Agenda packet — Rancho Cucamonga City Council, December 17, 2025 (part 4 of 4)

Page 5 of 11 ends

Parking: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.64.050, 17.64.090 and Table 17.64.050-1, which was in place when the project site was located within the General Industrial zone, auto parking for warehouse/storage uses is based on a tiered ratio as illustrated in the table below. In addition, office areas require parking at 1 stall per 250 square feet. Further, the development code requires 1 trailer loading stall for each dock door proposed. As such, the proposed project is required to provide 188 auto parking stalls and 94 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, 62 auto parking stalls and 12 trailer loading stalls for Building 2, and 105 auto parking stalls and 28 trailer stalls for Building 3. The table below demonstrates the project’s compliance with all parking standards:

Parking Ratio Required
Parking
Provided
Parking
Complies?
Warehouse/storage
and office
1 per 1,000 sf for the first
20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000 sf
for the next 20,000 sf, and
1 per 4,000 sf for
remaining sf
Office requires 1 per 250
sf
Building 1:
188 stalls;
Building 2:
62 stalls;
Building 3:
105 stalls
Building 1:
192; Building
2: 62; Building
3: 108
YES
Trailer Loading
Stalls 1 per loading dock
Building 1:
94; Building
2: 12;
Building 3:
28 Building 1:
126; Building
2: 12; Building
3: 30
YES
Traffic Improvements: 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 services, 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 throughright-turn lane. 15 feet (9th Street);
15 feet (Baker Ave)
~28 feet (9th Street);
~45 feet (Baker Ave)
Interior Side Yard
Setback Min. 5 feet
Building 1: ~136 feet;
Building 2: ~45 feet;
Building 3: ~56 feet both
sides
YES
Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet
Building 1: ~185 feet
Building 2: ~40 feet
Building 3: ~26 Feet
YES
Open
Space/Landscape
Standards
10% 11.9% YES

Page 413 ends

Page 6 of 11 ends

Entitlements for Proposed Development: The 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.

Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173): As mentioned, the project includes a request to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the subject site into four new parcels. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 28 acres with street frontage along 9th street and Vineyard Avenue. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 6 acres with street access via parcels 1 and 3. Parcel 3 proposes an area of approximately 12 acres with street frontage along Baker Avenue. Parcel 4 proposes an area of approximately 1 acre with street frontage on Baker Avenue. Notably, all proposed parcels meet the minimum development standards for lot size and configuration which were in place prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982.

Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009): While the other entitlements are exempt from Ordinance 982, these applications did not address the potential uses/tenants for the project because the project is being building on a speculative basis. Therefore, no pending use permit application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of Ordinance 982, and future uses by tenants who occupy the building will be subject to current standards under Ordinance 982.

Thus, the applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit subject to Development Code Section Table 17.30.030-1 to allow the following uses at the site: Wholesale Distribution – Medium; Distribution/Fulfillment Center; E-Commerce Distribution; Storage Warehouse and Manufacturing, Light-Large.

Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) regarding the Baker House: The Baker House was constructed in 1952 and was designated a historic landmark by the city in 2014. Pursuant to Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 14-01 as approved on April 23rd, 2014, the Baker House represents one of the few surviving examples of the Folk Architecture style in the city. As it relates to this project, the Baker House will be subdivided and dedicated to the City and the structure will be renovated and repurposed for City use. As it relates to proposed changes to the Baker House itself, the exterior of the Baker House is to be renovated so as to maintain the structure’s character defining features. Specifically, existing mortar is to be reviewed and repointed as structurally required. The existing concrete sills will be repaired and maintained. The front and rear entrances will be installed with new doors. Existing roofing will be removed, evaluated, and replaced as structurally necessary, while maintaining the existing materials and style. The existing concrete front porch will be maintained, except for the removal of steps on the eastern side to be replaced with an ADA-compliant ramp. Currently the Baker House features aluminum-frame window inserts set into the original wooden frames. The existing aluminum-frame window inserts are to be removed, and new windows installed using the original wooden frames.

The developer also proposes additional improvements to the Baker House structure and parcel.

See “Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266)” section below.

Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266): The developer has also proposed to enter into a Development Agreement with the city. 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,

Page 414 ends

Page 7 of 11 ends

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 shall pay a “Community Benefit Fee,” totaling $5,000,000 in order to address the Project’s expected impacts on affordable housing demand, future greenhouse gas emissions, fire protection services, environmental justice and related impacts typically associated with large warehouse development. • The applicant has agreed 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. 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 as Exhibit C.

Staff notes that the Development Agreement included with this staff report is in draft form and that final language on certain points is currently being resolved. This process will be complete prior to the project going to public hearing before the City Council.

Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant has hosted two neighborhood meetings related to this project. The first neighborhood meeting was held on April 22, 2022. At this meeting, the primary concern expressed by residents and attendees was truck traffic related to the proposed project.

In response to these concerns, the applicant modified the project to prohibit truck ingress and egress at the Baker Avenue driveways. Further, the applicant also modified the project to limit truck turns from the 9th Street driveway to “right only,” so as to avoid trucks traveling through the existing surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The second neighborhood meeting was held on August 8, 2024. Again, concerns were raised related to traffic and truck trips. Other general comments included concerns over proposed tenants of the buildings and hours of operation, and the extension of the City’s fiber optic cable network. One resident expressed concern over wall height between their adjacent residential property to the north and the project site. The applicant responded by clarifying that the project site itself will be served by fiber optic cable, and that an 8-foot tall screen wall will be constructed in between the concerned neighbor and the project.

Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (DRC) (Boling & Daniels) reviewed the project on December 17, 2024. No members of the public attended the meeting to speak on the item. At the meeting, the Design Review Committee asked questions related to the anticipated circulation of trucks and vehicles traveling to and from all three buildings. The Committee recommended that project move forward to the Planning Commission, but that the developer

Page 415 ends

Page 8 of 11 ends

consider revising the site plan to accommodate additional on-site truck queueing. Accordingly, staff has added a condition of approval reflecting the DRC’s recommendation that the developer shall revise the site plan to better accommodate onsite truck queueing and provide plans for staff review and approval prior to building permit issuance.

Public Art: The project is subject to the public art requirement provided in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. As an industrial development, this project would typically include artwork that has a minimum value that meets or exceeds one dollar per square foot. In this case, and in accordance with the proposed Development Agreement, all but $150,000 of the public art requirement shall be considered satisfied due to the developer agreeing to rehabilitate and improve the Baker House. This $150,000 to be contributed by the developer toward public art may be satisfied by either payment of an in lieu fee or installation of art to be located on site at a valuation of $150,000.

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).

Page 416 ends

Page 9 of 11 ends

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 20th, 2024, with the comment period concluding on August 5th, 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 20th, 2024.

Further, and also on June 20th, 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 Exhibit C. 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/communitydevelopment/planning 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

Page 417 ends

Page 10 of 11 ends

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 Exhibit C. This document explains the various environmental impacts of the project.

Correspondence:

A notice of public hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 29, 2025, notices were mailed to all property owners within 1,500 feet of the project site on October 28, 2025, and the site was posted with notices for this public hearing on October 30, 2025. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any inquiries.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Project site is currently assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed 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. 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.

Page 418 ends

Page 11 of 11 ends

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph
Exhibit B – Link to Project Plans
Exhibit C – Link to CEQA Documents (DEIR, FEIR, Appendices, Findings, SOC, and MMRP) Exhibit D – DRC Comments and Minutes Dated December 17, 2024 Exhibit E – Draft Development Agreement
Exhibit F – Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval

Page 419 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Page 1 of 6 ends

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.

Page 420 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Page 2 of 6 ends

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.

Page 421 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Page 3 of 6 ends

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.

Page 422 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Page 4 of 6 ends

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.

Page 423 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Page 5 of 6 ends

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.

Page 424 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes

Page 6 of 6 ends

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:

Page 425 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-101

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20173, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT DRC2022-00009, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
DRC2022-00266, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
DRC2019-00854 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW
INDUSJRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALLING 982,096 SQUARE FEET
ON A CERTAIN 45.96 ACRE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY
VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, 9TH STREET TO THE

NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND BNSF/
METROLINK RAILROAD TO THE SOUTH. APNS: 0207-271-25, - 27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, AND -97
A. Recitals.

1. The applicant, CP Logistics Vineyard LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00742, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009, Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, and Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as "the application."

2. On the 12th of November 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project and concluded said hearing on that date recommending that the City Council approve the project as proposed by a four-toone vote.

3. On the 17th of December 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.

4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The 45.96-acre project site is bounded by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad to the south; and
b. The project site includes a historic structure hereafter referred to as the Baker Attachment 5

Page 426 ends

House, located at 8803 Baker Avenue. The Baker House is currently owned by CP Logistics Vineyard LLC and is not currently in use; and
c. The application is for the development of three new industrial warehouse buildings to be located on three new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 611,574 square feet including approximately 4,000 square feet of office space, Building 2 will total approximately 107,541 square feet including approximately 4,000 square feet of office space, and Building 3 will total approximately 262,981 square feet including approximately 5,000 square feet of office space. The project is in compliance with the applicable parking development standards and provides 362 parking stalls and 168 trailer parking stalls; and d. The application includes the subdivision of the project site into four new parcels to accommodate the proposed new buildings and the Baker House: Parcel 1 which will total approximately 28 acres and will be developed with Building 1, Parcel 2 which will total approximately 6 acres and will be developed with Building 2, Parcel 3 which will total approximately 12 acres and be improved with Building 3, and Parcel 4 which totals approximately 1 acre and will include the Baker House; and
e. The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the following uses to operate at the site: Wholesale and Distribution - Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large; and
f. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the Baker House, in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Places for future use by the city. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness, the city will review the rehabilitation and future use in conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance; and g. The project also includes a Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266) which is memorialized upon the approval of related Ordinance XX and which is hereby included with this Resolution by reference; and
h. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Page 427 ends

South
BNSF Railway,
Industrial,
Residential,
Neighborhood
Commercial
Neo-Industrial
Employment (NI);
Low Density
Residential (within
Ontario),
Neighborhood
Commercial
(within Ontario)
Neo-Industrial (NI); Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) (within Ontario),
Low Density Residential (LDR5)
(within Ontario)
West Residential Traditional
Neighborhood District Low Medium Residential (LM)
East Industrial and
Cucamonga Creek
Open Space (OS)
and Neo-Industrial
Employment (NI)
Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FC/UC),
Neo-Industrial (NI)

3. The City Council hereby approves Design Review DRC2019-00742 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section

17.20.040 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The project site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo Industrial Employment. This land use designation supports industrial uses and the proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring residential and commercial uses.

Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and
b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone, which promotes light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and allows for the operation of Wholesale and Distribution - Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Further, civic uses are permitted by right relative to any future City use of the Baker House building; and c. The proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project was deemed complete on June 16th, 2021, prior to the adoption of the most current zoning and development standards.

At the time it was deemed complete, the project site was located within the General Industrial (GI) Zone. As such, the development standards that applied to the General Industrial (GI) zone on June 16, 2021, apply. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial Zone as of June 16, 2021; and
d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review determines that the majority of impacts created by the project will be mitigated to less than significant levels, with the exception of related noise impacts which will exceed thresholds even with mitigations. The project also results in a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use planning and recommended proximity of industrial uses to residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission recognizes that these impacts require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, balancing these impacts against the project's economic development, job creation and infrastructure improvements benefits that align with the City's long-term goals.

Page 428 ends

4. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section 16.20.060 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to subdivide a vacant property of approximately 45.96 acres into 4 numbered parcels for the purpose of industrial development and preservation and future use of the Baker House. The project site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo Industrial Employment.

This land use designation supports industrial uses with a reduced or minimal impact upon adjacent residential uses. Community/Civic uses are also permitted by right in this zone. The proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring residential and commercial uses. Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and
b. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project was deemed complete on June 16th, 2021, prior to the adoption of the most current zoning and development standards. At the time it was deemed complete, the project site was located within the General Industrial (GI) Zone. As such, the development standards that applied to the General Industrial (GI) zone on June 16, 2021, apply. The General Industrial zoning district required lots of a minimum area of half an acre, and a minimum width of 100 feet. The lots proposed by the tentative parcel map are all in excess of 1 acre in area and 100 feet in width. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial district; and c. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

5. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section

17.20.060 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan. The project site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo-lndustrial Employment (NI), which permits the proposed industrial use.
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Neo-lndustrial (NI) zone, which promotes light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and allows for the operation of Wholesale and Distribution - Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and absence of physical constraints that would make conduct of the proposed use undesirable. The project site is well suited to the proposed industrial uses as it is located along multiple street frontages, thereby providing multiple points of ingress/egress and emergency services access; and

Page 429 ends

d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and service facilities. The proposed use is of a similar type, size, and intensity as existing industrial uses in the vicinity; and
e. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be injurious to detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. Where there exist significant and unavoidable impacts, specifically relative to noise and land use planning relative to the proximity of industrial uses near residential neighborhoods, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the City Council's consideration in order to weigh these impacts with the anticipated benefits of the project; and
f. The proposed use will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire, streets, and other public utilities. The applicant shall provide traffic improvements to ensure that surrounding public streets and intersections maintain sufficient levels of service during construction and operation of the proposed buildings.

6. The City Council hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854, and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.18.040 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed rehabilitation will not result in a substantial adverse change to the historic resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Due to vandalism and deterioration of existing materials, replacement of mortar, roofing, doors, and windows may be necessary in order to rehabilitate the historic structure. All required replacement of existing materials shall be done with materials that closely match the original materials in appearance, texture, and color, ensuring the preservation of the structure's historic character. Upon implementation of these measures to preserve the structure, the future community/civic use of this structure will not result in substantial adverse change to the historic resource; and
b. The project is consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Commission, and more specifically Development Code Sections 17.18.030 (Maintenance of Historic Resources) and 17.18.040 (Certificate of Appropriateness). The project aligns with the intent of these regulations by maintaining the architectural integrity of the historic structure. The proposed rehabilitation, including the replacement materials, will preserve the visual character of the structure as an example of "Folk Architecture". This rehabilitation will increase the longevity of the structure and allow for its use as a public resource; and c. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties by complying with the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard 2 states, "the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided." The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the existing historical structure through the removal of graffiti and the replacement of deteriorated or missing structural elements with materials that are substantially the same as the original materials. Standard 6 states, "deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible,

Page 430 ends

materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." The brick-and-mortar construction of the historic structure is a distinctive feature of the folk architecture style. In order to maintain this distinctive feature, it is necessary to evaluate and replace the mortar where required to ensure the longevity of the historic resource.

7. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the application:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2019110456), has been prepared for this project. The EIR was circulated for 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 on 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 20th, 2024, with the comment period concluding on August 5th, 2024, after which the City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR); and
b. The FEIR has been completed, and has analyzed the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project; and c. The FEIR contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including without limitation, the Draft EIR and all revisions and additions thereto, comments on the Draft EIR received from various agencies, organizations, companies, individuals or other interested parties, and the City’s responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR, and findings as required by CEQA statue; and d. The EIR concludes that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, certain impacts would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. These include impacts to Land Use Planning (Appendix G, Section XI), and Noise (Appendix G, Section XIII). Specifically, the project proposes new large industrial development to be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residential development, which conflicts with General Plan Land Use policy LC-7.4, which discourages large industrial projects to be located within 1,000 feet of existing and planned residential development. Further, regarding impacts to noise, 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; and
e. As part of project approval, the City Council has considered a CEQA Findings

Page 431 ends

and a Statement of Overriding Considerations which acknowledges these unavoidable impacts, but which also acknowledges project benefits. The CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with this Resolution as “Exhibit A” and is hereby adopted upon approval of the project

8. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, this Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ___________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17TH day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER:

Page 432 ends

Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard
Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The project shall comply with all mitigations measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2019110456 and the corresponding Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program.

1. Prior to Final Inspection, decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site , behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway.

2. Pursuant to direction provided by the Design Review Committee on December 17, 2024 relative to truck access to all three buildings, and prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall revise plans to reflect modifications to the site plan to accommodate additional on-site truck queuing.

3. Standard Conditions of Approval
For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors.

4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans.

5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

6. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025

Page 433 ends

Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard
Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit , action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve , which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.

7. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 20173 is granted subject to the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00742, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009, Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854, and Development Agreement DRC2022-00266.

8. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.

9. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee in the amount of $4,123.50. 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.

10. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 2 of 22

Page 434 ends

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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, unless otherwise permitted within the approved Development Agreement

11. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business including changes to the operating days/hours; change in the location on-site or within the building of the use/activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for review by the City.

12. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code.

Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D. unless otherwise stated within the approved Development Agreement.

If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.

If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.

If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.

No final approval, such as a final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.

13. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval unless otherwise stated within the approved Development Agreement.

14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.

15. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 3 of 22

Page 435 ends

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services.

16. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department.

17. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.

18. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species.

19. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building.

20. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment (I.E. colors and materials consistent with the design theme of the primary structure). If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.

21. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.

22. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way.

23. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.

24. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses.

25. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits.

26. 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.

27. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 4 of 22

Page 436 ends

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.

28. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations.

29. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building.

30. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.

31. 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.

32. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site of the subject Historical Landmark, shall require a modification to the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval .

33. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

34. 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.

35. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.

36. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

37. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 5 of 22

Page 437 ends

Planning Department
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights.

1. 2. The development shall comply with all the undergrounding requirements of City's Ordinance No. 1045.

Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure.

The developer shall extend all required infrastructure for high-speed broadband ("Required Infrastructure") onto the Project site. The developer shall extend the required infrastructure to include 1-4” underground Fiber Optic conduit with 3-inner ducts, as well as a 432 strand fiber optic cable along 9th Street using the most direct route from the existing point-of-connection at/near the intersection of 9th Street and Flower Road to an existing Fiber Optic point-of-connection west of the Deer Creek Channel at/near the existing industrial development on the north side of 9th Street and then into the project site to serve the project as described below. The size, placement and location of the conduit and /or vaults shall be designed to accommodate future expansion by either the City or another developer.

An additional 1-4" fiber optic conduit and a yet to be determined strand fiber optic cable will be required inside the project boundaries to serve the buildings on site (not within the Baker House parcel) to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit along 9th Street.

The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the building's telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first.

The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first.

3. Developer shall construct all traffic improvements and dedicate the necessary right-of-way consistent with the demands outlined in the Project's TIA and as determined necessary by the City Engineer.

4. 5. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits.

6. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 6 of 22

Page 438 ends

Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Vineyard Ave. & Foothill Blvd. Intersection: Optimize the AM peak hour signal timing to improve intersection operations.

Vineyard Ave. & Arrow Rte. Intersection: Optimize the AM peak hour signal timing to improve intersection operations.

Baker Ave. & 8th St. Intersection:

1. The applicant shall design and construct the traffic signal at the intersection

2. Restripe the southbound approach to have a dedicated left-turn pocket and a shared through-right lane

3. Restripe the eastbound approach to have a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane

7. Master Plan Storm Drain Line III-3 shall be constructed following City's drainage master plan and approved drainage study. A permanent storm drain easement shall be granted to the City for the public master storm drain line prior acceptance of the improvements.

8. 9. Project shall abide to all the terms under the approved development agreement.

Standard Conditions of Approval
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: The master plan storm drain connection between the south east corner of the project and the existing storm channel to the east.

10. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map.

11. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (measured from street centerline):
33 total feet on 9th Street
33 total feet on Baker Street
44 total feet on Vineyard Avenue

12. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 7 of 22

Page 439 ends

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC &Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved.

13. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map.

14. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.

15. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone "A" designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain a Zone "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.

16. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.

17. Prior to the issuance of a ROW permit or a grading permit for work with the San Bernardino County Flood Control right-of-way, a permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall finalize all construction and obtain a sign-off from all related work from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.

18. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.

19. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project.

Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.

Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.

20. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 8 of 22

Page 440 ends

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way as required:

San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD)

21. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) 3B shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.

This parcel is required to be annexed into CFD 2022-01 & CFD 2022-02 district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582

22. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 9 of 22

Page 441 ends

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter frontage street improvements including, but not limited to:

Street Name: Vineyard Avenue
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.

Street Lights
Street Trees
Street Name: Baker Street
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.

Street Lights
Street Trees
Street Name: 9th Street
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.

Street Lights
Street Trees
The applicant shall design and construct all necessary improvements at the intersection of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue to accommodate truck traffic associated with the project. Improvements may include, but are not limited to, street widening, traffic signal modifications, updated signage, and restriping. A truck turning analysis may be required to determine the extent of improvements needed .

The final scope of work shall be determined during the project’s design phase, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

Notes: 1. Access to the project site from Baker Avenue for all truck-tractors, semitrailers, and trailers, which exceed any of the size limitations set forth in Vehicle Code 35400 and 35401 shall be prohibited .

