-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:
-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.
-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; however the existing DIF and other development fees associated with the construction and development of the Project, including but not limited to land use approvals, development fees, building permits, etc., shall be pursuant to the rates as annually adjusted and in effect at the time application is made for such approvals or permits. Developer shall pay all such fees in accordance with the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of payment, except that Developer shall pay the Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (“AH DIF”) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. Thirty percent (30%) of the total AH DIF for the Project prior to or upon issuance of the first building permit for the Baker House; ii. Thirty percent (30%) of the total AH DIF for the Project prior to or upon satisfaction of the Developer obligations as set forth in Section 11(B) below; and iii. Forty percent (40%) prior to or upon issuance of the first building permit for Building 1, Building 2, or Building 3 of the Project.
C. City may only apply new ordinances, rules, regulations, plans, and specifications to the development of the Site after the Effective Date if such new rules and regulations are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, and fall under one of the following categories:
i. Processing fees and charges imposed by the City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for development approvals, provided that such fees and charges are uniformly imposed by the City at similar stages of project development on all similar applications;
ii. General or special taxes, including, but not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, parcel taxes, transient occupancy taxes, business taxes, which may be applied to the Property or to businesses occupying the Property, provided that the tax is of general applicability City-wide and does not burden the Property disproportionately to other similar properties within the City; iii. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, documentation of findings, records, manner in which hearings are conducted, reports, recommendations, initiation of appeals, and any other matters of procedure; provided such regulations are uniformly imposed by the City on all matters and do not result in any unreasonable decision-making delays; or
-7-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
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 and confirmation that Baker House Construction Drawings are ready for permit issuance, such drawings shall be deemed the “Approved Baker House Construction Drawings.”
-8-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
ii. If prior to or during Developer’s construction of the Baker House Improvements pursuant to subsection iii below, a natural disaster or other natural forces (e.g. earthquake, fire, or flooding) renders construction of the Baker House Shell Improvements infeasible, then Developer may exercise one of the following options, as applicable:
a. If the Baker House is entirely destroyed due to the natural disaster, then Developer shall reconstruct a new, stick-frame structure or equivalent of less than or equal to the size of the Baker House, and provide a monument commemorating the historical significance of the Baker House in accordance with mitigation measure CUL-3 in the MMRP. In lieu of a new, stick frame structure, the City can authorize in writing an alternative means of compliance. b. In compliance with all related and applicable historic resource and environmental laws, the City can deem the Baker House uninhabitable and require it to be demolished if it is partially damaged or destroyed. Developer shall reconstruct a new, stick-frame structure or equivalent of less than or equal to the size of the Baker House, and provide a monument commemorating the historical significance of the Baker House in accordance with mitigation measure CUL-3 in the MMRP. In lieu of a new, stick frame structure, the City can authorize in writing an alternative means of compliance.
iii. In accordance with the EIR’s mitigation measures, Developer shall complete the Baker House Improvements in accordance with the Approved Baker House Construction Drawings and the terms specified in this Section 11(B). Developer shall select a general contractor who shall obtain competitive bids from at least three (3) licensed and insured subcontractors designated by Developer for each major trade component of the Baker House Improvements with a scope of work over twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) (“Major Trade Component”). Developer shall provide the City with copies of all of such Major Trade Component bids, and Developer shall adjust inconsistent or incorrect assumptions so that a like-kind comparison can be made. Developer shall select in good faith the applicable subcontractor for each Major Trade Component that provides the lowest qualified bid and who agrees to meet Developer's construction schedule for each of the applicable components of the Baker House Improvements.
a. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Improvements is less than or equal to the Total Cost, then Developer shall complete all Baker House Improvements.
b. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Shell Improvements is, on its own, equal to or greater than the Total Cost, then Developer shall complete the Baker House Shell Improvements and have no further obligation to complete the Baker House Site Improvements. For the avoidance of doubt, Developer shall be required to pay for any cost overage associated with the Baker House Shell Improvements, and, upon completion, City shall deem Developer’s obligations with respect to the Baker House complete regardless of the Site’s compliance with regulations from the Americans with Disabilities Act, parking requirements, or other development standards. Developer shall not be liable for any defects related to the Baker House Site Improvements.
-9-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
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, and obtained City acceptance thereof.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, completion of the rehabilitation of Baker House and completion of the Baker House Improvements shall satisfy all but one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) of Developer’s public art requirements under Chapter 17.124 of the City Municipal Code and the Public Art in Lieu Fee, which may be satisfied either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee.
C. Sidewalk, Trees, and Traffic Calming Improvements. Developer shall pay one million seventy thousand dollars ($1,070,000.00) as an in-lieu fee to City and contribution toward Sidewalks, Trees, and Traffic Calming improvements. The fee required pursuant to this Section 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).
