C2&
&
(S
3/$176&+('8/(/3
5(0$5.6
(;,67,1*
(;,67,1*
0 Scale: 1"=20'
10 20 40
NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
PC
BHCHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE: 09/25/23
SHEET
OF 03
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
BRANDON HANNA, RLA EXP. 9/30/25 DATE
09/25/2023%UDQGRQ+DQQD
%UDQGRQ+DQQD
16672 Millikan Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
T: (949) 224-0040
www.missionlandscape.com
09/25/23 AGENCY SUBMITTAL
/$1'6&$3(&21&(37
3/$17,1*3/$11257+
/32
2 Under Ground
Service Alert
of Southern California
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
811
CONTACT
KEY MAP
N.T.S.
RAIL ROAD
TORONTO
AVE
NORTH
AREA
SOUTH
AREA
MATCHLINE
REFER TO SHEET # LP-01
MATCHLINE
REFER TO SHEET # LP-01
MATCHLINE
REFER TO SHEET # LP-01
C O GO G CD B B BD
ITEM:LEGEND A B C
DESCRIPTION:
TAG:
NOT ASSIGNED
E
REMARKS
REPAIR / REPLACE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BASED ON
INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALK AND CURB.
-
-
REFER TO GENERAL PLANTING
AND IRRIGATION NOTES #3 THIS
SHEET.
PLANTING AREA - INSTALL 3" DEEP LAYER OF
PLANTER MULCH IN ALL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER
AREA
NOT ASSIGNED
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
D
EXISTING CANARY ISLAND PINES
- PROTECT-IN-PLACE
JH
DRIVE ISLE OR PARKING AREA REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANSPEDESTRIAN CONCRETE PAVING WALKWAY G
-EXISTING PLANTING
F -NOT ASSIGNED
K PARKING STALL
L
E E
M
PP
J K
N
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS
O NEW STEPS WITH HANDRAIL
P EXISTING RETAINING WALL
-NOT ASSIGNED
-NOT ASSIGNED
-NOT ASSIGNED
-
NUMBER DATE
REVISIONS
APP'V'D BENCHMARK:
PC
BHCHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE: 09/25/23
SHEET
OF 03
8949 TORONTO AVENUE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
APN: 0209-401-05-0000BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6194 ALSO CALLED OUT AS EIGHT STREET., N 89°31'52"E
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY ARE THE FIELD NOTES FOR THE M.W.D. WATER LINE, PROJECT NAME CLEVELAND AVE, IN BOOK 4014, PAGE 700 DATED 10-7-74.
ELEVATION : 1117.66
BRANDON HANNA, RLA EXP. 9/30/25 DATE
09/25/2023%UDQGRQ+DQQD
%UDQGRQ+DQQD
16672 Millikan Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
T: (949) 224-0040
www.missionlandscape.com
09/25/23 AGENCY SUBMITTAL
/$1'6&$3(&21&(37
3/$17,1*,0$*(5<
/3,2
3 CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET'
DWARF NATAL PLUM
ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS
THORNY ELAEAGNUS
RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA'
INDIAN HAWTHORN
'1
'1
'1
83 + ++ + + +
)+
(;,67,1*7,/7:$//
%8,/',1*
6)
352326('7,/7:$//
(;3$16,21
6)
&/&/
5(/2&$7('
/3*67$7,21
'(&25$7,9(3$9,1*
6&25('&21&5(7(
:$5(+286(6725$*(6)
0$18)$&785,1*(48,30(17 6)
,1'8675,$/0$18)$&785,1*6)
2)),&(63$&(6)
180%(52)3$5.,1*63$&(65(48,5('3(57$%/(3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176%</$1'86( (;,67,1*:$5(+286(
6725$*(
3(56))25),567
6)
3(56))251(;7
6)
$1'3(56)
)257+(5(0$,1,1*6)
),567 36
6(&21' 36
5(0$,1,1* 36
36727$/
,1'8675,$/0$18)$&785,1* 3(56)
6) 36727$/
2)),&(63$&( 3(56) 6) 36727$/
727$/3$5.,1*63$&(6
36 5(48,5('
36727$/
352326('
:$5(+286(6725$*( 3(56) 6) 36727$/ 727$/3$5.,1*63$&(6
36 3529,'(' 36727$/
36
36
36
36
36
36
36 36
36
36
36
(;,67,1*),5(/$1(
$6
$
1
3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
75$,/(53$5.,1*
36
36
+26(/$<
/$1'6&$3,1**5$66
352326('),5(+<'5$17
3523(57</,1(
),5('(3$570(17$&&(66'225)'$
6,7(:$/.3$9,1*
127,16&23(
'(6,*1$7('),5($&&(66/$1(
:$5(+286(6725$*(6)
0$18)$&785,1*(48,30(176)
,1'8675,$/0$18)$&785,1*6)
2)),&(63$&(6)
75$,/(53$5.,1*
&23<5,*+7(''2&80(17
7+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(%,0&$'),/()520:+,&+,7+$6%((1*(1(5$7('$5(3529,'('$6$1,167580(172)6(59,&()257+,6352-(&7 7+(6('2&80(176$5(7+(62/(3523(57<2)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&$1<86(2)7+(6('2&80(176'$7$$1''(6,*16)25385326(627+(57+$17+26($662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,7+2877+((;35(66(':5,77(13(50,66,212)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&,6352+,%,7(' *25(($5&+,7(&76
6DQ)HOLSH6W6XLWH
+RXVWRQ7;
ZZZJRUHHFRP
352-(&71$0(
352-(&7$''5(66
2:1(5,1)250$7,21
*25((352-(&7180%(5
6+((7180%(5
6+((71$0(
.(<3/$1
67$036,*1$785(
&2168/7$176
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
$
%
&
'
(
&$/%2;,,
:$5(+286(
(;3$16,21
7252172$9(18(
5$1&+2&8&$021*$
&$
$6
&
&$/%2;,,
$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
&'5
72:1&(17(5'5,9(68,7(
&267$0(6$&$
:::&'5:(67&20
'$//<$662&,$7(6
5,&+021'$9(18(68,7(
+2867217;
'$//<$662&,$7(6&20
*.(1*,1((56
:/223668,7(
%(//$,57;
*.0(3&20
&,9,/
6758&785$/
0(3
$'',7,212)(;,67,1*
:$5(+286(
6,7(3/$1/(*(1'
6,7(3/$1*(1(5$/127(6
6,7(3/$1.(<('127(6
6&$/(
29(5$//6,7(3/$1$
7<3( 63$&(6
&86720(5
(03/2<((
6(59,&(
$'$3$5.,1*
727$/
6,7(3/$1.(<('127(6
3$5.,1*$1$/<6,6
,668(+,6725<
'$7(
0$5.