2. Pavement reconstruction or overlays will be determined during plan check.

23. 24. Project shall abide to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 10 of 22

Page 442 ends

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Title Sheet (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans.

Street Name:

Botanical Name:

Common Name:

Min. Grow Space:

Spacing:

Size:

Qty.: To be determined during design
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.

Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.

25. Intersection line of sight designs shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. Lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways.

26. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.

27. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program.

28. 29. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.

Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards as required.

Easements shall be provided as required.

30. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.

31. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 11 of 22

Page 443 ends

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.

32. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits , whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Notes:
1) Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2) Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.

33. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map.

34. 35. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.

1. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

2. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit .

Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

3. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 12 of 22

Page 444 ends

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

4. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

5. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

6. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

7. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

8. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

9. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

10. Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or [email protected] to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site.

Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards , an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code.

11. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations.

12. 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].

13. 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.

14. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 13 of 22

Page 445 ends

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

15. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

16. Notwithstanding the availability of a public utility to provide natural gas for a stationary emergency power generator, natural gas fueled stationary emergency power generators supplied from the public utility shall be provided with an alternate source of fuel or the ability to accept an alternate source of fuel due to historical and foreseeable extended interruptions of the natural gas supply caused by seismic activity.

In the event that a emergency generator is required, a fuel-fired generator will be provided.

17. Generator installations are required to comply with the currently adopted editions of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 30, 37, 110. If battery equipment is included in the generator project, it is required to comply with NFPA 111. The level of compliance must be in accordance with the generator’s function as an emergency power system or a standby power system as defined by the California Fire Code. Plan submittals are required to include all specifications of the equipment to be installed along with the electrical plans and load calculations. All equipment must be listed .Testing and acceptance criteria are strictly observed. Installation and acceptance test reports in accordance with applicable NFPA standards are required to be provided to the Fire District. Working clearances and clearances to the building based on the fuel capacity must be observed. AQMD permits are required with the plan check submittals. Dual fuel generators may be required by AQMD for testing purposes .

The generator operation must be monitored remotely by a qualified alarm supervising station. A separate submittal is required for the alarm connection.

18. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

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

20. 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.

21. A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates.

22. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane).

23. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 14 of 22

Page 446 ends

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees.

24. Release of construction permits issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino will be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

25. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

26. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0

27. The fire access / fire lane and fire water mains cross existing property lines, are located on property not under the control of the applicant or are located on a property that is being or could be subdivided. To ensure continued Fire District use of and access to, and maintenance as needed, of the fire access / fire lane and fire water mains, a reciprocal agreement between property owners and the Fire District is required. The agreement is required to be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder. A site plan showing the location of the fire access / fire lane and fire water mains is required to be included with the agreement. The agreement is required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire District prior to recording. Proof of recordation is required to be submitted to the Fire District. A template of this agreement has been included in Fire District Standard 5-10, which has been uploaded to the Documents section.

28. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

29. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

30. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

31. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section.

32. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

33. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 15 of 22

Page 447 ends

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Combustible construction materials, including combustible roofing materials, are prohibited from being onsite prior to a water supply system in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10 being provided in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. Copies of the Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section of this project in the Online Permit Center.

34. Temporary fire apparatus access (fire lanes) and temporary fire hydrants, if needed, are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-2. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

35. Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and a soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations .

Connection to the public sewer is required for all 3 developed parcels.

1. Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.

1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.

2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.

3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

5. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 16 of 22

Page 448 ends

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way.

6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.

7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s). If adjacent property owner declines for permission, provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line.

8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code.

9. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.

10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code .

11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code.

12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee.

13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.

14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.

15. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 17 of 22

Page 449 ends

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.

16. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (Vineyard Avenue and Baker Street) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans.

17. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.

18. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site.

19. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan and report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices.

20. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

21. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.

22. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 18 of 22

Page 450 ends

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).

23. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan.

24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3.

25. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.

26. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document.

27. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2.

28. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan.

29. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.

30. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 19 of 22

Page 451 ends

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.

31. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.

32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan.

33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”.

34. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.

35. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.

36. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 20 of 22

Page 452 ends

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:

Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No.

R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:

Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):

Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater:
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’).
d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050.

37. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 21 of 22

Page 453 ends

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:

Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Swales.

2. Water collection and disposal systems.

3. French drains.

4. Water retention gardens.

5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.

Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.

38. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/10/2025 Page 22 of 22

Page 454 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1052

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT DRC2022-00266 BETWEEN THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC

TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW

WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
969,096 SQUARE FEET ON AN APPROXIMATE 45.96-ACRE
PROJECT SITE BOUND BY 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH,

BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE
EAST, AND ADJACENT TO 8TH STREET TO THE SOUTH; AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN:
0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, AND -97 A. Recitals.

1. WHEREAS, CP Logistics Vineyard LLC (the “Applicant”), filed an application for and negotiated the terms of Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, as described in the title of this Ordinance and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject development agreement is referred to as the “application" or the “Development Agreement”; and

2. WHEREAS, On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date at which point the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve Development Agreement DRC2022-00226; and

3. WHEREAS, On December 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, concluded said hearing on that date, and thereafter introduced for first reading this Ordinance; and

4. WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

B. Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the approximately 45.96-acre project site which comprises nine parcels, APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, and -97. The project site is bounded by 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, Vineyard Avenue to the east, and is adjacent to 8th Street to the south. The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of an existing cell tower, located approximately 300 linear feet west of Vineyard Avenue along the project’s southern property line, which would remain and not be removed. The project site also contains a vacant historic structure on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue (the “Baker House”); and
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 455 ends

b. Concurrent with this application, the Applicant has also applied for a Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173) to consolidate the existing nine parcels into four new parcels, Design Review (DRC2019-00742), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009) and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) to permit the use and construction of the proposed project; and
c. Development of the project is governed by the City’s General Plan, Development Code, all entitlements associated with the project, and the subject Development Agreement between the City and Applicant; and
d. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Neo-Industrial Employment (NI)
District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North
Industrial,
Residential, Open
Space
Neighborhood Center, NeoIndustrial Employment (NI),
Suburban Neighborhood Low,
Industrial Employment (IE),
General Open Space and
Facilities (OS)
Industrial Employment
(IE), Neo-Industrial
(NI), Parks (P),
Neighborhood General
3-Limited (NG3-L),
Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (FC/UC),
Medium Residential (M)
South
BNSF Railway,
Industrial,
Residential,
Neighborhood
Commercial
Neo-Industrial Employment (NI);
Low Density Residential (within
Ontario), Neighborhood
Commercial (within Ontario)
Neo-Industrial (NI);
Neighborhood
Commercial (CN)
(within Ontario), Low
Density Residential
(LDR5) (within Ontario)
West Residential Traditional Neighborhood District Low Medium Residential (LM)
East Industrial and
Cucamonga Creek
Open Space (OS) and NeoIndustrial Employment (NI)
Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (FC/UC), NeoIndustrial (NI)
e. The project is for the development of three new industrial warehouse buildings on four new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 611,574 square feet including potential office space not to exceed 4,000 square feet, Building 2 will total approximately 107,541 square feet including potential office space on the first and second

Page 456 ends

floor, both not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and Building 3 will total approximately 262,981 square feet including potential office space on the first floor not to exceed 2,500 square feet, and the second floor not to exceed 2,000 square feet. The project provides 362 parking stalls and 168 trailer parking stalls; and
f. The project also includes the retention, rehabilitation and reuse of the Baker House, in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for use by the City as a community center. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854), the City will review the rehabilitation and future use in conformance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. g. As part of the Project, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City has prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2019110456 (EIR), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project and related approvals; and
h. Pursuant to Section 17.22.060 of the Development Code, Development Agreements have been determined to be beneficial to the public in that:
i. Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. ii. Development Agreements provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development. iii. Development Agreements enable the City to plan for and finance public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing.
i. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment is being made and entered into for the project to ensure that the above three goals are fulfilled; and j. The project complies with all requirements of the Development Code including setbacks, parking, design, and landscape coverage.

SECTION 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:

Page 457 ends

a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The project site comprises nine parcels: APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, and -97. The General Plan designation for each of the nine parcels is Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District, which permits the proposed industrial use.
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Storage warehouses are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 was submitted for the operation of a wholesale, storage and distribution warehouse.
c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. Storage Warehouses are permitted within the Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project complies with all other development criteria outlined in the Development Code including setbacks, parking and design.
d. The proposed use is in conformance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854), the City will review the rehabilitation and future use of the Baker House to require conformance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
e. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

SECTION 4. The Development Agreement, in addition to the Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness (collectively, the “Project”) were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project.

By separate Resolution No. 2025-101, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; and (iii) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 2025-101 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project.

SECTION 5. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Development Agreement DRC2022-00266 as shown in Exhibit 1.

Page 458 ends

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:_______________________________
City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga

Page 459 ends

Record at the Request of and when Recorded
Mail to:

Kim Sevy
City Clerk
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
APNs: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -
94, -96, and -97
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DRC2022-00266
REGARDING THE 9TH AND VINEYARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement” or this “Development Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the “Effective Date” set forth herein, by and between CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation (“City”).

RECITALS
Section 1. On December 17, 2025 the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Council”) adopted the following resolutions:

A. Resolution 2025-101, approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 (inclusive of following uses to be vested in perpetuity and approved separately via either a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) or Minor Use Permit (“MUP”): Wholesale and Distribution, Medium (CUP); Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large (MUP); E-Commerce Distribution (CUP); Storage Warehouse (CUP); Manufacturing, Light – Large (MUP)); and and
B. Resolution 2025-101, approving Design Review DRC2019-00742; and C. Resolution 2025-101, approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173; D. Resolution 2025-101, approving Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854; and
E. Resolution 2025-101 certifying, after making appropriate finding, Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) identified as SCH No. 2019110456.

Section 2. Collectively, the Resolutions identified in Section 1 of the recitals (collectively, “Project Entitlements”) amended the City’s land use regulations to permit the redevelopment of the site with three industrial buildings with warehouse distribution uses and ancillary office space, including the 611,574 square-foot (“sf”) in Building 1, 107,541 sf in Building 2, and 262,981 sf in 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
Exhibit 1

Page 460 ends

-2- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
Building 3, along with the construction of internal drive aisles, parking, on-site landscaping, lighting, and utility connections.

Section 3. California Government Code Section 65864, et seq. authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. Developer is owner of the Site, as defined below and generally described as a 45.96-acre site bound by 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, Vineyard Avenue to the east, and adjacent to 8th Street to the south, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California comprising tax Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, and -97, and has a legal interest in the real property subject to this Agreement.

