Rancho Cucamonga City Council
December 17, 2025

Page | 9
Site  utilities will  be extended  from  the existing  fire  station site where  feasible. It is assumed  that  the temporary  facilities  will  be  bid  separately  from  the  main  contract  as  a  stand‐alone  project.  These documents will be prepared when the schematic design work for the site station is underway. The site construction documents will be submitted to the City for plan check. It is a goal to have this project under construction and completed before the main fire station project is awarded for construction.

This scope of work includes bid support, review of performance‐based documentation prepared by the Contractor and weekly CA meetings (virtual) during the installation of the temporary facilities.

Deliverables

1. Architectural Site Plan

2. Site Grading and Drainage plans

3. Site utility plans

4. Performance specification and conceptual layout for temporary structures.

5. Foundations design (based on manufacturer's requirements)

6. Front End Bid document coordination with the Fire District

7. CA support during construction
Work Scope Qualifications and Exclusions:

Products and services to be provided by the others:

1. Design of Traffic Signal Pre‐empt (Except coordination with City Consultant)

2. Preparation of CEQA Documentation

3. Geotechnical and Geohazards Studies

4. Commissioning Services

5. Surveying

6. Fire alerting system design  (except coordination with Westnet  for conduit and equipment location requirements)

7. Hearings,  submittals,  or  negotiations  with  the  City  of  Rancho  Cucamonga  Planning  Department beyond those listed above.

8. Summary of facility maintenance and operation cost

9. Physical Presentation Models

10. Head‐in equipment design and procurement for phone, data, security, audio visual and radio systems (except coordination with City Consultants for conduit and equipment location requirements).

11. Specialized energy analysis of the facility design beyond those required for CALGREEN.

12. Off‐site observation of construction materials and assemblies

13. Furnishings Procurement and installation coordination.

14. Construction Management Services

15. Hazardous Materials Studies and Hazmat Services during tank removal.

Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Fire Station 171
Proposed
Hours Per Task/Rates Summary
Task 1A
Conceptual Floor Plan
and 3d Modeling
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 40 80 40 0 0
Total Amount $8,200 $0 $13,200 $5,800 $0 $0 $27,200
Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $5,500 $0 $3,729 $2,735 $0 $0 $11,964
Task 1A $39,164
Task 1B On-site and Off-Site
Conceptual Design
Development
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 20 0 60 0 60 0
Total Amount $4,100 $0 $9,900 $0 $7,500 $0 $21,500
Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $0 $4,785 $0 $7,955 $7,920 $0 $20,660
Task 1B $42,160
Task 2A Planning Application
and CEQA Process
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 40 0 80 80 00
Total Amount $8,200 $0 $13,200 $11,600 $0 $0 $33,000
Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $0 $0 $0 $1,989 $0 $1,989
Task 2A $33,000
Task 2B Planning Commission
Review and City Council
Presentation
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 40 0 20 12 00
Total Amount $8,200 $0 $3,300 $1,740 $0 $0 $13,240
Task 2B $15,229
Task 2C Schematic Design and
Cost Estimate
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 40 80 120 160 80 20
Total Amount $8,200 $14,400 $19,800 $23,200 $10,000 $2,500 $78,100 Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $28,600 $23,100 $11,187 $2,812 $0 $15,098 $80,796 Task 2C $158,896

Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Fire Station 171
Proposed
Hours Per Task/Rates Summary
Task 3 Design Development
and Updated Cost
Estimate
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 80 40 320 320 240 240
Total Amount $16,400 $7,200 $52,800 $46,400 $30,000 $30,000 $182,800 Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $41,800 $31,240 $18,645 $4,985 $9,350 $17,820 $123,840 Task 3 $306,640
Task 4A 95% Construction
Documents, Final
Estimate and Plan
Check Submittal
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 80 40 320 320 240 80
Total Amount $16,400 $7,200 $52,800 $46,400 $30,000 $10,000 $162,800 Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $55,000 $44,000 $19,800 $2,983 $15,400 $13,734 $150,917 Task 4A $313,717
Task 4B 100% Cd's - Permit
Ready
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 32 0 60 60 00
Total Amount $6,560 $0 $9,900 $8,700 $0 $0 $25,160
Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $19,800 $2,200 $2,574 $4,858 $1,100 $0 $30,532 Task 4B $55,692
Task 5A Bidding Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 40 0 20 80 00
Total Amount $8,200 $0 $3,300 $11,600 $0 $0 $23,100
Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $2,750 $495 $1,492 $994 $550 $0 $6,281
Task 5A $29,381
Task 5B Construction
Administration
Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 20 240 240 240 00
Total Amount $4,100 $43,200 $39,600 $34,800 $0 $0 $121,700 Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $44,000 $15,400 $14,916 $8,452 $11,550 $0 $94,318 Task 5B $216,018

Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Fire Station 171
Proposed
Hours Per Task/Rates Summary
Task 5C Close Out Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 20 0 40 40 00
Total Amount $4,100 $0 $6,600 $5,800 $0 $0 $16,500
Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $2,750 $1,100 $2,237 $1,989 $550 $0 $8,626 Task 5C $25,126
Task 6 Temporary Facilities Mary
McGrath
Architects PIC
PM/SR.

Arch
Architect/
Designer
Intermediate
Arch/Design Job Captain Technical Totals
rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 $125
hours 8 0 80 120 120 80
Total Amount $1,640 $0 $13,200 $17,400 $15,000 $10,000 $57,240 Consultant
CSEG
Structural
Thoma
Electrical 3C Eng. M/P
Ashba Civil
Engineers
Cunningham
Landscape
OCMI, IncCost Estimator Totals
Total Amount $22,000 $13,750 $11,000 $11,436 $0 $5,643 $63,829 Task 6 $121,069
Total Lump Sum Fees:

Task 1A Conceptual Floor Plan and 3d Modeling $39,164
Task 1B On-site and Off-Site Conceptual Design Development $42,160 Task 1 Total: $81,324
Task 2A Planning Application and CEQA Process $33,000
Task 2B Planning Commission Review and City Council Presentation $15,229 Task 2C Schematic Design and Cost Estimate $158,896
Task 2 Total: $207,125
Task 3 Design Development and Updated Cost Estimate Task 3 total: $306,640 Task 4A 95% Construction Documents, Final Estimate and Plan Check Submittal $313,717 Task 4B 100% Cd's - Permit Ready $55,692
Task 4 total: $369,408
Task 5A Bidding $29,381
Task 5B Construction Administration $216,018
Task 5C Close Out $25,126
Task 5 total: $270,526
Task 6 Temporary Facilities Task 6 Total: $121,069
Total Lump Sum Fee: $1,356,091
Reimbursable Expenses: $40,683
$1,396,774
Reimbursable expenses would include travel, printing, report publishing and rendering costs.

DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Assistant City Manager / Fire Chief Rick Snawder, Deputy Fire Chief
Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park at Fire Station 178 Facility as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Release of Retention. (FIRE)
RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends the City Council / Fire Board:

1. Accept the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park at Fire Station 178, Contract No. CO FD 2021- 011, as complete;

2. Approve the final contract amount of $21,020,211.88;

3. Authorize the Fire Chief to file a Notice of Completion and release remaining retention in the amount of $650,675.25, 35 days after acceptance. The net amount of retention to be released shall be reduced by any stop notices, back charges, credits, liens, and/or assessments that have already been received by the Fire District or are received within 35 days of acceptance of the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park, until resolution of those actions;

4. Authorize the Fire Chief to approve the release of the Labor and Materials Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if no claims have been received; and

5. Authorize the Fire Chief to approve the release of the Faithful Performance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship.

BACKGROUND:

On February 17, 2016, the Fire Board approved the purchase of 3.8 acres of property located at the corner of Town Center Drive and Terra Vista Parkway for future Fire Station 178. This property is centrally located in an area of the City planned for high-density residential and large-scale office building developments. This strategic location will help maximize existing resources to better serve the central community while providing for system wide draw-down and corresponding demands for service.

On August 5, 2020, the Fire Board approved a contract amendment with Mary McGrath Architects for Conceptual Design Build services of the new Fire Station 178. The conceptual design for the station is a 12,176 square foot, two-story fire station that will house three (3) on-duty firefighters 24 hours per day. The station is designed to accommodate up to seven (7) on-duty personnel in order to address potential future changes in response and staffing needs.

On September 1, 2021, the Fire Board awarded contract FD 2021-011 to AMG & Associates, Inc. for design-build of Fire Station 178, to include both Additive Alternate No. 1 (Records Storage Building) and No. 2 (Solar/Battery Storage System). The total contract awarded was $16,389,052

(including an allowance of $630,348 for design-build and additive alternates) and an additional project contingency of $945,522 (totaling 10% for allowances and contingency). Construction of Fire Station 178 utilizes the design-build process, the first time for both the City and the District.

This progressive process involves a general contractor and licensed architect partnering to form a design-build team and then working collaboratively under a single contract to provide design and construction services. This process allows for a unified flow of work, greater flexibility in awarding a contract, higher quality work, and greater cost certainty with fewer change orders and delays.

During a study session on September 1, 2021, the Fire Board also considered options for construction of a 9/11 Memorial using steel remnants obtained from the South Tower of the World Trade Center. During the study session, the Fire Board directed staff to move forward with incorporating the 9/11 Memorial at the Fire Station 178 site. The Fire Board authorized a total of $1,000,000 in funding, split $700,000 for the Fire District and $300,000 for the City.

On October 20, 2021, Mary McGrath Architects’ contract for Conceptual Design Build services of Fire Station 178 was amended to include the design and layout of the 9/11 Memorial, as well as creation of the Basis of Design documents and coordination with the Design-Build contractor’s team. The Basis of Design documents were prepared at a concept level of design and included written performance requirements. The intent of these documents was to allow AMG & Associates’ team to provide a high-level order of magnitude cost proposal for the park addition and ultimately, complete the construction documents and construct the 9/11 Memorial.

The Basis of Design documents were provided to AMG & Associates’ team in May 2022 for review and pricing. However, due to the intricacies of the project and the various elements included in the design, pricing was difficult to determine due to the design having only been prepared at the concept level. The initial pricing was received in July 2022; however, construction numbers came in higher than expected due to rising construction costs and a number of unknowns with the project. District staff worked with AMG & Associates and Mary McGrath Architects to identify options for value engineering in order to reduce costs. Ultimately, it was determined that the best way to get accurate, competitive pricing for the project was to move forward with schematic design, design development, and completion of construction documents.

On November 2, 2022, AMG & Associates, Inc. contract for design-build of Fire Station 178 was amended to include preconstruction services for the 9/11 Memorial. The change order included schematic design, design development, and completion of construction documents for the 9/11 Memorial. Once preconstruction services were complete, the Fire Board would be able to determine if and when to proceed with the next phase of the 9/11 Memorial.

During this time, the Fire District and City began exploring funding mechanisms for the 9/11 Memorial, including the community fundraising campaign “$8 to Station 178” and State Earmark Requests. In January 2023, the City submitted a State Earmark Request to Assembly Majority Leader Emeritus Eloise Gomez Reyes for $3.2 million for the 9/11 Memorial. The State approved the funding request and distributed it as a grant, administered by the California Natural Resources Agency. On February 6, 2024, the Fire Board / City Council approved a resolution accepting the grant funds, authorizing submittal of the required project information package, and authorizing the Fire Chief to execute and submit all project forms, agreements, and payment requests.

On May 20, 2024, the 9/11 Memorial Grant Agreement was executed, thus providing the funding necessary to move forward with the 9/11 Memorial at Fire Station 178. In addition, the Fire Board’s prior authorization of $1,000,000 in funding and community fundraising of approximately $88,740,

have established a total budget of $4,288,740 for the 9/11 Memorial. This budget includes any associated expenses, including preconstruction, construction, project management, third party consultants, project contingency, etc.

On June 5, 2024, AMG & Associates, Inc. contract was amended to include construction of the 9/11 Memorial at Fire Station 178. The change order was in the amount of $3,182,141, plus an Additive Alternate for concrete walkways in the amount of $188,555, for a total cost proposal of $3,370,696.

On May 25, 2024, Fire personnel moved into Fire Station 178 in order to begin providing needed services to the community. AMG and Associates, Inc. continued to work on project completion and punch list items, including landscaping, lighting, solar/battery storage system, and the 9/11 Memorial.

On March 5, 2025, the Fire Board accepted the fire station facility as complete, authorized the Fire Chief to file a partial Notice of Completion, and authorized a partial release of the retention for the fire station facility in the amount of $400,335.34. Final project close out, acceptance, release of the remaining retention, and release of bonds was recommended to take place once the 9/11 Memorial portion of the project was completed.

On September 11, 2025, the City held a ribbon cutting for the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park and the park was opened to the community. AMG and Associates, Inc. continued to work on project completion and punch list items.

ANALYSIS:

The Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, as well as to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Staff recommends that the Fire Board accept the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park as complete, authorize the Fire Chief to file a final Notice of Completion, and release of the remaining project retention in the amount of $650,675.25, 35 days after acceptance of the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park. The net amount of retention to be released shall be reduced by any stop notices, back charges, credits, liens, and/or assessments that have already been received by the Fire District or are received within 35 days of acceptance of the fire station facility until resolution.

Staff also recommends the Fire Board authorize the Fire Chief to approve the release of the Labor and Materials Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if no claims have been received; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The final amount for Contract No. CO FD 2021-011 with AMG & Associates, Inc. for the construction of Fire Station 178 and the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park project is $21,020,211.88.

Adequate funds are budgeted for the project in the Fire Capital Fund (F288), City Capital Reserve Fund (F025), and State Grant Fund (F274). Unused project funds will return to fund balance.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The completion of Fire Station 178 will promote a safe and healthy community for all by enhancing the delivery of vital life safety services and ensuring efficient response times to residents, visitors, and businesses.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Notice of Completion (final)

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

RANCHO CUCAMONGA

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
On Behalf Of: Rancho Cucamonga
Fire Protection District
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Cod. Sec. 27383

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is:

All public rights-of-way within the boundaries of Contract No. CO FD 2021-011

2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, P. O. BOX 807, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730.

3. On December 17, 2025, there was completed in the hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in the contract documents for:

Contract No. CO FD 2021-011
Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park (at Fire Station 178)
APN 1077-423-01-0-000

4. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was:

AMG and Associates, Inc.

5. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows:
10597 Town Center Drive, Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park

RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT, a Special District, Owner
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.

DATE
Executed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California
Mike McCliman
Fire Chief, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
ATTACHMENT 1

DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Marlena C. Perez, Principal Engineer
Lelani B. Gnaster, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds for the Haven Avenue Overcrossing Fencing Project (Project). This Project is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the Haven Avenue Overcrossing Fencing Project, Contract No. 2025-100 (Project), as complete;

2. Approve the final contract amount of $57,480;

3. Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Bond 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion and accept a Maintenance Guarantee Bond;

4. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bonds in the amount of $57,480 six (6) months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received;

5. Authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and release the Project retention, 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion; and

6. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one (1) year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship.

BACKGROUND:

On August 20, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Gentry General Engineering, Inc. (Gentry General), in the amount of $57,480 plus 10% contingency in the amount of $5,750 for the construction of the Project. A copy of the August 20, 2025, City Council Staff Report is on file with the City Clerk. The scope of work included the installation of access deterrent fencing at the four corner locations of the bridge on the existing pedestrian fencing. A vicinity map illustrating the limits of the project is included as Attachment 1.

ANALYSIS:

The Project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There were no change orders and no balancing statement on the Project.

At the end of the one (1) year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship, the City Clerk will release the Maintenance Bond upon approval by the City Engineer.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The construction completed under the above-reference contract was determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 15301(c) “Existing Facilities” subsection (c), Class 1 – Existing Facilities. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County of San Bernardino on October 25, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A total of $75,200 was appropriated for construction of this Project from the Infrastructure Fund (198). The total funds for the construction phase of the Project were identified under the Capital Improvement Project account number listed below:

Account No. Funding Source Amount
F198 CC307 SC7004
PID2174-198
Infrastructure Fund (198) $75,200
Total Project Funding $75,200
The final project costs is $60,165 as shown below:

Expenditure Amount
Construction Contract $57,480
Construction Inspection Services $1,120
Bid Noticing Advertisement $1,565
Estimated Contract Costs $60,165
A total of $15,035 remains in the budget for this Project and will be returned to the Infrastructure Fund (198) balance to be used for applicable expenses or future capital improvement projects as appropriate.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This project meets our City Council core values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all by providing continue improvement through the construction of high-quality public improvements.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map

Haven Avenue Overcrossing Fencing Project Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE Project Location:

DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Boards of Directors
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director
Emily Nielsen, Senior Human Resources Business Partner
SUBJECT: Consideration to Adopt Resolutions Updating the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 City and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Salary Schedules. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-100 AND RESOLUTION FD 2025-029)
(CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council/Fire Board adopt resolutions updating the Fiscal Year 2025/26 City and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District salary schedules.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council/Fire Board traditionally adopts salary resolutions biannually for classifications employed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.

These resolutions are updated to reflect changes in salaries, additions and deletions of classifications, changes in job titles, and other terms of employment.

The City Council/Fire Board previously approved the existing Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) between the City and each of its bargaining units including the Executive Management Employees Group (Executive Management), Rancho Cucamonga Management Association (RCMA), Rancho Cucamonga City Employees Association (RCCEA), Teamsters Local 1932 (Teamsters), Fire Management Employees Group (Fire MEG), Firefighters Local 2274 (Fire Union), and Fire Support Services Association (Fire Support). These MOUs are currently in effect and provide for equity adjustments as outlined below.

Effective, January 1, 2026, the State of California minimum wage will increase from $16.50 per hour to $16.90 per hour. As a result of the minimum wage increase, several positions on the parttime salary schedule will be adjusted to reflect this change. Additionally, those salary ranges for part-time positions with a full-time equivalent classification will be updated to reflect the full-time salary range.

ANALYSIS:

Effective January 12, 2026, changes to the Executive Management salary schedule include the following:
• A 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for all job classifications. • Adjustments to the minimum and maximum of the salary ranges for all job classifications

to align with market averages as listed in the MOU.
• Updating the title of Engineering Services Director/City Engineer to Engineering Services Director.

Effective January 12, 2026, changes to the RCMA salary schedule include the following:
• A 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for all job classifications. • Adjustments to the minimum and maximum of the salary ranges to align with market averages and to address compact for those job classifications listed in the MOU. • Updating the title of Deputy Director of Engineering/Utility Manager to Deputy Director of Electric Utility Services.

Effective January 12, 2026, changes to the RCCEA salary schedule include the following:
• Adjustments to the minimum and maximum of the salary ranges to align with market averages and to address compact for those job classifications listed in the MOU. • Updating the title of Parking & Business License Supervisor to Parking Supervisor.

Effective January 5, 2026 changes to the Fire MEG salary schedule include the following:
• A 1% equity adjustment to the Fire Chief classification, a 4% equity adjustment to the Fire Deputy Chief classification and a 2% equity adjustment to the Fire Battalion Chief classification.

Effective January 5, 2026, job classifications with the Fire Union bargaining unit will receive a

2.5% equity adjustment.

In order to comply with the State of California minimum wage law, the attached resolution includes updates to the 2026 City and Fire District part-time salary schedules increasing those steps below the minimum wage.

Updates to the Part-Time City and Part-Time Fire District salary schedule include increasing steps below the minimum wage to $16.90 per hour, effective January 1, 2026. Additionally, those salary ranges for part-time positions with a full-time equivalent classification will be updated to reflect the full-time salary range.

The attached resolutions adopt the changes as outlined above.

All other salary schedules, classifications, job titles, and other terms of employment remain the same.

Staff recommends the City Council/Fire Board approve the resolutions updating the City and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District salary schedules for the 2025/26 fiscal year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost changes of the minimum wage increase and matching part-time salaries to their full-time equivalent could result in a $49,200 increase to part-time and full-time salaries in the fiscal year.

This would be included in the budget for FY 2025/26.

All other adjustments to the salary schedules and their fiscal impacts were accounted for in the FY 2025/26 Adopted Budget.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City’s vision to build on our success as a world-class community, and create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution 2025-100 - City Salary Schedules Attachment 2 – Resolution FD 2025-029 - Fire District Salary Schedules

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING UPDATING
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 SALARY SCHEDULES.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of the City that policies be established prescribing salary ranges, benefits and holidays and other policies for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has previously adopted salary resolutions establishing salary ranges, benefits and other terms of employment for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that it is necessary from time to time to amend the salary resolution to accommodate changes in position titles, classifications salary ranges, benefits and other terms of employment; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined the use of an existing salary range on a City full-time bargaining unit salary schedule for a part-time position when a full-time equivalent is not listed in the City’s part-time salary schedule; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California to approve the attached salary schedules for job classifications employed by the City (Exhibit A).

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2025.