'(6&5,37,21
'(6,*15(9,(:
(;,67,1*(175$1&(*$7(
$''('5(48,5('
3(5&(179,(:
2%6&855,1*0(7$/%$&.,1*
(;,67,1*)(1&(
&$/%2;,,
'(&25$7,9(3$9,1*
6&25('&21&5(7(
$
$6
(;,67,1**$7(
&23<5,*+7(''2&80(17
7+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(%,0&$'),/()520:+,&+,7+$6%((1*(1(5$7('$5(3529,'('$6$1,167580(172)6(59,&()257+,6352-(&7 7+(6('2&80(176$5(7+(62/(3523(57<2)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&$1<86(2)7+(6('2&80(176'$7$$1''(6,*16)25385326(627+(57+$17+26($662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,7+2877+((;35(66(':5,77(13(50,66,212)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&,6352+,%,7(' *25(($5&+,7(&76
6DQ)HOLSH6W6XLWH
+RXVWRQ7;
ZZZJRUHHFRP
352-(&71$0(
352-(&7$''5(66
2:1(5,1)250$7,21
*25((352-(&7180%(5
6+((7180%(5
6+((71$0(
.(<3/$1
67$036,*1$785(
&2168/7$176
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
%
$
&
'
(
%
$
&
'
(
&$/%2;,,
:$5(+286(
(;3$16,21
7252172$9(18(
5$1&+2&8&$021*$
&$
$6
&
&$/%2;,,
6,7('(7$,/6
&'5
72:1&(17(5'5,9(68,7(
&267$0(6$&$
:::&'5:(67&20
'$//<$662&,$7(6
5,&+021'$9(18(68,7(
+2867217;
'$//<$662&,$7(6&20
*.(1*,1((56
:/223668,7(
%(//$,57;
*.0(3&20
&,9,/
6758&785$/
0(3
$'',7,212)(;,67,1*
:$5+286(
,668(+,6725<
'$7(
0$5.
'(6&5,37,21
'(6,*15(9,(:
6&$/(
(175$1&(*$7($6&$/(
29(5$//6,7(3/$1 (175$1&(*$7($
'1
'1
'1
83 83
$
$
$/,*1
&
$
'
$
%
$
(;,
(;+
(;*
(; (; (; (; (; (; (;
(;(
(;'
(;&
(;%
(;$
(;)
*
(;,67,1*7,/7:$//
%8,/',1*
&/&/&/
&/&/
&/
(;,67,1*
2)),&(6
352326('7,/7:$//
(;3$16,21
6)
6)
55
55
(;,67,1*&216758&7,2172%('(02/,6+('
(;,67,1*'225725(0$,1
(;,67,1*'22572%(5(029('
(;,67,1*&216758&7,21725(0$,1
127,1&2175$&7
(;,67,1*0,//:25.725(0$,1
,1',&$7(60,//:25.72%('(02/,6+('
%8,/',1*&25((/(0(176
$ *&72),(/'9(5,)<&21',7,216%()25(352&((',1*$1',1)250$5&+ ,7(&7 $1'7(1$1765(35(6(17$7,9(2)$1<',6&5(3$1&,(6
% $//',0(16,216$5(72)$&(2)*:%(;&/86,9(2)$33/,('),1,6+( 6 7<3,&$/81/(66127('27+(5:,6(
& ,1',0(16,21675,1*6$,1',&$7(6$',0(16,2172%(),(/ '9(5,),(' $)7(57+(5(0$,1'(52)7+(675,1*,6/$,'287127,)<$5&+,7(& 72)$1< 6,*1,),&$17',0(16,21$/',6&5(3$1&,(6*5($7(57+$1
' $//:22'%/2&.,1*6+$//%(),5(5(7$5'$1775($7('72&21)25072 7+( ),5(5(6,67,9(67$1'$5'62)7+(/2&$/-85,6',&7,21+$9,1*$87+2 5,7< ( $//)/22566+$//%(/(9(/('72,1
2572,1'8675<67$ 1'$5'
)/22566+$//%(),//('$1'6:(37%5220&/($1
) *&729(5,)<&21',7,212)(;,67,1*:,1'2:75($70(1765(3/$&( '$0$*(' 250,66,1*:,7+1(:720$7&+$//:,1'2:75($70(176$5(72%( &216,67(17:,7+,1($&+5220
3$57,7,216
* 5()(5726+((7;;;;)253$57,7,217<3(6$1'$'',7,21$/127(6 + $//1(:3$57,7,216$5(6+2:16+$'('$1'81/(66127('27+(5:,6( 21 3/$1$5(7<3($25(
5()(572/(*(1')256+$',1*7<3(6
27+(5
3$57,7,217<3(:+,&+0$<%(&$//('287217+(3/$1683(56('(7+ ( 6+$',1*6+2:1$77+$7/2&$7,215()(5727+,66+((721/<)25: $// 6+$',1*7<3(6
, :+(5(1(:3$57,7,216-2,1(;,67,1*&2175$&725729(5,)<(;,67, 1* 3$57,7,217+,&.1(66$1'0$7&+1(:72(;,67,1*
- 9(5,)<(;,67,1*&20021&255,'25$1'$'-$&(177(1$17:$//6(;7(1 '72 81'(56,'(2)6758&785($%29(,)127(;7(1'(;,67,1*:$//672 6758&785($%29(5(
3$57,7,217<3(.
'2256
/ 5()(5726+((7;;;;)25'225)5$0($1'+$5':$5(6&+('8/(6$1' 5(63216,%,/,7,(6$1'$'',7,21$/127(6&225',1$7(:,7+),1,6+( 6 63(&,),&$7,216$//'225-$0%672%(6(7)520,17(56(&7,1*3 $57,7,216 7<3,&$/812
0 $//1(:255(86(''2256$1')5$0(6720$7&+(;,67,1*'2256$1' )5$0(6:,7+,1/($6(63$&(812(9$/8$7('2256)255(86(*&72 728&+ 83$65(48,5('72%(,1*72/,.(1(:&21',7,21$//'2256:,7+/ 2&.6(76 12786('72%(3$7&+(':,7+0(7$/%/$1.6,)1(&(66$5<,)'225 81'(5&876(;&(('$))*&6+$//&217$&7$5&+,7(&7,125'(5 72 '(7(50,1(,)&255(&7,9($&7,21,65(48,5('
1 $//+$5':$5(6+$//%(/(9(57<3(812*&729(5,)<&203/(7(1(6 62)$// /$7&+6(76$1'/2&.6(76)255(86($1'3529,'(0,66,1*&20321(1 76$6 5(48,5('
3/80%,1*
2 *&729(5,)<23(5$7,21$/&21',7,212)$//(;,67,1*3/80%,1*72 5(0$,1 $1'&21',7,212)$662&,$7('0,//:25.$1'5(3$,5$65(48,5(' 3 $//1(:)$8&(7672%((48,33(':,7+$'$$33529(':5,67%/$'(68 1/(66 +$1'6)5(('(9,&(,663(&,),('
4 $//3/80%,1*,15(7851$,53/(18072%(&$67,521$63(5/2&$/ -85,6',&7,21+$9,1*$87+25,7<
0,//:25.
5 *&72(;$0,1(&21',7212)$//(;,67,1*0,//:25.$1'5(3$,572 $&&(37$%/(&21',7,21
6 6&5,%($//0,//:25.72$'-$&(17685)$&(6$65(48,5(' 7 3529,'(),5(5(7$5'$17%/2&.,1*,13$57,7,216$7:$//02817(' (48,30(17$1'0,//:25.
8 :+(10,//:25.$%8776$3$57,7,217+(3$57,7,216+$//(;7(1' %(<21' 7+(('*(2)7+(0,//:25.