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
-10-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
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 high- speed broadband (at a minimum of one (1) Gigabits (“Gbps”) per second service) for all fiber service within the Project’s buildings for a period of not less than 10 years from the date each lease commences. Developer shall cause all tenant leases to include such a requirement that they will use RC Fiber high-speed broadband (at a minimum of one (1) Gigabits (“Gbps”) per second service) for each tenant’s fiber service during such ten year period. Provided that Developer
-11-
11231-0267\3136111v15.doc
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 third- party beneficiary to all such terms included in tenant leases.
Section 12. City’s Obligations. The City shall reasonably expedite review and processing of all plans and issuance of all permits associated with the Project.
Section 13. Annual Review. During the Term of this Development Agreement, City shall annually review the extent of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Development Agreement. Developer shall file an annual report with the City indicating information regarding compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement by January 2 of each year following the Effective Date of this Agreement. Annual reports shall include all information necessary for the City to assess Developer’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to cause the annual report to be filed by any lessee then occupying the Site provided, however, that Developer shall remain primarily responsible for such filing.
Section 14. Indemnification and Legal Challenge. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to, and shall, defend, indemnify and hold City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer’s activities in connection with the construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of Developer’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Developer’s behalf, which relate to the construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, any of the entitlement documents pertaining to the Project including, without limitation, the Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Certificate of Appropriateness, EIR, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, the Developer may elect to continue development under this Agreement pending completion of the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered as a result thereof.
-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
-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;
-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
-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.
-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]
-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
CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: CP LOGISTICS PLATFORM, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Sole Member
By: PANATTONI CLP, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Administrator
By: PANATTONI CLP OPERATOR, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Manager
By: _________________________________
Chase Metkovich,
Vice President
-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)
-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)
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)
1 10.9.19
9th & 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
2 10.9.19
C
ONVEYED 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,
3 10.9.19
S
ECTION 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
4 10.9.19
M
APS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING WEST OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 30.00 FEET OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED, AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 9, 1932, IN BOOK 809, PAGE195, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979, IN BOOK 9632, PAGE 663, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 25 WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89° 45’ 40" EAST 55.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13’ 15" WEST 222.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17° 39’ 31" EAST 123.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13’ 15" WEST 43.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46’ 45" EAST 371.43 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 02, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN: 0207-271-96
PARCEL 8:
PARCEL NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 32, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE ACHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (100 FEET WIDE).
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 32 AND THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 32; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" WEST 102.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46' 45" EAST 433.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" WEST 8.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 46' 45" EAST 213.03 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 32.
APN: 0207-271-93
Exhibit A-2
Exhibit - B
Baker Avenue Community Center - Conceptual Design Package 8803 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga 91730
Date: 12/05/2024
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 SPACEKITCHEN
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
HISTORIC
ENTRY
ACCESSIBLE
RAMP
NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDING
BAKER AVE
FIRELANE
0’ 32’ 64’ 128’
CMU SCREEN WALL
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 3.64) Fire Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.80) Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter
3.76)
DATE: January 21, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager
Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) to Amend the Neighborhood Area Density Consistent with the Existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood; Add Nine New Building Types and Amend Development Standards for Existing Building Types; Amend the Regulating Zones to Permit New Building Types and Expand Existing Building Types in the Camino Overlay, Neighborhood Estates, Neighborhood General 1 and Neighborhood General 2 Regulating Zones; Add New Open Space Types and Standards and Add “Shared Yard” As a Frontage Type; Add New Block Configurations; Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development (Density) Within the Neighborhood Area. (DRC2025-00022); and Establish Site Plans for Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the EHNCP To Consider a City Council Resolution to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 1 (27.7 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20853); and To Consider a City Council Resolution to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 2 (39.2 Acres) Into 231 Numbered Lots and 11 Lettered Lots for the Development of 233 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20854). An Addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR (SCH#201711102) has been prepared for this project for the City Council’s Consideration. (ORDINANCE NO. 1055 AND RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-001 AND 2026-002) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council take the following actions:
Conduct first reading of Ordinance Number 1055 to be read by title only and waive full reading to amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) with the Planning Commission’s recommended changes and a 2.5 story limit on building heights to be consistent with the General Plan.
Adopt resolution 2026-001 to approve the subdivision of Planning Area 1 of the EHNCP for the future development of 177 single family homes (SUBTT20853). Adopt resolution 2026-002 to approve the subdivision of Planning Area 2 of the EHNCP for the future development of 231 single family homes (SUBTT20854).