ATTACHMENT 1

RCCEA Covered Employees in the
Supervisory/Professional and General Employee Groups
Assignments of Classifications to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges Effective January 12, 2026
Classification Min
Amount
CP
Amount2
MAX
Amount
Account Clerk $3,790.00 $4,599.90 $5,111.00
Account Technician $4,485.00 $5,445.90 $6,051.00
Accountant# $5,827.00 $7,073.10 $7,859.00
Accounts Payable Supervisor# $5,961.00 $7,236.90 $8,041.00 Administrative Assistant $3,660.00 $4,445.10 $4,939.00
Animal Behavior Specialist $3,612.00 $4,385.70 $4,873.00 Animal Care Attendant $2,976.00 $3,610.80 $4,012.00
Animal Care Supervisor# $5,490.00 $6,663.60 $7,404.00
Animal Caretaker $3,438.00 $4,171.50 $4,635.00
Animal Rescue Specialist $3,612.00 $4,385.70 $4,873.00
Animal Services Dispatcher $3,285.00 $3,990.60 $4,434.00 Animal Services Officer I $4,259.00 $5,170.50 $5,745.00 Animal Services Officer II $4,705.00 $5,713.20 $6,348.00 Artistic Producer - Mainstreet Theatre
Company
$4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00
Assistant Engineer# $6,812.00 $8,271.00 $9,190.00
Assistant Planner# $5,751.00 $6,981.30 $7,757.00
Associate Engineer# $7,913.00 $9,605.70 $10,673.00
Associate Planner# $6,319.00 $7,668.90 $8,521.00
Box Office Coordinator $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00
Budget Analyst# $7,345.00 $8,914.50 $9,905.00
Building Inspection Supervisor#2 $6,739.00 $8,182.80 $9,092.00 Building Inspector I2 $5,274.00 $6,402.60 $7,114.00
Building Inspector II2 $5,827.00 $7,074.90 $7,861.00
Business License Clerk $3,846.00 $4,667.40 $5,186.00
Business License Inspector $4,633.00 $5,625.00 $6,250.00 Business License Program Coordinator $4,461.00 $5,412.60 $6,014.00 Business License Program Supervisor# $5,961.00 $7,236.90 $8,041.00 Business License Technician $4,155.00 $5,043.60 $5,604.00 City Clerk Records Management Analyst# $5,869.00 $7,124.40 $7,916.00 Community Affairs Coordinator $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00 Community Affairs Officer# $7,345.00 $8,914.50 $9,905.00 Community Affairs Senior Coordinator# $5,979.00 $7,260.30 $8,067.00 Community Affairs Specialist $2,961.00 $3,596.40 $3,996.00 Community Affairs Technician $4,574.00 $5,549.40 $6,166.00 Community Development Technician I $4,257.00 $5,170.50 $5,745.00 Community Development Technician II $4,477.00 $5,435.10 $6,039.00 Community Improvement Officer I $4,641.00 $5,634.00 $6,260.00 1 Exhibit A

RCCEA Covered Employees in the
Supervisory/Professional and General Employee Groups
Assignments of Classifications to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges Effective January 12, 2026
Community Improvement Officer II $5,127.00 $6,224.40 $6,916.00 Community Improvement Supervisor#2 $6,739.00 $8,182.80 $9,092.00 Community Programs Coordinator $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00 Community Programs Specialist $4,574.00 $5,549.40 $6,166.00 Community Services Coordinator $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00 Community Services Project Coordinator# $6,258.00 $7,596.90 $8,441.00 Community Services Specialist $2,961.00 $3,596.40 $3,996.00 Community Services Supervisor# $5,979.00 $7,260.30 $8,067.00 Community Services Technician $4,803.00 $5,827.50 $6,475.00 Community Theater Producer $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00 Customer Care Assistant $3,660.00 $4,445.10 $4,939.00
Customer Service Representative $3,829.00 $4,647.60 $5,164.00 Customer Service Specialist I - Utilities $4,257.00 $5,170.50 $5,745.00 Customer Service Specialist II - Utilities $4,477.00 $5,435.10 $6,039.00 Customer Service Specialist III - Utilities $4,946.00 $6,003.90 $6,671.00 Engineering Aide $4,786.00 $5,810.40 $6,456.00
Engineering Technician $5,557.00 $6,746.40 $7,496.00
Environmental Programs Coordinator# $6,838.00 $8,301.60 $9,224.00 Environmental Programs Inspector2 $5,827.00 $7,074.90 $7,861.00 Event & Rental Services Coordinator $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00 Executive Assistant II# $5,128.00 $6,224.40 $6,916.00
Executive Assistant1 $3,969.00 $5,592.60 $6,214.00
Fleet Supervisor#2 $6,453.00 $7,838.10 $8,709.00
Front of House Coordinator $4,879.00 $5,921.10 $6,579.00 Fund Development Coordinator# $5,390.00 $6,543.00 $7,270.00 GIS Analyst# $6,990.00 $8,480.70 $9,423.00
GIS Specialist $5,319.00 $6,455.70 $7,173.00
GIS Supervisor# $7,868.00 $9,549.90 $10,611.00
GIS Technician $5,155.00 $6,261.30 $6,957.00
Human Resources Business Partner# $5,869.00 $7,124.40 $7,916.00 Human Resources Clerk $4,016.00 $4,873.50 $5,415.00
Human Resources Technician $4,685.00 $5,688.00 $6,320.00 Information Technology Analyst I# $6,675.00 $8,099.10 $8,999.00 Information Technology Analyst II# $7,192.00 $8,727.30 $9,697.00 Information Technology Specialist I $5,319.00 $6,455.70 $7,173.00 Information Technology Specialist II $5,732.00 $6,957.00 $7,730.00 Information Tech Operations Supvr.# $7,868.00 $9,549.90 $10,611.00 Information Technology Technician $4,216.00 $5,119.20 $5,688.00 Lead Park Ranger $4,641.00 $5,634.00 $6,260.00
Lead Veterinary Assistant $4,369.00 $5,301.90 $5,891.00 2

RCCEA Covered Employees in the
Supervisory/Professional and General Employee Groups
Assignments of Classifications to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges Effective January 12, 2026
Librarian I $5,087.00 $6,174.00 $6,860.00
Librarian II# $5,698.00 $6,915.60 $7,684.00
Library Assistant I $3,730.00 $4,531.50 $5,035.00
Library Assistant II $4,304.00 $5,223.60 $5,804.00
Library Clerk $3,326.00 $4,035.60 $4,484.00
Library Technician $3,854.00 $4,679.10 $5,199.00
Maintenance Supervisor#2 $6,453.00 $7,838.10 $8,709.00
Management Aide $5,054.00 $6,132.60 $6,814.00
Management Analyst I# $5,869.00 $7,124.40 $7,916.00
Management Analyst II# $6,748.00 $8,191.80 $9,102.00
Management Analyst III# $7,345.00 $8,914.50 $9,905.00
Office Services Clerk $3,660.00 $4,445.10 $4,939.00
Patron & Events Supervisor# $5,979.00 $7,260.30 $8,067.00 Parking Supervisor# $6,706.00 $8,143.20 $9,048.00
Payroll Supervisor# $5,961.00 $7,236.90 $8,041.00
Planning Specialist $4,946.00 $6,003.90 $6,671.00
Planning Technician $4,477.00 $5,435.10 $6,039.00
Plans Examiner I $6,280.00 $7,623.90 $8,471.00
Plans Examiner II# $6,732.00 $8,176.50 $9,085.00
Procurement Business Partner $4,372.00 $5,309.10 $5,899.00 Procurement Clerk $3,754.00 $4,557.60 $5,064.00
Public Services Technician I $4,257.00 $5,170.50 $5,745.00 Public Services Technician II $4,477.00 $5,435.10 $6,039.00 Public Services Technician III $4,946.00 $6,003.90 $6,671.00 Public Works Inspector I2 $5,274.00 $6,402.60 $7,114.00 Public Works Inspector II2 $5,827.00 $7,074.90 $7,861.00 Records Clerk $3,464.00 $4,206.60 $4,674.00
Records Coordinator $3,543.00 $4,303.80 $4,782.00
Risk Management Coordinator# $5,869.00 $7,124.40 $7,916.00 Safety Officer# $7,345.00 $8,914.50 $9,905.00
Senior Account Clerk $4,186.00 $5,081.40 $5,646.00
Senior Account Technician $5,031.00 $6,107.40 $6,786.00 Senior Accountant# $6,854.00 $8,320.50 $9,245.00
Senior Animal Care Supervisor# $5,688.00 $6,906.60 $7,674.00 Senior Animal Services Officer# $5,664.00 $6,877.80 $7,642.00 Senior Building Inspector#2 $6,437.00 $7,816.50 $8,685.00 Senior Business License Clerk $4,249.00 $5,157.90 $5,731.00 Senior Community Improvement Officer# $5,675.00 $6,888.60 $7,654.00 Senior Electrician # $6,361.00 $7,721.10 $8,579.00
Sr Environmental Compliance Inspector $6,100.00 $7,441.20 $8,268.00 3

RCCEA Covered Employees in the
Supervisory/Professional and General Employee Groups
Assignments of Classifications to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges Effective January 12, 2026
Senior GIS Analyst # $7,531.00 $9,138.60 $10,154.00
Sr Human Resources Business Partner# $6,748.00 $8,191.80 $9,102.00 Senior Information Technology Analyst# $8,136.00 $9,874.80 $10,972.00 Senior Information Technology Specialist# $6,397.00 $7,764.30 $8,627.00 Senior Librarian# $6,126.00 $7,432.20 $8,258.00
Senior Park Planner# $6,740.00 $8,181.90 $9,091.00
Senior Parking Enforcement Officer# $5,609.00 $6,810.30 $7,567.00 Senior Plans Examiner# $7,671.00 $9,314.10 $10,349.00
Senior Procurement Technician# $5,469.00 $6,637.50 $7,375.00 Senior Public Services Technician# $5,469.00 $6,637.50 $7,375.00 Senior Risk Management Analyst# $7,345.00 $8,914.50 $9,905.00 Senior Veterinary Technician# $5,664.00 $6,877.80 $7,642.00 Special Districts Analyst# $6,748.00 $8,191.80 $9,102.00 Supervising Public Works Inspector#2 $6,768.00 $8,216.10 $9,129.00 Supervising Traffic Systems Specialist#2 $6,922.00 $8,403.30 $9,337.00 Theater Production Coordinator $5,128.00 $6,224.40 $6,916.00 Theater Production Supervisor# $5,979.00 $7,260.30 $8,067.00 Theatre Technician III $4,477.00 $5,435.10 $6,039.00
Utilities Operation Supervisor# $7,120.00 $8,641.80 $9,602.00 Utility Marker $5,929.00 $7,199.10 $7,999.00
Veterinary Assistant $3,971.00 $4,820.40 $5,356.00
Veterinary Technician $4,803.00 $5,827.50 $6,475.00

1. When acting as Clerk to Commissions $50 paid per night or weekend day meeting. # Denotes Supervisory/Professional Class. Per City Policy, Exempt positions will be hired at a minimum of $5,858 per month.

2. Refer to MOU for provision of boot allowance.
4

Rancho Cucamnga Management Association
Assignments of Classification to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges Effective January 12, 2026
Classification MIN Amount CP Amount MAX Amount
Accounting Manager $7,367 $8,942 $9,935
Animal Center Manager $6,702 $8,134 $9,038
Assistant to the City Manager $9,951 $12,080 $13,422
Building & Safety Manager $8,928 $11,054 $12,282
Chief Information Security Officer $8,398 $10,231 $11,368 City Planner/Planning Manager $9,838 $11,941 $13,268
Community Affairs Manager $8,992 $10,916 $12,129
Community Improvement Manager $7,668 $9,493 $10,548
Community Services Manager $6,702 $8,134 $9,038
Community Services Superintendent $8,910 $10,814 $12,016 Cultural Center Manager $7,783 $9,446 $10,496
Deputy Dir. Engineering/Deputy City Eng. $9,854 $12,202 $13,558 Deputy Director of Electric Utility Services $10,564 $13,086 $14,540 Deputy Dir. of Innovation and Technology $8,787 $10,878 $12,087 Deputy Director of Animal Services $11,558 $14,315 $15,906 Deputy Director of Building and Safety $11,558 $14,315 $15,906 Deputy Director of City Clerk Services $11,911 $14,750 $16,389 Deputy Director of Community Services $11,911 $14,750 $16,389 Deputy Director of Economic Development $11,558 $14,315 $15,906 Deputy Director of Engineering $11,911 $14,750 $16,389
Deputy Director of Finance $11,323 $14,027 $15,585
Deputy Director of Human Resources $9,854 $12,202 $13,558 Deputy Director of Library Services $10,564 $13,086 $14,540 Deputy Director of Planning $11,558 $14,315 $15,906
Deputy Director of Public Works $11,558 $14,315 $15,906 Economic Development Manager $7,901 $9,783 $10,870
Environmental Programs Manager $7,901 $9,783 $10,870
Facilities Superintendent $7,888 $9,574 $10,638
Finance Manager $8,728 $10,597 $11,774
Library Services Manager $6,702 $8,299 $9,221
Park/Landscape Maintenance Supt $7,888 $9,574 $10,638
Plan Check & Inspection Manager $7,668 $9,308 $10,342
Principal Accountant $7,630 $9,446 $10,496
Principal Engineer $10,266 $12,462 $13,847
Principal Librarian $6,344 $7,700 $8,555
Principal Management Analyst $7,872 $9,555 $10,617
Principal Planner $9,040 $10,973 $12,192
Procurement Manager $7,554 $9,354 $10,393
Public Works Business Manager $9,038 $10,970 $12,189
Public Works Maintenance Manager $9,038 $10,970 $12,189 Revenue Manager $7,630 $9,261 $10,290
Risk Manager $8,728 $10,597 $11,774
Senior Civil Engineer $9,645 $11,706 $13,007
Senior Executive Assistant $7,190 $8,730 $9,700
Senior Planner $8,180 $9,931 $11,034
Street/Storm Drain Maintenance Supt $7,888 $9,574 $10,638 Traffic Engineer $10,340 $12,551 $13,945
Utilities Operations/Project Manager $7,331 $8,898 $9,887 Veterinarian $12,208 $14,824 $16,471
1

Public Works Maintenance Employees
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932
Assignments of Classifications to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges Effective January 12, 2026
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Classification MIN Amount Control Point Amount Max Amount Electrician $5,024 $6,221 $6,913
Equipment Operator $4,487 $5,608 $6,231
Inventory Specialist Equipment/Mat $3,599 $4,499 $4,999 Lead Maintenance Worker $4,393 $5,491 $6,418
Lead Mechanic $5,060 $6,325 $7,028
Maintenance Coordinator $4,900 $6,068 $6,742
Maintenance Worker $3,615 $4,474 $4,971
Mechanic $4,391 $5,437 $6,041
Senior Maintenance Worker $3,806 $4,758 $5,287
Signal & Lighting Coordinator $5,957 $7,447 $8,274
Signal & Lighting Technician $5,113 $6,391 $7,102

Executive Management Group
Assignments of Classification to Pay Ranges
Monthly Pay Ranges effective January 12, 2026
Classification MIN Amount CP Amount MAX Amount
Animal Services Director $11,098 $13,376 $15,737
Assistant City Manager $19,710 $21,234 $24,981
Building and Safety Services Director $10,610 $13,699 $16,117 City Clerk Services Director $10,401 $13,220 $15,553
City Manager $22,088 $27,287 $32,102
Community Services Director $11,607 $15,555 $18,300
Deputy City Manager $16,754 $18,049 $21,234
Economic Development Director $11,491 $14,838 $17,456
Engagement and Special Programs Director $10,771 $13,767 $16,197 Engineering Services Director $11,900 $15,365 $18,076
Finance Director $12,953 $16,938 $19,927
Human Resources Director $11,491 $15,853 $18,651
Innovation and Technology Director $11,961 $16,353 $19,239 Library Director $10,933 $13,646 $16,054
Organizational Development Director $11,491 $15,853 $18,651 Planning Director $11,265 $14,543 $17,109
Public Works Services Director $11,607 $15,555 $18,300
Fire Chief* $18,171 $19,713 $23,191
* Included for informational purposes only - This is a Fire District Management Employee Group position not a City position 1

Part-Time City Positions
Assignments of Classifications to Pay Ranges
Hourly Pay Ranges Effective January 1, 2026
Resolution No. 2025-XXX
Part Time Classifications Minimum Amount Contro Point Maximum Amount Administrative Intern* $16.90
Box Office Assistant $16.90 $17.76 $18.62
Box Office Specialist* $16.90
Customer Care Assistant $16.90 $20.16 $24.73
Day Custodian* $17.79
Energy Efficiency Coordinator $16.90 $19.77 $20.78
Engineering Intern* $16.90
Environmental Resources Intern* $16.90
GIS Intern* $16.90
Healthy Cities Coordinator $16.90 $20.16 $20.78
Library Page $16.90 $16.96 $17.02
Maintenance Technician $16.90 $17.62 $18.80
Meter Technician $28.73 $35.07 $36.86
Outreach Technician* $16.90
Park Ranger $18.62 $19.77 $20.98
Planning Aide* $16.90
Program Specialist* $16.90
Purchasing Clerk $16.90 $20.16 $20.37
Recreation Leader II $16.90 $17.54 $18.62
Theatre Technician I $17.54 $18.62 $19.77
Theatre Technician II $19.28 $20.47 $21.73
* Single Step
Part Time City Salary Schedule
January 1, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. FD 2025-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT,

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING UPDATED

RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
SALARY SCHEDULES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026.

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District has determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of the District that policies be established prescribing salary ranges, benefits and holidays, and other policies for employees of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District has previously adopted salary resolutions that established salary ranges, benefits, and other terms of employment for employees of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District recognizes that it is necessary from time to time to amend the salary resolution to accommodate changes in position titles, classifications salary ranges, additions and deletions of classifications, benefits, and other terms of employment; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District has determined the use of an existing salary range on a District full-time bargaining unit salary schedule for a part-time position when a full-time equivalent is not listed in the District’s part-time salary schedule; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Rancho Cucamonga, California to approve the attached Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Salary Schedules (Exhibit A).

PASSED, APROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2025.

ATTACHMENT 2

Fire Management Employees Group
Salary Schedule
As of January 3, 2026
Classification/Stipend Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Pay Frequency Fire Chief 104.84 110.08 115.58 121.35 127.42 133.80 Hourly 8,386.81 8,806.70 9,246.52 9,707.99 10,193.68 10,703.63 Bi-Weekly 18,171.42 19,081.19 20,034.13 21,033.97 22,086.32 23,191.20 Monthly 218,056.98 228,974.31 240,409.53 252,407.61 265,035.80 278,294.35 Annually Fire Deputy Chief 94.84 99.59 104.56 109.80 115.28 121.04 Hourly 7,586.96 7,966.92 8,365.04 8,784.15 9,222.35 9,683.47 Bi-Weekly 16,438.41 17,261.67 18,124.25 19,032.32 19,981.76 20,980.85 Monthly 197,260.88 207,140.04 217,490.96 228,387.87 239,781.11 251,770.15 Annually Fire Batallion Chief 79.53 83.50 87.67 92.06 96.66 Hourly (40 Hour Workweek) 6,362.07 6,679.99 7,013.49 7,364.92 7,732.40 Bi-Weekly 13,784.48 14,473.31 15,195.90 15,957.32 16,753.54 Monthly 165,413.81 173,679.72 182,350.79 191,487.82 201,042.49 Annually Fire Batallion Chief 56.80 59.64 62.62 65.76 69.04 Hourly (56 Hour Workweek) 6,362.07 6,679.99 7,013.49 7,364.92 7,732.40 Bi-Weekly 13,784.48 14,473.31 15,195.90 15,957.32 16,753.54 Monthly 165,413.81 173,679.72 182,350.79 191,487.82 201,042.49 Annually Fire Marshal 85.30 89.56 94.03 98.75 103.67 Hourly
6,823.96 7,164.96 7,522.67 7,899.61 8,293.78 Bi-Weekly
14,785.24 15,524.07 16,299.12 17,115.82 17,969.85 Monthly 177,422.85 186,288.87 195,589.46 205,389.84 215,638.17 Annually Fire Business Manager 57.39 60.26 63.27 66.43 69.75 73.24 Hourly 4,590.94 4,820.73 5,061.77 5,314.68 5,580.34 5,859.14 Bi-Weekly 9,947.03 10,444.91 10,967.16 11,515.15 12,090.73 12,694.80 Monthly 119,364.36 125,338.92 131,605.92 138,181.80 145,088.76 152,337.60 Annually BC TRAINING OFFICER/SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT STIPEND (11% of 40 hr BC Current Step) 40 Hour Workweek 8.75 9.19 9.64 10.13 10.63 Hourly
56 Hour Workweek 6.25 6.56 6.89 7.23 7.59 Hourly
699.83 734.80 771.48 810.14 850.56 Bi-Weekly
1,516.29 1,592.06 1,671.55 1,755.31 1,842.89 Monthly
Exhibit A

Fire Union
Assignments of Classificaiton to Pay Ranges
Effective January 3, 2026
CLASSIFICATION/STIPEND TYPE Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Pay Frequency Fire Captain 42.27 44.39 46.61 48.94 51.38 Hourly
4,734.24 4,971.68 5,220.32 5,481.28 5,754.56 Bi-Weekly
10,257.76 10,772.17 11,311.47 11,875.66 12,467.50 Monthly Fire Captain Specialist 42.27 44.39 46.61 48.94 51.38 Hourly 4,734.35 4,971.77 5,220.68 5,481.07 5,754.23 Bi-Weekly
10,257.76 10,772.17 11,311.47 11,875.66 12,467.50 Monthly Fire Engineer 36.04 37.83 39.73 41.71 43.80 Hourly
4,036.13 4,236.54 4,449.71 4,671.80 4,905.39 Bi-Weekly
8,744.95 9,179.17 9,641.03 10,122.24 10,628.35 Monthly
Firefighter 31.48 33.05 34.71 36.45 38.27 Hourly
3,525.55 3,701.70 3,888.06 4,082.09 4,286.32 Bi-Weekly
7,638.70 8,020.36 8,424.14 8,844.52 9,287.02 Monthly
Field Training Officer 59.18 62.15 65.26 68.51 71.93 Hourly (40 hour Workweek) 4,734.35 4,971.77 5,220.68 5,481.07 5,754.23 Bi-Weekly 10,257.76 10,772.17 11,311.47 11,875.65 12,467.50 Monthly Hazardous Material Stipend (5% of Fire Engr. Step E)
(40 Hour Workweek) 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 Hourly
(56 Hour Workweek) 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 Hourly
245.27 245.27 245.27 245.27 245.27 Bi-Weekly
531.42 531.42 531.42 531.42 531.42 Monthly
Paramedic Stipend (13.92% of Fire Engr. Step E)
(40 Hour Workweek) 8.54 8.54 8.54 8.54 8.54 Hourly
(56 Hour Workweek) 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 Hourly
682.83 682.83 682.83 682.83 682.83 Bi-Weekly
1,479.47 1,479.47 1,479.47 1,479.47 1,479.47 Monthly
Technical Rescue Stipend (5% of Fire Engr. Step E)
(40 Hour Workweek) 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 Hourly
(56 Hour Workweek) 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 Hourly
245.27 245.27 245.27 245.27 245.27 Bi-Weekly
531.42 531.42 531.42 531.42 531.42 Monthly
Terrorism Liaison Officer Stipend (2.5% of Fire Engr. Step E) (40 Hour Workweek) 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 Hourly
(56 Hour Workweek) 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 Hourly
122.63 122.63 122.63 122.63 122.63 Bi-Weekly
265.71 265.71 265.71 265.71 265.71 Monthly
BA, BS, or Fire Officer Certification
(40 Hour Workweek) 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 Hourly
(56 Hour Workweek) 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 Hourly
146.31 146.31 146.31 146.31 146.31 Bi-Weekly
317.00 317.00 317.00 317.00 317.00 Monthly
1

Fire Union
Assignments of Classificaiton to Pay Ranges
Effective January 3, 2026
MA, MS or Chief Officer Certification
(40 Hour Workweek) 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 Hourly
(56 Hour Workweek) 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 Hourly
219.23 219.23 219.23 219.23 219.23 Bi-Weekly
475.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 Monthly
Fire Staff Premium (9.3% of the Employee’s Current Base Salary) 2