9 &2175$&725720$7&+6,/,&21(&2/25720,//:25.),1,6+(6 . $//,17(5,25*/$=,1*6<67(0672%(085$)/(;),12812&217$& 7)5$1. %5812#7(;$6,17(5,256)2535,&,1*
1 &23<5,*+7(''2&80(17
7+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(%,0&$'),/()520:+,&+,7+$6%((1*(1(5$7('$5(3529,'('$6$1,167580(172)6(59,&()257+,6352-(&7 7+(6('2&80(176$5(7+(62/(3523(57<2)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&$1<86(2)7+(6('2&80(176'$7$$1''(6,*16)25385326(627+(57+$17+26($662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,7+2877+((;35(66(':5,77(13(50,66,212)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&,6352+,%,7(' *25(($5&+,7(&76
6DQ)HOLSH6W6XLWH
+RXVWRQ7;
ZZZJRUHHFRP
352-(&71$0(
352-(&7$''5(66
2:1(5,1)250$7,21
*25((352-(&7180%(5
6+((7180%(5
6+((71$0(
.(<3/$1
67$036,*1$785(
&2168/7$176
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
$
%
&
'
(
&$/%2;,,
:$5(+286(
(;3$16,21
7252172$9(18(
5$1&+2&8&$021*$
&$
$
&
&$/%2;,,
29(5$//)/2253/$1
&'5
72:1&(17(5'5,9(68,7(
&267$0(6$&$
:::&'5:(67&20
'$//<$662&,$7(6
5,&+021'$9(18(68,7(
+2867217;
'$//<$662&,$7(6&20
*.(1*,1((56
:/223668,7(
%(//$,57;
*.0(3&20
&,9,/
6758&785$/
0(3
$'',7,212)(;,67,1*
:$5+286(
6&$/(
29(5$//)/2253/$1$
1 )/2253/$1/(*(1'
)/2253/$1*(1(5$/127(6
)/2253/$1.(<('127(6
,668(+,6725<
'$7(
0$5.
'(6&5,37,21
'(6,*15(9,(:
1 (;,
(;+
(;*
(; (; (; (; (; (; (;
(;(
(;'
(;&
(;%
(;$
(;)
*
(;,67,1*7,/7:$//
%8,/',1*
'(127(67$3(5(',168/$7,21
3(5)76/23(
723 7232)3$5$3(7
'6 5(&(66(''2:163287
'(127(6578=21(
)8785(3$5.,1*
35(),1,6+('35()$%5,&$7('
$12',=('$/80,180&$123<
$ *&72&225',1$7(:,7+0(&+$1,&$/6&5((10$18)$&785(521/2&$7,2 12) 0(&+$1,&$/6&5((1326765()(5726758&785$/)25%5$&,1* % 5()(5720(&+$1,&$/(/(&75,&$/$1'3/80%,1*)2527+(5522)( 48,30(17 & 3/$&(522):$/.3$'$73(5,0(7(52)0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17522) +$7&+(6$1'75$9(/5287(6)520522)/$''(56
&23<5,*+7(''2&80(17
7+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(%,0&$'),/()520:+,&+,7+$6%((1*(1(5$7('$5(3529,'('$6$1,167580(172)6(59,&()257+,6352-(&7 7+(6('2&80(176$5(7+(62/(3523(57<2)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&$1<86(2)7+(6('2&80(176'$7$$1''(6,*16)25385326(627+(57+$17+26($662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,7+2877+((;35(66(':5,77(13(50,66,212)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&,6352+,%,7(' *25(($5&+,7(&76
6DQ)HOLSH6W6XLWH
+RXVWRQ7;
ZZZJRUHHFRP
352-(&71$0(
352-(&7$''5(66
2:1(5,1)250$7,21
*25((352-(&7180%(5
6+((7180%(5
6+((71$0(
.(<3/$1
67$036,*1$785(
&2168/7$176
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
$
%
&
'
(
&$/%2;,,
:$5(+286(
(;3$16,21
7252172$9(18(
5$1&+2&8&$021*$
&$
$
&
&$/%2;,,
29(5$//522)3/$1
&'5
72:1&(17(5'5,9(68,7(
&267$0(6$&$
:::&'5:(67&20
'$//<$662&,$7(6
5,&+021'$9(18(68,7(
+2867217;
'$//<$662&,$7(6&20
*.(1*,1((56
:/223668,7(
%(//$,57;
*.0(3&20
&,9,/
6758&785$/
0(3
$'',7,212)(;,67,1*
:$5+286(
6&$/(
29(5$//522)3/$1$
1 522)3/$1/(*(1'
522)3/$1*(1(5$/127(6
522)3/$1.(<('127(6
,668(+,6725<
'$7(
0$5.
'(6&5,37,21
'(6,*15(9,(:
3$5$3(7$
3$5$3(7%
*5281')/225
(;, (;+ (;* (;( (;' (;& (;% (;$(;)*
)250/,1(59(57,&$/
*/$=,1*9,6,21
62/,':+,7(*(1(5$/3$,1729(5&21&5(7(
(;,67,1*%8,/',1*
1 /(9(/
3$5$3(7$
3$5$3(7%
*5281')/225
(;+(;*(;((;'(;&(;%(;$ (;)
*
3$5$3(7$
3$5$3(7%
758&.&2857
*5281')/225
(;(;(;(;(;(;(;
/(9(/
3$5$3(7$
3$5$3(7%
758&.&2857
*5281')/225
(; (; (; (; (; (; (;
0$7&+(;,67,1*
&/
&23<5,*+7(''2&80(17
7+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(%,0&$'),/()520:+,&+,7+$6%((1*(1(5$7('$5(3529,'('$6$1,167580(172)6(59,&()257+,6352-(&7 7+(6('2&80(176$5(7+(62/(3523(57<2)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&$1<86(2)7+(6('2&80(176'$7$$1''(6,*16)25385326(627+(57+$17+26($662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,7+2877+((;35(66(':5,77(13(50,66,212)*25(($5&+,7(&76,1&,6352+,%,7(' *25(($5&+,7(&76
6DQ)HOLSH6W6XLWH
+RXVWRQ7;
ZZZJRUHHFRP
352-(&71$0(
352-(&7$''5(66
2:1(5,1)250$7,21
*25((352-(&7180%(5
6+((7180%(5
6+((71$0(
.(<3/$1
67$036,*1$785(
&2168/7$176
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
%
$
&
'
(
%
$
&
'
(
&$/%2;,,
:$5(+286(
(;3$16,21
7252172$9(18(
5$1&+2&8&$021*$
&$
$
&
&$/%2;,,
29(5$//%8,/',1*
(/(9$7,216
&'5
72:1&(17(5'5,9(68,7(
&267$0(6$&$
:::&'5:(67&20
'$//<$662&,$7(6
5,&+021'$9(18(68,7(
+2867217;
'$//<$662&,$7(6&20
*.(1*,1((56
:/223668,7(
%(//$,57;
*.0(3&20
&,9,/
6758&785$/
0(3
$'',7,212)(;,67,1*
:$5+286(
6&$/(
29(5$//(/(9$7,21 ($67$
(;7(5,250$7(5,$//(*(1'
(/(9$7,21.(<('127(6
6&$/(
29(5$//:(67(/(9$7,21&
6&$/(
29(5$//1257+(/(9$7,21'
6&$/(
29(5$//6287+(/(9$7,21%
,668(+,6725<
'$7(
0$5.
'(6&5,37,21
'(6,*15(9,(:
6&$/(
6287+:(67&251(572:(5$
C22096 - Cal Box II - Photometric information - Cal Box Expansion Designer
Date
02/06/2024
Scale
Not to Scale
Drawing No.
Summary
WP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EX
WP-NEW
WP-NEW
WP-NEW
WP-NEWWP-NEW WP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EXWP-EX
WP-EX
WP-EX
WP-EX
WP-EX
WP-EX
WP-EX
PL-1
PL-1 PL-1
PL-1
Plan View
Scale - 1" = 20ft
RENDERED PERSPECTIVE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
October 1, 2024
6:00 p.m.
Tabe v
an der Zwaag, Associate Planner
EN
VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GORRE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX - A request for site plan and architectural review of 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a manufacturing use over 50,000 square feet located on approximately 7.7 acres of land within Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone, located on the east side of Toronto Avenue where it terminates into the BNSF/Metrolink right of way; APN: 0209 -401-05. (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288). The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects.