3 2
8 8
BACKGROUND:
Since the early 2000’s the County of San Bernardino has made several attempts to sell 1,200 acres of surplus land owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control land around Los Osos High School. In 2019, after two years of development and community input, the City proactively adopted the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP or Plan). The Plan was developed in anticipation of a pending sale of the 1,200 acres of surplus land, including the former rock crushing site, and to zone surrounding land within the City’s sphere of influence. The total acreage governed by the Plan is 4,088 acres. The Plan divided the area into two areas; the Neighborhood Area, where most development would occur, and the Rural Conservation Area (RCA), which was limited to rural uses and would focus on conservation of areas in the northernmost area of the foothills. In the adopted plan, the Neighborhood Area allows for the development of up to 2,700 units (3,000 units with development rights transferred from the RCA) and 180,000 square feet of commercial uses. After the Plan was adopted, the area was annexed into the City.
In 2021, the City adopted an update to the General Plan. The City Council initiated this update process, referred to as PlanRC, to be compliant with changes in state law and to build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant and innovative city. This comprehensive General Plan Update addressed issues and challenges facing the City, including diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choice and preserving the character, history, and quality of life that make Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live. The updated General Plan advances the City’s vision for a sustainable, resilient, equitable and healthy community.
In 2024, the County Board of Supervisors entered into a purchase and sale agreement for the surplus flood control land with The Previti Group. This purchase includes most of the developable land within the Neighborhood Area of the EHNCP, plus additional land within the RCA. The Previti Group intends to operate as the master developer for the site, coordinating the development of each planning area and contracting with homebuilders to design and construct homes as appropriate.
The Previti Group is requesting amendments to the EHNCP to, among other things, align the base density of the Specific Plan with the General Plan and provide for implementing additional building types of the proposed density. The General Plan land use designation for the neighborhood area of the EHNCP is designated as “Traditional Neighborhood”, which permits a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre (Attachment 1). State laws, which were signed into law since adoption of the original Plan, allow for development at the General Plan’s density, regardless of the existing limits in the Specific Plan. In addition, The Previti Group has submitted single family home tract maps and site plans for the first two Neighborhood planning areas in the Plan, which are consistent with the proposed changes in the Specific Plan.
ANALYSIS:
As proposed, the changes to the EHNCP focus on three main areas; 1) Align the development density of the EHNCP with the General Plan as intended by State Law; 2) Modify existing development standards and add new building types to the plan to support the realignment in development density; and 3) Establish a formal mechanism for transferring density within the Neighborhood Area to allow for less density near existing neighborhoods and cluster residential uses elsewhere within the Neighborhood Area. In addition, the site plans for the first two planning areas of the Neighborhood Plan would be incorporated into the Plan.
3 2
8 8
Align density in conformance with the General Plan
In October 2019, the Governor signed Senate Bill 330, the Skinner Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330). This law made several modifications to existing legislation, such as the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act. One section of the Housing Accountability Act was amended to state “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” (Gov’t Code Section 65589.5(j)(4)).
The intent of this language was to restrict cities from requiring housing developers to rezone a property for housing development of a density of type or types that is consistent with the objective standards in the General Plan, but the current zoning code was inconsistent with those standards.
In the past cities would use the General Plan land use designations to show the general density over a larger area, such as “up to 8 dwelling units per acre” and use the zoning code to determine density at a more granular level based on adjacencies and existing land use patterns. Under SB 330, the General Plan’s objective density standard for a property would be deemed consistent with a proposed housing development that is consistent with such objective density standard, even if the Development Code’s density standard is lower. When this occurs, the Housing Accountability Act provides that the City’s “standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.” This provision has the effect of waiving or modifying development standards that preclude development at the density standard outlined in the General Plan.
In addition, another portion of SB330, known as the Housing Crisis Act, restricts cities from establishing any regulation that acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be either approved or constructed (Gov. Code §66300(b)(1)(D)(ii). Unlike other areas of the city that use a unit to acre density standard for housing development, the Plan took a different approach and placed a development cap of 3,000 units (assuming 300 units are transferred from the RCA). This cap may no longer be enforceable due to SB 330 and changing to a unit to acre density standard for development in the Plan eliminates the conflict between the Plan and SB330.
The approach originally developed in the Plan is not consistent with the discreet unit to acre density standard shown in the General Plan, based on the previously discussed changes in State law. The developer is requesting aligning the density in conformance with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation to provide more flexibility in the overall development of the site. The proposed amendment clarifies that the maximum density of the Neighborhood Area of the plan is eight dwelling units per gross acre, consistent with the General Plan land use designation of “Traditional Neighborhood”. These proposed changes do not affect the commercial requirements within the plan.