Fire Support Services Association
Salary Schedule
As of January 3, 2026
Resolution No. FD 2025-XXX
Classification Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Pay Frequency Communications Technician 26.26 27.57 28.95 30.39 31.91 33.51 Hourly 2,100.42 2,205.44 2,315.71 2,431.50 2,553.07 2,680.72 Bi-Weekly 4,550.91 4,778.45 5,017.37 5,268.24 5,531.65 5,808.23 Monthly Community Affairs Senior Coordinator * 31.53 33.12 34.76 36.49 38.32 40.24 Hourly 2,522.05 2,649.60 2,780.57 2,919.59 3,065.57 3,218.85 Bi-Weekly 5,464.45 5,740.80 6,024.56 6,325.79 6,642.07 6,974.18 Monthly Community Outreach Specialist 29.95 31.44 33.01 34.67 36.40 38.22 Hourly 2,395.63 2,515.41 2,641.18 2,773.24 2,911.90 3,057.50 Bi-Weekly 5,190.53 5,450.05 5,722.56 6,008.68 6,309.12 6,624.57 Monthly Deputy Fire Marshal 46.35 48.67 51.10 53.66 56.34 59.16 Hourly 3,708.15 3,893.56 4,088.24 4,292.65 4,507.28 4,732.65 Bi-Weekly 8,034.33 8,436.05 8,857.85 9,300.74 9,765.78 10,254.07 Monthly Emergency Management Coordinator 39.33 41.29 43.36 45.53 47.80 50.19 Hourly 3,146.20 3,303.51 3,468.69 3,642.12 3,824.23 4,015.44 Bi-Weekly 6,816.77 7,157.60 7,515.49 7,891.26 8,285.83 8,700.12 Monthly Emergency Manager 50.75 53.29 55.96 58.76 61.69 64.78 Hourly 4,060.38 4,263.40 4,476.57 4,700.40 4,935.42 5,182.19 Bi-Weekly 8,797.50 9,237.38 9,699.24 10,184.21 10,693.42 11,228.09 Monthly Emergency Medical Services Administrator 55.66 58.44 61.36 64.43 67.65 71.04 Hourly 4,452.65 4,675.29 4,909.05 5,154.50 5,412.23 5,682.84 Bi-Weekly 9,647.42 10,129.79 10,636.28 11,168.09 11,726.49 12,312.82 Monthly Emergency Medical Services Quality Improvement Nurse 46.38 48.70 51.13 53.69 56.37 59.19 Hourly 3,710.12 3,895.63 4,090.42 4,294.94 4,509.69 4,735.18 Bi-Weekly 8,038.60 8,440.54 8,862.57 9,305.71 9,771.01 10,259.56 Monthly Emergency Vehicle Technician I 27.66 29.04 30.49 32.01 33.61 35.29 Hourly 2,212.43 2,323.06 2,439.21 2,560.99 2,689.04 2,823.48 Bi-Weekly 4,793.60 5,033.29 5,284.95 5,548.81 5,826.25 6,117.54 Monthly Emergency Vehicle Technician II 32.01 33.61 35.29 37.06 38.91 40.86 Hourly 2,560.99 2,689.04 2,823.48 2,964.68 3,112.91 3,268.57 Bi-Weekly 5,548.81 5,826.25 6,117.54 6,423.47 6,744.64 7,081.90 Monthly Emergency Vehicle Technician III 37.06 38.91 40.86 42.90 45.04 47.30 Hourly 2,964.68 3,112.91 3,268.57 3,431.98 3,603.58 3,783.76 Bi-Weekly 6,423.47 6,744.64 7,081.90 7,435.96 7,807.76 8,198.15 Monthly Fire Equipment Apprentice Mechanic 20.49 21.51 22.59 23.72 24.90 26.15 Hourly 1,638.94 1,720.88 1,806.93 1,897.27 1,992.14 2,091.74 Bi-Weekly 3,551.03 3,728.58 3,915.01 4,110.76 4,316.30 4,532.11 Monthly Fire Equipment Lead Mechanic 30.49 32.02 33.62 35.30 37.06 38.92 Hourly 2,439.43 2,561.40 2,689.47 2,823.94 2,965.14 3,113.40 Bi-Weekly 5,285.42 5,549.70 5,827.18 6,118.55 6,424.47 6,745.70 Monthly Fire Equipment Mechanic 27.65 29.04 30.49 32.01 33.61 35.29 Hourly 2212.33 2322.95 2439.10 2561.06 2689.11 2823.56 Bi-Weekly 4,793.39 5,033.06 5,284.72 5,548.96 5,826.40 6,117.72 Monthly Fire Fleet Supervisor 42.62 44.75 46.99 49.33 51.80 54.39 Hourly 3,409.37 3,579.84 3,758.83 3,946.78 4,144.11 4,351.34 Bi-Weekly 7,386.97 7,756.32 8,144.14 8,551.35 8,978.91 9,427.90 Monthly Fire Information Systems Technician 24.91 26.16 27.47 28.84 30.28 31.80 Hourly 1,993.10 2,092.76 2,197.39 2,307.26 2,422.63 2,543.75 Bi-Weekly 4,318.38 4,534.30 4,761.02 4,999.07 5,249.02 5,511.47 Monthly Fire Support Services Association Salary Schedule
January 3, 2026 Page 302
Fire Support Services Association
Salary Schedule
As of January 3, 2026
Resolution No. FD 2025-XXX
Classification Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Pay Frequency Fire Prevention Specialist Inspection I 29.10 30.55 32.08 33.68 35.37 37.14 Hourly 2,327.70 2,444.09 2,566.29 2,694.61 2,829.33 2,970.80 Bi-Weekly 5,043.35 5,295.53 5,560.30 5,838.32 6,130.22 6,436.73 Monthly Fire Prevention Specialist Inspection II 32.08 33.68 35.36 37.13 38.99 40.94 Hourly 2,566.13 2,694.44 2,829.17 2,970.62 3,119.15 3,275.11 Bi-Weekly 5,559.96 5,837.96 6,129.86 6,436.35 6,758.17 7,096.07 Monthly Fire Prevention Supervisor 36.50 38.32 40.24 42.25 44.36 46.58 Hourly 2,919.68 3,065.66 3,218.94 3,379.89 3,548.89 3,726.33 Bi-Weekly 6,325.97 6,642.26 6,974.37 7,323.10 7,689.25 8,073.72 Monthly Fire Shop Administrator 46.88 49.22 51.68 54.27 56.98 59.83 Hourly 3,750.32 3,937.84 4,134.73 4,341.47 4,558.54 4,786.48 Bi-Weekly 8,125.70 8,531.99 8,958.59 9,406.51 9,876.84 10,370.70 Monthly Fire Shop Supervisor 36.58 38.41 40.33 42.35 44.47 46.69 Hourly 2,926.59 3,072.92 3,226.56 3,387.89 3,557.28 3,735.15 Bi-Weekly 6,340.94 6,657.99 6,990.89 7,340.43 7,707.45 8,092.82 Monthly Maintenance Officer 37.60 39.48 41.46 43.53 45.71 47.99 Hourly 3,008.16 3,158.56 3,316.49 3,482.32 3,656.43 3,839.26 Bi-Weekly 6,517.67 6,843.55 7,185.74 7,545.03 7,922.27 8,318.39 Monthly Management Aide 26.64 27.98 29.38 30.84 32.39 34.01 Hourly 2,131.56 2,238.13 2,350.04 2,467.54 2,590.92 2,720.47 Bi-Weekly 4,618.37 4,849.29 5,091.75 5,346.35 5,613.66 5,894.35 Monthly Management Analyst I* 30.93 32.47 34.11 35.80 37.59 39.47 Hourly 2,474.02 2,597.71 2,729.09 2,863.98 3,007.18 3,157.54 Bi-Weekly 5,360.37 5,628.38 5,913.03 6,205.30 6,515.56 6,841.33 Monthly Management Analyst II 35.54 37.32 39.18 41.14 43.20 45.36 Hourly 2,843.13 2,985.29 3,134.55 3,291.28 3,455.84 3,628.64 Bi-Weekly 6,160.12 6,468.12 6,791.53 7,131.11 7,487.66 7,862.04 Monthly Management Analyst III 38.71 40.64 42.67 44.81 47.05 49.40 Hourly 3,096.49 3,251.31 3,413.88 3,584.57 3,763.80 3,951.99 Bi-Weekly 6,709.06 7,044.51 7,396.73 7,766.57 8,154.90 8,562.64 Monthly Plans Examiner - Fire 35.75 37.54 39.42 41.39 43.46 45.63 Hourly 2,860.06 3,003.07 3,153.22 3,310.88 3,476.43 3,650.25 Bi-Weekly 6,196.80 6,506.64 6,831.97 7,173.58 7,532.25 7,908.86 Monthly Public Education Specialist 29.08 30.53 32.06 33.66 35.34 37.11 Hourly 2,326.11 2,442.42 2,564.54 2,692.77 2,827.40 2,968.78 Bi-Weekly 5,039.91 5,291.90 5,556.50 5,834.33 6,126.04 6,432.35 Monthly Public Relations Officer 44.90 47.15 49.50 51.97 54.57 57.30 Hourly 3,592.16 3,771.77 3,960.36 4,157.60 4,365.47 4,584.02 Bi-Weekly 7,783.02 8,172.17 8,580.78 9,008.12 9,458.53 9,932.03 Monthly Administrative Assistant 18.85 19.84 20.88 21.98 23.14 24.36 Hourly 1,507.71 1,587.06 1,670.59 1,758.52 1,851.07 1,948.50 Bi-Weekly 3,266.71 3,438.64 3,619.62 3,810.13 4,010.66 4,221.74 Monthly Executive Assistant 23.67 24.91 26.22 27.60 30.58 32.19 Hourly 1,893.21 1,992.85 2,097.74 2,208.15 2,446.78 2,575.48 Bi-Weekly 4,101.96 4,317.85 4,545.11 4,784.32 5,301.35 5,580.20 Monthly Executive Assistant II* 27.52 28.97 30.50 32.10 33.95 35.57 Hourly 2,201.99 2,317.89 2,439.88 2,568.30 2,715.84 2,845.76 Bi-Weekly 4,770.98 5,022.09 5,286.40 5,564.64 5,884.32 6,165.81 Monthly *Per Fire District Policy, these positions will be hired at a minimum of $33.00 per hour.

Fire Support Services Association Salary Schedule
January 3, 2026 Page 303
Fire District Part-Time Hourly
Salary Schedule as of January 1, 2026
Resolution No. FD 2025-XXX
Classification Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Pay Frequency Fire Clerk (one step) 16.90 Hourly
Fire Prevention Assistant
Temporary/Part-Time (one step) 16.90 Hourly
Office Services Clerk 16.90 17.71 18.62 19.57 20.47 21.49 Hourly Office Specialist I 16.90 16.90 17.09 17.94 18.84 19.78 Hourly Office Specialist II 16.90 17.71 18.62 19.57 20.47 21.49 Hourly Quality Improvement
Specialist 27.79 29.18 30.64 32.17 33.78 35.47 Hourly
Fire District Part-Time Hourly Salary Schedule
January 1, 2026 Page 304
DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Assistant City Manager
Matt Marquez, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Review of Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 – Hamilton Family Brewery. This Review Does Not Constitute a Revocation Hearing under Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.14.110. (CITY) RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends the City Council receive a presentation from City staff regarding the review of Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 – Hamilton Family Brewery, discuss the subject matter, and provide related feedback. This does not constitute a Revocation Hearing under Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.14.110.

BACKGROUND:

On January 15, 2024, the City approved Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 (MUP). The MUP granted Hamilton Family Brewery (Brewery) approval to operate a 7,416 square foot microbrewery with a 2,506 square foot outdoor seating area within the Center 1 (CE1) Zone at 8889 Archibald Avenue. The Brewery’s grand opening took place during the weekend of September 26-28, 2025.

Recently, several members of the community addressed the City Council during Public Comment, raising various concerns about business operations related to noise, traffic and parking, occupancy, and adherence to conditions of approval. This staff report will provide an overview of the actions City staff have taken to review the concerns raised by community members and to collect related data. This data will also be used as part of the Director’s six (6) month review pursuant to the MUP’s conditions of approval. A second review of business operations will also take place twelve (12) months after operations have commenced, also pursuant to the MUP’s conditions of approval.

Hamilton Family Brewery previously operated a microbrewery at 9757 7th Street. Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-01079, previously approved on January 22, 2014, authorized the operation at that location. A Conditional Use Permit Modification (DRC2015-00135) was also approved on June 2, 2015, expanding the 1,680-square-foot microbrewery into an adjacent 1,680- square-foot tenant space (3,360 square feet total). The CUP Modification also included the approval to expand the hours of operation to 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. – seven days per week at the 7th Street location.

Business operations were conducted in a manner consistent with the approved CUP and modifications and there were no outstanding concerns related to Brewery operations at the 7th Street location.

The new and current location, 8889 Archibald Avenue, is zoned Center 1 (CE1). The standards for this zoning designation permit the operation of a microbrewery with approval of a Minor Use Permit. This current designation was implemented in the City’s 2021 General Plan Update process. Previously, the site’s zoning designation was Industrial Park (IP). The prior designation also conditionally allowed a microbrewery at the subject location.

The General Plan and Zoning Designations for Hamilton’s current site and surrounding properties are as follows:

Existing Use General Plan Zoning
Hamilton Family Brewery Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) Convenience Store, & Single-Family
Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low Residential (L) SBCTA Rail Facility N/A Neo Industrial (NI)
Multi-Family Development Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) Retail/Light Industrial Center Traditional Town Center Neo Industrial (NI) Business Operations
The site’s last use prior to Hamilton Family Brewery was for the retail sales of electrical supplies and equipment storage. To accommodate the Hamilton Family Brewery use, the 7,416-squarefoot building was reconfigured to include an approximate 2,910 square foot brewing facility, a 1,946 square foot indoor seating area with a small retail area and bar, with the remaining portion of the building being used for walk-in coolers, equipment rooms, bathroom facilities, and offices.

The site includes a covered outdoor space for seating and is screened from the parking lot by an existing block wall. A former freestanding storage building is being used as a trash enclosure and for storage.

Minimum parking requirements were required to be met at the time business operations commenced and at all times throughout operations. A total of 64 parking spaces were going to be provided when business operations began. However, one (1) space was required to be removed to modify the required path of travel along the exterior of the screened outdoor seating area. The removal of the one (1) space does not create a deficiency in the number of required on-site parking spaces. MUP approval also contemplates future site improvements, such as adding landscaping in the Brewery‘s parking lot, relocating the site‘s ADA compliant parking, and altering the parking lot’s circulation. Two (2) parking spaces were contemplated to be removed to accommodate portions of said improvements. Regardless, both the 63 (existing) and 61 spaces together exceed the minimum code requirement of 59 spaces. Required parking was calculated based on the manufacturing and restaurant parking ratios provided in Development Code Table

17.64.050-1. The brewing area was calculated at the manufacturing parking ratio of two (2) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and the indoor bar/seating area and outdoor beer garden were calculated at the restaurant parking ratio of one (1) parking space per 100 square feet.

Section 17.64.050 of the Development Code permits deducting certain floor areas when

tabulating required parking, such as storage and mechanical rooms, and bathrooms.

Parking Analysis
Parking Ratio Square Feet Required
Parking
Provided
Parking
Brewery 2 Spaces per 1,000
Square Feet 1,694 2
Bar/Indoor
Seating
1 space per 100
Square Feet 3,099 31
Outdoor
Seating
1 Space per 100
Square Feet 2,506 26
Total Parking Spaces Required 59 63-61
Parking Spaces Over Minimum Requirement 4-2
The City’s MUP approval letter states that beer brewing is generally to take place Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. During the first six (6) months of business operations, the facility is approved to be open to the public for beer tasting Sunday through Wednesday from 12:00 pm to 10:00 pm and Thursday through Saturday from 12:00 pm to 12:00 am. As part of the City’s MUP approval, after the first six (6) months of business operations, a request to extend operating hours to 12:00 am Sunday through Wednesday can be made pursuant to the conditions of approval. During the application process, it was reported there would be approximately 21 staff members including managers, bartenders, servers, cleaning staff, and security. The total number of employees may vary during peak times, such as weekends, holidays, and special events.

Beer sales for onsite consumption is to take place at the bar area and to be consumed within the main building or in the adjacent covered outdoor area. Beer is also available for offsite consumption in cans, bottles, and growlers. All staff members who serve alcoholic beverages are required to go through ABC’s Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) program and the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) Program, which provides practical information on selling alcoholic beverages safely, responsibly, and legally, with an emphasis on preventing sales to minors, sales to obviously intoxicated persons, and illicit drug activity. Additionally, staff is to be provided separate in-house training in the service of alcohol.

The business owner is required to either contract with a third-party security company or hire their own security staff to provide security during evening hours on days the business is open past 10:00 p.m. Per project approval, security staff must monitor guests arriving and ensure they are not entering the establishment intoxicated. If a guest is showing visible signs of intoxication, the security team is not to allow them to enter and remain with them until they have safe transportation home. The security team is also tasked with patrolling the parking lot, making sure there is no consumption of off-site alcohol on the premises. If an issue arises with a customer, staff members are instructed to promptly try to resolve the situation. If the issue escalates, the security team is notified. The security team is responsible for staying with the problem customer/s until they have safely left the property. Additionally, security cameras were to be placed in all customer-facing and work areas of the building and in the parking lot.

Live music is approved to take place up to three (3) times a year, only on select Saturday evenings. Volume levels are not to exceed the City’s noise standards as set forth in Section

17.66.050 of the City’s Development Code and must stop at 11:00 p.m. No musician shall perform

within twenty-five (25) feet of the site’s easterly property line. A condition addressing this issue was included as part of the conditions of approval for the MUP.

One (1) food vendor is permitted onsite per day, and up to three (3) during special events. All parking required by the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code must be maintained at all times, including during special events. MUP approval also included up to twelve (12) special events per year, on a monthly basis, that correspond with either the release of a special beer or holiday (e.g., Saint Patrick’s Day, Cinco De Mayo, Octoberfest, etc.). Besides additional food trucks being permitted on site, events could also include outdoor tented space, and all required parking would need to be maintained at all times.

Alcoholic Beverage Control
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has issued Hamilton Family Brewery an interim operating permit. ABC may issue interim permits to an applicant for a license to operate during the period an application is pending and when all the following conditions exist:

1. The application has been protested pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 24011).

2. The department has made a determination based upon its investigation that the license should be issued.

3. The applicant for the interim operating permit has filed with the department an application for issuance of a license at the premises to themselves.

4. The interim operating permit is accompanied by a non-refundable application fee. This fee may be adjusted by the department pursuant to subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 23320 of the California Business and Professions Code.

A protest in opposition of Hamilton’s ABC license application was filed with ABC and the requisite hearing occurred on December 10, 2025. At the conclusion of the hearing, the presiding Administrative Law Judge outlined the process for finalizing his decision. He must submit his decision to ABC staff within thirty (30) days of the hearing, then it will be reviewed internally. The Judge estimated that it could take a month and a half to two months for his decision to be posted.

The judge’s decision is also subject to appeal.

Public Notice During Minor Use Permit Application Submittal The Municipal Code requires that all property owners within a 660-foot radius of a project site be notified of a proposed MUP application. The notifications needed for this project were mailed on November 2, 2023, and below is a map showing the properties that were noticed:

Staff received two emails opposing the project during the 10-day comment period, raising concerns about noise, food vendors, alcohol service, traffic, and parking. The emails were followed by a letter documenting opposition to the project and included 73 signatures. Thereafter, staff received two (2) additional pieces of email correspondence regarding concerns related to parking, security, noise, hours of operation, the product’s alcohol by volume, and the conduct of business patrons. Notices were also sent to the same group of property owners prior to the administrative hearing that is the subject of this report.

Conditions of Approval
Minor Use Permit applications are generally approved at the Director level. They do not require either Planning Commission or City Council review. In approving a minor use permit, the Director may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings required, as well as any performance criteria and development standards contained within the City’s Development Code. As part of the review process, MUP applications are routed to different City departments for review. Approval of Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 for Hamilton Family Brewery includes thirty-seven (37) Planning Department conditions and twelve (12) Fire Department conditions of approval. As stated earlier in this report, Planning Condition #19 requires the Director to review business operations six months after operations have commenced.

This review is to include consulting with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department regarding calls for service and discussions with other City Departments, including, but not limited to, Community Improvement. While a twelve (12) month review is also required, Planning Condition #19 does not preclude the City from, at any time, enforcing or investigating possible violations of any standard outlined in the Development Code. The full list of conditions of approval is included in Attachment 1 to this report.

ANALYSIS:

Upon receiving multiple complaints from neighbors of Hamilton Family Brewery related to items such as noise, traffic and parking, and adherence to conditions of approval, the City Manager directed staff to investigate the claims against Hamilton Family Brewery’s business operations and to provide a report to the City Council on staff’s findings. Staff’s investigation included:
• Community Improvement staff visiting the area and conducting noise testing on at least twelve (12) occasions at different times of day and on different days, as well as to observe business operations.
• Review of Sheriff’s Department calls for service related to Hamilton Family Brewery. • Undercover Sheriff’s Department operation conducted.
• Engineering staff analyzing potential for STOP sign installation and obtained traffic counts. • A site visit to the premises on December 1, 2025.
• Correspondence with Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control staff regarding Hamilton Family Brewery’s interim operating permit, and witnessing the protest hearing.

Calls for Service
As of the writing of this report, Sheriff’s Department staff have responded to sixty-seven (67) calls for service and a summary is provided below.

Type Total Notes
Alarm 3
Identified alarm calibration sensitivity. Per business
owner, issue has been corrected.

Area Check 6 Parking citation issued in response to 1 report.

DUI 1 Driver arrested in response to 1 report.

Extra Patrol 3
No action taken and residents’ concerns forwarded to
City staff.

Follow Up 1
Phone contact made with reporting party regarding
parking and noise reports.

Hit & Run 1 No crime found.

Incident 4 3 reports documented.

Keep the Peace 1 Issue resolved between 2 parties and call cancelled.

Music Disturbance 2 Reporting parties advised of City's noise ordinance.

Noise Complaint 6 No disturbances found and no citations issued.

Parking Violation 16
1 citation issued for vehicle blocking driveway; 1 vehicle tagged for 72-hr parking notice; in response to 2 calls multiple vehicles cited for parking in prohibited areas.