Site Characteristics : The project site is located at the terminus of Toronto Avenue and is developed with a 98,406 square foot industrial building. The parcel is approximately 532 feet from east to west and 613 feet from north to south, with an area of approximately 336,283 square feet (7.7 acres). The right-of-way improvements (including landscaping, and utility undergrounding along Toronto Avenue have been installed and will remain as part of this project.
The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning des ignations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Project Overview: The applicant proposes constructing a 45,993 square foot addition on the west side of the existing 98,406 square foot industrial building that is used manufacturing purposes.
The addition will be used to store raw material and finished goods related to the main manufacturing use. While the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Development Code Section 17.136.010 (Allowed Land Uses), the existing building on the site is non-conforming in terms of street side setbacks. Development Code Section 17.62.030- B (Alteration and Additions to Nonconforming Uses and Structures) states that “(n)o nonconforming structure shall be altered or reconstructed that results in an increase of the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard or height of structures, distances between structures, and parking facilities…”. The proposed building addition will reduce the discrepancy between current conditions and the required setbacks as the addition will bring the overall building closer to the street.
The
proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction and designed to match the existing building including the use of form lines and high windows. Two-story glazing has been added to the southwest corner of the addition to create visual interest, along with new landscaping along the west and south elevations and decorative paving at the main vehicle entrance . The Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
North BNSF/Metrolink
Right of Way - Industrial Employment (IE)
South Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
Exhibit C
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2023-00379 – GORRE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX
October 1, 2024
landscaping in the existing parking lot area has been enhanced to meet current landscape requirements. The existing and new loading areas, dock doors and trailer parking stal ls are located on the north and south elevations of the building and screened from public view by an existing wall and by the building.
The project was designed to bring the site into closer conformance with development standards of the Mixed Employment 2 (Zone) including building and parking setbacks, number of parking spaces, and floor area ratio as shown on the following tables:
Required Provided Compliant?
Building Setback (Street) 15 Feet Maximum 78 Feet Yes
Building Setback (Side) N/A 40 and 50 Feet Yes
Building Setback (Rear) N/A 135 Feet Yes
Parking Setback 10 Foot Minimum 81 Feet Yes
Landscape Coverage N/A 10.8 Percent Yes
Floor Area Ratio .4 – 2.0 Percent 43 Percent Yes
Building Height 4 Stories 1 Story Yes
Parking:
Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking
Office Parking
(5,585 SF) 1:250 SF 22 Spaces 22 Spaces
Manufacturing
(11,779 SF) 2:1,000 SF 24 Space 24 Space
Warehouse Parking
(180,186 SF)
1:1,000 for 1st 20,000 SF
1:2,000 for 2nd 20,000 SF
1:4,000 for the Remaining SF
48 Spaces 48 Spaces
Total Vehicle Parking 94 Spaces 103 Spaces
Trailer Parking
(11 Dock High Doors) 1 per Dock High Door 11 Spaces 11 Spaces
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the proposed addition to the existing industrial building.
The building is designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing building and onsite improvements. The building addition will reduce the current non- conforming street setback by bringing the overall building closer to the public street . 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:
☒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.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2023-00379 – GORRE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX
October 1, 2024
☐Recommend Denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
Members Present:
Staff Coordinator: Sean McPherson, Principal Planner
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda
October 1, 2024
FINAL MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
New Time: 6:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on October 1, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:00 p.m.
Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Diaz
Correction to the members present; remove Commissioner Diaz and replace with Commissioner Daniels.
Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
B. Public Communications
Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1.
Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2024.
Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote.
D. Project Review Items
D1.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTAT IVE MAP, DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE – GRAND PACIFIC COMMUNITIES – A request to subdivide approximately 1.7 acres of land into 8 numbered and 4 lettered lots including site plan and design review of 8 duplexes (16 units total), and a variance to reduce the required streetscape setback for a site located between 19th and Hamilton Streets east of Hermosa Avenue in the Medium Residential (M) Zone; APN: 1076 -121-03 (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20662, Design Review DRC2023- 00363, and Variance DRC2024-00300). The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects.
Staff presented the item. Committee members asked a number of questions regarding WQMP facilities, wall height, street width, and requirements for completing sidewalks. Additional questions from committee members included landscaping, specifically that the applicant consider a tree type that does not drop pods, the placement of mailboxes, the placement of solar and location of trash cans. Committee Members complimented the design. Committee Member Boling inquired about the need for crosswalks and crossing guards, considering the new proposed street included within the project design would terminate right in front of an elementary school. Committee Members recommended that the applicant contact the school district and City engineering department for requirements on crosswalks and crossing guards.
Committee members voted to move the item forward to the full Planning Commission with the motion that the applicant consider flashing beacons in any potential crosswalk and coordinate with the school district on the need for crossing guards and any other requirements the school district may desire. The motion also included that the applicant consider revising the landscape
plan as well as incorporate a dog relief station within the WQMP area.
The Committee took the following action:
Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote.
D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GORRE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX - A request for site plan and architectural review of 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a manufacturing use over 50,000 square feet located on approximately 7.7 acres of land within Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone, located on the east side of Toronto Avenue where it terminates into the BNSF/Metrolink right of way; APN: 0209- 401-05. (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288). The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects.
Staff presented the item. Committee members asked general questions related to nonconforming setbacks and the project’s compliance with other standards. Committee members asked the applicant questions about the history of their business in Rancho Cucamonga and about business operations related to the proposed addition. Committee members noted that the plan set did not include colored renderings which would have been helpful in their review. Particularly since this is an addition to an existing building, colored renderings would be helpful to distinguish the existing structure from the new addition. Staff responded that these items will be addressed prior to the item going to the Planning Commission.
The Committee took the following action:
Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote.
E. Adjournment
Principal Planner Sean McPherson adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
EXHIBIT D
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Section 15332 Categorical Exemption Memorandum
RESO
LUTION NO. 25-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2023-00379, FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 45,993 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 98,406 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 7.7
ACRES OF LAND WITHIN MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 (ME2) ZONE,
LOCATED AT 8949 TORONTO AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0209-401-05.
A. Recitals.
1. Go
ree Architects for Cal Box filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2023-00379, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. O
n the 23rd day of April 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. A
ll legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NO
W, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by t he P
lanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. Thi
s Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. B
ased upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on April 23, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The appl
ication applies to a project site located 8949 Toronto Avenue (APN: 0209- 401-05); and
b. The ex
isting Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adj
acent properties are as follows:
Exhibit E
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00379 – GOREE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX April 23, 2025
c. Approval is for the design review and site layout of a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building ; and
d. This application is in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288 to operate a Light Manufacturing Large land use in the resulting 144,399 square foot building.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the site as 21st Century Employment District. This designation allows for the expansion of existing industrial uses, provided they maintain clean industrial operations. The project includes the construction of a 45,993-square-foot addition to an existing 98,406- square-foot industrial building used for manufacturing purposes, aligning with the intent of the General Plan; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located as t he project site is within the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone which permits Light Manufacturing Large land uses subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code . The Development Code permits the expansion of existing non- conforming buildings that do not result in an increase of the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for “front yard, side yards, rear yard or height of structures, distances between structures, and parking facilities…”. The proposed addition will reduce the current non-conforming front setback in conformance with the Development Code; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A CEQA exemption was prepared for the project which determined that the propose building addition would not have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.