The proposed change represents an overall increase in the number of units permitted within the Plan. Currently the Plan caps the number of units at 3,000. Using a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre, the theoretical maximum number of units based on overall land area under the developer’s control, less the land zoned for shops and restaurants, is approximately 5,780 units. The actual number of developed units will be lower, as this calculation does not account for streets, parks, schools, existing utility easements and other infrastructure to be developed. It is difficult to know the exact number of units that will be built, as it could vary greatly based on the type of units that are chosen to be built, the size of each lot and required infrastructure and amenities. The 3,000 units enumerated in the original plan were calculated after all required
3 2
8 8
streets, parks, infrastructure and school sites were excluded from the land area. This is an important distinction to note because the numbers alone do not represent an equal comparison.
Modifications to development standards
The Plan currently regulates the building type (house type) permitted in each Planning Area (PA).
The current building types and locations were programmed to achieve a specific development pattern within the Neighborhood Area. Minimum and maximum quantities are developed in each PA for a “mix and match” approach with limits on each building type to avoid uniformity across the PA. Lower and lower medium density building types (Estate, Extra Large, Large and Medium House) are required on the perimeter in Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3. These housing types can range from around 2 units per acre to 6 units per acre. In addition to the housing types listed above, medium density building types (Small House, Attached A, B, C and Flex) are permitted in Planning Areas 3 through 9. These housing types can range from around 6 units per acre to 10 units per acre.1
To allow for a more flexible development pattern, while maintaining consistency with the Traditional Neighborhood designation, new building types were developed to provide additional options for future development. Each new type has been developed with objective development standards. The proposed plan uses existing regulating zones that specify the types of buildings permitted in different areas. The Plan’s current approach to locating compatible housing along the neighborhood perimeter, directing more compact development toward the interior has been maintained.
Eight new building types were developed and analyzed to determine the most suitable regulating zone for each Planning Area. In addition, existing building types were expanded across regulating zones to accommodate the additional units expected with the change to density driven development calculations as opposed to the previous unit capped approach. Figure 1 below shows the new building types (highlighted in yellow) and distribution across the regulating zones (highlighted in green).
1 The densities provided in this section are estimates and do not represent any designated minimum or maximum density permitted. Lot sizes can vary, impacting actual density. This information is presented for illustrative purposes to show how density varies by currently approved building type.
3 2
8 8
Figure 1 - Allowed Building Types by Regulating Zone
Building types with larger massing and scale that have been most concerning to the community (like 12-plex and Walk-Up) are limited to the Neighborhood General 2 (NG2) zone, located in Planning Areas 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the planning areas and regulating zones. This map remains unchanged from the original Plan.
3 2
8 8
Figure 2 - Regulating Plan with Planning Areas
Finally, changes to private open space, frontage options and block configurations are proposed to complement new and existing building types and further implement one of the guiding principles of the Plan, to create a unique sense of place.
3 2
8 8
Transfer of Development (Density) within the Neighborhood Area The plan currently permits the Transfer of Development Rights program (TDR) from the Rural Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area to encourage continued conservation and preservation of open space in the RCA in exchange for additional development capacity in the Neighborhood Area. This is achieved by a property owner in the RCA selling their development rights (capacity) on the open market to an interested buyer (developer) to add to the Neighborhood Area to increase development capacity. The land in the RCA would then be permanently restricted by covenant from any residential development.
As previously noted, development in the original Plan was not designed to be uniform across the entire Neighborhood Area. In the Plan, development adjacent to existing neighborhoods was regulated to be more compatible (low/low-medium density), with more compact development toward the interior (medium density). By changing to a density-based standard, each individual project must have a maximum density of 8 units per (gross) acre. This changes the development pattern within the Neighborhood Area, forcing more uniformity in housing development and limiting the uniqueness that was a core tenant of the plan. It also makes it more difficult to encourage compatible development near existing neighborhoods with lower density building types.
To maintain the original development pattern, the proposed amendments also include a new Transfer of Density Rights (TDR) program within the Neighborhood Area. The intent of this is to provide a mechanism to transfer density between the planning areas of the Neighborhood Area.
This would address one of the main concerns of maintaining complimentary development near existing neighborhoods and allow for clustering of homes elsewhere within the interior of the Neighborhood Area. In this scenario, specific projects with allowed building types may exceed the maximum density of 8 units per acre to encourage projects adjacent to the existing neighborhoods to be less than 8 units to the acre. The entire Neighborhood Area would still be required to maintain an overall average density of 8 units per acre. The developer would be permitted to bank units from individual projects below the maximum density to transfer the units to other projects to allow projects at higher densities to be developed elsewhere within the Plan area.
Section 7.4.2 of the proposed Plan lays out the regulations regarding the Neighborhood Area TDR program in detail, but the process is summarized in this report. First, at the time of development of a site, the applicant requests the number of unbuilt dwelling units to be banked (transferred).