Subject Check 4
No disturbances found and reporting party advised to
contact City regarding permit parking district.

Traffic Hazard 1 No violations found.

Traffic Stop 1 Citation issued.

Unknown Disturbance 4
No disturbances found (3); Non-Customer asked to leave
business premises (1).

Unwanted Subject 1 No disturbances found.

Vehicle Check 12 Citations issued in response to 6 reports.

Total 67
Findings:
• According to the business owner, the Brewery’s security alarm system has been recalibrated to reduce the sensitivity of the alarm system and number of instances it activates.
• Six (6) Area Check calls resulted in one (1) instance of a parking citation being issued. • One (1) call resulted in an arrest of driver who was under the influence of alcohol.

• One (1) for a Hit & Run resulted in no crime being found. • Calls for Extra Patrol in the area resulted in no citations issued. • Music disturbance calls resulted in the reporting parties being advised of the City’s noise standards.
• No citations were issued, or disturbances found in response to six (6) noise complaints. • Sixteen (16) calls for Parking Violations resulted in two (2) instances of multiple citations being issued; one (1) citation being issued for a vehicle blocking a residential driveway; and one (1) instance of a vehicle being tagged with a 72-hour parking notice. • Twelve (12) vehicle checks resulted in six (6) instances of citations being issued for parking in prohibited areas.

Noise
Business operations at Hamilton Family Brewery are required to be conducted in a manner consistent with the City’s noise standards outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.

Findings:
• Initial noise readings along Main Street, directly across from Hamilton Family Brewery, have not exceeded City noise standards, nor have noise readings exceeded City noise standards in the parking lot of the development directly to the east of the Brewery location. • As shown in the Calls for Service section of this report, the Sheriff’s Department received six (6) noise-related complaints, and two (2) other complaints related to an alleged music disturbance. These complaints were investigated but did not warrant citations or further action from Sheriff’s Department personnel.
• Sheriff’s Department staff also responded to three (3) calls related to alarm noise. Calls were in response to reports that the Brewery’s alarm system was going off repeatedly through the night, including voice alerts.

Response:

During a discussion with City staff, Brewery ownership acknowledged that the alarm system included a sensitive calibration, and informed staff that they worked with the alarm service provider to reduce its sensitivity and remove the voice alerts under most circumstances.

Community Improvement staff has experienced similar concerns with other businesses adjacent to residential districts, and once the calibration is achieved, concerns usually abate.

Traffic and Parking
Staff received correspondence from a resident in the area regarding parking enforcement and safety violations, traffic safety and speeding, Hamilton Family Brewery signage, and the process for petitioning for a residential parking district. This correspondence included requests for and clarification on items such as the following:
• How the current No Parking signage is being enforced

• Feasibility of red curb painting along Main Street to improve visibility and aid enforcement • Enforcement related to vehicle parking near fire hydrants • STOP sign analysis at Main Street and Reid Avenue
• Traffic calming measures
• Use of Hamilton Family Brewery’s signage – Blue cone signs indicating “No Brewery Parking”; blue cone signs indicating “Brewery Parking”, and a flashing sign that read “No Street Parking/You Will be Towed/Park on 7th Shuttle”
• Request for information on petitioning for a residential parking zone for Main Street, Reid Avenue, and Feron Boulevard
Findings:
• Fading and incomplete signage
• STOP sign analysis did not warrant installation
• Conditions of Approval address the potential for creating a Permit Parking District Response:

In response, staff provided feedback to the resident regarding the City’s practices and policies for red curb installation in front of fire hydrants, their request for All-Way STOP control at Main Street and Reid Avenue, and traffic calming measures. For example, the City’s practice is not to place red curbs in front of fire hydrants, since the California Vehicle Code does not permit parking in front of them.

In reviewing resident concerns about No Parking signage, it was clear that the current signage is in disrepair and incomplete. Staff is in the process of replacing the faded signs in the cul-de-sac on the east end of Main Street and will install an additional “No Parking Anytime” sign along the south side of Main Street near 9789 Main Street to better identify the area where vehicles are not allowed to park. The signs are expected to be installed by the end of December 2025. The City’s enforcement efforts in the area will continue.

The installation of All-Way STOP control must meet the warrants described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Warrants include the average number of vehicles per hour, as well as reported collisions in a 12-month period. Traffic counts were taken in October during both the week and weekend. The intersection of Main Street and Reid Avenue did not meet the engineering criteria to warrant an All-Way STOP. The highest total number of vehicles entering the intersection during a one-hour period was 66 and the warrants require an average of 300 vehicles per hour for any 8-hour period on an average day. There have also not been five or more reported collisions in a 12-month period that are correctable by an All-Way STOP. It is also important to note that STOP signs are not designed to be speed control devices and are not permitted to be used as such under CA MUTCD. In addition to traffic volume counts, speed counts were recorded for a 24-hour period during the week and weekend by referencing the speed at which 85% of the drivers are traveling on a roadway under non-congested conditions.

The weekday 85th percentile speed was 32 mph for both east and west bound directions. The 85th percentile of speed on the weekend was 26 mph. On both weekday and weekend speed counts, the westbound speeds were slightly higher. The recorded data does not show that vehicles are constantly or even consistently traveling at speeds over 40 mph. Based on the data collected, Staff does not recommend any traffic calming measures along Main Street at this time.

As of the time this report was written, Sheriff’s Department staff reported receiving sixteen (16) calls regarding alleged parking violations, one (1) call regarding a traffic hazard, and conducted one (1) traffic stop during visits to the location since September 26, 2025. Three (3) of the sixteen

(16) calls for parking violations resulted in citations being issued. Two (2) of the calls resulted in multiple citations being issued for parking in a posted No Parking Anytime zone. Furthermore, one (1) vehicle was found to be parked in front of a fire hydrant, one (1) vehicle was tagged for a 72-hour parking notice, and two (2) vehicles were found to be blocking driveways. Contact was made with the business owner regarding some of the calls, and the owner responded by providing instructions to patrons about vehicle parking restrictions. Later in this report, additional measures taken by the business owner will be discussed.

Planning Condition #23 states that, should the City determine that the use has created a parking issue, the City may initiate a permit parking district at no cost to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The cost for that permit parking district formation and permits would be borne by the applicant. Additionally, the applicant may be required to provide the City with a parking study, as well as work with neighboring commercial locations, to secure additional off-site parking for business patrons. At this time, staff has not determined that a parking issue has been created by the subject use, necessitating the initiation of a permit parking district. In response to the resident's correspondence described earlier in this report, Staff provided the resident with the appropriate forms to initiate a permit parking district, however, that effort has not been completed at this time.

Further, if it were implemented as a resident preference, it would not be based on the condition of approval, and the costs would not be borne by the business. City staff will continue to monitor this item as part of the Director’s six (6) month review.

Ownership of Hamilton Family Brewery ordered “No Parking” signs for their neighbors (attached to cones), hired a shuttle service to transport business patrons from their former location to their new location (for approximately 1.5 months), used lighted traffic-control signs directing visitors where to park, and staffed attendants in the Brewery’s parking lot to help prevent guests from parking on Main Street. These items were implemented for the Brewery’s grand opening and initial business operations. Additionally, Brewery ownership met with at least one restaurant owner whose business is located in a shopping center directly across Archibald Avenue. While this business owner previously reported parking issues they believed were due to the opening of Hamilton Family Brewery, the shopping center’s parking area now includes signage stating that there is no Brewery parking in the shopping center and that violators will be towed at their own expense.

Occupant Load
Maximum building occupancy is generally determined using occupant load factors (square feet per person), based on the space's use, and then checked against egress and fire-safety limits to ensure occupants can exit safely in an emergency. Occupant load is therefore described as the number of people for which the means of egress are designed, and it is required that the permissible load not exceed what can be safely evacuated using exits and paths of travel. The approved occupant load for the indoor brewery area is 115. The beer brewing area has an additional occupant load of 20. Additionally, the occupant load for the 2,506 square feet of outdoor dining area outlined in the MUP approval is 166. Conditions of approval for the Brewery use require City approval of modifications to the building or operations that would increase occupancy.

Findings:
• As stated earlier in this report, MUP approval allows for 2,506 square feet of outdoor seating area. During their site visit, staff identified that an area greater than 2,506 square feet of space was being used for outdoor seating purposes. The area being used for outdoor dining appeared to be more than twice as large as the area described in the MUP approval.

Response:

Following standard operating procedures, business ownership was notified of the discrepancy, which at minimum would trigger the need for additional on-site parking, and a Compliance Order was issued by the City’s Community Improvement staff on December 4, 2025. The Order required the business to cease the unapproved use of outdoor seating area in excess of 2,506 square feet.

As of the writing of this report, business ownership responded to the City’s Compliance Order and presented an exhibit detailing their outdoor seating area with a written narrative regarding their position.

Conclusion and Next Steps
Community members recently addressed the City Council, raising various concerns about Hamilton Family Brewery’s business operations. Approval of Hamilton’s Minor Use Permit includes 49 conditions of approval. Planning Condition #19 requires the Planning Director to review business operations six (6) months after operations have commenced (March 2026). This condition also requires the same review twelve (12) months after operations have commenced.

The purpose of these reviews is to ensure operations are being conducted in a manner consistent with the project approval and corresponding conditions. If violations are found, the business will be provided notification, and be given the appropriate time to comply.

In response to resident concerns, and the condition of approval requiring a six (6) month review of business operations, the following has occurred:

1. Community Improvement, and other City staff have, and continue to, review concerns raised by community members and collect related data. This includes visiting the location on multiple occasions, observing operations, and taking decibel readings to monitor the noise levels of the business.

2. Sheriff Department personnel have responded to and investigated multiple calls for service.

3. Engineering staff have reviewed and responded to questions from the public, collected traffic volume and speed data, reviewed questions regarding STOP sign placement, and provided at least one resident with the forms necessary for initiating a permit parking district.

4. Staff has requested copies of video, audio, or pictures that show potential violations.

5. Staff has discussed community concerns with Hamilton Family Brewery ownership and provided an opportunity for ownership to respond.

6. Staff initiated review of Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 and its conditions of approval.

This will continue and findings will inform the Planning Director’s required six (6) month review of business operations.

7. Community Improvement staff issued a Compliance Order on December 4, 2025, for the use of outdoor seating area beyond the 2,506 square feet approved per the MUP. The Order required the business to cease the unapproved use of outdoor seating area in excess of 2,506 square feet.

8. Staff has corresponded with Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control staff regarding Hamilton Family Brewery’s interim operating permit, and the protest submitted in response to their license application. Staff will be requesting copies of evidence submitted as part of the ABC protest hearing.

Staff will continue to monitor business operations and respond to calls for service, as well as conduct the Director level review of business operations at the six (6) and twelve (12) month marks.

At the conclusion of staff’s presentation of this item, the City Council will have the opportunity to hear testimony from the public and representatives of Hamilton Family Brewery, discuss the subject matter, and provide related feedback to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item supports the City Council’s vision of actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 – Hamilton Family Brewery Attachment 2 – Images Submitted by Residents
Attachment 3 – Compliance Order

January 15, 2024
Joshua Hamilton
9757 7th Street, Suite 802
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT: APPROVAL LETTER FOR MINOR USE PERMIT DRC2023-00257 – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY – Operation of a 7,416 square foot microbrewery with a 2,506 square foot outdoor seating area within the Center 1 (CE1) Zone at 8889 Archibald Avenue; APN: 0209- 062-10. The project qualifies for Class 1 and Class 3 exemptions under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities and 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

The Minor Use Permit process for the above-described project has been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the findings and conditions set forth in this letter and its attachments.

Background:

Hamilton Family Brewery operates an existing microbrewery at 9757 7th Street and is requesting to relocate that facility to 8889 Archibald Avenue. The current location was approved by Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-01079 on January 22, 2014. A Conditional Use Permit Modification (DRC2015-00135) was approved on June 2, 2015, expanding the existing 1,680-square-foot microbrewery into an adjacent 1,680- square-foot tenant space (3,360 square feet total). The CUP Modification also included the approval to expand the hours of operation to 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. – seven days per week. Business operations have been conducted in a manner consistent with the approved CUP and modifications. Therefore, neither the Planning & Economic Development Director nor Planning Commission have had to conduct additional review of the existing operations.

The subject property, located at 8889 Archibald Avenue, has a current zoning designation of Center 1 (CE1). The standards for this desigination permit the operation of a microbrewery with approval of a Minor Use Permit. This current designation was developed as a result of the City’s 2021 General Plan Update process. Previously, the site’s zoning designation was Industrial Park (IP). That desigination would have also allowed a microbrewery at the subject location and that use type was carried over to the current CE1 zone.

The existing uses, General Plan, and Zoning Designation for this project site and surrounding properties are as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1

APPROVAL LETTER
MINOR USE PERMIT – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY
January 15, 2024

Existing Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Commercial/Industrial
Building Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1)
North Convenience Store and
Single-Family Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low Residential (L) South SBCT Rail Facility N/A Neo Industrial (NI)
East Multi-family Development Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) West Retail/Light Industrial Center Traditional Town Center Neo Industrial (NI) Project Description:

The applicant, Joshua Hamilton, on behalf of Hamilton Family Brewery, is requesting to operate a microbrewery in an existing building at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Main Street. Table

17.136.020-1 of the Development Code (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) permits microbreweries in the Center 1 (CE1) zone subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. The existing onsite buildings were previously used for the retail sales of electrical supplies and equipment storage. The 49,897 square foot project site is developed with a 7,416 square foot main building, a 4,632 square foot covered storage area, and an approximate 730 square foot free-standing storage building. The site also includes 12 parking spaces along with a large gated open storage area.

The 7,416-square-foot building will be reconfigured to include a 2,910 square foot brewing facility, a 1,946 square foot indoor seating area with a small retail area and bar, with the remaining portion of the building to be used for walk-in coolers, equipment rooms, bathroom facilities, and offices. The covered outdoor storage area will be used for outdoor seating (beer garden) and will be screened from the parking lot by an existing block wall. The freestanding storage building will be used as a trash enclosure and for storage.

The existing parking and vehicle storage lot will be redesigned into a large contiguous parking facility.

Vehicle access to the site will be from the existing driveways on Archibald Avenue and Main Street. The changes to the onsite buildings and parking lot will be reviewed separately under Site Development Review DRC2023-00411.

Minimum parking requirements will be met at the time business operations commmece. A total of 64 parking spaces will be provided when business operations begin. As additional site improvements occur, 2 parking spaces will be removed to accommodate portions of said improvements. However, both the 64 and 62 spaces represent a total that is greater than the minimum code requirement of 59 spaces. Required parking was calculated based on the manufacturing and restaurant parking ratios provided in Development Code Table 17.64.050-1. The brewing area was calculated at the manufacturing parking ratio of 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and the indoor bar/seating area and outdoor beer garden were calculated at the restaurant parking ratio of 1 parking space per 100 square feet. Section 17.64.050 of the Development Code permits deducting certain floor areas when tabulating required parking such as storage and mechanical rooms, and bathrooms.

APPROVAL LETTER
MINOR USE PERMIT – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY
January 15, 2024

PARKING ANALYSIS
Parking Ratio Square Feet Required
Parking
Provided
Parking
Brewery 2 Spaces per 1,000
Square Feet 1,694 2
Bar/Indoor
Seating
1 space per 100
Square Feet 3,099 31
Outdoor
Seating
1 Space per 100
Square Feet 2,506 26
Total Parking Spaces Required 59 64-62
Parking Spaces Over Minimum Requirement 5-3
The beer brewing process will generally take place Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., however the brewing hours may vary slightly. During the first six (6) months of business operations the facility will be open to the public for beer tasting Sunday through Wednesday from 12:00 pm to 10:00 pm and Thursday through Saturday from 12:00 pm to 12:00 am. Please note that after the first six (6) months of business operations, a request to extend operating hours to 12:00 am Sunday through Wednesday can be made pursuant to the attached conditions. There will be approximately 21 staff members including managers, bartenders, servers, cleaning staff, and security. The total number of employees will vary for peak times such as weekends, holidays, and special events.

The sale of beer for onsite consumption will take place at the bar area to be consumed within the main building or in the adjacent outdoor beer garden. Beer will also be available for sale for offsite consumption in the form of cans, bottles, and growlers. Both onsite and offsite sales will require age verification per the requirements of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC).

All staff members who serve alcoholic beverages will be required to go through ABC’s Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) program and the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) Program, which provide practical information on selling alcoholic beverages safely, responsibly, and legally, with an emphasis on preventing sales to minors, sales to obviously intoxicated persons, and illicit drug activity.

Additionally, staff will be provided separate in-house training in the service of alcohol.

The applicant will contract with a 3rd party security company or hire their own security staff to provide security services during evening hours on those days the business is open past 10:00 p.m. Security staff will monitor guests arriving and check to ensure guests are not entering the establishment intoxicated. If a guest is showing visible signs of intoxication, the security team will not allow them to enter and will remain with them until they have safe transportation home. The security team will also be tasked with patrolling the parking lot making sure there is no consumption of off-site alcohol. If an issue arises with a customer, a staff member will promptly resolve the situation with friendly customer service. If the issue escalates, the security team will be notified and will intervene. The security team will be responsible for staying with the problem customer/s until they have safely left the property. Additionally, security cameras will be placed in all customer-facing, and work areas of the building and in the parking lot. All footage will be kept for 30 days. Additional conditions of approval have been developed and are provided as an attachment to this document.

The applicant has provided a list of 12 special events that correspond with either the release of a special beer or a holiday (e.g., Saint Patrick’s Day, Cinco De Mayo, Octoberfest, etc.). Special events typically take place once per month and involve the use of portable bathrooms, additional food vendors, and covered seating space in the parking lot. During special events, customers are age-verified at the entrance

APPROVAL LETTER
MINOR USE PERMIT – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY
January 15, 2024

by their security team and given wristbands.

Live music will take place up to 3 times a year, only on select Saturday evenings. Volume levels will not exceed the City’s noise standards as set forth in Section 17.66.050 of the City’s Development Code and must stop at 11:00 p.m. No musician shall perform within twenty-five (25) feet of the site’s easterly property line. A condition addressing this issue has been included as part of the conditions of approval attached to this letter.

One food vendor will be onsite per day, and up to 3 food vendors during special events. All parking required by the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code must be maintained at atll times, including during special events. The list of vendors is constantly updated, with vendors pulled from a list provided by San Bernardino County’s Health Department. Each vendor on this list must have a current and approved MFF (mobile food facility) license. Food vendors will be located in the parking lot adjacent to the brewery building and open area and shaded canopy.

Public Notice:

The Municipal Code requires that all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site be notified of the proposed Minor Use Permit application. The required notifications were mailed on November 2, 2023 and below is a map showing properties that notices were sent to.

APPROVAL LETTER
MINOR USE PERMIT – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY
January 15, 2024

Planning staff received two emails in opposition to the project within the 10-day comment period raising concerns related to noise, food vendors, alcohol service, traffic, and parking. The emails were followed by a letter documenting opposition to the project and included 73 signatures. Thereafter, staff received two (2) additional pieces of email correspondence regarding concerns also related to parking, security, noise, hourse of operation, the product’s percentage of alcohol by volume, and conduct of business patrons Sheriff’s Department Information:

The existing brewery location does not register as a problem location, nor has it created an inordinate number of traffic related issues. Sheriff's Department data does not indicate that Hamilton Family Brewery's existing location is generating an abnormally high call volume.

Environmental Determination:

The project scope is for the operation of a microbrewery in an existing commercial building. Prior to any action being taken for this request, Planning and Economic Development Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies for a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. The project also qualifies for a Class 3 exemption – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Minor Use Permit Findings of Approval:

1. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development proposed, and the proposed location, size, and design of the use are compatible with adjacent uses or with natural resources. The project site is located on Archibald Avenue and is well-suited for the development of a microbrewery. The existing on-site structures will be improved to meet the operating requirements of a microbrewery and are located along the south property line providing a buffer to the existing residential development to the north. The existing parking lot and storage yard will be reconfigured to provide the required number of parking spaces, efficient circulation, and emergency vehicle access.

The subject site has a general plan land use designation of Traditional Town Center. Properties and areas with these designations are to be the focal points of community activity, providing residents of surrounding neighborhoods with a wide range of retail and civic amenities and community gathering places within close reach of their homes. Many centers provide primarily retail and service commercial uses to surrounding neighborhoods. One important aspiration articulated by the community through the 2021 general plan update process was to have more destinations within easier reach of neighborhoods. The general plan enables centers to be more inviting, human scale public gathering spaces that are highly accessible from surrounding neighborhoods. Conditions of approval have been developed to insure compliance with applicable sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Develoment Code; and

2. The operating characteristics of the proposed use, including traffic, noise, light, and other characteristics, will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and other adjacent uses or uses in the vicinity. The proposed microbrewery is not expected to produce traffic, noise, or light out of character with the neighborhood or in a manner inconsistent with the performance standards outlined in Development Code Chapter 17.66. The project site is located at the corner of a busy fourlane street (Archibald Avenue) to the west, a local two-lane street (Main Street) to the north, and an active rail line to the south. Surrounding development includes a convenience store and residential development to the north, automotive repair shops, restaurants, and commercial uses to the west, and residential development to the east. The City’s performance standards include requirements related to the placement of outdoor lighting, outdoor light shielding, the level of illumination, maximum noise levels and more. All required off- street parking will be provided and maintained at all times during business operations, including during any special event. The subject site has a general plan land use designation of Traditional Town Center. Properties and areas with these designations are to be the focal points of community activity, providing residents of surrounding neighborhoods with a

APPROVAL LETTER
MINOR USE PERMIT – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY
January 15, 2024

wide range of retail and civic amenities and community gathering places within close reach of their homes. Many centers provide primarily retail and service commercial uses to surrounding neighborhoods. One important aspiration articulated by the community through the 2021 general plan update process was to have more destinations within easier reach of neighborhoods. The general plan enables centers to be more inviting, human scale public gathering spaces that are highly accessible from surrounding neighborhoods.Conditions of approval have been developed to insure compliance with applicable sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, including those related to traffic, noise, and light; and

3. The proposed improvements of the site, including building design, height and bulk of buildings, setbacks, fencing, landscaping, signage size, and location, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or area. The proposed microbrewery will reuse the existing onsite buildings and vehicle connections to the adjacent public streets. The parking lot will be upgraded to improve onsite circulation and fire department access. New landscaping will be installed to comply with the related parking lot landscape requirements. The size and location of signage will comply with existing sign regulations. Improvements are subject to approval of a separate Site Development Review application; and

4. The proposed use shall not result in conditions that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. The project site is in an area developed with a mix of light industrial (automotive repair), commercial (convenience stores, restaurants, and support services), and residential land uses. The operating characteristics of the proposed microbrewery are not expected to create negative impacts that would impact the surrounding community. Construction activities will be limited to tenant improvement to the existing onsite structures and will be required to comply with existing limitations on construction hours and noise levels. The attached conditions of approval also provide the Planning and Economic Development Director with the ability to review the business operations and place new restrictions if it is determined that the use is creating a negative impact on the community; and

5. Adequate public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed use or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development. The project site is served by existing public facilities and infrastructure and the proposed redevelopment of the existing onsite facilities as a microbrewery will not require the construction of new public facilities or expansion of existing services; and

6. Allowing the proposed use at the proposed location would be consistent with and help achieve the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan and the Development Code. The proposed microbrewery is permitted in the Center 1 (CE1) Zone subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit.