Section 4. City and Developer mutually desire to enter into this Development Agreement to implement the Project.

Section 5. On December 17, 2025, City adopted its Ordinance No. 1052 (the “Approving Ordinance”), thereby approving this Development Agreement between the City and Developer, which is effective as of ________________. All requirements of the California Environment Quality Act have been met with respect to the Project, Project Entitlements, and this Agreement, and this Agreement is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning:
“Approving Ordinance” means Ordinance 1052, which approved this Agreement. “Baker House” means the abandoned home located on west side of the Site and having an address of 8803 Baker Avenue.
“Building 1” means the 611,574 sf building identified as “Building 1” in the Development Plan. “Building 2” means the 107,541 sf building identified as “Building 2” in the Development Plan. “Building 3” means the 262,981 sf building identified as “Building 3” in the Development Plan. “City” means the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
“Developer” means CP Logistics Vineyard LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. “Development Plan” means those plans, specifications, and images attached hereto, collectively marked as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. “Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement is executed by the City and Developer as set forth on the signature page hereto, and the Approving Ordinance becomes effective.

Page 461 ends

-3- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
“Material Handling Equipment” means all equipment intended for use in connection with the Project’s operation for the purpose of loading or unloading goods and materials, including all forklifts.
“Project” means the proposed development of the Site, consistent with the terms and conditions of the Project Entitlements.
“Project Entitlements” mean the Resolutions described in recital Sections 1 through 2. “RC Fiber” means the high speed broadband internet service and corresponding fiber-optic infrastructure City provides and operates.
“Sidewalks” means the sidewalks identified by the City in the area bounded by Arrow Route, Grove Avenue, 8th Street, and Vineyard Avenue.
“Site” means the real property that is the subject of the Project Entitlements and as legally described, depicted and identified in Exhibit “A-1” and Exhibit “A-2”. “Traffic Calming” means traffic calming enhancements/improvements the area bounded by Arrow Route, Grove Avenue, 8th Street, and Vineyard Avenue.
“Trees” means the trees identified by the City within the area bounded by Arrow Route, Grove Avenue, 8th Street, and Vineyard Avenue.

Section 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of this Agreement and shall be enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement.

Section 3. Interest of Developer. Developer warrants and represents that, as of the Effective Date, it will have legal title to or an equitable interest in the Site; that it has full legal right to enter into this Agreement; and that the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer have been duly authorized to do so.

Section 4. Binding Effect of Agreement. Developer hereby subjects the Project and the Site to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon Developer’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the Project. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Project or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument.

The City and Developer hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Site by Developer and the future occupants of the Project, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted.

Page 462 ends

-4- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
Section 5. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that City and Developer are each an independent party and neither is the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever and neither shall be considered to be the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever.

Section 6. Term of Agreement.

A. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for eight (8) consecutive calendar years thereafter, unless the Term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. So long as there are no material changes to the Project, the Developer is not then in breach beyond the notice and cure periods set forth in this Agreement, and the Developer has made all payments to the City as required pursuant to this Agreement, Developer has an option to extend the Term one time for an additional two (2) years upon mutual consent of the Parties. To exercise this option, Developer must, no less than ninety (90) days’ prior to the expiration of the Term, both: (i) provide City with written notice of the intent to exercise the option and (ii) pay to City one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Upon receipt of such notice and payment, City will provide written confirmation that the Developer’s option to extend the Term has been exercised and accepted. The Term shall not be extended until City provides written confirmation to Developer.

B. Notwithstanding Subsection A above, this Agreement and the Project Entitlements shall terminate unless Developer obtains a building permit for the construction of the Project or the Baker House Improvements defined below within three (3) calendar years after the Effective Date and then construction commences on the Project or the Baker House Improvements within five (5) calendar years after the Effective Date. If Developer fails to perform by either (i) not obtaining a building permit for construction, or (ii) not commencing construction in accordance with the preceding sentence, then the Agreement and the Project Entitlements shall be of no further force or effect and City shall have no further obligations under this Agreement or to return any fees collected by City pursuant to this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, if Developer (i) obtains a building permit for construction of the Baker House Improvements within three (3) calendar years after the Effective Date, and (ii) commences construction on the Baker House Improvements within five (5) calendar years after the Effective Date, then this Section 6(B) shall no longer be in effect or otherwise enforceable.

Section 7. Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure of the parties to provide for the timing of development resulting in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties’ agreement, it is the parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right (without obligation), subject to the provisions of this Agreement, to complete the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment.

Section 8. Assignment. In the event of a proposed transfer of interest in the Site or any portion thereof or in this Agreement by Developer to a transferee, Developer agrees to comply with the following conditions:

Page 463 ends

-5- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
(i) At least thirty (30) days prior to any such assignment, Developer shall provide the City with written notice thereof along with written evidence and documentation, of a form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the City, demonstrating the experience, capability, competence, and financial ability of the proposed assignee to carry out and complete the Development Plan and comply with the terms of this Agreement.
(ii) At least thirty (30) days prior to any such assignment, Developer shall also provide evidence that the transferee will assume in writing through an assignment and assumption agreement all remaining obligations of Developer under this Agreement. The assignment and assumption agreement shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. (iii) The City Manager shall have consented to the assignment of this Agreement, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned.

Any assignment of this Agreement not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute an event of default by the Developer pursuant to Section 18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon any transferee whether or not such an assignment and assumption agreement is signed by the assignee upon acquiring the Property.

Section 9. General Standards and Restrictions Pertaining to Development of the Site.

The following specific restrictions shall apply to the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agreement:

A. Developer shall have the right to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City shall have the right to control development of the Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

B. The type, density, intensity, configuration of uses allowed, size, and location of buildings and other improvements and provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, location of public improvements, together with other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Site, shall be as set forth in this Development Agreement, including the Development Plan.

C. Public improvements including, but not limited to landscaping, irrigation,sidewalk, and traffic improvements, as set forth in the Development Plan, if any, shall be installed by the Developer.

Section 10. Effect of City Regulations on Development of Project. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, all substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained in City’s ordinances, specific plans, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, in effect as of June 23, 2021, the date the City considered the Development Plan to be deemed complete, shall apply to the construction and development of the Project. The foregoing sentence does not apply to Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-0009, which covers the uses of the Project contemplated by this Agreement.

Page 464 ends

-6- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
A. The provisions of this Section 10 shall not preclude the application to the development of the Site those changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans, or specifications which are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions. In the event such changes in the law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with such changes in the law.

B. The category of Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) applicable to the Project and attached as Exhibit “D” shall be those in effect as of the Agreement’s Effective Date (i.e. new DIF categories which may be adopted by the City after the Agreement’s Effective Date shall not apply to the Project); however the existing DIF and other development fees associated with the construction and development of the Project, including but not limited to land use approvals, development fees, building permits, etc., shall be pursuant to the rates as annually adjusted and in effect at the time application is made for such approvals or permits. Developer shall pay all such fees in accordance with the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of payment, except that Developer shall pay the Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (“AH DIF”) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. Thirty percent (30%) of the total AH DIF for the Project prior to or upon issuance of the first building permit for the Baker House; ii. Thirty percent (30%) of the total AH DIF for the Project prior to or upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Baker House in accordance with Section 11(B) below; and
iii. Forty percent (40%) prior to or upon issuance of the first building permit for Building 1, Building 2, or Building 3 of the Project.

C. City may only apply new ordinances, rules, regulations, plans, and specifications to the development of the Site after the Effective Date if such new rules and regulations are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, and fall under one of the following categories:
i. Processing fees and charges imposed by the City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for development approvals, provided that such fees and charges are uniformly imposed by the City at similar stages of project development on all similar applications;
ii. General or special taxes, including, but not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, parcel taxes, transient occupancy taxes, business taxes, which may be applied to the Property or to businesses occupying the Property, provided that the tax is of general applicability City-wide and does not burden the Property disproportionately to other similar properties within the City; iii. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, documentation of findings, records, manner in which hearings are conducted, reports, recommendations, initiation of appeals, and any other matters of procedure; provided such

Page 465 ends

-7- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
regulations are uniformly imposed by the City on all matters and do not result in any unreasonable decision-making delays; or
iv. Ordinances, rules, regulations, plans, or specifications the Developer consents to in writing.

D. Nothing herein shall prevent the application of health and safety regulations (e.g., fire, building, and seismic, plumbing, and electric codes) that become applicable to the City as a whole.

Section 11. Developer’s Obligations. In consideration of the rights and benefits Developer is guaranteed under this Agreement, the Developer agrees to provide each and every one of the community benefits set forth in this Section 11.

A. Designation of City of Rancho Cucamonga as Point of Sale for Material Handling Equipment. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be designated as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in the Project’s operations. Developer shall include a requirement in all tenant leases that tenants shall designate the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in the Project’s operations. City shall be a third-party beneficiary to all such terms included in tenant leases. City shall only be a third-party beneficiary with respect to such terms related to Material Handling Equipment and shall not have any ability to enforce other lease provisions. Provided that Developer complies with the preceding sentence in this Section 11(A), Developer shall not be in default of this Agreement if a tenant fails to cause City to be designated as a point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in that tenant’s operations. Except as set forth in this Section 11(A), City shall not have the ability to otherwise impact the viability or effectiveness of any tenant lease.