Next, as part of the development approval, the banked units are added to the TDR bank. Then, when a new development would like to receive any banked units, the request will be included in their application for review and applicability. Finally, when the subsequent project is approved, the units received will be removed from the TDR bank.
Regulations in the program ensure that any units transferred to a site can be accommodated with adequate infrastructure. Any proposed transfer is required to be compatible with the surrounding development to ensure that the receiving site does not create abrupt changes in scale, character or height. Units within the transfer bank expire 10 years after they are transferred into the bank.
An annual report will be published on the City’s website showing all activity within the Neighborhood Area TDR program. The Neighborhood Area TDR program is not mandated under state law, but it does further the goals of the original Plan as previously mentioned. The program also does not require that units be banked or that banked units be used. There is no cap on the number of units that can be banked, however any project using transferred units cannot exceed a density of 29 units per acre3. One final note, the program as currently proposed does permit 3 Planning Commission recommended 20 units per acre, discussed later in the report.
3 2
8 8
unit transfer from all the property the developer owns in the Neighborhood Area, including an Edison transmission easement, an area designated in the General Plan as Traditional Neighborhood, but is unbuildable due to the easement.
Other Miscellaneous Changes to the Plan
In addition to the main amendments to the plan, various text amendments are proposed to update language in the plan to reflect actions since the adoption of the plan, including but not limited to the LAFCO annexation action, change in state law, and the adoption of the General Plan in 2021.
Changes were also made to the application and review process outlined in the plan to mirror the City’s existing development review process.
Subdivision of Planning Areas 1 and 2
In addition to the proposed Specific Plan amendments, The Previti Group has submitted tract maps to legally subdivide Planning Area 1 (PA1) and Planning Area 2 (PA2) (Figures 3 and 4).
These maps were developed based on the proposed plan amendments.
Tract 20853 encompasses Planning Area 1 with an overall land area of 27.7 acres. The project proposes the subdivision of four unimproved parcels into 177 numbered lots and nine lettered lots for the future development of 177 single-family units at a density of 6.4 units per acre. The adjacent developments to the east and west of PA1 were developed under the Low-Medium residential zone with a density range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre. Lots on the west side of PA1 have larger lot sizes to better complement the existing neighborhood development adjacent to PA1. Lots on the east side of the Planning Area are separated from the adjacent neighborhood by the Deer Creek Channel.
The lots will have access from Banyan Street, with connections to the adjacent streets of Mirador Drive, Lemon Avenue, and Marbella Drive are proposed. The numbered residential lots range in size from 11,992 square feet to 2,750 square feet. Since the EHNCP is a form-based plan, lot requirements for each lot are based on the building type. There are two building types proposed in the tract; Lots 1-131 are based on the front load house building type. Lots 132-177 use the motor court building type. Other conventional lot criteria, such as minimum or maximum lot size or average lot size, are not included or required in a form-based code. Each lot meets the minimum lot dimensions for the identified building type.
3 2
8 8
Figure 3 - Planning Area 1 Site Plan
Tract 20854 encompasses Planning Area 2, with an overall land area of 39.2 acres. The project proposes the subdivision of 1 existing, unimproved parcel into 231 numbered lots and 11 lettered lots for the development of 231 single-family units at a density of 5.9 units per acre. The adjacent developments to the west of PA1 were developed under the Low residential zone with a density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. Lots on the west side of PA2 have larger lot sizes to better complement the existing neighborhood development west of PA2.
The lots will have access from both Banyan and Milliken Avenue. A cul-de-sac is proposed at the northern terminus bordering Wilson Avenue due to significant grade change that precludes the connection to Wilson. The numbered residential lots range in size from 8,942 square feet to 1,802
3 2
8 8
square feet. As previously mentioned, since the EHNCP is form-based plan, lot requirements for each lot are based on the building type. There are two building types proposed in the tract; Lots 1-35 are based on the front load house building type. The front load house lots are located on the west side of PA 2, adjacent to the Deer Creek Channel, maintaining compatibility with adjacent established neighborhoods. Lots 36-121 use the motor court building type with 6 lots in each court. Lots 122-231 use the motor court building type with up to 10 lots in each court. As previously noted, other conventional lot criteria, such as minimum or maximum lot size or average lot size, are not included or required in a form-based code. Each lot meets the minimum lot dimensions for the identified building type.
Figure 4 - Planning Area 2 Site Plan
3 2
8 8
The Previti Group requests that the remaining unused density in each Planning Area, 128 units total, be transferred to the TDR “bank” using the Neighborhood Area TDR program.