The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as the project is for the construction of a 45,993-square-foot addition to an existing 98,406-square-foot industrial building. The Section 15332 CEQA exemption covers infill Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
North BNSF/Metrolink
Right of Way - -
South Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00379 – GOREE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX April 23, 2025
developments on sites less than 5 acres in area that will not have a significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by UES (April 2025), an environmental consultant hired by the City (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption), to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15332 exemption. Staff evaluated the CEQA exemption prepared by UES and concluded that the impacted area is less than 5 acres in area and will not have a significant impact on the environment relating to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF April 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of April 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO. 25-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC202 4-00288, TO OPERATE A MANUFACTURING USE
OVER 50,000 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 7.7 ACRES OF
LAND IN THE MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 (ME2) ZONE, LOCATED AT 8949 TORONTO AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0209-401-05.
A. Recitals.
1. Goree Architects for Cal Box filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288, 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 23rd day of April 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on April 23, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a project site located at 8949 Toronto Avenue (APN:
0209-401-05); 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 Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
North BNSF/Metrolink
Right of Way - -
South Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2024-00288 – GOREE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX April 23, 2025
c. Approval is for the operation of a Light Manufacturing Large land use within a 144,399 square foot building; and
d. The subject Conditional Use Permit is related to Development Review DRC2023- 00379 to expand an existing 98,406 square foot building by 45,993 square feet (total area 144,399).
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The use is consistent with the general plan designation. The 21st Century Employment District permits existing industrial uses to remain. The site is developed with an existing industrial building, parking, and landscaping. The related expansion of the existing industrial building (Design Review DRC2023 -00379) is not expected to increase the number of employees or vehicle trips to the project site as it will bring activities that currently take place outdoors within the expanded building footprint ; and
b. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and the purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city regulations/standards. Per Development Code Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form- Based Zones), manufacturing uses over 50,000 square feet are classified as Light Manufacturing Large and require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone. The existing manufacturing use has been in operation in the current location prior to the CUP requirement. With the proposed expansion, the existing manufacturing use must obtain a CUP to comply with this requirement; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints that would make conduct of the use undesirable. The project’s scale and operation align with the intensity of neighboring land uses.
The proposed conditions of approval will ensure compliance with performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance expectations, and all related municipal codes to mitigate any potential adverse impacts associated with the manufacturing process; and
d. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity, including transportation and service facilities. The manufacturing use on the site will take place entirely indoors, and the intensity of the use is not expected to exceed that of the current use on the site; and
e. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The scale and operation of the use are of similar intensity to the surrounding uses. The use has been conditioned to meet performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance standards, and all other Municipal Code standards to mitigate any potential impact related to the proposed manufacturing use; and
f. The proposed use 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 use. The expansion of the existing operation is not expected to hinder the city’s ability to maintain its current level of service; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2024-00288 – GOREE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX April 23, 2025
g. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities, as outlined in Section 4 below.
4. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.
The project also qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities, which covers the permitting of existing structures . The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of April 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.
1. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials , officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees” ), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures ) (collectively “Actions” ), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions , related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit , action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve , which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
2. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
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.
3. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
4. 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.
5. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code .
Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction ), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in -lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D.
If the project developer chooses to pay the in -lieu fee, the in -lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.
If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.
If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.
No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi -phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinances.
7. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.
8. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single -family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
9. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop).
10. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
11. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll -up doors and service doors to match main building colors.
12. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and /or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and /or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans.
13. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Development Impact Fees:
Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts)
1. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Except as otherwise provided in this condition, the applicant shall pay an in -lieu fee to the City’s Active Transportation Fund in an amount determined by the City Engineer. This fee shall be used for the design and construction of the multipurpose trail located along the northerly side of the parcel limits (approximately 533 feet). The in -lieu fee shall include the construction and /or installation of a paved Class 1 Bikeway, sidewalk, signage, striping, landscape, and lighting, and design costs. The in -lieu fee improvement requirements may change if the payment of the in -lieu fee satisfies the project’s obligation for active transportation improvements and must be completed prior Certificate of Occupancy.
The City is undergoing an amendment change to the General Plan that may alter or eliminate the required on -site multipurpose trail required as of the date of this approval. If the General Plan amendment alters the multipurpose trail, the in -lieu fee for the required improvements listed above may change. If the amendment to the General Plan is approved with the elimination of the on -site multipurpose trial prior to Certificate of Occupancy, this condition of approval will no longer be required or imposed by the City on the project.
2. Standard Conditions of Approval
** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project.
Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.
Instructions and forms are available at the City 's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.
3. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.4.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Access doors are required to be identified in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.
1. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District.
2. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District.
3. Any changes or modifications to the fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system, exhaust hood fire suppression system, or the commercial cooking appliances require the approval of the Fire District .
Plans for modifications are required to be deferred submittals with the work completed under separate permits.
4. Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building Department for routing to the Fire District.
5. Emergency responder communication coverage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-12 is required for the building (s) included in this project. A radio signal strength test of the public safety radio communication system conducted in accordance with the requirements of the 2022 California Fire Code is required to be submitted. Where existing radio signal strength does not meet the requirements of the Fire Code, a separate submittal for an emergency responder communication coverage system is required.
6. The warehouse portion of this building may be allowed to utilize forklift and powered industrial truck mounted fire extinguishers to meet the Fire Code requirement for fire extinguishers. Please consult with the fire code official.
7. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations.
8. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD).
CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or [email protected].
9. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months.
10. The most current versions of the Fire District's Standards can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/86zjfacfxqh8oeo/AABYEQ81w5vL7WZ7e1zBiu25a?dl=0
11. Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards.
1. Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
1. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.
2. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval.
4. 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.
5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code.
6. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible , and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code.
8. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.
9. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.
10. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan ) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R 317.1(2) and CBC 2512.1.2/CRC R 703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.
12. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site.
13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
14. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
15. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) shall approve all plans that impact their easement, including utilities , storm drain, slopes, and street trees and landscaping prior to issuance of a grading permit. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring Metropolitan Water District Operations Maintenance Branch to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement.
16. A permit shall be obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for any work within their right -of-way, including grading prior to issuance of a grading permit.
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written comments from MWD regarding site design restrictions within their easement and provide a copy of said comments to the Building and Safety Official for review.
18. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
19. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.
20. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document.
21. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and /or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan.
22. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
23. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.
24. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As -Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
25. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
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.
26. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1 (Storm water pollution prevention) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Newly construction projects and additions which disturb less than one acre of land shall prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff from the construction activities through one or more of the following measures:
5.106.1.1 Local Ordinance – Comply with a lawfully enacted stormwater management and /or erosion control ordinance.
5.106.1.2 Best Management Practices (BMP) – Prevent the loss of soil through wind or water erosion by implementing an effective combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMP.
1. Soil loss BMP that should be considered for implementation as appropriate for each project include , but are not limited to, the following:
a. Scheduling construction activity.
b. Preservation of natural features, vegetation and soil. c. Drainage swales or lined ditches to control stormwater flow. d. Mulching or hydroseeding to stabilize disturbed soils. e. Erosion control to protect slopes.
f. Protection of storm drain inlets (gravel bags or catch basin inserts). g. Perimeter sediment control (perimeter silt fence, fiber rolls). h. Sediment trap or sediment basin to retain sediment on site. i. Stabilized construction exits.
j. Wind erosion control.
k. Other soil loss BMP acceptable to the enforcing agency.
2. Good housekeeping BMP to manage construction equipment, materials and wastes that should be considered for implementation as appropriate for each project include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Material handling and waste management.
b. Building materials stockpile management.
c. Management of washout areas (concrete, paints, stucco, etc.). d. Control of vehicle/equipment fueling to contractors staging area. e. Vehicle and equipment cleaning performed off site.
f. Spill prevention and control.
g. Other housekeeping BMP acceptable to the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga).
27. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
Project #: DRC2023-00379 DRC2024-00288
Project Name: Cal Box II
Location: 8949 TORONTO AVE - 020940105-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Swales.
2. Water collection and disposal systems.
3. French drains.
4. Water retention gardens.
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
28. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11Printed: 4/10/2025
RESOLUTION NO. 25-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2024-00288, TO OPERATE A MANUFACTURING USE
OVER 50,000 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 7.7 ACRES OF
LAND IN THE MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 (ME2) ZONE, LOCATED AT 8949 TORONTO AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 0209-401-05.
A. Recitals.
1. Goree Architects for Cal Box filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288, 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 23rd day of April 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on April 23, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a project site located at 8949 Toronto Avenue (APN:
0209-401-05); 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 Zonina
Site Industrial Building 21st Century Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Employment District North BNSF/Metrolink
Riqht of Way - -
South Industrial Building 21st Century Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Employment District East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Emplovment District
HPC/PC Final Minutes – April 23, 2025
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
April 23, 2025
Final Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on April 23rd, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
There were no public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz. Motion carried 4-1, with Chairman Morales abstained.
D. Public Hearings
D1. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GOREE ARCHITECTS FOR CAL BOX - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a manufacturing use within Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone, at 8949 Toronto Avenue; APN: 0209- 401-05. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under S tate CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. The project also qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288).
Associate Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted that a copy of the letter from CEQA consultant, Universal Engineering Sciences (UES), responding to Lozeau Drury, LLP (Attorney’s Office), was provided to the commissioners under separate cover on 4/21/2025 and was available at the meeting for viewing.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – April 23, 2025
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Widera and Plant Manager Baker where both in attendance and available for questions.
Commissioner Dopp asked whether this serves as their manufacturing facility.
Applicant Widera confirmed.
Commissioner Dopp stated that their intent is not to expand production, but rather to address storage needs.
Applicant Widera confirmed. He explained that when the corrugated materials are stored outside, they are subject to weather conditions, and they often experience some loss of product especially when it rains.
Vice Chairman Boling inquired whether the site is fully developed, and owner occupied.
Applicant Widera confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that storage operations are currently conducted outdoors, and those activities will be moved indoors, thereby reducing noise, lighting and air quality issues compared to current operations.
Applicant Widera agreed.
Chairman Morales asked whether there would be any increase truck traffic to the site than what they already have.
Applicant Widera confirmed that there should be no increase in traffic.
Chase Preciado, Lozeau Drury representative, spoke against the project.
For the record, it is noted that correspondence from Lozeau Drury was received after the agenda packet was prepared, expressing opposition to the project due to environmental concerns and stated a mitigated negative declaration or and environmental impact report should be completed for the project. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Applicant Widera responded to the public comment, and stated there will be no extra burden on the environment. He said it will reduce the noise and beautify the area.
Commissioner Dopp expressed appreciation for seeing a business that continues to engage in manufacturing within the city limits. He also thanked staff for addressing environmental concerns.
He noted that the land has previously been used for storage, there will be no business expansion, and no increase in traffic is anticipated. He stated his support for the project.
Commissioner Daniels expressed appreciation to the applicant for their continued investment in the community. He agreed that relocating the storage operation indoors would enhance efficiency and commended the applicant for complying with all development codes.
Commissioner Diaz expressed her appreciation that they are focused not only on maintaining the quality of their product by protecting it from external elements, but more importantly, ensuring the safety of their workers.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – April 23, 2025
Vice Chairman Boling commended the Economic Development D epartment for their excellent work in attracting new businesses. He also highlighted their efforts in supporting business retention through ongoing collaboration with local companies. He thanked the applicant for reinvesting in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, noting that this demonstrates the city’s initiatives are well aligned with the needs of the business community.
Chairman Morales concurred with Commissioners and expressed that he is in favor of the project.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025-012, Design Review DRC202 3-00379 and 2025- 013 Conditional Use Permit DRC2024 - 00288. Motion carried 5-0.
E. General Business
E1. Urban Design Presentation by Torti Gallas + Partners (TG+P). (Verbal Report Only)
Planning Director Nakamura introduced Neal Payton from Torti Gallas + Partners who gave a presentation on urban design and architectural strategies.
Chairman Morales commended Mr. Payton for an informative presentation. It was received and filed.
F. Director Announcements - None
G. Commission Announcements - None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
VIA EMAIL
April 24, 2025
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of the April 23, 2025 Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Design Review DRC2023-00379, Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288 and a Class 32 Infill Exemption and Class 1 Existing Facilities Exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the Cal Box II Warehouse Expansion Project
Dear City Clerk Sevy,
I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision of April 23, 2025, to approve Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288 for the Cal Box II Warehouse Expansion Project, a proposed 45,993 square-foot expansion to an existing 98,406 square-foot industrial warehouse located at 8949 Toronto Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on Assessor Parcel Numbers 0209-401-05 (“Project”), and to certify the Class 32 Infill Exemption and the Class 1 Existing Facilities Exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) assigned for the Project.
This appeal is timely filed within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission’s decision and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $4,682. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in the attached letter dated April 21, 2025, which was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its decision.
Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
Lozeau Drury LLP
ATTACHMENT 2
VIA EMAIL
April 21, 2025
Tony Morales, Chair
Al Boling, Vice Chair
Bryan Dopp, Commissioner
James Daniels, Commissioner
Melissa Diaz, Commissioner
Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tabe Van der Zwaag
Planning and Economic Development
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Cal Box II Class 32 CEQA Infill Exemption and Class 1 Exemption (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288) April 23, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item No. D1.
Dear Chair Morales, Vice Chair Boling, Honorable Commissioners, and Planner Van der Zwaag:
T
his correspondence is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in and around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Cal Box II Project (DRC2023-00379 and DRC2024- 00288) (“Project”) and the proposed adoption of a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical Infill Exemption (“ In-Fill Exemption”) or a Class 1 Existing Facilities Exemption (“Existing Facilities Exemption”).
F
or the reasons discussed below, the Project does not qualify for CEQA’s Infill Exemption nor does it qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption and requires preparation of an initial study followed by either a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or environmental impact report (“EIR”) prior to approval.
P
ROJECT DESCRIPTION
T
he Project proposes a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building. The Project Site is located at the terminus of Toronto Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
April 21, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21001(d).) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 CCR § 15378(a).) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 284 n.28), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v.
Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86.) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt and there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an initial threshold study is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, either a mitigated negative declaration is required if the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect (id.) or an environmental impact report is required if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3). Because staff has recommended that the Commission find the Project to be exempt from CEQA, we are at the first step in the process.
CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and “‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) Here, staff has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA’s Infill Exemption (14 CCR § 15332.)
Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA if the project meets the following five conditions:
(a) T
he project is consistent with the applicable general
plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
April 21, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services.
Here, staff has also recommended approval of the Project on the basis that the Project qualifies for CEQA’s Existing Facilities Exemption. Projects falling within the Existing Facilities Exemption are those that “consist[] of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alternation of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15301.) Examples of the types of projects that qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption include “[a]dditions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1
) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) [t]he project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan
and (B) [t]he area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
(
14 Cal Code Regs. § 15301(e).)
DISCUSSION
I. Th
e Project May Have a Significant Air Quality Impact, Precluding Reliance on the Infill Exemption.
The Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because it might result in significant, cumulative air quality impacts. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, the census tract where the Project is located has a pollution burden of 88, meaning residents in this tract bear a higher pollution burden than 88 percent of tracts in the state. (Exhibit A.)