B. Baker House Improvements. Developer shall rehabilitate Baker House in compliance with the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and shall construct a visitor parking area, landscaping and hardscape improvements (collectively, “Baker House Improvements”) in compliance with the approved Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854 and the site plan and specifications attached as Exhibit “C” to this Agreement (“Baker House Site Plan”). The Baker House Improvements shall be located on an approximately 0.99-acre portion of the Project site as generally depicted in the Baker House Site Plan (the “Baker House Site”). The Baker House Improvements shall be comprised of two components: (i) the shell building improvements consisting of renovating the existing Baker House structure (the “Baker House Shell Improvements”), and (ii) all improvements outside the existing Baker House structure (the “Baker House Site Improvements”). The total budget for the Baker House Shell Improvements and the Baker House Site Improvements is Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) (the “Total Cost”). i. Following the Effective Date, Developer is to promptly prepare and submit to the City construction drawings in substantial conformance with the Baker House Site Plan (the “Baker House Construction Drawings”) for plan check. City shall not unreasonably delay acting on the Baker House Construction Drawings that are consistent with the Baker House Site Plan and all applicable building codes. Upon City’s approval of the Baker House Construction Drawings

Page 466 ends

-8- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
and confirmation that Baker House Construction Drawings are ready for permit issuance, such drawings shall be deemed the “Approved Baker House Construction Drawings.” ii. If prior to or during Developer’s construction of the Baker House Improvements pursuant to subsection iii below, a natural disaster or other natural forces (e.g. earthquake, fire, or flooding) renders construction of the Baker House Shell Improvements infeasible, then Developer may exercise one of the following options, as applicable:
a. If the Baker House is entirely destroyed due to the natural disaster, then Developer shall reconstruct a new, stick-frame structure or equivalent of less than or equal to the size of the Baker House, and provide a monument commemorating the historical significance of the Baker House in accordance with mitigation measure CUL-3 in the MMRP. In lieu of a new, stick frame structure, the City can authorize in writing an alternative means of compliance. b. In compliance with all related and applicable historic resource and environmental laws, the City can deem the Baker House uninhabitable and require it to be demolished if it is partially damaged or destroyed. Developer shall reconstruct a new, stick-frame structure or equivalent of less than or equal to the size of the Baker House, and provide a monument commemorating the historical significance of the Baker House in accordance with mitigation measure CUL-3 in the MMRP. In lieu of a new, stick frame structure, the City can authorize in writing an alternative means of compliance.
iii. In accordance with the EIR’s mitigation measures, Developer shall complete the Baker House Improvements in accordance with the Approved Baker House Construction Drawings and the terms specified in this Section 11(B). Developer shall select a general contractor who shall obtain competitive bids from at least three (3) licensed and insured subcontractors designated by Developer for each major trade component of the Baker House Improvements with a scope of work over twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) (“Major Trade Component”). Developer shall provide the City with copies of all of such Major Trade Component bids, and Developer shall adjust inconsistent or incorrect assumptions so that a like-kind comparison can be made. Developer shall select in good faith the applicable subcontractor for each Major Trade Component that provides the lowest qualified bid and who agrees to meet Developer's construction schedule for each of the applicable components of the Baker House Improvements.
a. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Improvements is less than or equal to the Total Cost, then Developer shall complete all Baker House Improvements.
b. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Shell Improvements is, on its own, equal to or greater than the Total Cost, then Developer shall complete the Baker House Shell Improvements and have no further obligation to complete the Baker House Site Improvements. For the avoidance of doubt, Developer shall be required to pay for any cost overage associated with the Baker House Shell Improvements, and, upon completion, City shall deem Developer’s obligations with respect to the Baker House complete regardless of the Site’s compliance with regulations from the Americans with Disabilities Act, parking requirements, or

Page 467 ends

-9- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
other development standards. Developer shall not be liable for any defects related to the Baker House Site Improvements.
c. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Shell Improvements is less than the Total Cost, but the combined price for all Baker House Improvements exceeds the Total Cost, then City shall either (i) reduce the proposed scope for the Baker House Site Improvements to result in a total bid price of less than or equal to the Total Cost for the Baker House Improvements, or (ii) direct Developer to contribute the difference between the Total Cost and the price for the Baker House Shell Improvements as a community benefit payment to be paid to City prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. iv. During construction of the Baker House Improvements, the City-appointed building inspectors shall not unreasonably delay construction or add new scopes of work beyond what is consistent with the approved Baker House Construction Drawings, excepting life safety items or items required by technical codes applicable to the construction of the Baker House Improvements.
v. Upon completion of the actions set forth in Sections (11)(B)(i)-(iv), Developer shall have no further obligations of any kind with respect to Baker House or the Baker House Improvements, and the City shall be solely responsible for any future improvements, programming, maintenance, or public use of the site. Developer shall also dedicate to the City by grant deed fee title to the Baker House Site upon completion of the actions set forth in Sections (11)(B)(i)-(iv).
vi. City shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy for any building within the Project until Developer has completed the Baker House Improvements in accordance with the Approved Baker House Construction Drawings, obtained City acceptance thereof, and City has issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the Baker House. Notwithstanding the foregoing, completion of the rehabilitation of Baker House and completion of the Baker House Improvements shall satisfy all but one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) of Developer’s public art requirements under Chapter 17.124 of the City Municipal Code and the Public Art in Lieu Fee, which may be satisfied either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee.

C. Sidewalk, Trees, and Traffic Calming Improvements. Developer shall pay one million seventy thousand dollars ($1,070,000.00) as an in-lieu fee to City and contribution toward Sidewalks, Trees, and Traffic Calming improvements. The fee required pursuant to this Section 11(C) shall be due upon the issuance of the first building permit for the Project.

Developer’s contribution to the City for Sidewalks, Trees, and Traffic Calming improvements will satisfy any Condition of Approval, obligations/requirements in this Agreement, obligations/requirements in this Agreement, and any future obligations pertaining to Sidewalks, Trees, or Traffic Calming improvements.

D. Traffic Improvements. Developer shall construct and take other action related to traffic improvements as required by the Project Entitlements. Developer shall submit off-site plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for each of the improvements identified below, as applicable, consistent with the City’s standard off-site plan check review process required for issuance of an offsite encroachment permit(s).

Page 468 ends

-10- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
i. Traffic improvements as required by the Project Entitlements shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, no later than by issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the Project’s first building. However in the event that Developer is unable to complete the improvements by issuance of Certificate of Occupancy despite best efforts, due to processing, required coordination with other projects, or other issues outside of Developer’s control, then Developer shall issue a bond for the remaining work and shall be obligated to complete the required improvements within one year of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project’s first building.
ii. Developer shall construct the traffic improvements consistent with the demands outlined in the Project Entitlements.
iii. If Developer is unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary rights-of-way or easements to construct the required traffic or storm drain improvements as required by the Project Entitlements, including such improvements at the northwest and southwest corners of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue, the City shall work in good faith to assist Developer’s effort to obtain the necessary right-of-way and easements, including by exercising the City’s eminent domain power where applicable pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5; however, the Developer shall first attempt good faith negotiations to acquire the adjacent property needed for the right of way.

Further:
a. With regards to the right-of-way located at northwest corner of 8th Street & Baker Avenue, which the City owns, the City shall sell the approximately 86 square feet of required right-of-way by the Developer to permit Developer to construct the required improvements at the northwest corner of 8th Street & Baker Avenue for $5,000; and b. With regards to the right-of-way located at southeast corner of 8th Street & Baker Avenue, which is located within the City of Ontario (“Ontario”), the City will collaborate with Ontario to allow Developer to obtain the right-of-way. iv. Following completion of construction and approval by City, Developer shall dedicate these required traffic improvements and storm drain main to City. Developer’s provision of traffic improvements and storm drain main pursuant to this Section 11(D) will satisfy any Condition of Approval and any future obligations pertaining to these required traffic improvements and storm drain main.

E. Other City Fees. Developer is responsible for other applicable development fees, in accordance with Section 10(B), except that Developer shall be liable for one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) towards the public arts requirement, which may be satisfied by Developer as either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee.

F. RC Fiber. Developer shall complete construction of the improvements intended to serve RC Fiber to the Project, as described in the Project Entitlements’ conditions of approval.

Further, Developer shall utilize, and shall cause all tenants of the Project to utilize, RC Fiber highspeed broadband (at a minimum of one (1) Gigabits (“Gbps”) per second service) for all fiber service within the Project’s buildings for a period of not less than 10 years from the date each lease commences. Developer shall cause all tenant leases to include such a requirement that they will

Page 469 ends

-11- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
use RC Fiber high-speed broadband (at a minimum of one (1) Gigabits (“Gbps”) per second service) for each tenant’s fiber service during such ten year period. Provided that Developer complies with the preceding three (3) sentences in this Section 11 (F), Developer shall not be in default of this Agreement if a tenant fails to obtain service from RC Fiber or does not carry out any obligations with RC Fiber. Except as set forth in this Section 11 (F), City shall not have the ability to otherwise impact the viability or effectiveness of any tenant lease. City shall be a thirdparty beneficiary to all such terms included in tenant leases.

Section 12. City’s Obligations. The City shall reasonably expedite review and processing of all plans and issuance of all permits associated with the Project.

Section 13. Annual Review. During the Term of this Development Agreement, City shall annually review the extent of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Development Agreement. Developer shall file an annual report with the City indicating information regarding compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement by January 2 of each year following the Effective Date of this Agreement. Annual reports shall include all information necessary for the City to assess Developer’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to cause the annual report to be filed by any lessee then occupying the Site provided, however, that Developer shall remain primarily responsible for such filing.

Section 14. Indemnification and Legal Challenge. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to, and shall, defend, indemnify and hold City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer’s activities in connection with the construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of Developer’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Developer’s behalf, which relate to the construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.

In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, any of the entitlement documents pertaining to the Project including, without limitation, the Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Certificate of Appropriateness, EIR, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, the Developer may elect to continue development under this Agreement pending completion of the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered as a result thereof.

Page 470 ends

-12- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
Section 15. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code § 65868, et seq., or successor provisions thereto.

Section 16. Minor Amendments to Development Plan. Upon the written application of Developer, minor modifications and changes to the Development Plan, including modifications to the building design or footprint affecting setbacks, parking layout and design, and landscape design may be approved by the Planning Director (“Director”). Substantial changes in the Development Plan, as determined by the Director, shall be processed through the process required by law to amend or modify the Development Plan. Upon the approval of such changes to the Development Plan, Developer and City shall amend this Agreement to memorialize and acknowledge the revised Development Plan.

Section 17. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Developer, City shall give written notice to Developer (or its successor) by registered or certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within thirty (30) days after such notice is served on Developer, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within said thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within said thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued by Developer), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, City may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Developer growing out of the operation of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Developer of any provision of this Agreement, or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate.

Section 18. Event of Default. Developer is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:

A. If a material warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Developer to City set forth herein or in any document incorporated by reference herein is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made; B. If a finding and determination is made by City following an annual review pursuant to Section 13 hereinabove, upon the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as described in Section 17 hereinabove; or C. A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in Section 17 hereinabove.

Section 19. No Waiver of Remedies. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if on periodic review City does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City. Subject to the provisions of Section 20, all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available to each party to pursue

Page 471 ends

-13- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement by the other party (subject to applicable notice and cure periods). No waiver by City or Developer of any breach or default under this Development Agreement by the other party shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder.

Section 20. City Not Liable For Damages. It is acknowledged by the parties that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it could be held liable in monetary damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorney’s fees in accordance with this Agreement, the Developer covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any monetary damages for any breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any terms to the contrary herein, Developer may institute an action for specific performance or other legal or equitable relief to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose and terms of this Agreement.