Table 1: Transfer of Density Request
Planning
Area
Tract
Number
Planning Area
(Gross Acres)
Maximum Units
Allowed (8 du/acre)
Proposed
Units
Banked
Units5
1 20853 27.7 222 177 45
2 20854 39.2 314 231 83
Noticing and Correspondence
SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places ("cultural places") through local land use planning. Letters were sent to local tribes on October 13, 2025, and tribes were provided 90 days to respond to request consultation. All tribes that have responded to date have declined consultation. This item was advertised with a 1/8 th page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on January 8, 2026, 13 days prior to the public hearing. Because the number of individual property owners within 660 feet of the boundaries of the parcels of the Neighborhood Area exceeded 1,000 owners, pursuant to RCMC section 17.14.050.B.2, no individual notices were sent. 4 x 8-foot notice signs were placed in five prominent locations around the neighborhood area boundary and public hearing notices were posted there on January 8, 2026. In addition, all parties that requested individual notification of the public hearing were notified by email at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
Environmental Analysis
As part of the adoption of the EHNCP in 2019, the City Council certified the EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#201711102) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff contracted with one of our on-call CEQA consultants (PlaceWorks) to review the certified EIR and to assist in determining the appropriate level of environmental review for this project based on the proposed amendments and relevant data. An addendum to the EHNCP EIR was prepared for this project. CEQA Guidelines §15162 requires that a subsequent EIR shall be prepared only when substantial changes are proposed in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed amendments do not constitute any substantial change in the project, nor have there been any changes in circumstances since the adoption of the EIR. Further, there is no new information of substantial importance and new effects not considered in the original EIR. Based on the proposed amendment, one new mitigation measure is required (MM BIO-10: Clearance Survey and Avoidance for Crotch’s bumble bee). As such, a revised MMRP to incorporate the new mitigation measure and restate mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 is provided in the addendum.
Planning Commission hearing and recommendation
On December 10, 2025, the Planning Commission considered this item at an advertised public hearing. The meeting minutes are included in this report as Attachment 2. 26 speakers expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about wildfire risk, traffic, schools, water supplies, crime, sidewalks, high density development, safety, strain on fire stations and broken promises to the community. Commissioners acknowledged the need to align the density with the General Plan 5 These numbers are lower than was previously shown in the Planning Commission staff report on December 10, 2025. The overall gross area of each planning area was listed incorrectly, causing the calculations to report a higher number of “banked” units.
3 2
8 8
but expressed concerns about other areas of the proposed amendments. Commissioners felt that the maximum density allowed under the TDR program was too high. Some also had concerns about how the TDR program administration was worded and when the 10-year clock starts.
Commissioners were overall disappointed that a neighborhood meeting was not conducted.
Concerns were expressed about the need for denser building types, particularly the 12-plex and Walk-Ups. They understood the community’s concerns and expressed frustration about having to consider changes to a plan widely accepted by the community due to State intervention in local planning.
The Commission reached consensus and recommended approval of the amendment and tract maps with the following changes to the amendment:
1. Reduce the expiration of banked units in the TDR program from 10 to 8 years.
2. Delete the Walk-Up building type from the plan.
3. Reduce the maximum density for projects accepting banked TDR units from 29 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
What we heard
Prior to, during and following the Planning Commission hearing, staff noted several concerns raised by the community on multiple occasions and provided responses. This section summarizes the main topics raised and expands further on responses previously provided. Written comments received after the Planning Commission meeting and prior to the publishing of the City Council staff report are included as Attachment 3.
Wildfire
We have heard many concerns about adding more residential to the very high fire severity zone/wildland-urban interface area. The Plan was designed understanding the risks in the area.
The Plan currently requires the Master Developer to prepare a Fire Protection Plan acceptable to the Fire Marshal, including but not limited to defining fuel modification buffers around the Neighborhood Area prior to construction of residential units. Fuel modification buffers and emergency access roads are required along the north edge of the Neighborhood Area (PA 3 and 9) to assist fire personnel in preventing wildfires from entering the area as well as containing structure fires within the neighborhoods to stop their spreading in the rural area. Development within the Neighborhood Area will require the removal of existing vegetation in the area, providing less fuel that if left undisturbed, could spread fire to existing neighborhoods to the east, south and west.
On November 19, 2025, the Fire District adopted the 2025 Wildland-Urban Interface Code that applies to all new construction in the wildland-urban interface area. The new codes include provisions for water and access to new developments, home hardening through ignition-resistant building materials, and defensible space. These provisions establish minimum requirements to reduce the likelihood of life and property loss due to wildfire.
Many residents have also expressed concerns about their own struggles to acquire and maintain homeowners’ insurance and are concerned that these new homes will experience similar issues.