This current zoning designation was developed as a result of the City’s 2021 General Plan Update process. Previously, the site’s zoning designation was Industrial Park (IP). That desigination would have also allowed a microbrewery at the subject location and that use type was carried over to the current CE1 zone.

The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, including providing an adequate number of parking spaces and complying with the general performance standards related to noise, odors, and vibrations. Additionally, the proposed use complies with the general plan and other applicable City regulations/standards. The project is in keeping with the Traditional Town Center land use designation which envisions that the site be developed with a range of commercial uses including general retail, personal services, restaurants, and microbreweries.

Properties and areas with these designations are to be the focal points of community activity, providing residents of surrounding neighborhoods with a wide range of retail and civic amenities and community gathering places within close reach of their homes. Many centers provide primarily retail and service commercial uses to surrounding neighborhoods. One important aspiration articulated by the community through the 2021 general plan update process was to have more destinations within easier reach of neighborhoods. The general plan enables centers to be more inviting, human scale public

APPROVAL LETTER
MINOR USE PERMIT – HAMILTON FAMILY BREWERY
January 15, 2024

gathering spaces that are highly accessible from surrounding neighborhoods. Conditions of approval have been developed to insure compliance with applicable sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Develoment Code; and

7. The project would not result in a negative effect to the City’s land use inventory available for residential and economic development, consistent with the intent of the general plan land use element. The reuse of the existing commercial site as a microbrewery will not impact existing housing units and will increase economic activity on a currently underutilized site. The subject site has a general plan land use designation of Traditional Town Center. Properties and areas with these designations are to be the focal points of community activity, providing residents of surrounding neighborhoods with a wide range of retail and civic amenities and community gathering places within close reach of their homes.

Many centers provide primarily retail and service commercial uses to surrounding neighborhoods.

One important aspiration articulated by the community through the 2021 general plan update process was to have more destinations within easier reach of neighborhoods. The general plan enables centers to be more inviting, human scale public gathering spaces that are highly accessible from surrounding neighborhoods. Conditions of approval have been developed to insure compliance with applicable sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Develoment Code This project is approved, subject to the information provided in this letter and the attached conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to issuance of building permits. If there is a discrepancy between the materials on file with the City and either this letter or the project’s conditions of approval, this letter and the conditions supersede unless otherwise noted.

This decision shall be final following a 10-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. All appeals shall be submitted in writing to the City Clerk's Office, identifying the determination or action being appealed and specifically stating the basis or grounds of the appeal.

Appeals shall be filed no later than January 25, 2024 and must be accompanied by a filing fee of $1,853.

Should you have any questions, please contact Matt Marquez, Director of Planning & Economic Development or his designee at (909) 477-2750 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Matt Marquez
Director of Planning and Economic Development
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Site and Floor Plans

3. Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions

www.CityofRC.us
DRC 2023-00257 Page 1 of 6
Conditions of Approval
Community Development
Project #: DRC2023-00257
Project Name: Hamilton Family Brewery
Location: 8889 ARCHIBALD AVE - 020906201-0000
Project Type: Minor Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions

1. Any patron who (1) fights or challenges another person to fight, (2) maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud or unreasoned noise, or (3) uses offensive words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction shall be removed from the premises.

2. An incident log shall be maintained at the licensed premises on a continual basis with at least one year of entries and be readily available for inspection by a police officer. The log is for recording any physical altercations, injuries, and objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance occurring in, on, or at the licensed premises, including the immediately adjacent area that is owned, leased, or rented by the licensee. The log will indicate date, time, description of incident, and action taken. “Objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance” means disturbance of the peace, public drunkenness, drinking in public, harassment of passersby, gambling, prostitution, loitering, public urination, lewd conduct, drug trafficking, or excessive loud noise.

3. The applicant shall contract with a 3rd party security company or hire their own security staff to provide security services during the evening hours on those days the business is open past 10:00 pm. Security will also be provided during special events.

4. A security plan, as detailed in subject project’s application, shall be implemented and be in effect along with measures outlined in these conditions and the project’s approval letter. The hours security will be provided on-site is outlined in Planning Department condition number 3. A final security plan must be submitted to the Planning & Economic Development Director prior to business operations commencing. Changes to the security plan may be required by the Director of Planning & Economic Development or the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department should review of the business operations necessitate changes to ensure the protection of the community’s health, safety, and welfare.

5. Security guards shall maintain order and enforce the establishment’s no loitering policy and shall take “reasonable steps” (as that term is defined in subparagraph (3) of Section 24200 of the California Business and Professions Code) to correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance.

6. Surveillance cameras shall be installed on the premises in all areas where alcoholic beverages are served and/or consumed and in the parking lot area.

7. Video recordings from surveillance cameras shall be of nothing less than NTSC 4SIF with a minimum of 704X480 resolution. A minimum of 30 days surveillance video shall be kept.

8. The uniform of the security guards shall have the word “Security” clearly visible on it.

9. All managers, bartenders, and servers shall complete the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) Program offered by the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control within 30 days of being hired. These staff members must also complete the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s Responsible

www.CityofRC.us
DRC 2023-00257 Page 2 of 6
Beverage Services (RBS) program. At their discretion, the Director of Planning & Economic Development may request proof of completion of RBS and LEAD training.

10. Any proposed floor plan, seating, occupancy and/or furnishing changes must be submitted to t h e Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District for review and approval.

11. Approval is granted for the operation of a microbrewery with beer tasting in an existing 7,416 building with a 2,506 square foot outdoor seating area (beer garden) at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Main Street - APN: 0209-062-10. Approval includes up to 12 special events per year as outlined in the application on file with the City’s Planning & Economic Development Department.

12. The hours of operation for beer tasting are limited to the following hours:

Sunday through Wednesday – 12:00 pm to 10:00 pm
Thursday through Saturday – 12:00 pm to 12:00 am
At the conclusion of the Director of Planning & Economic Development’s six (6) month review as outlined in Planning Department condition number 19, the City may consider increasing business hours to 12:00 am Sunday through Wednesday.

13. Entertainment as defined by Development Code section 17.16.170 is not permitted without the prior approval of an entertainment permit.

14. Live music will take place up to 3 times a year, only on select Saturday evenings. Music must be played in a manner consistent with the City’s noise standards as set forth in Section 17.66.050 (Noise Standards) of the City’s Development Code and must stop at 11:00 pm. No musician shall perform within twenty-five (25) feet of the site’s easterly property line. Live performances may require approval of an entertainment permit pursuant to Section

17.16.170 (Entertainment Permit) of the Development Code if said performances do not comply with the exceptions listed in Section 17.16.170.

15. The on-site manager of the business shall take the required steps as determined necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. This includes:

1. Monitoring of alcoholic beverage sales;

2. Handling of an obviously intoxicated person;

3. Establishing a reasonable ratio of employees to patrons based on activity level;

4. Monitoring security staff including the handling of patrons involved in arguments and fighting ;

5. Monitoring the outdoor areas including the parking lot;

6. Verifying age/checking identification of patrons including warning patrons reaching their drinking limit/potential intoxication and refusing service;

7. Contacting law enforcement regarding observed or reported criminal activity.

16. No loitering shall take place outside of the business or within the general vicinity before, during, or after the approved hours of operation.

17. Business operations must be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. These include, but are not limited to, performance standards related to noise (Section 17.66.050 Noise Standards) and lighting (Chapter 17.58 Outdoor Lighting Standards), as well as all other applicable standards described in Section 17.66 and elsewhere in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.

18. The business operations shall comply with the regulations and requirements of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) that apply to a Type 23 ABC license (Small Beer Manufacturer).

19. The Director of Planning & Economic Development shall review business operations six (6) months after operations have commenced. The purpose of the review is to ensure operations are being conducted in a manner consistent with the project approval and corresponding conditions. This will include consulting with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department regarding calls for service, as well as discussions with other City Departments including but not limited to, Community Improvement. The Director of Planning & Economic Development will also review of business operations twelve (12) months after operations have commenced. This condition does not preclude the City from at any time enforcing or investigating possible violations of any standard set forth in the City’s Development Code.

www.CityofRC.us
DRC 2023-00257 Page 3 of 6

20. All structures and parking lot shall have a minimum lighting level as outlined in Chapter 17.58 (Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the Development Code.

21. Approval is granted for one food vendor during regular operation hours and up to 3 food vendors during special events. Each food vendor shall have a current and approved MFF (mobile food facility) license. Food vendors shall be located in the parking lot adjacent to the brewery building and open area and shaded canopy. On-site food vendors must maintain at all times valid licenses and permits, including but not limited to any associated with mobile food preparation and service, as required by San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services or other agencies.

22. Modifications to structures and the site’s parking lot will be reviewed under a separate Site Development Review application. Minimum requirements for occupancy of the business and site, including those related to Building & Safety, Fire Protection, parking, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will be provided at the time business operations commence. Any request to defer site and building improvements, other than those required for occupancy and operations to commence, will be done according to a plan approved by the Director. The applicant must provide a proposed plan to the Director of Planning & Economic Development no later than ninety (90) days from the date business operations commence. The plan will provide a phased approach to completing improvements over a period of thirty-six (36) months from the date business operations officially commence.

23. All parking required pursuant to Chapter 17.64 (Parking and Loading Standards) of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code will be maintained on-site at all times, including during any special event. Should the City determine the subject use has created a parking issue, the City may initiate a permit parking district at no cost for the adjacent residential neighborhood. The cost for that permit parking district formation and permits would be borne by the applicant in perpetuity. Additionally, the applicant may be required to provide the City with a parking study, as well as work with neighboring commercial locations, such as those on the west side of Archibald Avenue, to secure additional off-site parking for business patrons.

24. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning & E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning a n d E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

25. 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

www.CityofRC.us
DRC 2023-00257 Page 4 of 6
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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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 Minor Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is approved by this Minor Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning and Economic Development Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check /occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The Planning and Economic Development Director may determine that modifications or intensifications of the use are in substantial compliance with this approval or require the submittal of an application to modify this Minor Use Permit for review by the City.

29. A business operations letter must be submitted to the City for approval by the Planning & Economic Development Director no later than submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy. The letter must include those measures and conditions set forth in the project’s determination letter and these conditions of approval.

30. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and /or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. Business operations must be conducted in a manner that is in substantial compliance with the information on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Department of Planning & Economic Development, the project’s determination letter, and these conditions of approval. If there is a discrepancy between the associated materials on file with the City and either the subject project’s determination letter or the project’s conditions of approval, the determination letter and the conditions supersede unless otherwise noted.

31. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.

32. 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.

33. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.

34. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

35. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. On-site signage will be required to be installed at the eastern most driveway (off of Main Street) directing vehicular traffic to turn left when exiting the subject

www.CityofRC.us
DRC 2023-00257 Page 5 of 6
location.

36. If there is a discrepancy between the associated materials on file with the City and either the subject project’s determination letter or the project’s conditions of approval, the determination letter and the conditions supersede unless otherwise noted.

37. A land use entitlement or permit may be modified or revoked pursuant to Chapter 17.08 - Enforcement of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code.

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval

1. Gas detection is required in accordance with the Fire Code.

2. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

3. A change of use/occupancy analysis is required to be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for the evaluation of the proposed use in the existing building. Some of the issues that must be addressed include (but are not limited to): Compliance with seismic requirements, Structural Importance Factor , ADA accessibility and parking, allowable area ratios, area separation walls, maximum occupant loads , type of doors, swing of doors, panic hardware, exit signs, emergency illumination, aisle widths, direct exiting, and designation of a main exit.

4. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Fire apparatus access will likely include the use of the existing parking lot. The parking lot will be required to certified by a licensed engineer to be able to support the weight of fire apparatus as required by Standard 5-1.

5. 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].

6. 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.

7. Fire sprinklers are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

8. Storage of certain combustible commodities and/or business supplies in excess of threshold amounts requires a permit from the Fire District. Please contact the Fire District at 909-477-2770 or [email protected] to discuss the storage operations for this business.

9. High-piled combustible storage, if any, is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

10. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection.

11. One or more of the operations in use or proposed for this building /business requires a Fire Code Operating Permit to be issued in accordance with the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 1-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

12. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler

www.CityofRC.us
DRC 2023-00257 Page 6 of 6
risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

MAIN STREET ARCHIBALD BLVD
“

 “


8889 ARCHIBALD AVENUE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA

EXISTING SITE PLAN
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
October 31, 2023
P:\23\23340 - Rancho Cucamonga 8889 Archibald Hamilton
Brewery\Design\Site\x23340 - Site Plan.dwg

B I C K E L G R O U P

A R C H I T E C T U R E

BICKEL GROUP INCORPORATED
3600 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 120
N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0
P: 949.757.0411 F: 949.757.0511
w w w . b i c k e l g r p . c o m
ADDRESS: 8889 ARCHIBALD AVE.

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
91730-5226
APN: 0209-062-01-0000
COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO
PROPERTY USE: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
YEAR BUILT: 1958
NO. OF STORIES: 1
LOT SIZE: 49,310 SQFT/1.13 ACRES NORTH
(E) PARKING:

LOT NO.1: 11 SPACES
1 ACCESSIBLE SPACE
TOTAL: 12 SPACES
LOT NO.2: SPACES UNDEFINED
0 ACCESSIBLE SPACE
TOTAL: 0 SPACES

PROJECT

INFORMATION

GENERAL NOTE
x NO CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE

PROPOSED

PARKING

MAIN STREET ARCHIBALD BLVD
17 5
7 5
17 13
“

 “


8889 ARCHIBALD AVENUE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA

INITIAL PHASE
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
October 31, 2023

B I C K E L G R O U P

A R C H I T E C T U R E

BICKEL GROUP INCORPORATED
3600 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 120
N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0
P: 949.757.0411 F: 949.757.0511
w w w . b i c k e l g r p . c o m
ADDRESS: 8889 ARCHIBALD AVE.

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
91730-5226
APN: 0209-062-01-0000
COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO
PROPERTY USE: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
YEAR BUILT: 1958
NO. OF STORIES: 1
LOT SIZE: 49,310 SQFT/1.13 ACRES

PROJECT

INFORMATION
x NO CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE

PROPOSED

GENERAL NOTE NORTH
PARKING REQUIRED: PER 17.65.050 TABLE 17.64.050-1
AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 17.64.050
BREWERY:
3,706 SQFT. GROSS
2,012 SQFT. EQUIPMENT/EXCEPTIONS
1,694 SQFT.

PER TABLE 17.64.050-1

INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING
= 2 SPACES/1,000 SF

 
§
2 PARKING SPACES
RESTAURANT/DINING:
3,706 SQFT. GROSS
607 SQFT. EXCEPTIONS
3,099 SQFT
PER TABLE 17.64.050-1

RESTAURANT, BARS, AND NIGHT CLUBS
= 10 SPACES/1,000SF


; 

§
31 PARKING SPACES
OUTDOOR SEATING:
6,351 SQFT. GROSS
3,849 SQFT. EXCEPTIONS
2,505 SQFT
PER TABLE 17.64.050-1

OUTDOOR
= 10 SPACES/1,000 SQFT
; §
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 59
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 64
61 STANDARD PARKING
3 ADA PARKING
2 - 9'X18' ACCESSIBLE STALL
1 - 12'X18' VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL

PARKING

ACCESSIBLE PATH

PAINTED DIRECTIONAL
ARROW

SYMBOL/LEGEND

MAIN STREET ARCHIBALD BLVD
“

 “


6 2
22 20
7 5
8889 ARCHIBALD AVENUE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA

FINAL PHASE
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
December 6, 2023

B I C K E L G R O U P

A R C H I T E C T U R E

BICKEL GROUP INCORPORATED
3600 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 120
N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0
P: 949.757.0411 F: 949.757.0511
w w w . b i c k e l g r p . c o m
ADDRESS: 8889 ARCHIBALD AVE.

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
91730-5226
APN: 0209-062-01-0000
COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO
PROPERTY USE: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
YEAR BUILT: 1958
NO. OF STORIES: 1
LOT SIZE: 49,310 SQFT/1.13 ACRES

PROJECT

INFORMATION NORTH
PARKING REQUIRED: PER 17.65.050 TABLE 17.64.050-1
AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 17.64.050
BREWERY:
3,706 SQFT. GROSS
2,012 SQFT. EQUIPMENT/EXCEPTIONS
1,694 SQFT.

PER TABLE 17.64.050-1

INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING
= 2 SPACES/1,000 SF

 
§
2 PARKING SPACES
RESTAURANT/DINING:
3,706 SQFT. GROSS
607 SQFT. EXCEPTIONS
3,099 SQFT
PER TABLE 17.64.050-1

RESTAURANT, BARS, AND NIGHT CLUBS
= 10 SPACES/1,000SF


; 

§
31 PARKING SPACES
OUTDOOR SEATING:
6,351 SQFT. GROSS
3,849 SQFT. EXCEPTIONS
2,505 SQFT
PER TABLE 17.64.050-1

OUTDOOR
= 10 SPACES/1,000 SQFT
; §
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 59
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 62
59 STANDARD PARKING
3 ADA PARKING
2 - 9'X18' ACCESSIBLE STALL
1 - 12'X18' VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL

PARKING

ACCESSIBLE PATH

PAINTED DIRECTIONAL
ARROW

SYMBOL/LEGEND

8889 ARCHIBALD AVENUE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA

PROPOSED PLAN
October 31, 2023
P:\23\23340 - Rancho Cucamonga 8889 Archibald Hamilton
Brewery\Design\Floor Plan\x23340 - Floor Plan.dwg B I C K E L G R O U P A R C H I T E C T U R E BI C KE L GROU P INCORPORAT ED 3600 BIRC H STREE T, S U IT E 120 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0 P: 949.757.0411 F: 949.757.0511 w w w . b i c k e l g r p . c o m Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

Statement of Agreement and Acceptance
of Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 I, Joshua Hamilton, as the applicant(s) for the above referenced project number, hereby state that I am in agreement with and accept the conditions of approval for Minor Use Permit DRC2023- 00257, for property located at 8889 Archibald Avenue; APN: 0209-062-10, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as approved by the Planning & Economic Development Department on January 12, 202, and as listed below and attached.

Applicant Signature____________________________
Date ______________________________
Conditions of Approval

1. The applicant shall sign this Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval prior to the submittal of plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity indicating agreement with and acceptance of the adopted Conditions of Approval prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

2. All other conditions of approval related to Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257.

ATTACHMENT 2

COMPLIANCE ORDER

HAMILTON ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC
8889 ARCHIBALD AVE.

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Case No: COD-2025-00239
RE: 8889 ARCHIBALD AVE
APN: 0209-062-01-0000
Dear Owner, December 4, 2025
As the listed property owner or responsible person for the above reference property, you are hereby notified an employee of the City of Rancho Cucamonga inspected this property on December 4, 2025 at approximately 12:09 pm and determined the following violations of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code exist:

Code Section: Corrective Action Required: Please Comply by:

RCMC 17.30.030(B)(3)
- Allowed land uses
and permit
requirements
Permit requirements. Generally, a use is either allowed by right, allowed through issuance of a conditional use permit, or not permitted. In addition to the requirements for planning permits or entitlements listed herein, other permits and entitlements may be required prior to establishment of the use (e.g., building permit or permits required by other agencies). The requirements for planning permits or entitlements identified in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone) include: 3)- Conditionally permitted (C). A land use shown with a "C" indicates that the land use is permitted in the designated zone upon issuance of a conditional use permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code (e.g., development standards) as well as state and federal law. **IMMEDIATELY CEASE THE UNAPPROVED USE OF THE OUTDOOR AREA IN EXCESS OF THE 2,506 SQUARE
FOOT THRESHOLD APPROVED BY THE MINOR USE PERMIT #
DRC2023-00257. THIS ALSO INCLUDES ANY SEATING OR DINING

AREAS SET UP IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHICH ARE NOT
APPROVED BY THE MINOR USE PERMIT.

December 4, 2025
Failure to fully correct or make diligent effort toward correction of any listed violation shall result in an Administrative Citation and fine. The penalty for each section violated shall be $100 for the first day of each violation, $200 for a second day that each violation occurs within a 12-month period and $500 for a third or subsequent violation within a 12-month period. For violations of Title 15, which includes any building and safety code, penalties shall be $100, $500 and $1,000, respectively.

You will have the right to appeal any Administrative Citation issued by requesting a hearing within 30 days of the citation being issued. Hearings may be requested online at www.CitationProcessingCenter.com; by mail at City of Rancho Cucamonga, C/O Citation Processing Center, P.O. Box 7275, Newport Beach, CA 92658-7275; or in person at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. The administrative hearing will follow the procedure set forth in Chapter

1.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.

Additionally, any violations of the Municipal Code are considered an infraction or misdemeanor offense which is separately and concurrently chargeable as a criminal offense and subject to the penalties thereof.

If you have questions regarding this notice, please contact the Community Improvement office by phone or e-mail.

Thank you,
Matthew Gillespie, Senior Community Improvement Officer City of Rancho Cucamonga
[email protected], 909-774-2712
ATTACHMENT 3 Page 344
DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of a Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating to Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinances 1053 and 1054 to be Read by Title Only to Amend Municipal Code Table

17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Use Regulations for Form Based Zones and Amend Municipal Code Section

17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones and Amend Municipal Code Section 10.56.020 to Alter Truck Routes. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-102 AND ORDINANCE NOS. 1053 AND
1054) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Commission and Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character and Mobility Chapters and conduct first reading of Ordinances 1053 and 1054 to be read by title only and waive full reading to amend the Municipal Code in conformance with the amendments to the General Plan.