Section 21. Rights of Lenders Under this Agreement. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary (“Lender”) of said encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to:

A. Do any act or thing required of Developer under this Agreement, or cure any default of Developer under this Agreement within the time limits set forth in Section 17, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender or cure shall be as effective as if done by Developer; B. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter referred to as “a trust deed”); C. Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and
D. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed.

Should any Lender require or request an amendment of this Agreement in respect of the rights and remedies granted to a Lender, City hereby agrees to execute and deliver such an amendment so long as the proposed amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights, powers, and remedies of the City in respect of a default by Developer hereunder.

Section 22. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender (if known by City) simultaneously with such notice of default City gives to Developer and afford Lender the opportunity after receipt of service of the notice to:

A. Cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of said notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money;

Page 472 ends

-14- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
B. Cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of said notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or
C. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within thirty (30) days after said notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a thirty (30) day period after service of said notice of default on Lender by City and are thereafter diligently continued by Lender.

Section 23. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or default under the terms of this Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Project.

The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless:

A. They are commenced within thirty (30) days after service on Developer (and on Lender if Lender’s address is provided to the City) of the notice described hereinabove; B. They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion; and
C. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction, or payment.

Section 24. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.

To Developer: CP Logistics Vineyard LLC
2442 Dupont Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
Attention: Jacob R. LeBlanc
CDP Development, Inc.
2442 Dupont Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
Attention: Chase Metkovich
To City: City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Planning Director

Page 473 ends

-15- 11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
Section 25. Attorneys’ Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees incurred during the proceeding (including appeals) as may be fixed within the discretion of the court.

Section 26. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits.

Section 27. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action or litigation brought for breach or to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, California.

Section 28. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

Section 29. Recordation. Developer shall record this Agreement in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino at Developer’s sole expense within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date. Upon the expiration of the terms of this Agreement and the request of the Developer, the City will execute and deliver, in recordable form, an instrument confirming that this Agreement is terminated and of no further force or effect.

Section 30. Force Majeure. In the event that either party hereto shall be delayed or hindered or prevented from performance of any act required hereunder by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war or other reason of similar nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the work or doing the acts required under the terms of this Agreement, then the performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay caused by the foregoing. Financial inability shall not be deemed an excuse for delay under this Section 30.

Section 31. Integrated Agreement. This Development Agreement consists of this Agreement together with all Exhibits attached hereto, and all of the same are hereby incorporated by reference.

The provisions of this Agreement shall govern over any inconsistent or conflicting provisions set forth in the Exhibits. No representation or promise, verbal or written, not expressly set forth herein shall be binding or have any force or effect.

Section 32. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in every provision hereof in which time is a factor.

Page 474 ends

-16-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the Effective Date set forth hereinabove.

CITY:

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
a Municipal Corporation
Dated:

By:

L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
ATTEST:

Kim Sevy
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Nicholas R. Ghirelli
City Attorney
[Signatures continue on following page]

Page 475 ends

-17-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
DEVELOPER:

CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: CP LOGISTICS PLATFORM, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Sole Member
By: PANATTONI CLP, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Administrator
By: PANATTONI CLP OPERATOR, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Manager
By: _________________________________
William Bullen,
Vice President

Page 476 ends

-18-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of Colorado )
County of Denver )
On _________________________, before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Colorado that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

Page 477 ends

-19-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of Orange )
On _________________________, before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

Page 478 ends

11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
On _________________________, before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

Page 479 ends

1 10.9.19
9 th & Vineyard
Legal Description
That certain real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL 1:

ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 31 LYING NORTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMPANY, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND

MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 160 FEET THEREOF.

APN: 0207-271-25
PARCEL 2:

THE WEST ONE-HALF OF LOT 25, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO

BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 25, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 9TH STREET, 60 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTH 305 FEET; THENCE EAST 108 FEET; THENCE NORTH 125 FEET; THENCE EAST 123 FEET; THENCE NORTH 180 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 9TH STREET; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF 9TH STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ALSO EXCEPT THE INTEREST IN THE NORTH 33 FEET OF SAID LOT 25 AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1958, IN BOOK 4638 PAGE 277, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 9, 1932, IN BOOK 809 PAGE 195, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN: 0207-271-27
PARCEL 3:

PARCEL NO. 3 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 25, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST,

SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING WEST OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT

Page 480 ends

2 10.9.19

CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 30.00 FEET OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED, AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 9, 1932, IN BOOK 809, PAGE 195, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979, IN BOOK 9632, PAGE 663, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 25 WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89° 45' 40" EAST 55.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" WEST 222.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17° 39' 31" EAST 123.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" WEST 43.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46' 45" EAST 371.43 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN: 0207-271-94
PARCEL 4:

LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 700 FOR LOT MERGER, AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 15, 2015 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2015-0300680 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THAT LAND IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NO. 1998- 0190862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY TOGETHER WITH THAT LAND IN SAID CITY, COUNTY AND STATE DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NO. 1998-0190863 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NO. 1998-0190862, ON THE SOUTH LINE OF NINTH STREET, 30.00 FEET IN HALF WIDTH, THENCE SOUTH 305 FEET; THENCE EAST 108 FEET; THENCE NORTH 125 FEET; THENCE EAST 123 FEET; THENCE NORTH 180 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF NINTH STREET; THENCE WEST 231 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 0207-271-97
PARCEL 5:

PARCEL 5A:

THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE NORTH 160 FEET OF THE WEST 150 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF LOT 31, LYING NORTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMPANY,

Page 481 ends

3 10.9.19
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

APN: 0207-271-39
PARCEL 5B:

THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 160 FEET OF LOT 31, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 9 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WEST 150 FEET, OF THE SOUTH 60 FEET.

APN: 0207-271-40
PARCEL 6:

PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16141, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 215 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 85 THROUGH 87 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

APN: 0207-271-89
PARCEL 7:

PARCEL NO. 2 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THAT PORTION OF LOT 32, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO

BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 32 AND THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 32; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13’ 15" WEST 102.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46’ 45" EAST 433.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13’ 15" WEST 8.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46’ 45" EAST 213.03 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 32.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1987, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-016234, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 25, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF

Page 482 ends

4 10.9.19
MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING WEST OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979, IN BOOK 9632, PAGE 663, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 25 WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89° 45’ 40" EAST 55.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13’ 15" WEST 222.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17° 39’ 31" EAST 123.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13’ 15" WEST 43.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46’ 45" EAST 371.43 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 02, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN: 0207-271-96
PARCEL 8:

PARCEL NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THAT PORTION OF LOT 32, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO

BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9,

RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE ACHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (100 FEET WIDE).

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 32 AND THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 32; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" WEST 102.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46' 45" EAST 433.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" WEST 8.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46' 45" EAST 213.03 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 32.

APN: 0207-271-93

Page 483 ends

Exhibit A-2

Page 484 ends

Exhibit - B

Page 485 ends

Page 486 ends

Page 487 ends

Page 488 ends

Page 489 ends

Page 490 ends

Page 491 ends

Page 492 ends

Page 493 ends

Page 494 ends

Page 495 ends

Page 496 ends

Page 497 ends

Page 498 ends

Page 499 ends

Page 500 ends

Page 501 ends

Page 502 ends

Page 503 ends

Page 504 ends

Page 505 ends

Page 506 ends

Page 507 ends

Page 508 ends

Page 509 ends

Page 510 ends

Page 511 ends

Page 512 ends

Page 513 ends

Page 514 ends

Page 515 ends

Page 516 ends

Page 517 ends

Page 518 ends

Page 519 ends

Page 520 ends

Page 521 ends

Page 522 ends

Page 523 ends

Page 524 ends

Page 525 ends

Page 526 ends

Page 527 ends

Page 528 ends

Page 529 ends

Page 530 ends

Page 531 ends

Page 532 ends

Page 533 ends

Page 534 ends

Page 535 ends

Page 536 ends

Page 537 ends

Page 538 ends

Page 539 ends

Page 540 ends

Page 541 ends

Page 542 ends

Page 543 ends

Page 544 ends

Page 545 ends

Date: 12/05/2024
Baker Avenue Community Center - Conceptual Design Package 8803 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga 91730
2 SHIPPING CONTAINER VILLAGE - SITE PLAN UPDATE
PARKING SPACES - 14 TOTAL
12 STD SPACES
2 ACCESSIBLE SPACES

COVERED OUTDOOR

EVENT SPACE
2000 SF

PLAYGROUND

OPEN SPACE KITCHEN
160 SF

RESTROOMS
160 SF
MURAL
MURAL
OFFICE
80 SF

STORAGE
80 SF
TRASH

ENCLOSURE

GREAT ROOM
1068 SF

DROP-OFF
(ACCESSBLE)

PARK MEADOW

COVERED WALKWAY
NORTH
PORCH

ACCESSIBLE
RAMP

HISTORIC
ENTRY

NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDING

BAKER AVE

FIRELANE
0’ 32’ 64’ 128’

CMU SCREEN WALL

CMU SCREEN WALL
MURAL
MURAL

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT BOUNDARY
Exhibit C
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc

EXHIBIT D

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Fees shall include and be limited to the following:
• City-Wide Systems Fees for Transportation Development – South Zone (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.28)
• Police Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 13.64) • Fire Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.80) • Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter

3.76)

Page 547 ends

Background and Context:

On November 11, 2025, the day before the Planning Commission was set to hold a public hearing regarding the above referenced project, City staff received two letters via email from Steven Piepkorn with Golden State letter from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). One of the letters, dated August 2, 2024, had previously been received by staff as part of the 45-day comment period pursuant to CEQA. Staff forwarded both of these letters to the Planning Commission for their consideration and generally responded to the concerns raised as part of the staff presentation. After considering staff’s report, and taking additional public testimony, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 against (4-1).

In there November 11, 2025 letter, GSEJA assets that the EIR prepared for the project was deficient in many ways, arguing that: 1) the project “ignores” existing conditions and is therefore apparently in violation of SB 535 and/or SB 1000(“Adding Pollution to an Already Overburdened Community”); 2) the project violates and misrepresents the General Plan (“General Plan Violations and Systematic Misrepresentations”); 3) fails at analyzing impacts relative to Environmental Justice (“Environmental Justice Failure”), and that the EIR “…fails to acknowledge or analyze this pattern of discriminatory land use decisions.” (“Environmental Racism and the Cumulative Impact of Industrial Concentration”). In conclusion, the November 11 letter recommends that the Planning Commission reject the EIR and require the preparation of a comprehensive EIR, which among other things, mandates net zero emissions.