As part of the Wildland-Urban Interface Code adoption, Fire District included amendments to align the code with the Insurance Institute for Building and Homes Safety’s Wildfire Prepared Home program. The Wildfire Prepared Home program provides scientifically validated wildfire mitigation standards that offer proven methods to reduce structure ignition probability and improve firefighter safety during wildfire incidents. By aligning local amendments to the Wildfire Prepared Home program, residential property owners are 80% more likely, and commercial property owners are 50% more likely to remain insured or gain insurance. More information on the Wildfire Prepared
3 2
8 8
Home program and how existing homeowners can learn more and participate in reducing wildfire risk to their home can be found on their website at https://wildfireprepared.org/.
Evacuation
Hand in hand with wildfire, there has been deep concern among many residents about the ability to evacuate the area in the event of an emergency, especially if the number of units in the Plan increases. The original Plan was developed with more points of access than required for the safe and efficient evacuation of the entire Neighborhood Area. As the project is developed in whole or partially, two points of access will allow emergency services to access the community and evacuate residents, if needed. Two points of access are a minimum requirement, and Etiwanda Heights has a total of four potential points of access on Wilson (2), Milliken (1), and Rochester (1). Furthermore, each individual development project will also be required to have a minimum of two points of access.
As an additional safety benefit, the planned street network purposefully differs from many of the residential areas in Rancho Cucamonga by providing additional connections and routes, which can improve overall traffic flow and support emergency response if evacuation is ever necessary.
The street network was intentionally designed to avoid single-access patterns and dead-end streets for better access and traffic flow. Having multiple connections within the neighborhood helps distribute traffic more evenly and reduce pressure on any one roadway, in the case of evacuations. As previously mentioned, emergency access roads are required along the north edge of the Neighborhood Area (PA 3 and 9). These designs allow both residents and emergency service personnel better access in and out of the area.
Evaluating evacuations in the Etiwanda Heights project area will be grounded in three universal incident priorities: life safety, incident stabilization, and property/environmental preservation. It is essential to note that a one-size-fits-all approach is not employed by the Fire District in emergency response within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) or when implementing the evacuation plan.
A multitude of factors are considered during the incident to address the stated priorities; therefore, how the Fire District decides to evacuate an area or shelter in place is predicated on a multitude of factors dictated by the incident.
In 2021, an evacuation assessment was completed that identifies evacuation routes and focuses on the estimated time needed to evacuate current areas of the city. This assessment is in compliance with SB99 (2019) and AB747 (2019), which are intended to identify evacuation routes and the capacity, safety, and viability under different emergency scenarios. Per state law, the Evacuation Assessment is required to be updated not less than every 8 years. As a result, the Evacuation Assessment will not incorporate evacuation capabilities of the entire Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood Area until after the project is completed and the population, evacuation routes, and distances are known.
Traffic
Concerns have been raised regarding increased traffic from the project and whether revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new EIR, are required. Under CEQA, traffic congestion in and of itself is not considered a significant environmental impact. Historically, transportation impacts were evaluated based on vehicle delay and roadway level of service; however, this approach often resulted in roadway widening, which induces additional driving by making travel faster and more convenient, but studies have shown that ultimately the additional driving negated the intent of the roadway widening by adding more cars and resulting in more traffic and not less.
Current CEQA guidance and statutory requirements of SB743 (2013) relies on Vehicle Miles
3 2
8 8
Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for evaluating transportation-related environmental impacts.
VMT measures the amount and frequency of driving and better reflects impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use. This methodology emphasizes development patterns that reduce driving, such as compact land use, proximity to jobs, shops, and services, and circulation networks that support walking, bicycling, and transit.
The Plan does include a robust circulation network, as seen below. This includes completing the east-west extension of Wilson Avenue, providing an alternative to Banyan Street. In addition, a second east west neighborhood avenue is proposed for those traversing west to northeast within the Neighborhood Area. Rochester Avenue and Milliken Avenue will be extended and connected to Wilson Avenue. Two neighborhood edge drives will diagonally connect the northwest to southeast edges for those in the Neighborhood Area as alternatives to Rochester, Milliken and Wilson Avenues. The street network was designed to include multi-modal access for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. In addition, a multipurpose trail network provides additional access for pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Finally, the shops and restaurants zone of PA 9 provides access to neighborhood scale shops and restaurants within areas designated for more compact development that can be accessed via a short walk or car ride to reduce the need to travel out of the area for goods and services, decreasing both traffic and VMT.
3 2
8 8
Figure 5 - Roadway Network
Traffic is a recognized community concern; however, CEQA does not regulate or resolve congestion-related issues. Traffic congestion is addressed through transportation planning and implementation tools such as signal timing, street and intersection design, land use planning, and investments in transit and active transportation infrastructure. The Plan sets the overall vision, land use framework, and development standards for an area, but it does not approve individual projects or building designs. Because details such as the exact location of driveways, building size and layout, number of units, and timing of development are not yet known, it is not possible to predict precise, site-specific impacts—such as traffic at a particular intersection—at this stage.