BACKGROUND:

On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council initiated this update process, referred to as PlanRC, to be compliant with changes in state law and to build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant and innovative city. This comprehensive General Plan Update addressed issues and challenges facing the City, including diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choice and preserving the character, history, and quality of life that make Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live. The updated General Plan advances the City’s vision for a sustainable, resilient, equitable and healthy community.

The Land Use and Community Character chapter of the General Plan designates the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, and public buildings and grounds, among other categories of public and private uses of land. The chapter is required to include a statement

of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The Land Use and Community Character chapter specifically describes and defines the distinct types of places or “place types” that the City aims to create to achieve the community’s vision. Place types such as “Neighborhoods”, “Corridors”, and “Centers” are then utilized to derive the more specific land use designations for each area of the city, ranging from “Semi-Rural Neighborhood” to “City Center”. Each of these land use designations is then further defined by a residential density range, a non-residential intensity, and a target use mix ratio (the mix of residential and non-residential) that will define future development in each area.

The Mobility and Access chapter of the General Plan identifies existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities, all correlated with the Land Use and Community Character element of the General Plan. State law stipulates that the city must plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. The Mobility and Access Element states that roads be designed to include people who are not in automobiles and provide the opportunity for walking, biking, or taking public transit. To plan for and eventually effectuate complete streets throughout the city, the Element identifies road typologies with their associated priority modes of travel, such as a freeway or a local street while providing cross sections of each type while identifying strategies for complete streets. In addition, the Mobility and Access chapter includes a Truck Routes map which restricts truck traffic on city streets to specific routes that are designated for trucks over three tons. These truck routes help to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the city, while providing a connection between major freeway facilities to local roadways.

ANALYSIS:

Land Use and Community Character Amendments
The first proposed amendment to the Land Use and Community Character chapter is to change one of the columns in Table LC-1 (General Plan Designations) from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” to “Target Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” as well as the subsequent references throughout the Land Use and Community Character chapter. This proposed amendment was born out of a need to clarify the intent of the non-residential intensity ranges established for each land use designation, establishing them as targets rather than mandates for all new developments within each designation. Since the adoption of the General Plan, very few, if any, proposed developments have been able to achieve the amount Non-Residential Intensity (FAR) required per their associated Land Use Designation. The combination of a burdensome requirement and the current economic environment have led to virtually no proposed developments including the minimum required amount of non-residential floor area and utilizing provision such as State Density Bonus law to avoid the requirement. The proposed change in language to “Target NonResidential Intensity (FAR)” will position this standard as an intended target rather than a mandate, providing more flexibility for new developments particularly in the high-intensity development areas of the city.

This proposed amendment requires a similar amendment to the Development Code for regulatory continuity. Specifically, Table 17.130.050-1 requires a change from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR) (min./max.)” to “Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (min./max.)”. While the amount of Non-Residential Intensity per zoning district will no longer be a requirement, including this standard within the Development Code still indicates the vision and intent of the General Plan for the desired amount of commercial and/or retail development in each zoning district.

The second proposed amendment is a text update to Policy LC-2.6 to include more specific location requirements for new developments in which the ground floor must be a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height in non-residential or mixed-use areas. The policy amendment will further clarify the location where ground floors must be designed for commercial and/or retail spaces in new development projects within non-residential and mixed-use area, specifically Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard). This clarification will limit the areas of the city in which ground floor non-residential space is required for all new developments and ensures that those spaces are built to the general specifications of leasable commercial/retail spaces to further enhance the city’s economic vitality along its busiest corridors as well as enhance the pedestrian experience.

To provide further clarity on ground floor commercial space, two amendments are proposed. First, staff proposes to consolidate Section 17.130.040.B to clarify that any area with a corridor fronting commercial, retail or non-residential use overlay can allow any allowed non-residential use on the ground floor. Second, an amendment to the Development Code adds language to footnote #2 of Table 17.130.050-1 within the Development Code. The proposed language states, “Ground floor project amenity spaces associated with the on-site residential use (ex. Leasing office, community space, gym for residents, etc.) shall be limited to a maximum of 30% of the non-residential ground floor frontage.” This amendment would specify the amount of ground floor frontage area that can be dedicated to non-residential amenity spaces to ensure such uses do not make up the entirety of ground floor areas and most of the ground floor area will be dedicated to commercial/retail space, further achieving the goal of creating mixed-use developments and fostering a pedestrian environment.

The third proposed amendment is a new policy within “Goal LC-2 HUMAN SCALED. A city planned and designed for people fostering social and economic interaction, an active and vital public realm, and high levels of public safety and comfort.” The proposed policy states, “LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets.” This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human-scaled pedestrian realm.

This proposed amendment requires a similar amendment to the Development Code for regulatory continuity. Specifically, Table 17.138.030-1 requires changes to the maximum Block Face Length and Perimeter dimensions for zones CE1, ME1, ME2, CO1, CO2, and CE2 to be consistent with the maximums proposed in the General Plan amendment. The stated zones will all have the same maximum block face length of 600 feet and maximum perimeter of 1,800 feet.

The fourth proposed amendment adds language to policy L-2.10. Policy LC-2.10 PedestrianOriented Auto-Dependent Uses currently states, “Require auto dependent uses such as drivethroughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in the rear. Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods.” The amendment would add “…or on streets that prioritize pedestrians” at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of autodependent uses locating within pedestrian-priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto-dependent uses.

Lastly, the final amendment to the Land Use and Community Character chapter is regarding the 8 th street trail, a proposed multi-modal trail adjacent to the existing Metrolink tracks designed to connect the Cucamonga Town Center to Cucamonga Station. The Engineering Services Department conducted a feasibility analysis of all new trail connections shown in the General Plan to plan for future trail development. In this analysis, it was determined that the 8th Street trail would only be feasible west of Haven Avenue. Development east of Haven Avenue precludes any potential acquisition of land for the trail to connect it to Cucamonga Station. Staff determined that a cost effect alternative would be to focus existing circulation infrastructure in the area to allow for multimodal use to create these connections. The proposed changes would remove references to 8 th street and the 8th street trail from Focus Areas 1 (Downtown Cucamonga), 3 (HART District), 5 (Cucamonga Town Center), and 8 (Southeast Industrial Area) as well as an action item to create a multi-purpose trail along the historic 8th Street right of way from the work plan (Volume 4, Chapter 1).

Mobility and Access Amendments
In response to numerous development applications along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, City staff has identified a need to establish specific configuration, dimension, and design requirements for the Boulevard roadway typology described within the Mobility and Access chapter not only for future development applications but also taking into account the future development of the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, as part of the Omnitrans West Valley Connector, along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The design drawings provide a corridor configuration which would accommodate the future BRT service before full implementation of the BRT service. These new page additions to the Mobility and Access chapter include scaled drawings for Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue with and without BRT lanes and Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to 7th Street. Other additional minor text amendments include adding a maximum right-of-way of 120 feet for the Arterial Roadway typology, a maximum right-of-way of 88 feet for the Collector Street typology, a maximum rightof-way of 100 feet for the Bicycle Corridor typology, a maximum right-of-way of 16 feet for a MultiUse Trail typology, and a maximum right-of-way of 60 feet for a Local Street/Thoroughfare typology. Adding dimensions for each of the roadway typologies provides additional direction when such roadways are being installed and ensures they are appropriately designed per their specifications.

In addition, in accordance with Assembly Bill 98 (AB98), the Truck Routes map is being updated to reflect changes in goods movement patterns within the city. AB98 mandates that agencies evaluate the presence of sensitive receptors, such as schools, residential neighborhoods, childcare facilities, hospitals, healthcare or assisted living facilities and parks and playgrounds. and residential areas, in the designation or modification of truck routes.

According to an analysis conducted for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Fehr & Peers (Exhibit A), given the location of industrial and logistics areas that necessitate direct truck access, it is not feasible to completely avoid sensitive receptors while maintaining goods movement connections in the city. Combined as one corridor, Vineyard Avenue and Carnelian Street are directly adjacent (within 100 feet) to sensitive receptors along approximately 73% of their total truck route length.

To limit impacts to sensitive receptors, the updated Truck Routes map (Figure M-9) removes the current designated truck route on Carnelian Street south of SR 210 as it curves and turns into Vineyard Avenue south to Foothill Boulevard. This is expected to shift freight movement from Carnelian to Archibald Avenue as the closest designated truck route. The proposed changes consolidate freight activity rather than expanding the overall footprint of truck-adjacent sensitive

receptors in the city.

To ensure consistency with the proposed General Plan amendment to the truck routes map in compliance with AB98, an amendment to Section 10.56.020 of the Municipal Code is also required to update the change. This text amendment removes Carnelian Street south of SR 210 and Vinyard north of Foothill Boulevard as designated truck routes.

Finally, we took the opportunity to make minor text edits to the General Plan Mobility chapter to integrate the recently adopted Connect RC Active Transportation Plan (new Figure M-4B), updated planned at grade and grade separated crossings in the southeast industrial area (Figure M-8) and updated goals and policies to support the implementation of AB 960, to integrate Federal Highway Administration standards and prioritize safety projects in the city (Goal MA-3, Policies MA-3.2 and MA-3.5).

Planning Commission
These amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2025 at an advertised public hearing. No public comment was provided. Staff answered clarifying questions regarding the proposed amendments. Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending approval of the proposed General Plan and Municipal Code (title 17) amendments. The signed resolution and meeting minutes are included as attachments to this report.

Environmental Analysis
As part of the General Plan update in December 2021, the City Council certified the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has reviewed the proposed General Plan and Development Code amendments against the General Plan EIR and determined the EIR adequately addresses all the environmental issues associated with the project. The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts on the environment based upon the analysis and conclusions presented in the General Plan EIR. Finally, no new feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff has prepared an EIR Addendum for the General Plan amendments and associated Municipal Code amendments. Unlike an EIR, an Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review.

Correspondence
SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places ("cultural places") through local land use planning. Letters were sent to local tribes on August 29, 2024 and tribes were provided 90 days to respond to request consultation. Questions were received from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. Staff responded to their inquiries and the tribe closed consultation. No other tribes responded requesting consultation or clarification. This item was advertised with an 1/8th page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on December 5, 2025. Because this item is citywide, no individual notices were sent.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

These amendments address multiple Council core values, including relentless pursuit of improvement, actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input and working together

cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff and all stakeholders by addressing unintended consequences of language in the documents, creating additional clarity for development to meet the intended vision of the General Plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-040 and 2025-041 Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, November 12, 2025 (Item D2) Attachment 3 – EIR Addendum
Attachment 4 – Resolution 2025-102
Attachment 5 – Ordinance No. 1053
Attachment 6 – Ordinance No. 1054

ATTACHMENT 1

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
November 12, 2025
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.

The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on November 12, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:03 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; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Jared Knight, Assistant Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.

B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.

Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.

C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2025.

Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.

D. Public Hearings
D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC – A Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to allow for the development of three (3) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet on approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad line to the south; APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, - 94, -96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2019-00742.

Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted that the draft resolution contained grammatical errors which included incomplete APN references. In addition, the title of the Conditions of Approval was amended. No other changes were made aside from the title block. Commissioners received a redlined version of the changes on the dais for review.

Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.

ATTACHMENT 2

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Applicant Sizemore was present and available to answer questions.

The following individuals spoke in support of the project: Wyatt Stiles, Amy Smith, Eddie Campos, Louie Lopez, Steven Salazar, and Robert, also known as ”Maddog”.

The following individuals expressed questions about the project: Felicia Zhu and Dick Takemoto. Their concerns included:
• Noise and suggested to install a 10-12 feet block wall to mitigate it • Privacy
• Pollution
• Type of manufacturing business proposed
• Traffic
• School children’s safety
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following comments are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:
• Email from Advocates for the Environment, withdrawing their comment letters, indicating they no longer oppose the project.
• Email from Judy Summers expressing truck traffic and safety concerns for the school children. • Email and a hard copy from Steven Piepkorn with Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, expressing environmental concerns and requesting that a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be drafted and circulated. This correspondence also included a letter previously provided as part of the FEIR process from Gary Ho with Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance dated August 2, 2024.

Applicant provided an explanation on the following:
• Block wall – The City’s development code allows a maximum wall height of 8 ft.; however, a minor exception permits a height of up to 10 ft. Staff would have to review a request for a minor exception separately since it is not part of the project application, which the developer intends to pursue at a later date.
• Noise – stating that the proposed screen wall will diminish the sound. • Type of business proposed – Does not have an end user. • Traffic – Installation of traffic signals at 8th and Baker and other traffic improvements is expected to minimize traffic concerns and reduce congestion.

Commissioner Dopp stated that his contention with projects like this is that trucks need to get to the freeway the quickest route accessible and going north is prohibited by the city in numerous ways. It creates undue burdens. He said the preferred method is south. He asked how developer intends to prevent trucks from going into the northern parts of the city where it is more residential.

Applicant answered that it is 5-mile stretch to go through stop sign-controlled intersections through very narrow roadways. He said they have a truck routing plan, and tenants are on a tight schedule as they want their goods dropped off fast. He said along the northernly bounds they are improving Vineyard/Arrow and Foothill Blvd. with a single authorization which will make things better. In terms of the restriction on northbound traffic, he does not have the ability to control it.

Commissioner Dopp stated that from a general understanding, warehouses still have a big impact on neighborhoods, particularly in the southwest part of the city. He mentioned to the applicant that the EIR expressed alternate avenues for development outside of just pure warehouses. He is not convinced that the warehouse furthest to the west is not going to have a negative impact on the quality of life to the residents in those neighborhoods. He asked the applicant if there was any consideration to do something other than a warehouse, as opposed to making all three buildings warehouse developments.

Applicant responded that it seemed to be the most efficient layout, and it made more sense to them than other layouts. They did everything they could within reason to produce a good project that is as low of an impact as possible given the location to the neighbors.

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Commissioner Daniels asked the applicant whether the public art funds allocated for renovating the 1-acre property would be sufficient for their proposed plans.

Applicant confirmed.

Vice Chairman Boling referred to the submitted comments and requested clarification for the benefit of the public and future readers of the minutes, on one issue: the visibility of the truck docks and bays from the street.

Applicant explained that at street level, there is an 8-foot wall which was the maximum allowed. As the site slopes to the south, additional grade lowers the truck docks below both street level and the base of the wall, resulting in no visibility of the trucks.

Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.

Commissioner Dopp expressed that he has a problem with warehouse projects being close to residential areas due to their potential impact. He expressed his opinion regarding logistic jobs versus manufacturing, or strong blue-collar jobs, expressing that in the long-term, these tend to be lower wage jobs. He expressed concern that 9th Street may struggle to accommodate the traffic. He noted that given the zoning, his primary concern is Building 3, which is closest to the residential area. He appreciates the community development fee but if this project does go forward to Council, he has a question about why $5 million dollars would be enough to mitigate some of the harm to the southwest community.

He also expressed that he likes what they did with the Baker House. The more that can be done for historic preservation, the stronger the benefit in the long term. Commissioner Dopp then expressed that he was unsure how he might vote.

Commissioner Daniels stated that these projects are always somewhat difficult because the zoning has been there for approximately 45 years. There are a lot of residential homes in the area, and he believes the developer tried to mitigate it as much as possible. He commended the developer for doing the conditional use permit upfront. He questioned Development Agreement Section 11.E, specifically the inlieu fee. He expressed that they did a very good job with the architect, but questions continue to come up relating to traffic. He asked Engineering staff for an explanation as to why 9th and Vineyard was not indicated in the traffic study.

Principal Engineer Sotomayor answered that based on the study of the traffic impact analysis, the two intersections to be optimized is Vineyard/Foothill and Vineyard/Arrow, but Vineyard/9th is not indicated due to some of the re-stripping that will take place at that intersection where trucks will be going south and not necessarily north.

Commissioner Daniels stated that because of the zoning, the developer did a very good job mitigating any impacts. Although, it is unfortunate, there is residential around the project. He commends the developer for the job they have done and the time it has taken. He expressed his support.

Commissioner Diaz concurred with the other Commissioners that warehouse projects tend to be difficult due to their negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, particularly residential areas, however, it is zoned properly, and it complies with everything it needs to comply with. There have been comments made about working close to home. She told the developer that it is important to the community that the jobs these tenants are providing are sustainable wages for people to be able to live in this community. One of the positive impacts of this development is that we can have people work close to home and create an even more positive impact in that neighborhood.

Vice Chairman Boling highlighted that in the Conditions of Approval, Building and Safety’s number one condition calls out for connection on the three developed parcels. He asked if Baker House is on sewer.

Principal Engineer Sotomayor answered that he is not certain at this time.

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Vice Chairman Boling mentioned that if it is not, he suggests getting it put on sewer before the city takes possession of the property. He said that this is an interesting site we have within the project boundaries proposed, industrial, as well as business park, and residential. This is the typical interface we like to see where the residential is right next to a business park, which has been successful, and businesses there have been flourishing. The developer has done a good job in stepping down the magnitude of the buildings as it approaches the residential area. He commended the applicant for doing the best he can in pushing truck traffic in one direction away from the residential neighborhoods. The geography of where we are located, with its proximity to the freeways, major rail lines, and international airport almost forces us to consider projects like this because of the major infrastructure the region has invested in. There are concerns where it is placed but the need for development like this exists and they have done a good job with the concerns of the community.

He asked for clarification earlier with regard to the truck dock and bays for a specific purpose, in reference to the letter received from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and there were several assertions in that letter with reference to CEQA concerns. In this public hearing tonight, we have identified that at least one of those assertions was a falsehood at their assertion that the truck bay is visible from the street, which does not exist. He wanted those in the audience to understand that people can assert anything but what is important is to have the facts to back it up and often times, organizations like that do not have the facts to back up their assertions or statements. He expressed that the architecture looks great. The project fits in and elevates the surrounding community, as it pertains to the business park, as well as the larger buildings to the north. He hopes they get the right tenants there at the right time.

Principal Planner McPherson mentioned that in regard to utility connections, Engineering Condition Approval number 30 requires separate utility services to each parcel, including sanitary sewer systems.

Vice Chairman Boling stated that given that, Building and Safety’s requirement for all three developed parcels to connect to the public sewer appears redundant, as the same requirement is already addressed in Engineering conditions 29 and 30.

Principal Planner Confirmed.

Chairman Morales thanked the developer for working with staff to come up with the best development possible for that piece of land. He thanked them for being a responsible developer committed to hiring skilled labor. Also, he liked the Baker House restoration as a community benefit because he is sure they will use it in the future. He is in support of the project.

Commissioner Dopp stated that there was a discussion regarding a minor exception for a 10-feet wall adjacent to Building 3 on the north side. He asked staff when the appropriate time would be to bring it up.

Planning Director Nakamura replied that the minor exception is a separate entitlement and is assigned at the administrative level. She does not think it would be appropriate for the Commission to require them to apply for a minor exception because it has not been reviewed for the necessary conditions. She said it would be best to allow the developer and staff to better understand what the final needs are in order to make the wall work for everyone involved. She said we do not want to guarantee approval on something that has not yet been fully evaluated.

Commissioner Daniels asked to confirm that an 8-foot wall is what is being proposed tonight.

Principal Planner confirmed.

Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-039 recommending that to City Council approve Design Review DRC2019-00742, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 and Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, as amended in the resolution and the conditions of approval. Motion carried, 4-1, with Commissioner Dopp voting no.

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

D2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating to Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Use Regulations for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. This item will be forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from the October 22, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting (DRC2025-00255, DRC2025-00256).

Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).

Commissioner Daniels mentioned that with eliminating the mandate for the Floor Area Ratio, he believes the developer will not comply if it is not mandated.

Planning Director Nakamura mentioned we would have a dimensional standard for what that ground floor has to be. The developer can always do more than what would be proposed and required under these standards.

She reiterated that this is a floor, not a ceiling, that is being proposed.

Vice Chairman Boling stated that by eliminating the requirement and categorizing it as a target, if the City later finds that developers are not coming close to meeting that target, nothing will prevent the City from taking the same steps it is taking now–amending the code-to revise the target or ultimately establish a hard minimum.

Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and said this is just to get back to what it originally was intended to be.

Commissioner Dopp mentioned as a follow-up that for some of the more intensive uses on the matrix, the real problem for him is that he understands the argument, he has seen time and time again that these housing developers of these housing projects will waive it away if they do not want to do it Planning Director Nakamura asked him to clarify what he is expecting to see in some of those environments that would be different that would create these community buildings.

Commissioner Dopp mentioned the city center or city corridor is more intensive. These are parcels in the General Plan where the city said we want higher quality development. Therefore, the floor area ratios need to be very high to support a mix of retail, commercial, restaurant use, and maybe office space.

Planning Director Nakamura clarified that it is required in any of the center or corridor designations, regardless of whether it is off of Foothill and Haven.

Commissioner Dopp stated that he still believes, even with the ground floor requirements, that we will not come anywhere near those Floor Area Ratio targets for those specific zones.

Planning Director Nakamura provided an example of the city center parcel.

Commissioner Diaz asked if we reduce the floor area ratio to what it is now, can a developer still use density bonus law to do all the things they want to do.

Planning Director Nakamura answered that they can always use state bonus density law to waive certain standards.

Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing.

Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Commissioner Dopp stated the biggest discussion seen from the Commission is what the intended target is. At the end of the day, he understands that we have seen a lot of projects that involve some parts of that metric. For him, the biggest thing about this specific amendment is that he does not think we could lose that tool as a strategy for some of these developments. If we are going to use ground floor non-residential as a strategy, his recommendation would be to continue to encourage mixed-use in these areas, take a second look at some of the corridor centers, and maybe extend the language beyond just Foothill and Haven.

Planning Director Nakamura, due to a possible misunderstanding, clarified that this is not a strategy but an actual requirement that is going to be required by code. She explained that the corridor fronting retail requirement is an actual linear designation on the zoning map, applicable to Foothill and Haven. What it did is break up where they wanted retail only on the corners and then any other non-commercial could be further away from the corners, and that is being collapsed so it could be any sort of commercial use because it was becoming far too complicated for everybody to program it that way. She said the 15-foot minimum ground floor requirement applies not only to Foothill and Haven, but to all corridor designations and all center designations.

Chairman Morales stated that the changes are positive and reflecting public input received over the years.

He noted that it has often been challenging to fill the ground-floor spaces. He expressed support for considering preparations for bus rapid transit options as they arise.

Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-040 and 2025-041 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendments and Municipal Code Amendments. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.

E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura mentioned that there will not be a second meeting in November and that the Commission will reconvene in December.