Staff’s Response:

Staff notes that the developer stated many of the same arguments in their August 2, 2024 letter which was received by the City during the 45-day comment period on the EIR, which lasted from June 20, 2024 and August 5, 2024, and which were responded to as part of the Final EIR, which was disseminated via email to Blum, Collins & Ho LLP on behalf of CSEJA on December 6, 2025 at least 10-days prior to the City Council’s decision on the project which is scheduled for December 17, 2025.

Staff notes that the concerns raised in the November 11, 2025, letter were already responded to as part of the FEIR, which included responses to GSEJA’s August 2, 2024, comment letter. Please reference the Final EIR, inclusive of the City’s response comments, Attachment 7

Page 548 ends

2 which is accessible on the City’s website by following this link:
https://tinyurl.com/yc32w89b. As described in the responses to GSEJA’s August 2, 2024 letter, and in response to GSEJA’s assertions that the environmental analysis does not conform to SB 1000 or SB 535, fails at analyzing impacts relative to environmental justice, and equates to environmental racism, none of the environmental justice legislation nor the State’s implementing activities requires a different standard for CEQA projects located in communities identified as disadvantaged communities with higher environmental burdens.

CEQA is an informational tool and does not mandate a prohibition on development projects in communities designated as having environmental burdens. Regarding assertions that the project is not consistent with, or misrepresents the General Plan, each of these claims were already responded to in the FEIR.

In conclusion, the November 11, 2025, letter provides no new substantive information which would cause the EIR to need to be recirculated, nor does the November 11, 2025, letter provide any substantive information which would cause a new or comprehensive EIR to be prepared.

Page 549 ends

Green Jobs & Clean Communities
11 November 2025
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Delivered via email to: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Supplemental Comments on 9th and Vineyard Development Project Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR), SCH No. 2019110456
Commissioners,
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) has presented arguments regarding the aforementioned project in the form of a:
• Comment Letter dated 2 August 2024, which objects to the REIR and documents systematic California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations including deficient environmental justice analysis, inadequate project description, General Plan inconsistency with prohibited land use designation, insufficient energy modeling compliance, failure to address cumulative impacts on a disadvantaged community already experiencing severe pollution burdens, and systematic underestimation of truck trip generation violating community benefit plan requirements.

GSEJA also provided technical review comments dated 30 July 2024 prepared by Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), concluding the project's air quality and health risk impacts may be underestimated. SWAPE's analysis identifies significant deficiencies in the REIR's air quality modeling and health risk assessment that systematically underestimate impacts to census tract 6071002105, which ranks in the 98th percentile for PM (particulate matter) 2.5 burden and 88th percentile for cardiovascular disease.

GSEJA's comprehensive technical review reveals critical deficiencies that warrant the Planning Commission’s rejection of this proposed 982,096 ft² warehouse development spread across three buildings with 85 dock doors. The project site is in census tract 6071002105, which ranks in the 76th percentile overall pollution burden, 98th percentile for PM 2.5, 94th percentile for ozone, 88th percentile for cardiovascular disease, and 87th percentile for hazardous waste impacts,

Page 550 ends

2 while the REIR systematically underestimates air quality impacts and fails to provide required environmental justice analysis for this already overburdened Senate Bill (SB) 535 Disadvantaged Community.

Adding Pollution to an Already Overburdened Community
This massive warehouse project would be built in census tract 6071002105, a community that already bears severe environmental burdens. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency's CalEnviroScreen 4.0 analysis, this community suffers in the following ways:

Page 551 ends

3 Environmental and Personal Health Crisis:
• 98th percentile for PM 2.5 burden, indicating massive industrial contamination typical of warehouse districts
• 94th percentile for ozone burden, demonstrating dangerously poor air quality • 88th percentile for cardiovascular disease, reflecting pollution's severe toll on community health
• 87th percentile for hazardous waste impacts, showing contamination from industrial facilities
• 76th percentile overall pollution burden, worse than three-quarters of California communities
• 75th percentile for diesel particulate matter, demonstrating heavy truck activity pollution • 63rd percentile for toxic releases, indicating regular exposure to industrial chemicals • 54th percentile for babies born at low birth weight, revealing multigenerational health impacts
• 46th percentile for asthma incidence
• SB 535 Disadvantaged Community designation, clearly identifying this as a disadvantaged community under state law
Community Vulnerability Factors:
• 54% Hispanic, 12% Asian American, 8% African American residents: populations historically targeted for environmental racism
• 52% lack high school education, which demonstrates educational vulnerability that limits residents' economic opportunities
• Poor communities often located in areas with high levels of pollution, facing additional stress that weakens immune systems
• Low educational attainment indicates residents may lack health insurance or access to vital medical care
SB 1000, California's environmental justice law, was specifically designed to protect communities like this from additional pollution burdens. The law requires local governments to identify disadvantaged communities and implement policies to reduce cumulative health risks rather than worsen them. Government Code Section 65302(h) mandates that local agencies "identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities" through measures including "reduction of pollution exposure" and "improvement of air quality."
The REIR ignores these existing conditions and the local community's legal protections. It fails to meaningfully analyze how warehouse operations, 85 dock doors, and round-the-clock truck traffic will worsen health outcomes for residents who already face the 98th percentile PM 2.5 pollution exposure and 88th percentile cardiovascular disease burden. This breaches CEQA's fundamental mandate under Public Resources Code Section 21001(b) to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water" and Section 21000(g)

Page 552 ends

4 requiring "major consideration to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian." When a community already ranks in the 98th percentile for PM 2.5 pollution and 88th percentile for cardiovascular disease, adding 982,096 ft2 of warehouse development with 85 dock doors generating hundreds of daily truck trips is not just poor planning—it is a violation of civil rights and the right to breathe clean air.

Deficient Technical Analysis and Missing Documentation
The REIR fails to provide basic project information required for CEQA compliance, including floor plans, grading plans with earthwork quantities, detailed site plans, and building elevations showing heights and materials. Without grading plans, it is impossible to determine truck hauling trips during construction, directly affecting air quality calculations.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Data for Census Tract 6071002105, Source: California Environmental Protection Agency

Page 553 ends

5 Additionally, the REIR excludes Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266) from public review, preventing meaningful evaluation of project timing, phasing, and community improvement obligations. The REIR uses CalEEMod for energy modeling despite the State of California listing only three approved compliance modeling software for Title 24 (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE)—CalEEMod is NOT approved, resulting in systematic underestimation of energy impacts. These omissions violate CEQA's requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and PRC 21003(b)).

General Plan Violations and Systematic Misrepresentations The REIR contains multiple false claims to evade General Plan requirements. • First, the project proposes warehouse distribution use in the Neo-Industrial Employment District, which permits only "small warehouses that are context-sensitive and calibrated to minimize impacts"—this 982,096 ft2 regional distribution center is explicitly NOT permitted under this designation.
• Second, the REIR falsely claims 91 daily truck trips when Table 5 in Appendix K-2 clearly shows 343 daily truck trips—nearly four times the 100-truck threshold requiring a Community Benefit Plan under General Plan Policy RC-5.6.

Page 554 ends

6 • Third, the REIR claims "all loading docks would be screened from public view" when Figure 2-4 clearly shows loading docks and parking lots located in front of buildings and visible from Baker Street, 8th Street, 9th Street, and Vineyard Avenue, directly violating General Plan Policy LC-7.6.

Loading Docks violating GP Policy LC-7.6 – Despite REIR claims that “all loading docks would be screened from public view”, REIR Figure 2-4 clearly shows loading docks located in front of buildings and visible from multiple public streets, directly violating General Plan Policy LC-7.6.

Page 555 ends

7 These are not modeling errors—they are deliberate misrepresentations designed to evade mandatory General Plan requirements.

Environmental Justice Failure
While the REIR mentions CalEnviroScreen percentiles, it provides zero analysis of what those percentiles mean for this SB 535 Disadvantaged Community's health. The REIR never analyzes whether it is acceptable to add 982,096 ft2 of warehouse space with 343 daily truck trips to a community already suffering from 98th percentile PM 2.5 pollution, 88th percentile cardiovascular disease, and 87th percentile hazardous waste impacts. This community is 54% Hispanic, 12% Asian American, and 8% African American, with 52% lacking high school education. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(c) requires analyzing how project pollution will interact with existing burdens, whether cumulative health risks are acceptable, and what additional mitigation is necessary—the REIR does none of this, violating CEQA's environmental justice requirements and General Plan Policy LC-1.6 requiring development "appropriate to the needs of disadvantaged communities."
Environmental Racism and the Cumulative Impact of Industrial Concentration This warehouse project continues a decades-long pattern of environmental racism that has systematically concentrated polluting facilities in communities of color and low-income areas while protecting wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods. The Inland Empire, like many other inland California communities, have become dumping grounds for logistics facilities that serve the consumption needs of affluent coastal communities while imposing health burdens on working-class families and communities of color.

The REIR fails to acknowledge or analyze this pattern of discriminatory land use decisions. It provides no cumulative impact analysis of the multiple warehouse and industrial projects that have been approved in the area, creating what environmental justice advocates recognize as a "sacrifice zone", which is an area where residents are expected to bear health burdens that would never be tolerated in Newport Beach or other affluent communities.

This discriminatory pattern violates the Fair Housing Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibit land use decisions that have a disparate impact on protected classes. As the California Attorney General has noted, "the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive populations or on communities that already are experiencing its adverse effects." Yet that is precisely what this project would do.

The cumulative health impacts from multiple warehouse facilities include:
• Concentrated diesel truck traffic creating corridors of toxic air pollution, contributing to what health experts term “diesel death zones”, where cumulative pollution exposure creates severe public health consequences.

Page 556 ends

8 • 24/7 industrial noise disrupting sleep and contributing to stress-related health problems. • Increased PM and ozone worsening respiratory conditions in a community with 88th percentile cardiovascular disease and 46th percentile asthma rates • Traffic safety hazards on residential streets not designed for heavy industrial truck traffic. • Economic displacement as industrial uses drives out community-serving businesses and housing opportunities.

The Planning Commission must reject this pattern of environmental injustice. Communities of color and low-income families deserve the same environmental protections as wealthy neighborhoods. Children deserve to breathe clean air and attend schools not surrounded by diesel trucks.