1 For diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), a toxic air contaminant, the Project location is worse than 69 percent of other census tracts in the state. (Exhibit B.) Diesel trucks, like those to be used during the construction and operation of the Project, are a major source of DPM emissions. (Exhibit B.) Exposure to DPM is known to cause serious health problems, such as heart and lung disease and lung cancer. (Exhibit B.) These health impacts are important to consider given that the census tract where the site is located is in the 68th percentile for cardiovascular disease, meaning it is higher than 68 percent of the census tracts in California. (Exhibit C.)
1 CalEnviroScreen is available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/
April 21, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
Within this setting, the Pr oject will contribute to the already harmful air quality conditions in the surround area. This is a potentially significant cumulative impact that disqualifies the Project from proceeding under the Infill Exemption. The Project must undergo CEQA review through the preparation of an initial study followed by an EIR or M ND t o adequately analyze this impact.
II. Th
e Project Does Not Meet the Criteria for the Existing Facilities Exemption.
The
Project does not qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption because it does not consist of a “minor alteration” that involves a “negligible or no expansion of [an] existing or former use.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15301(e).) The Project greatly exceeds what is permitted as an addition to an existing structure, which at most is a 10,000 square foot addition. Here, the Project is proposing a 45,993 square foot addition, more than four times the additional square footage allowed under the Existing Facilities Exemption. Thus, the Project is far too big to qualify for this exemption and must be analyzed in an EIR or MND.
CONCL
USION
SA
FER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission find that the Project does not qualify for the Infill or Existing Facilities Exemption and recommend that staff prepare an initial study followed by an EIR or MND for the Project in order to analyze and mitigate significant impacts as well as ensure compliance with CEQA.
Si
ncerely,
Ky
lah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EX
HIBIT A
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps Results Map �
Pollution Burden Results
Census Tract 6071002110
Pollution Burden:
Population:
88 7460
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile: 7 4
Ozone:
PM 2.5:
Diesel PM:
Pesticides:
95 96
69 0
94 [D V X
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
UES
14538 Meridian Parkway Suite A
Riverside, CA 92518
p. 951.571.4081 | TeamUES.com
Environmental Consulting & Permitting | Geotechnical Engineering | Materials Testing & Inspections Geophysical Technology | Building Sciences & Code Compliance April 23, 2025
Ta
be Van der Zwagg
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Att
ention: Tabe Van der Zwagg, Associate Planner
Re
ference: Cal Box II Class 32 CEQA Infill Exemption and Class 1 Exemption (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288) April 23, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item No. D1- Response to Letter from Lozeau and Drury dated April 21, 2025
Re
sponse to DISCUSSION I.
The proposed project is under the 75,000 square feet of warehousing used to screen out potential cumulatively considerable projects under CEQA according to the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) cumulatively considerable threshold.
The proposed project will cover an existing storage area. It will not result in an increase in traffic on the roadways. It will reduce traffic and congestion on-site and off-site. The construction is being completed to cover cardboard that otherwise must be covered with tarps, depending on the weather, and/or stored in other storage facilities. This will reduce the trips made to and from the facility. In addition, the cardboard boxes are now stored in the parking lot. Covering the area will allow operational efficiencies to reduce traffic and circulation congestion on the site.
The Project would not contribute significantly to the surrounding area's air quality conditions, so it would not have a potentially significant cumulative impact because the potential impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
In addition, the heavy equipment used during construction would be temporary and adhere to all current regulatory standards that are in place to reduce the potential air quality impacts to less than significant.
No mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project’s potential impact on air quality.
The p roject is categorically exempt from CEQA's requirements under CEQA’s In -fill Exemption (14 CCR §15332).
Attachment 3
CAL Box II Warehouse Expansion Project
Project No. 4940.2400003.0000
April 23, 2025
14538 Meridian Parkway Suite A, Riverside, CA 92518
p. 951.
571.4081 | TeamUES.com
R
espectfully,
UES
P
repared By,
K
urt Schlyer
Principal Environmental Planner and Project Manager
N
o Attachments
Resolution No. 2025-020 - Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00379 - A REQUEST FOR SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 45,993 SQUARE
FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 98,406 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN THE MIXED
EMPLOYMENT 2 (ME2) ZONE, AT 8949 TORONTO AVENUE; AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0209-401-05
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, Goree Architects for Cal Box , filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2023-00379 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 25- 012 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.
3. On April 30, 2025, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.
4. On June 4, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This City Council 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 all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on June 4, 2025 , including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a project site located 8949 Toronto Avenue (APN: 0209-401-05); and
Resolution No. 2025-020 - Page 2 of 4
c. b. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
d. Approval is for the design review and site layout of a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building; and
e. This application is in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit DRC2024 - 00288 to operate a Light Manufacturing Large land use in the resulting 144,399 square foot building.
3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the site as 21st Century Employment District. This designation allows for the expansion of existing industrial uses, provided they maintain clean industrial operations. The project includes the construction of a 45,993-square-foot addition to an existing 98,406-square-foot industrial building used for manufacturing purposes, aligning with the intent of the General Plan; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located as the project site is within the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone which permits Light Manufacturing Large land uses subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The Development Code permits the expansion of existing non- conforming buildings that do not result in an increase of the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for “front yard, side yards, rear yard or height of structures, distances between Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
North
BNSF/Metrolink
Right of Way
- -
South Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
Resolution No. 2025-020 - Page 3 of 4
structures, and parking facilities…”. The proposed addition will reduce the current non-conforming front setback in conformance with the Development Code; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A CEQA exemption was prepared for the project which determined that the propose building addition would not have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as the project is for the construction of a 45,993-square-foot addition to an existing 98,406- square-foot industrial building. The Section 15332 CEQA exemption covers infill developments on sites less than 5 acres in area that will not have a significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by UES (April 2025), an environmental consultant hired by the City (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption), to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15332 exemption. Staff evaluated the CEQA exemption prepared by UES and concluded that the impacted area is less than 5 acres in area and will not have a significant impact on the environment relating to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal ( DRC2025-00107) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2023-00379 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-012.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2025-020 - Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of June 2025.
__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of June 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Executed this 4th day of June 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
Resolution No. 2025-021 - Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2024-00288 - A REQUEST
TO OPERATE A MANUFACTURING USE OVER 50,000 SQUARE
FEET IN THE MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2 (ME2) ZONE, LOCATED AT
8949 TORONTO AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF – APN: 0209-401-05
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, Goree Architects for Cal Box , filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 25 -013 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.
3. On April 30, 2025, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.
4. On June 4, 2025 , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal , conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This City Council 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 all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on June 4, 2025 , including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a project site located 8949 Toronto Avenue (APN: 0209-401-05); and
c. b. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Resolution No. 2025-021 - Page 2 of 4
d. Approval is for the operation of a Light Manufacturing Large land use within a 144,399 square foot building; and
e. The subject Conditional Use Permit is related to Development Review DRC2023-00379 to expand an existing 98,406 square foot building by 45,993 square feet (total area 144,399.