F. Commission Announcements - None
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting.

Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:

October 2025 | General Plan EIR Addendum

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
SCH No. 2021050261

FOR THE
2025 GENERAL PLAN and

DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Prepared by:

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Contact: Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director
10500 Civic Center Dr.

Rancho Cucamonga,
CA 91730
909.477.2750
ATTACHMENT 3

1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR

1.1 BACKGROUND
This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary.

1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):

When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR):
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The intent of the project is to make minor updates to General Plan policies, diagrams and maps to clarify information as well as update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the changes proposed to the General Plan. The key amendments to the General Plan and

Development Code are described below.

1. General Plan Land Use and Community Character (Volume 2) Changes a. Change from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” to “Target Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)”:

Proposed amendments to Tables LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 clarify that nonresidential intensity (FAR) is a target for the land use districts, not a mandate for each individual parcel. This was explained on page 62 of Volume 2 of the General Plan, the lack of the word “Target” on the tables led to confusion and misinterpretation.
b. Update Policy LC-2.6 for ground floor non-residential uses in mixed use developments:

This amendment clarifies objective height standards, rather than FAR, for first floor non-residential uses. This establishes the standards that can meet the “Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio” for the designation. This implements the nonresidential portion of a mixed-use development. c. Add a new policy to Goal LC-2 regarding block length:

The proposed policy states, “LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than Neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets.” This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human-scaled pedestrian realm.
d. Modify Policy LC-2.10 for auto dependent uses:

Policy LC-2.10 Pedestrian-Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses currently states, “Require auto dependent uses such as drive-throughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in the rear.

Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods.” The amendment would add “…or on streets that prioritize pedestrians” at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of auto-dependent uses locating within pedestrian-priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto-dependent uses.

2. General Plan Mobility and Access (Volume 2) Changes
a. Addition of BRT and frontage lane layouts for Foothill and Haven:

These layouts provide objective standards for the desired frontage lane that is articulated in the General Plan.
b. Addition of dimensional standards for all roadway typologies:

Adding objective standards for the roadway typologies provides clarity for future development to meet the goals and policies of the General Plan.

c. Updated Truck Routes Map:

This amendment, required by AB 98, updates the truck routes map to reflect changes in goods movements patterns within the city to remove two truck routes to consolidate freight activity and reduce freight movement from sensitive receptors in the City.

3. Development Code Changes for Consistency with the Changes to the General Plan a. Amendment to Table 17.130.050-1 (xxx) in Chapter 17.130 of Article XXX (Form Based Code):

This will amend the table to clarify to remove non-residential FAR from the table as a parcel level development standard and update ground floor non-residential height dimensions consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. b. Amendment to Section 17.138.030 (xxx) in Chapter 17.138 of Article XXX (Form Based Code):

This will amend the block length standards consistent with the amended language in the General Plan.

2. Findings
The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation) for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.

The policies of the General Plan and the City’s existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the project is designed to enhance clarity of the General Plan, meet the requirements of AB 98 and update the code to be consistent with the changes proposed in the General Plan Amendment.

The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates.

Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City’s General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR.

The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project.

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major

revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The proposed project would better clarify the intent of the General Plan, eliminate truck routes from sensitive receptors and align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Consequently, the changes to the General Plan and Development Code would not change the conclusions of the EIR.

2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development.

These Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because these changes are a result of the Development Code review anticipated by the General Plan Update, there is no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The impacts from the proposed project would be the same as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR.

3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis.

4. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis.

5. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The proposed project would not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would ensure that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan. As such, development in the City would continue to be consistent with the buildout projected in the General Plan EIR, and the resulting impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR would remain the same. Therefore, no new Standard Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed project would be required.

There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.

ATTACHMENT 4
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

Resolution-2025-102

ORDINANCE NO. 1053

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
AMENDING SECTION 17.130.040.B AND TITLE 17.130.050-1 OF CHAPTER 17.130 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND FLOOR AREA RATIO AND NONRESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND USE REQUIREMENTS, AMENDING TABLE 17.138.030-1 OF
CHAPTER 17.138 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND BLOCK FACE LENGTH FOR

CONSISTENCY WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF,

AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO.
2021050261)
I. Recitals.

A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) has initiated a Municipal Code Amendment (DRC2025-00256) to implement a set of companion proposed General Plan Amendments (DRC2025-00255). The City has prepared a set of amendments, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code amendments are collectively referred to as the “Amendments.”
B. The City has prepared an Addendum to the previously certified General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050261) and the Addendum evaluated the proposed Amendments under the General Plan FEIR. The Addendum is attached hereto in Exhibit “B,” incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein.

C. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and the Addendum, opened the public hearing, and continued the meeting and the hearing to November 12, 2025.

D. On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on the Amendments, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-041, recommending that the City Council adopt the Amendments and adopt the Addendum.

E. On December 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendments and Addendum and concluded the hearing on that date.

F. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

II. Findings.

A. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part I of this Ordinance, are true and correct.

B. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby finds as follows:

ATTACHMENT 5

1. The Articles/Chapters/Sections of the Municipal Code subject to the Amendments are as follows, and as set forth in Exhibit A:
a. Section 17.130.040 (Supplemental to Zones) of Chapter 17.130 (Zone and Building Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to eliminate subsections B.1 and B.3 and amend and renumber B.2 to consolidate all ground floor non-residential use overlays; b. Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 (Specific to Zones) of Chapter 17.130 (Zone and Building Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to change “Floor Area Ratio” to “Target Floor Area Ratio,” amend footnote 2 for ground floor non-residential uses, and add footnote 5 to delineate requirements of the ground floor non-residential uses along Foothill Boulevard and portions of Haven Avenue; and
c. Table 17.138.030-1 of Section 17.138.030 (Site and Block Configurations) of Chapter 17.138 (Large Site Development) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to change “Block Face Length” and “Perimeter” for the Center 1 (CE1), Mixed Employment (ME1), Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2) zones to reflect a maximum block face length of 600 feet and maximum perimeter of 1,800 feet.

2. The Amendments conform to and do not conflict with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including, without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.

3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and then State’s CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update, attached hereto in Exhibit B. The Addendum concludes that the proposed Amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certified have occurred. The proposed Amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the Amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with Planning Department staff’s determination that the proposed Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA.

III. Ordinance.

The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Part II above, the City Council hereby adopts the Amendments as set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason be held invalid or

unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2026. _____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 17th day of December, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk

Exhibit A
Municipal Code Amendments

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.130.040 § 17.130.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 § 17.130.040. Supplemental to Zones.

This section applies to all zones listed in this chapter. Where identified on the zoning map, formbased zones are subject to the following additional standards and restrictions which supersede the base zone requirements.

A. Cucamonga Station Area Overlay. When applied on the zoning map, the Station Area Overlay modifies the base zone standards as follows:

1. FAR (Max.): 3.0 for an individual development site, maximum 2.0 average FAR for the Overlay Area;

2. Density (min.): 60 Du/Ac;

3. Use Mix Requirements: Projects within this zone must be developed with minimum 50 percent nonresidential uses;

4. Allowed land uses: In addition to the uses allowed in the base zone, the following uses are permitted by right:
a. Park and Ride Facility,
b. Parking Facility,
c. Transit Facility.

5. Ground Floor Use: Projects within 1/4 mile of the Metrolink station must comply with the ground floor use requirements of section 17.130.040(B)(1), below.

B. Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions. The following ground floor use requirements supersede the land use standards of this article. Building, facade, and entryway requirements by zone still apply.

1. Corridor Fronting Retail/Commercial/Nonresidential Ground Floor Use Required. a. Properties designated with a Corridor Fronting Retail, Commercial, or Ground Floor Use designation must not be developed with residential units on the first or ground floor fronting Foothill Boulevard or Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard).
b. Allowed uses are limited to any nonresidential use that is allowed in the base zone. c. Residential uses are allowed on upper stories or behind ground floor nonresidential uses.
d. Uses associated with an on-site residential use, such as leasing office, community space, the work component of a live/work unit, gym for residents, child care space, communal work space, or project amenities are allowed on the ground floor but limited to no more than 30% of the ground floor frontage. (Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023)
§ 17.130.050. Specific to Zones.

This section establishes development standards that are specific to each form-based zone.

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.130.040 § 17.130.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Standards specific to zones include those for density, intensity, frontage area, overall building height, ground floor height, and surface parking setbacks. Development may be further limited by building type, as established in section 17.130.060 (Building Type Standards).

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.130.050 § 17.130.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 Specific to Zones Table 17.130.050-1 Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area.

Form-Based Zones
Standard [1]
NE2 NG3 CE1 ME1 ME2 CO1 CO2 CE2
DENSITY AND INTENSITY (MAX.)[4]
Dwelling Units per Acre
(Du/ac) (min./max.)
0/8 0/24 0/30 18/30 24/42 24/42 36/60 40/100
20/50 in
subzone
Target Nonresidential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) (min./max.)
[2]
0/0.4 0.4/0.6

0.2/0.4 in
subzone

0.2/1 0.6/2.0 0.4/2.0 0.4/1.0 0.6/1.5 1.0/2.0

0.2/0.4 in
subzone

BUILD-TO LINES
A Primary Build-to Line
(max./min.)
40 ft./NA 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. 5 ft./20 ft. 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft.

B Secondary Build-to Line
(max./min.)
30 ft./NA 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. 5 ft./20 ft. 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft.

BUILDING PLACEMENT WITHIN PRIVATE FRONTAGE AREAS
C
— x 100
D
Minimum Built Percentage of Primary
Frontage Width
NA 65% of
primary
frontage
width
80% of primary
frontage width
70% of primary
frontage width
75% of
primary
frontage
width
80% of primary
frontage width
85% of
primary
frontage
width
90% of primary
frontage width
E
— x 100
F
Minimum Built Percentage of
Secondary Frontage Width
NA 30% of
secondary
frontage
width
30% of
secondary
frontage width
30% of
secondary
frontage width
30% of
secondary
frontage
width
30% of
secondary
frontage width
30% of
secondary
frontage
width
40% of
secondary
frontage width
HEIGHT
G Ground Floor Residential Use (min.) 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

H Ground Floor Nonresidential Use
(min.)
12 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.

I Upper Floor Nonresidential Height
(min.)
9 ft. 9 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft.

J Residential Finish Floor Elevation
above Grade at Max. Build-to Line
(min.)
0 in. 36 in.
max.
30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in.

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 Specific to Zones Table 17.130.050-1 Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area.

K
Standard [1]
Nonresidential Finish Floor Elevation
above Grade at Max. Build-to Line
(max.)
NE2
18 in.

NG3
18 in.

CE1
18 in.

Form-Base
ME1
12 in.
d Zones
ME2
12 in.

CO1
12 in.

CO2
12 in.

CE2
12 in.

L Total Stories (max.)[3] 3 stories 3 stories 4 stories 5 stories 4 stories 4 stories 5 stories If located within a community activity
node, fronting Foothill Blvd or Haven
Ave., or as approved consistent with
chapter 17. 138 (Large Site
Development)
5 stories 5 stories 7 stories no maximum
PARKING SETBACKS (MIN.)
M Surface Parking, Front, or Street Side if
located on a Transit Priority Street
25 ft. from
building facade
30 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft.

N Surface Parking, Street Side (if not
located on a Transit Priority Street)
25 ft. from
building facade
10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Notes:

1. The maximums allowed by zone may not be attainable due to limitations from other standards (e.g., building and design standards) or unique site characteristics, such as lot size, trees, waterways, and steep slopes.

2. FAR applies to nonresidential portion of the development only, including nonresidential portions of mixed-use development. Ground floor project amenity spaces associated with the on-site residential use (ex. leasing office, community space, gym for residents, child care space, communal work space etc.) shall be limited to a maximum of 30% of the ground floor frontage

3. Maximum height in feet determined by building type, see section 17.130.060. For properties within the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (OALCP), the maximum height is established in the OALCP. The OALCP standard supersedes the maximum height allowed in this article.

4. 5.

Density and FAR are calculated individually. When there are multiple development sites on a single property, individual development sites may deviate from minimum or maximum standards so long as the total site average FAR and Du/AC are within established limits.

All new developments located along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard) are required to contain ground-floor commercial space fronting onto Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.130.050 § 17.130.050
(Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023; Ord. No. 1017 § 13, 2023; Ord. No. 1023, 1/ 17/2024)
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 § 17.138.030. Site and Block Configurations.

A. Block Size.

1. Individual block faces and the total block perimeter shall meet the standards established in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size).

2. If a block contains multiple zones, the most intense zone shall be used to establish the requirements for block size.

3. Blocks may be irregularly shaped (i.e., nonrectangular) provided they are still in compliance with the standards in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size).

4. Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed face length if a paseo is included, in compliance with section 17.134.080 (Paseo) and as follows in figures in this section:
a. Paseos must cut through the entire block;
b. Blocks must comply with maximum perimeter requirements; c. The block face length on either side of the paseo may not exceed the maximum in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size);
d. The total block face length may not exceed 150 percent of the maximum in Table 17.138.030-1; and
e. Maximum one paseo per block.

TABLE 17.138.030-1 BLOCK SIZE
Zone Block Face Length (max.) Perimeter (max.)
Neighborhood General 2
(NE2)
700 ft. 2,400 ft.

Neighborhood General 3
(NG3)
500 ft. 1,600 ft.

Center 1 (CE1) 600 ft. 1,800 ft.

Mixed Employment 1
(ME1)
600 ft. 1,800 ft.

Mixed Employment 2
(ME2)
600 ft. 1,800 ft.

Corridor 1 (CO1) 600 ft. 1,800 ft.

Corridor 2 (CO2) 600 ft. 1,800 ft.

Center 2 (CE2) 600 ft. 1,800 ft.

B. Thoroughfares. Public or private thoroughfares define the publicly accessible circulation network that refines large sites into more interconnected environments.

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030
They provide multiple routes for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation.

1. Design.
a. Thoroughfares (public or private) must comply with city standards and be designed as public streets.
b. Drive aisles not designed as streets do not constitute a thoroughfare and do not satisfy the requirements of this section.
c. Thoroughfares within the project must be designed in a manner that is appropriate to their context, with the various elements of the right-of-way (e.g. travel lanes, sidewalk dimensions, etc.) balanced with the land uses and public frontages along the thoroughfare. Therefore, along the length of the thoroughfare, if the context changes, the design of the thoroughfare, especially with regard to pedestrian amenities, must also change. d. All required thoroughfares shall include:
i. A landscape buffer between the right-of-way and frontage road; ii. At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled or parallel, that includes a minimum of two EV stations installed per block; iii. A recommended sidewalk width of eight feet minimum; and iv. A recommended lane width of 10 feet minimum.
e. The requirements for a frontage road is at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services.
f. The design of proposed new thoroughfares (public or private) shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.138.030 § 17.138.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14

2. Multiway/Frontage Road Design.
a. Where project sites or development sites exceed 500 feet along any rightof-way, a frontage road is required. b. All required frontage roads shall include:
i. A landscape buffer between the right-of way and frontage road; ii. At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled or parallel, that is EV Ready along the length of the frontage road; and
iii. A sidewalk a minimum of eight feet in width. If corridor fronting retail or commercial uses are required per section 17.130.040, the sidewalk minimum shall be 12 feet in width.
c. The requirements for a frontage road is at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services.
d. The design of proposed new multiways/frontage roads shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.

3. External Connectivity.
a. Thoroughfares must be arranged to connect from existing or proposed thoroughfares into adjoining properties whether the adjoining properties are undeveloped and intended for future development, or if the adjoining lands are developed and include opportunities for the connections. b. Thoroughfare rights-of-way must be extended to or located along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or

City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.138.030 § 17.138.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 thoroughfare stub for development in compliance with the standards in subsection A (Block Size).
c. The project site plan must identify all stub streets for thoroughfares and include a notation that all stub streets must connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property.
d. Cul-de-sacs are not allowed.

C. Transitions. To facilitate a transition in building height, massing, and scale from corridors to adjacent
residential neighborhoods, the following standards
apply.

1. For projects with a lot depth 800 feet or greater
which share a side or rear lot line with a zone with
a lower maximum density or height limit, the
following standards apply:
a. Single-family adjacent: The maximum
height for buildings on development sites
which share the lot line is the maximum
allowed by the building type or one story
above the maximum allowed height of the
adjacent zone, whichever is less.
b. Multi-family adjacent: The maximum height for buildings on development sites which share the lot line is the maximum allowed by the building type or two stories above the maximum height of the adjacent zone, whichever is less.

2. The height restriction applies to the entirety of the building which is adjacent to the shared lot line.

3. Exemptions. Buildings which are entirely located 60 ft or greater from the shared lot line are not subject to the height restrictions of this subsection.

4. Additional building types that are not permitted in the base zone are allowed subject to a conditional use permit if the proposed building types are determined to be compatible in size and scale to the adjacent lower intensity zone.

D. Required Nonresidential Use.

1. Nonresidential uses must occupy a minimum percent of the project building square footage as established in Table 17.138.030-2 (Nonresidential Use Mix).

Nonresidential uses provided in compliance with subsection 17.130.040(B) (Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions) may count toward the minimum requirement.

2. When in conflict with the ground floor use restrictions in subsection

Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
§ 17.138.030 § 17.138.030

17.130.040(B) (Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions) and/or the minimum FAR standards in table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-To-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), the most restrictive standards apply.

TABLE 17.138.030-2 NONRESIDENTIAL USE MIX
Zone Minimum
Corridor 1 (CO1) 20%
Corridor 2 (CO2) 20%
Center 1 (CE1) 33%
Center 2 (CE2)* 33%
* Does not apply to the Limited subzone
(Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023; Ord. No. 1017 § 16, 2023)

Exhibit B
EIR Addendum

October 2025 | General Plan EIR Addendum

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR
SCH No. 2021050261

FOR THE
2025 GENERAL PLAN and

DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Prepared by:

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Contact: Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director
10500 Civic Center Dr.

Rancho Cucamonga,
CA 91730
909.477.2750

1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR

1.1 BACKGROUND
This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary.

1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):

When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR):
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The intent of the project is to make minor updates to General Plan policies, diagrams and maps to clarify information as well as update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the changes proposed to the General Plan. The key amendments to the General Plan and

Development Code are described below.

1. General Plan Land Use and Community Character (Volume 2) Changes a. Change from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” to “Target Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)”:

Proposed amendments to Tables LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 clarify that nonresidential intensity (FAR) is a target for the land use districts, not a mandate for each individual parcel. This was explained on page 62 of Volume 2 of the General Plan, the lack of the word “Target” on the tables led to confusion and misinterpretation.
b. Update Policy LC-2.6 for ground floor non-residential uses in mixed use developments:

This amendment clarifies objective height standards, rather than FAR, for first floor non-residential uses. This establishes the standards that can meet the “Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio” for the designation. This implements the nonresidential portion of a mixed-use development. c. Add a new policy to Goal LC-2 regarding block length:

The proposed policy states, “LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than Neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets.” This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human-scaled pedestrian realm.
d. Modify Policy LC-2.10 for auto dependent uses:

Policy LC-2.10 Pedestrian-Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses currently states, “Require auto dependent uses such as drive-throughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in the rear.

Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods.” The amendment would add “…or on streets that prioritize pedestrians” at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of auto-dependent uses locating within pedestrian-priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto-dependent uses.

2. General Plan Mobility and Access (Volume 2) Changes
a. Addition of BRT and frontage lane layouts for Foothill and Haven:

These layouts provide objective standards for the desired frontage lane that is articulated in the General Plan.
b. Addition of dimensional standards for all roadway typologies:

Adding objective standards for the roadway typologies provides clarity for future development to meet the goals and policies of the General Plan.

c. Updated Truck Routes Map:

This amendment, required by AB 98, updates the truck routes map to reflect changes in goods movements patterns within the city to remove two truck routes to consolidate freight activity and reduce freight movement from sensitive receptors in the City.

3. Development Code Changes for Consistency with the Changes to the General Plan a. Amendment to Table 17.130.050-1 (xxx) in Chapter 17.130 of Article XXX (Form Based Code):

This will amend the table to clarify to remove non-residential FAR from the table as a parcel level development standard and update ground floor non-residential height dimensions consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. b. Amendment to Section 17.138.030 (xxx) in Chapter 17.138 of Article XXX (Form Based Code):

This will amend the block length standards consistent with the amended language in the General Plan.

2. Findings
The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation) for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.

The policies of the General Plan and the City’s existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the project is designed to enhance clarity of the General Plan, meet the requirements of AB 98 and update the code to be consistent with the changes proposed in the General Plan Amendment.

The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates.

Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City’s General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR.

The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project.

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major

revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The proposed project would better clarify the intent of the General Plan, eliminate truck routes from sensitive receptors and align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Consequently, the changes to the General Plan and Development Code would not change the conclusions of the EIR.

2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development.

These Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because these changes are a result of the Development Code review anticipated by the General Plan Update, there is no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The impacts from the proposed project would be the same as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR.

3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis.

4. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis.

5. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The proposed project would not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would ensure that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan. As such, development in the City would continue to be consistent with the buildout projected in the General Plan EIR, and the resulting impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR would remain the same. Therefore, no new Standard Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed project would be required.

There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.

ATTACHMENT 6
ORDINANCE NO. 1054

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
AMENDING SECTION 10.56.020 OF THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES,

MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A

DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
I. Recitals.

A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is authorized by California Vehicle Code Section 35401 to establish truck length distances consistent with the maximum distances that the highway or highway portion can sustain to promote public health and safety.

B. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the above referenced authorities in order to modify the existing truck routes within the City.

II. Findings.

A. This City Council hereby finds and concludes that this Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan’s goals, policies, and implementation programs. The City’s General Plan identifies the allowable truck routes throughout the City in Figure M-9 of Chapter 4 “Mobility and Access” of Volume 2 of the General Plan. These identified truck routes and truck routes with a 38-foot kingpin limit are reflected in the updates to the identified truck routes and 38-foot kingpin limit truck routes of Municipal Code Section 10.56.020 of this Ordinance. The updates to the Municipal Code that Section 10.56.020 contained herein reflect removal of the truck routes with a 38-foot kingpin limit on Vineyard Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Carnelian Street and Carnelian Street from Vineyard Avenue to State Route 210 and mirror the truck routes identified in the General Plan Amendment adopted on ____________.

B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is covered by general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds that there is no possible significant effect directly related to adoption of this Ordinance, therefore no further action is required under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3)). This is because the number of trips by heavy vehicles on City streets will not be affected and neither will levels of traffic, noise and air pollution. Furthermore, the truck routes included within this Ordinance have been included in the General Plan Amendment adopted on ________________. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments to the General Plan, including removal of the truck routes under this ordinance, do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certified have occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measure or alternatives.