Recommendation
The Planning Commission must reject the inadequate REIR and require preparation of a comprehensive EIR that mandates net zero emissions, and includes:
• Includes complete project plans: floor plans, grading plans, detailed site plans with earthwork quantities, and building elevations with heights, colors, and materials • Includes the complete Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266) for public review • Provides comprehensive environmental justice analysis as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(c), SB 1000, and General Plan Policy LC-1.6 • Corrects the false claim of 91 daily truck trips and analyzes actual 343 daily truck trips • Includes required Community Benefit Plan as mandated by General Plan Policy RC-5.6 (343 trucks exceeds 100-truck threshold)
• Addresses General Plan inconsistency: project proposes warehouse distribution use prohibited in Neo-Industrial Employment District
• Uses approved Title 24 energy modeling software (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, or IES VE) instead of non-compliant CalEEMod
• Includes finding of significance for loading docks visible from public streets violating General Plan Policy LC-7.6
• Analyzes consistency with General Plan Policy LC-1.6 requiring development "appropriate to the needs of disadvantaged communities" • Analyzes consistency with General Plan Policy RC-6.5 requiring 80% GHG reduction below 1990 levels by 2050
• Includes shade/shadow analysis demonstrating compliance with General Plan Policy RC7.12 • Provides General Plan buildout analysis to ensure project is within General Plan EIR assumptions
• Analyzes Figure LC-1: Vision Diagram designation of site as Neighborhood Activity Node

Page 557 ends

9 The Planning Commission should conduct meaningful community engagement and outreach, as required by SB 1000, which involves holding public workshops (in both English and Spanish) accessible to community members at convenient hours, as well as partner with trusted and rooted community organizations and canvass affected neighborhoods on foot, as a way to meet the requirements of SB 1000, as well as understanding the ramifications of implementing such a large scale change in an impacted community.

Additionally, the Planning Commission should also consider implementing enhanced mitigation measures that protect community health, such as embarking on zero emission vehicle requirements for all project-related traffic, prioritizing local community member employment, and provide health monitoring and reporting systems to reduce the impact of these types of projects, both now and in the future.

Conclusion
Due to the above-mentioned reasons as well as the reasons listed in the comment letter to the REIR, GSEJA believes the REIR is flawed, and a revised, comprehensive EIR must be prepared and recirculated for public review.

We cannot accept a future where children struggle to breathe, and families face heart disease so that corporations can profit from cheap land in sacrifice zones. Environmental justice demands that we reject this pattern of discrimination and require meaningful protection for California's most vulnerable communities.

The REIR's systematic misrepresentations—falsely claiming 91 truck trips when actual analysis shows 343, falsely claiming the use is permitted when it violates the Neo-Industrial Employment District, falsely claiming loading docks are screened when site plans show them visible from public streets—demonstrate bad faith and prevent meaningful public review.

The health of our children and the future of our community are in your hands.

Onwards.

Steven Piepkorn
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
765 N Main Street, Suite 151
Corona, CA 92880
+1 951 279 4697

Page 558 ends

From: Judy Summers
To: Mcpherson, Sean
Cc: Judy Summers
Subject: RE: Comments regarding Notice of Availability of a Draft Environment Impact Report for 9th & Vineyard Development Project and EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2019110456 Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 2:51:57 PM
Attachments: 9th and Vineyard Development Project Final EIR_Revised 10-31-25 (1).pdf Hi Sean,
Thank you for your response.

In reading the provided response, I noticed that my concern regarding the intersection at 9th & Vineyard, specifically section 3-2, was not addressed.

As you are aware, 9th Street is a two-lane street, and the additional 362 vehicles and trucks will significantly impact traffic congestion.

Just the other day, while I was heading east on 9th Street and waiting to turn right onto Vineyard, I observed a troubling scenario. The intersection has a left turn lane and a lane to go straight, but there is no space for a car to turn right when the light is red. A truck in front of me was also waiting to turn right, and it took the entire green light to make the turn.

Consequently, no other vehicles were able to proceed through the intersection or turn right during that time.

Please find the attached picture showing the situation I am describing. In order to mitigate this traffic nightmare, it is imperative to widen 9th Street and create a dedicated right turn lane. Although this may somewhat alleviate the congestion, traffic will still be quite challenging.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,
Judy Summers
Judy Summers [email protected] 909-908-5195
From: Mcpherson, Sean <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 5:52 PM
To: 'Judy Summers' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments regarding Notice of Availability of a Draft Environment Impact Report for 9th & Vineyard Development Project and EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2019110456 Hi Ms. Summers,
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, I am sending you written responses to your comments (reference email below) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH2019110456) for the “9th and Vineyard Development Project.” This item, and the associated EIR, will be heard at a public hearing before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council Attachment 8 Page 559
on December 17, 2025, at which point the project may be approved and the EIR may be certified. Written responses to your agency’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report can be found by following this link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ezgw6i02xipw2atbx5iv8/APDSOu27n3HT6sFJUNe3fKc/DEIR %209th%20and%20Vineyard%20Development%20Project%20and%20EIR? dl=0&preview=9th+and+Vineyard+Development+Project+Final+EIR_Revised+10-31-

25.pdf&rlkey=is2wz9w5mgwjiezsbt50d6c1e&subfolder_nav_tracking=1 (your email and our subsequent response comments begin on page 2-6).

If the above link does not work, please note that the same documents can be found by accessing the Planning Department’s webpage on the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/planning. All environmental documents for this project can be found through this webpage by scrolling toward the bottom and clicking the “CEQA Documents Available for Review” tab under the heading “Current Projects & Planning Initiatives.” All environmental documentation, including the Final EIR documentation, for this project is under the link titled “DEIR 9th and Vineyard Development Project and EIR.” The City of Rancho Cucamonga thanks you for your input and participation in this important process.

Thanks,
Sean McPherson, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-774-4307
From: Mcpherson, Sean
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Judy Summers <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments regarding Notice of Availability of a Draft Environment Impact Report for 9th & Vineyard Development Project and EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2019110456 Judy,
Thank you for your email. Please note that your comments have been received and will be included with the project packet to be delivered to the Planning Commission and City Council at such time that public hearing(s) are scheduled.

Page 560 ends

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important As a friendly note, I am aware that the developer is hoping to schedule a neighborhood meeting at some point over the next few weeks. Please be aware that you may be receiving a separate notice for that meeting at some point in the coming days.

Please feel free to reach out to me directly with any additional questions you may have.

Thanks,
Sean McPherson, AICP
Principal Planner
Planning and Economic Development Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
From: Judy Summers <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 2:14 PM
To: Mcpherson, Sean <[email protected]>
Cc: Judy Summers <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments regarding Notice of Availability of a Draft Environment Impact Report for 9th & Vineyard Development Project and EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2019110456 CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello
I reside at 8692 9th street unit 6 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730. I am writing with concerns regarding the development of warehouses on 9th and Vineyard.

My biggest concern is the increased traffic from cars and trucks. 9th street is part of a residential neighborhood with only a two-lane highway. There is an elementary school at 9th and Baker and many children walk this way home.

Commercial Truck traffic has increased dramatically with the new warehouses constructed on the north side of the street.

I am concerned regarding the already increased traffic and safety concerns for the elementary school children who walk this route, and the impact of backed up traffic.

The street does NOT have sidewalks all the way down.

On the Southwest corner of 9th and Vineyard (no sidewalk) there used to be enough room to turn right when there was a red light. They have blocked that off so it is down to a left turn lane and a straight through lane. Traffic is already backing up there

Page 561 ends

causing delays. Your report stated that the “9th street driveway would provide inbound/outbound access for passenger vehicles and trucks; however trucks exiting onto 9th street would be restricted to right turn only.” This driveway would cause a traffic nightmare. Since this is two lane street, it already backs up traffic who are trying to turn right. Due to increased traffic and trucks, you no longer make it through the green light and need to wait for several additional light changes. I can only imagine with 362 extra vehicles and ? trucks how this will make navigation much more difficult. For this to possibly work, the street needs to have 2 lanes each direction in addition to a right turn lane. I suggest you complete a traffic study (when school is in session) and check traffic conditions between 7 am and 9 am.

As it is, when you gave approval for the warehouses on the north side of the street, they knocked down part of our complex’s brick wall and has never paid for it or fixed it. We now have a leaning brick wall that is about to fall over. I would have thought City Inspectors would have made the contractors accountable. Our HOA has reached out to them several times with no response.

Also, the Internet Service available in Rancho Cucamonga is horrible and always down. Even though my condominium was built with underground fiber optic cabling in 2008, the few internet providers that service RC do not offer it. With these increased warehouses the service has gotten worse, so for those of us trying to work from home it is not feasible or affordable. If you are going to approve these warehouses, the city should make the Internet providers provide 5g fiber optic internet and make the corporation putting in warehouse pay for it
These may seem like small concerns to you, but to those of us who live in the neighborhood it is an issue. When the City put in the Skate Park next to Cask & Cleaver the crime rate has doubled. You hear people at park all night long, M80’s and shootings. With the warehouses, more homeless will come and drugs and crime. It is already difficult enough to get sheriffs to this area of the city.

I would like a response that this was received and provided to committee.

Remember, all residents of Rancho Cucamonga deserve the same treatment, no matter where we live.

Judy Summers
[email protected]
909.908.5195

Page 562 ends

DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matt Marquez, Economic Development Director Tanya Spiegel, Deputy Director of Economic Development
Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: Receive and File an Oral Presentation by the Etiwanda Historical Society of Its Annual Report of Events, Fundraising, Membership, and Outreach Activities. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file an oral presentation by the Etiwanda Historical Society of Its Annual Report of Events, Fundraising, Membership, and Outreach Activities BACKGROUND:

The City owns the historic Chaffey-Garcia Home (7150 Etiwanda Avenue) and the Chaffey-Isle Home (7086 Etiwanda Avenue) and on November 6, 2013, the City entered into a lease agreement with the Etiwanda Historical Society (EHS) for the preservation and restoration of these historic properties. Since the execution of the initial lease term, EHS has continued to serve as the tenant and operate in accordance with the terms of the agreement. EHS primarily utilizes the properties for museum purposes and to offer programs and services that support its mission as a historical society. In addition, EHS may use the properties for incidental activities related to museum operations, including fundraising and special events such as weddings, private functions, and other commercial activities.

ANALYSIS:

In accordance with the lease agreement, EHS is required to provide the City Council with an annual report summarizing its activities and accomplishments for the preceding year. This report may include descriptions of events held at the premises, fundraising activities, and any improvements made to the properties.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

While the oral presentation from EHS does not meet a specific goal of the City Council, the lease agreements between the City and EHS meet the Council’s core values of providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 563 ends

Rancho Cucamonga City CouncilDecember 17, 2025

Rancho Cucamonga City Council
December 17, 2025