3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The use is consistent with the general plan designation. The 21 st Century Employment District permits existing industrial uses to remain. The site is developed with an existing industrial building, parking, and landscaping. The related expansion of the existing industrial building (Design Review DRC2023- 00379) is not ex pected to increase the number of employees or vehicle trips to the project site as it will bring activities that currently take place outdoors within the expanded building footprint; and
b. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and the purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city regulations/standards. Per Development Code Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form- Based Zones), manufacturing uses over 50,000 square feet are classified as Light Manufacturing Large and require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone. The existing manufacturing use has been in operation in the current location prior to the CUP requirement. With the proposed expansion, the existing manufacturing use must obtain a CUP to comply with this requirement; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints that would make conduct of the use undesirable. The project’s scale and operation align wit h the intensity of Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
North
BNSF/Metrolink
Right of Way
- -
South Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
East Vacant Land City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Industrial Building 21st Century
Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2)
Resolution No. 2025-021 - Page 3 of 4
neighboring land uses. The proposed conditions of approval will ensure compliance with performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance expectations, and all related municipal codes to mitigate any potential adverse impacts associated with the manufacturing process; and
d. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity, including transportation and service facilities. The manufacturing use on the site will take place entirely indoors, and the intensity of the use is not expected to exceed that of the current use on the site; and
e. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The scale and operation of the use are of similar intensity to the surrounding uses. The use has been conditioned to meet performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance standards, and all other Municipal Code standards to mitigate any potential impact related to the proposed manufacturing use; and
f. The proposed use 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 use. The expansion of the existing operation is not expected to hinder the city’s ability to maintain its current level of service; and
g. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities, as outlined in Section 4 below.
4. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project also qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities, which covers the permitting of existing structures. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal ( DRC2025-00107) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-013.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2025-021 - Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of June 2025.
__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of June 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Executed this 4th day of June 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
VIA EMAIL
June 2, 2025
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
Lynne B. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem, District 4
Ryan A. Hutchison, Councilmember, District 3
Kristine D. Scott, Councilmember, District 2
Ashley N. Stickler, Councilmember, District 1
City Council
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Tabe Van der Zwaag
Planning and Economic Development
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Cal Box II Class 32 CEQA Infill Exemption and Class 1 Exemption (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288) June 4, 2025 City Council Hearing Agenda Item G1.
Dear Mayor Michael, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, Councilmembers, and Planner Van der Zwaag:
This correspondence is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in and around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding SAFER’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s dec ision approving the Cal Box II Project (D RC2023-00379 and DRC2024-00288) (“Project”) and t he proposed adoption of a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categor ical Infill Exemption (“ In-Fill Exemption”) or a Class 1 Existing Fa cilities E xemption (“Existing Facilities Exemption”).
On April 23, 2025, SAFER submi tted comments to the Planning Commission, explaining why the Project does not qualify for CEQA’s In-Fill and Existing Facilities Exemption. These comments are incorporated by reference and attached as
Exhibit 1. SAFER now submits these
supplemental comments which are supported by air quality expert Dr. James Clark, from the environmental consulting firm Clark & Associates. Dr. Clark’s comments are attached as Exhibit
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building. The Project Site is located at the terminus of Toronto Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2025-06-04 - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1 - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 6/2/2025
June 2, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
L
EGAL STANDARD
C
EQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21001(d).) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 CCR § 15378(a).) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 284 n.28), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v.
Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)
T
o achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86.) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt and there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an initial threshold study is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, either a mitigated negative declaration is required if the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect (id.) or an environmental impact report is required if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3). Because staff has recommended that the Commission find the Project to be exempt from CEQA, we are at the first step in the process.
C
EQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and “‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4
th 105, 125.) Here, staff has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA’s Infill Exemption (14 CCR § 15332.)
Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA if the project meets the following five conditions:
(a) T
he project is consistent with the applicable general
plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
June 2, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services.
H
ere, the Planning Commission also determined the Project qualifies for CEQA’s Existing Facilities Exemption. Projects falling within the Existing Facilities Exemption are those that “consist[] of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alternation of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” (14 Cal.
Code Regs. § 15301.) Examples of the types of projects that qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption include “[a]dditions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1
) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) [t]he project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan
and (B) [t]he area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
(
14 Cal Code Regs. § 15301(e).)
DI
SCUSSION
I. Th
e Project Will Have Significant Air Quality Impacts, Precluding Reliance on the Infill Exemption.
Dr. Clark found that the Project will result in significant air quality impacts. (Ex. B, p. 9.) Dr. Clark used the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to prepare an analysis of the Project’s construction and operational emissions and found that the construction phase of the Project “would add as much as 1.24 lbs per day of diesel particulate matter (DPM) [a toxic air contaminant] to the immediate vicinity of the Project Site.” (Ex. 2, p. 7.) Since DPM is known to cause serious health problems, such as heart and lung disease and cancer, Dr. Clark notes that “the City should perform a multistep, quantitative health risk analysis for toxic air contaminants,” the impacts of which “will be greatest for the receptors nearest to the Project Site (including Cal Box II staff who will be present during all of the construction.” (See Ex. 1. Ex. 2, p. 7.)
Dr. Clark’s CalEEMod analysis also revealed “that daily PM2.5 emissions would increase by as much as 11.3 lbs per day during the construction phase of the Project. The average daily
June 2, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
increase during the first 12 months of construction would be 0.6 lbs per day. The 0.6 lbs per day would effectively double the PM2.5 emissions from the Project Site that are normally seen from the Site’s operations.” (Ex. 2, p. 6.) Since the Project is “located in the top 5% of all census tracts in California for exposure to PM2.5 this represents a substantial increase in the exposure of the community to the pollutant.” (Id.)
Because the Project will result in a substantial increase in DPM and PM2.5, the City must analyze and mitigate the Project’s signi ficant cumulative air quality impacts in a mitigated ne
gative declaration or an environmental impact report.
II. Th
e Project Does Not Meet the Criteria for the Existing Facilities Exemption.
The
Project does not qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption because it does not consist of a “minor alteration” that involves a “negligible or no expansion of [an] existing or former use.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15301(e).) The Project greatly exceeds what is permitted as an addition to an existing structure, which at most is a 10,000 square foot addition. Here, the Project is proposing a 45,993 square foot addition, more than four times the additional square footage allowed under the Existing Facilities Exemption. Thus, the Project is far too big to qualify for this exemption and must be analyzed in an EIR or MND.
CONCL
USION
SA
FER respectfully requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal and find that the Project does not qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption or the Infill Exemption because it will result in significant air quality impacts and recommend that staff prepare an initial study followed by an EIR or MND for the Project in order to analyze and mitigate significant impacts as well as ensure compliance with CEQA.
Si
ncerely,
Ky
lah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT 1
VIA EMAIL
April 23, 2025
Tony Morales, Chair
Al Boling, Vice Chair
Bryan Dopp, Commissioner
James Daniels, Commissioner
Melissa Diaz, Commissioner
Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tabe Van der Zwaag
Planning and Economic Development
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Cal Box II Class 32 CEQA Infill Exemption and Class 1 Exemption (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288) April 23, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item No. D1.
Dear Chair Morales, Vice Chair Boling, Honorable Commissioners, and Planner Van der Zwaag:
Thi
s correspondence is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in and around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Cal Box II Project (DRC2023-00379 and DRC2024- 00288) (“Project”) and the proposed adoption of a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical Infill Exemption (“ In-Fill Exemption”) or a Class 1 Existing Facilities Exemption (“Existing Facilities Exemption”).
For
the reasons discussed below, the Project does not qualify for CEQA’s Infill Exemption nor does it qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption and requires preparation of an initial study followed by either a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or environmental impact report (“EIR”) prior to approval.
PRO
JECT DESCRIPTION
The
Project proposes a 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building. The Project Site is located at the terminus of Toronto Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
April 23, 2025
SAFER Comment on Cal Box II Project
LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21001(d).) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 CCR § 15378(a).) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 284 n.28), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v.
Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86.) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt and there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an initial threshold study is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, either a mitigated negative declaration is required if the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect (id.) or an environmental impact report is required if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3). Because staff has recommended that the Commission find the Project to be exempt from CEQA, we are at the first step in the process.
CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and “‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) Here, staff has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA’s Infill Exemption (14 CCR § 15332.)
Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA if the project meets the following five conditions:
(a) The
project is consistent with the applicable general
plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.