Truck Route Ordinance – Page 2 of 3
III. Ordinance.

The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 10.56.020 (Restricted Truck Routes) of Chapter 10.56 (Truck Routes and Restrictions) is amended as follows:
“10.56.020 Restricted truck routes.

A. Vehicle Code § 35401(e) allows any city, upon finding that certain streets cannot safely sustain the operation of trailers or semitrailers having the maximum kingpin to rearmost axle distance permitted under Vehicle Code § 35400, to restrict the use of such streets by trailers or semitrailers having a maximum kingpin distance as determined. Certain city streets have been determined to be able to safely accommodate a maximum such distance of 38 feet. Except as otherwise provided by law, trailers and semitrailers having a kingpin to rearmost axle distance in excess of 38 feet are prohibited from using the such streets. The streets described in this section shall be known as “restricted truck routes.” Restricted truck routes in the city include:

1. Archibald Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to State Route 210.

B. The provisions of this section may be enforced when and where the city traffic engineer has provided signing designating restricted truck routes.”
SECTION 2. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason be held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2026. _____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor

Truck Route Ordinance – Page 3 of 3
I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the _____ day of _______________, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk

DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
Sean McPherson, Principal Planner
Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of City Council Ordinance No. 1052 to Approve Development Agreement DRC2022-00266 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading: to Consider a City Council Resolution to Adopt Design Review (DRC2019-00742), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009), and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) for the Development of Three (3) Concrete Tilt-up Industrial Buildings Totaling Approximately 982,096 Square Feet on Approximately 45.96 Net Acres Bound by Vineyard Avenue to the East, 9th Street to the North, Baker Avenue to the West, and the BNSF/Metrolink Railroad Line to the South; APN:
0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was Prepared for the Project. (Primary Case File No: Design Review (DRC2019-00742).
(RESOLUTION NO. 2025-101 AND ORDINANCE NO. 1052) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve Design Review (DRC2019- 00742), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009), Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266), and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019- 00854) through the adoption of the attached Ordinance and Resolution for the subject Project.

BACKGROUND:

The project site totals approximately 45.96 acres and is comprised of nine adjacent parcels (APN:
0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97), generally located between Baker Avenue to the west, the Cucamonga Channel and Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north and the BNSF/Metrolink Railroad to the south.

The project site had been previously developed with various industrial buildings which were demolished in 2022 and is currently vacant except for an existing cell phone tower west of Vineyard Avenue along the project’s southern property line, which will remain. The project site also includes a vacant structure on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue, which is a

designated historic landmark referred to in this report as the “Baker House.” This structure is also proposed to remain as described below. The majority of the project site is covered with low-lying vegetation consisting of grasses and weeds.

Staff notes that the subject site has been zoned for industrial development since at least the early 1980s. While the project currently has a land use designation of Neo-Industrial Employment District and is located within the Neo-Industrial zone, both of which were created in 2021 and 2022 respectively, staff notes that the project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021, prior to the adoption of current zoning code standards for industrial development and as such is subject to zoning standards under the General Industrial standards which were in place prior to the adoption of the current Neo-Industrial zone.

On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the item at a duly noticed public hearing. At that meeting, members of the public spoke requesting information on proposed tenants, wall heights surrounding the project and traffic resulting from the development. Prior to the meeting, correspondence was received from another resident expressing similar concerns.

Further, and also prior to the meeting, another letter was received from a firm which had previously commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) expressing concerns about the environmental analysis. After considering these comments and deliberating on the item, the Planning Commission voted four-to-one in favor of recommending that the City Council approve the project. For details regarding the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, please see the Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes included with this staff report as Attachment 4.

ANALYSIS:

Project Context
The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into four new parcels and construct three new industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet in size as indicated in Figure 1 below. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 28 acres with street frontage along 9 th street and Vineyard Avenue and will be improved with Building 1 totaling approximately 611,574 square feet. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 6 acres and will be improved with Building 2 totaling 107,541 square feet. Parcel 3 proposes an area of approximately 12 acres and will be improved by Building 3, totaling 262,981 square feet with street frontage along Baker Avenue. Parcel 4 proposes an area of approximately an acre and is currently improved with the Baker House which is proposed to be rehabilitated and dedicated to the City for future City use.

Figure 1: Site Plan
Building 1 will have an office area not to exceed 4,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet. Building 2 will have office areas on the first and second floor, both not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet. Building 3 will have potential office areas on the first floor not to exceed 2,500 square feet and on the second floor not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet.

Vehicular access to the site will be provided by a total of 5 driveways; two located along the Vineyard Avenue frontage of the project, one located along 9th Street, and two located off Baker Avenue. Notably, truck access will be prohibited at the Baker Avenue driveways, and trucks exiting the project using the 9th Street driveway will be limited to right turns only. Staff notes that the project is being developed on a speculative basis and that there are no confirmed tenants at this time.

Based on the non-CEQA transportation study prepared by Fehr and Peers (May 2024), which for thoroughness purposes has been included with the Draft EIR as Appendix K-2, the project would result in increased traffic delays at three intersections: Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route, and Baker Avenue and 8th Street. To ensure that these intersections maintain sufficient level of service, the transportation study found that the project applicant shall be required to provide traffic improvements, including signal timing optimization at both the Vineyard Avenue and Foothill and Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route intersections, as well as construct a new traffic signal and reconfigured striping at Baker Avenue and 8th Street to allow a southbound dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right-turn-lane, and to restripe the eastbound approach to have a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through-right-turn lane.

Further, staff notes that the developer has offered to voluntarily construct improvements at the Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street intersection to further improve traffic flow and truck maneuvering.

Staff notes that since the Planning Commission public hearing, an additional condition of approval has been added to the project clarifying these improvements at the Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street intersection.

Figure 2: Excerpt of Typical Elevation
Staff notes that the project meets all relevant development standards for the General Industrial (GI) zone, which was the zone in place at the time that the development application was deemed complete on June 16, 2021. For a full discussion on compliance with standards, land use and zoning designations and architecture, please see the November 12, 2025, Planning Commission staff report.

Entitlements for Proposed Development
As noted in the title of the staff report, this project requires a Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Certificate of Appropriateness. Further, the applicant proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with the City, which requires the review and approval of an ordinance by the City Council. Detailed information on the Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness can be found by referencing the November 12, 2025, Planning Commission staff report.

Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266)
As previously noted, the developer has also proposed to enter into a Development Agreement with the city. Staff notes that at the time that the Planning Commission held it’s hearing, the proposed Development Agreement was in draft form. The final proposed Development Agreement is now included with this report as Attachment 6. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.060.A.1, development agreements:

1. Increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public;

2. Provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development;

3. Enable the city to plan for and finance public facilities, including but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing.

The proposed Development Agreement includes, but is not limited to, the following major terms which are summarized below:

• The term of the development agreement would initially be eight years, with an option for the applicant to extend the term by an additional two years upon payment of $1 million dollars, provided the developer meets certain criteria; • A requirement for future tenants to designate Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the material handling equipment used in Project’s operations; • A requirement that the developer pay the Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee in three stages prior to the timelines normally required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code allowing the City to utilize these funds toward support of affordable housing projects sooner.
• A requirement to pay $1,070,000 to the City for the future construction of sidewalks, traffic calming improvements, or planting of trees within the area surrounding the project. • A requirement to extend RC Fiber infrastructure to serve the project site.

Within the Development Agreement, the applicant also agrees to rehabilitate the Baker House and improve the Baker House structure to a tenant “shell”. The developer has also agreed to improve the Baker House property with new parking and landscaping and dedicate the property to the City by grant deed for future City use. Given the nature of rehabilitation of historic structures, the Development Agreement would require the applicant to make improvements to the structure and site up to a maximum of a value of $2.5 Million. However, if actual costs would exceed this amount, the applicant would be required to deliver an improved tenant shell at a minimum at no additional cost to the City. It should be noted that a specific use for this future structure has not yet been determined by the City. A conceptual site plan for the Baker House parcel is included with the draft Development Agreement.

Previous Meetings
In addition to the aforementioned November 12, 2025, Planning Commission public hearing, the developer has also hosted two neighborhood meetings; one on April 22, 2022, and another on August 8, 2024. At both meetings, members of the public and residents expressed concerns regarding truck traffic, noise from operations of the proposed buildings, concerns about fiber optic connections, and questions regarding screen walls between the site and adjacent existing residential located on 9th Street. In response to concerns about traffic, staff notes that the applicant has modified the site plan over time such that the project’s Baker Avenue entrances will be limited to passenger vehicles; the developer has agreed to prohibit truck ingress and egress from the Baker Avenue entrances. Further, the applicant has also agreed to limit truck traffic and maneuvering on 9th Street, such that the proposed north-south driveway leading to 9th Street from the project site will be limited to “right-only” truck turns, thus prohibiting trucks from accessing the Baker Avenue and 9th Street intersection and surrounding residential neighborhoods. In response to concerns about screening wall height, staff notes that the project provides the tallest maximum wall height permitted (8 feet) to screen the development from adjacent existing residential abutting the project site on 9th Street. Should the developer choose to construct a taller wall, they will be required to submit an additional application to request such a deviation at a later date.

Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2019110456), has been prepared for this project. Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR become a planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site.

The intent of the EIR is to address and evaluate potentially significant impacts of the proposed

project and identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Final EIR. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process:

Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting is to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment.

Accordingly, a notice advertising both the NOP and Public Scoping Meeting was prepared for the project and circulated on November 18th, 2019 to the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2019110456), public agencies, Native American tribes, those interested parties who had previously requested notification, and all property owners within 660 feet of the subject site. The notice advertising the NOP and the public scoping meeting was also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on December 4th, 2020 and made publicly available on the city’s website. The Public Scoping Meeting was held in-person at City Hall on December 12th, 2019. No members of the public or any interested parties provided comments at the Public Scoping Meeting. The public comment period to respond to the NOP closed on December 18th, 2019 and a comment letter was received from the State of California Department of Justice Attorney General. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised were prepared and made available in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

Following the scoping meeting and the preparation of all environmental documents, the Draft EIR was circulated for a mandatory 45-day public review starting on March 15, 2022, and concluding on May 2, 2022. In response to this review, public concerns were raised regarding the content and adequacy of the analysis prepared for the original EIR. The primary public concern involved the inclusion of emissions credits from structures which had previously existed at the site, but that were not occupied. Further, those structures were demolished between February and April 2022.

Because the project site is now vacant and undeveloped, except for the Baker House, the decision was made to update technical studies for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation based on the current site conditions. Accordingly, the DEIR was then recirculated and distributed for a new 45-day public review period on June 20, 2024, with the comment period concluding on August 5, 2024. A Notice of Availability including electronic links to the DEIR and all technical appendices was posted at the County, published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, mailed to all property owners within 1,500 feet, mailed to interested parties requesting such notification and posted on the city’s website on June 20, 2024.

Further, and also on June 20, 2024, the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided to the State Clearinghouse via the online “CEQAnet” portal for distribution to Responsible and Trustee agencies and hard copies of the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided for public review at the following locations:
• Archibald Library – 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; • Paul A Biane Library – 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; • Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall – 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.

Comments on the recirculated DEIR were received from the Southern California Gas Company, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Advocates for the Environment, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, the City of Ontario, and the Department of Public Works. Additionally, several comments were received from individual residents living near the project area. The administrative DEIR and FEIR, inclusive of these various comments listed above, as well as responses to these comments, are included with this staff report as Attachment 3. Technical appendices and supporting documentation can be referenced on the City‘s website under the tab ”CEQA Documents Available for Review“ under the Current Projects & Planning Initiatives which can be accessed here:
https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning
Staff notes that prior to the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing, a letter dated November 11, 2025 was received from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA), a firm which had previously commented on the Draft EIR in 2024 and who had expressed a number of concerns regarding the environmental analysis of the project. The November 11, 2025 letter restated and reiterated many points made in the previous letter, which had already been responded to as part of the Final EIR process. In short, and in response to the November 11, 2025 letter, staff maintains that the Draft EIR prepared for the project is both sufficient and thorough, and accurately analyzes the project and identifies sufficient mitigation measures (see Attachment 7).

Also, following the Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments from a resident in response to the Final EIR (Attachment 8). In those comments, the commentor expressed a number of concerns, primarily regarding traffic. Regarding traffic, the commentor erroneously noted that traffic counts hadn’t been conducted since 2019. To be clear, while traffic counts were initially conducted in 2019, additional traffic counts were conducted in 2023 which formed the basis of updates to the traffic analysis found in Appendix K-1 and K-2 of the CEQA document.

Staff notes that these updated analysis confirms that no traffic improvements are necessary at the 9th and Vineyard intersection. Staff notes that although no improvements are required at this intersection, the developer has offered to restripe the eastbound left-turn pocket as well as modify the curbs at both the northwest and southwest corners of 9th and Vineyard to further improve truck turning and maneuvering. As noted previously, these voluntary improvements by the developer at 9th and Vineyard have been memorialized in the conditions of approval.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
In compliance with CEQA, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration The EIR concludes that the construction and implementation of this project will result in two significant and unavoidable impacts pursuant to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines, namely Land Use and Planning (Appendix G, Section XI) and Noise (Appendix G, Section XIII).

Regarding impacts to Land Use and Planning, CEQA Statue and Guidelines Appendix G, Section XI requires a determination of whether a project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Staff notes that General Plan policy LC-7.4 discourages large industrial projects to be located within 1,000 feet of existing and planned residential

development. As proposed, the project will measure approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residence. Thus, the project is in conflict with the City’s land use plan and would result in a significant unavoidable impact. Despite this, however, staff notes that the proposed project area has been zoned for industrial use since at least the 1980s and the proposed project remains consistent with all applicable zoning standards for development within the Neo-Industrial zone.

Regarding impacts to Noise, CEQA Statute and Guidelines Appendix G, Section XIII requires a determination of whether a project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Staff notes that the operational characteristics of the proposed project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact to noise. Specifically, as the developer anticipates the proposed buildings to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, anticipated noise generated from the use would be 60.2 decibels (dBA) as measured at nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), as measured from the residences located along the north side of 9th Street. Further, noise thresholds will also be exceeded in Ontario, specifically as measured from the residences located on the southside of 8th Street. Whereas the City of Ontario establishes nighttime thresholds of 49 dBA (10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), which is the current measured ambient noise level, operations from the project will result in approximately 58 dBA at this location along the southside of 8th Street. As such, the operational characteristics of the proposed project will exceed the noise thresholds for both the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario.

In accordance with CEQA, the City has prepared Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is included with this staff report as an attachment to the Resolution. This document explains the various environmental impacts of the project as well as project benefits for the Council’s consideration. As a note, both staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Project site is currently assessed an annual property tax, a portion of which is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the Project site when constructed and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The proposed Project will also allow for the development of new warehouse facilities to the benefit of the community by growing its jobs base and tax revenue. Therefore, the project is anticipated to create long-term positive economic benefits to the surrounding community.

The Project proponent will also be responsible for paying permit and impact fees, in addition to other fees required by the Development Agreement associated with the project, such as community benefit fees.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

The development of the project achieves the City Council’s Core Value of “Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future,” and “continuous improvement.” In addition to providing the city with new industrial warehouse facilities which will attract quality tenants, the project also results in the restoration and preservation of a historic structure, the Baker House, to the benefit of the community.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph
Attachment 2 – Link_ Project Plans

Attachment 3 – Link_ Environmental Documentation
Attachment 4 – November 12, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Attachment 5 – City Council Resolution No. 2025-101 with CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with Conditions of Approval
Attachment 6 – Draft Ordinance No. 1052 and Development Agreement Attachment 7 – Response to November 11, 2025 GSEJA Comment Letter Attachment 8 – December 5 Letter from Judy Summers

Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph
Attachment 1 Page 406
ATTACHMENT 2
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

Project-Plans

ATTACHMENT 3
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

DEIR 9th and Vineyard Development Project and EIR

DATE: November 12, 2025
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Sean McPherson, Principal Planner, AICP
Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE

PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CP
LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC – A Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to allow for the development of three (3) concrete tiltup industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet on approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad line to the south; APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, - 96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2019-00742.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve Design Review (DRC2019-00742), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009), Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266), and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) through the adoption of the attached Resolutions.

BACKGROUND:

The project site totals approximately 45.96 acres and is comprised of nine adjacent parcels (APN:
0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97), generally located between Baker Avenue to the West, the Cucamonga Channel and Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the North and the BNSF/Metrolink Railroad to the South.

The project site had been previously developed with various industrial buildings which were demolished in 2022 and is currently vacant except for an existing cell phone tower west of Vineyard Avenue along the project’s southern property line, which will remain. The project site also includes a vacant structure on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue, which is a designated historic landmark referred to in this report as the “Baker House.” This structure is also proposed to remain as described below. The majority of the project site is covered with low-lying vegetation consisting of grasses and weeds.

Staff notes that the subject site has been zoned for industrial development since at least the early 1980s. While the project currently has a land use designation of Neo-Industrial Employment Attachment 4 Page 409

District and is located within the Neo-Industrial zone, both of which were created in 2021 and 2022 respectively, staff notes that the project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021, prior to the adoption of current zoning code standards for industrial development and as such is subject to zoning standards under the General Industrial standards which were in place prior to the adoption of the current Neo-Industrial zone.

ANALYSIS:

The General Plan currently designates the project site as a Neo-Industrial Employment District, and the site is currently zoned as Neo-Industrial (NI). Adjoining the site to the north along the Lanyard Court cul-de-sac are 8 parcels, also in the NI zoning district, which are currently developed with commercial industrial uses. Adjoining the site on the northwest corner of the project site are 9 parcels in the Neighborhood General 3 – Limited (NG3-L) form-based zoning district, which are currently improved with single-family residences. Single family residential development is also present on the western side of Baker Avenue, across from the project site.

Opposite the project site on the northern side of 9th Street is a mix of industrial and residential uses. Additional commercial and industrial uses exist to the east of the project site and additional commercial and industrial uses exist opposite the BNSF/Metrolink tracks to the south of the site.

Further south, on the south side of 8th Street, there are existing single-family residences which are located within the City of Ontario.

The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Industrial
Warehousing Neo-Industrial Employment District Industrial Employment (IE) Commercial
Retail Neo Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) North Single-Family
Residential
Neighborhood Center
Suburban Neighborhood Low
Neighborhood General 3
Limited (NG3L)
Medium Residential
South
BNSF/Metrolink
rail,
Commercial,
Industrial
(Rancho
Cucamonga)
and a private
school and
Residential
(City of Ontario)
Neo-Industrial Employment District
(Rancho Cucamonga); Residential
(Ontario)
Neo-Industrial (NI – Rancho
Cucamonga); Low Density
Residential (Ontario)
West Single Family
Residential Traditional Neighborhood Low/Medium Residential (LM) Flood Control
Channel General Open Space and Facilities Flood Control Utility Corridor (FC/UC) East Commercial Retail Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)

The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into four new parcels and construct three new industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet in size. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 28 acres with street frontage along 9th street and Vineyard Avenue and will be improved with Building 1 totaling approximately 611,574 square feet. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 6 acres and will be improved with Building 2 totaling 107,541 square feet. Parcel 3 proposes an area of approximately 12 acres and will be improved by Building 3, totaling 262,981 square feet with street frontage along Baker Avenue. Parcel 4 proposes an area of approximately an acre and is currently improved with the Baker House which is proposed to be rehabilitated and dedicated to the City for future City use.

Figure 1: Site Plan
Building 1 will have an office area not to exceed 4,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet. Building 2 will have office areas on the first and second floor, both not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet. Building 3 will have potential office areas on the first floor not to exceed 2,500 square feet and on the second floor not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet.

Vehicular access to the site will be provided by a total of 5 driveways; two located along the Vineyard Avenue frontage of the project, one located along 9th Street, and two located off Baker Avenue. Notably, truck access will be prohibited at the Baker Avenue driveways, and trucks exiting the project using the 9th Street driveway will be limited to right turns only. Staff notes that the project is being developed on a speculative basis and that there are no confirmed tenants at this time.

Architecture: The proposed industrial warehouse buildings meet the City’s pre-Ordinance 982 architectural standards. Each building provides well-defined articulation and a varied use of architectural features. For example, the facades facing 9th Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Baker Avenue feature typical concrete tilt-up façades punctuated with panel joints, reveals, and windows. The northern and southern façades of Building 2, visible from a commercial center to the north and 8th Street to the south, are similarly embellished.

Figure 2: Typical Elevation Excerpt
Additionally, the street-facing corners of Buildings 1 and 2 feature office tower elements consisting of insulated vision glass and spandrel glass, with a metal canopy. Building 2 features a similar office tower element for its office space located on the western side of the building and replicates it visually on the eastern side to create symmetry. The project provides a visually consistent color pallet, which includes “Pure White Field Color” (Sherwin Williams SW 7005), “Online” (Sherwin Williams SW 7072), and “Network Gray” (Sherwin Williams SW 7073).

The majority of the project site will be secured with an 8’ high tube steel fence. 8’ tilt-up concrete screen walls will be used to screen parking from view. Additionally, a combination retaining wall and 8’ concrete tilt-up screen wall will be constructed to better screen the project from view of the residential units on the northwestern corner of the project site.

As previously noted, the proposed project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021, and is thus being reviewed against the development standards in effect on that date. At that time, the subject parcels were located in the General Industrial (GI) zoning district. The proposed project exceeds all applicable development standards for the General Industrial (GI) district, as shown in the table below:

Development
Standard Required Proposed Complies?
Building Height
Maximum 35 feet (at front
setback) and
75 feet (1-foot increment
from the front setback
line)
Building 1: 40 feet; Building 2:
36 feet; Building 3: 36 feet YES
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) 40% - 60%
Building 1: 49.47%; Building
2: 42.59%; Building 3:

51.21%
YES
Front Building
Setback
25 feet (9th Street);
25 feet (Baker Ave)
Building 1: ~269 feet
(9th Street);
Building 3: ~150 feet (Baker
Ave)
YES
Street Side Setback 35 feet (Vineyard Ave) Building 1: ~166 feet; YES Average Depth of
Landscape
35 feet (Vineyard Ave);
25 feet (9th Street);
25 feet (Baker Ave)

43.71 feet (Vineyard Ave);

37.8 feet (9th Street);

42.61 feet (Baker Ave)
YES
Parking Setback 20 feet (Vineyard Ave); ~39 feet (Vineyard Ave); YES