As individual projects are proposed, they are reviewed in greater detail, and project-level studies are conducted to evaluate traffic and other impacts and to identify any needed improvements or conditions. At times, it can include roadway widening as well.
Density and Intensity
Many comments received revolve around density and intensity of future development in the Neighborhood Area. Comments expressed concerns about how dense and high buildings would be, wondering if other projects that have been approved along our key corridors (Foothill
3 2
8 8
Boulevard and Haven Avenue) would be similarly built in the Neighborhood Area. To provide some clarity and context, this section will discuss what is currently approved compared to what is proposed.
While density, and high density in particular, is subjective; what one considers high density may be different from one person to another. This report is using density qualifiers based on established densities (du/acre = dwelling units per acre) that currently exist in the development code (Chapter 17.36.010 and 17.130.050). The table below lists all residential densities that are currently in the code.
Table 2: Existing Primary Residential Zones
Zone Density Range Description
Very Low 2-4 du/acre Single family on large lots of 10,000 – 20,000 square feet Low 2-6 du/acre Single family with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet Low-Medium 4-8 du/acre Single family with minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet Medium 8-14 du/acre Single family detached or attached homes with minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet
Medium-High 14-24 du/acre Multifamily residential (condominiums or apartments), often 2 stories
High 24-30 du/acre Multifamily residential (condominiums or apartments), often 2 or 3 stories
Corridor 1 24-42 du/acre Located along Foothill Boulevard, west of Haven; multifamily, mixed use, up to 5 stories
Corridor 2 36-60 du/acre Located along Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven; multifamily, mixed use, up to 7 stories
Center 2 40-100 du/acre Located at select intersections along Foothill and Haven; multifamily mixed use, up to 12 stories
As previously noted, development in the original Plan was not designed to be uniform across the entire Neighborhood Area. In the Plan, development adjacent to existing neighborhoods was regulated to be more compatible, with densities likely classified as low or low-medium density and housing types that may range from around 2 units to the acre to 6 units to the acre. The interior of the plan allows for more compact development toward the interior, likely classified as medium density and housing types that may range from around 6 units to the acre to 10 units to the acre.
The proposed maximum density permitted through the TDR program is 29 units per acre and some building types have a permitted height up to 3 stories. After the Planning Commission meeting, staff further examined these building types and discovered an inconsistency with General Plan. In the Traditional Neighborhood land use designation, the General Plan states “Buildings are up to 2.5 stories in height with varied massing and a wide range of architectural styles compatible with the existing character of adjacent houses”. The additional half story is used to allow for varied architectural designs and roof angles, but livable space is limited to 2 stories.
This standard must be maintained in the Plan to ensure consistency between the General Plan and EHNCP. In addition, some inconsistencies have been found between the summary table for building types and each individual building type page spread in the Plan. To correct both inconsistencies, staff is recommending updating the appropriate sections of Chapter 5, Section
5.4 of the Plan with the building heights shown in Table 3. The reduction in height for building types currently shown as 3 stories will complement the Planning Commission’s recommendation to reduce the maximum density to 20 units per acre.
3 2
8 8
Table 3: Building Heights by Building Type
Building Height
Building Type To eave of pitched roof To top of parapet of flat roof
Total Building Height
Estate 24 feet 24 feet 36 feet
Extra Large House 24 feet 24 feet 36 feet
Large House 24 feet 24 feet 36 feet
Medium House 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet
Small House 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet
Attached A 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet
Attached B 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet
Duplex 22 feet 22 feet 34 feet (2 stories)
Quadplex 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet (2.5 stories)
12-plex 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet (2.5 stories)
Walk-up 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet (2.5 stories)
Cottage Court 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet (2.5 stories)
Courtyard Building 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet (2.5 stories) Attached Flex 22 feet 22 feet 34 feet
Shops & Restaurants 30 feet 35 feet 42 feet
Front Load House 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet
Motor Court 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet
Public Outreach
Many questions were raised about why community meetings about the changes to the plan were not held like they were during the development of the EHNCP. When any community planning effort is initiated and led by the City, such as a general plan update or EHNCP, the City takes a proactive role in community outreach. In these cases, the City is the project sponsor, responsible for shaping the proposal and ensuring broad public participation. This includes hosting City-led workshops, neighborhood meetings, and other engagement activities early in the process to gather input, share information, and build consensus around community priorities.
When a private developer initiates an amendment to any long-range plan like the general plan or a specific plan, the City’s role is to act as a neutral regulator, not as a project sponsor. Hosting City-led community meetings can create the perception that the City supports or endorses a proposal before it has undergone formal review. To maintain neutrality while encouraging early engagement, developers are often asked to host a neighborhood meeting. This meeting allows developers to share information, listen to community concerns, and respond to questions about their proposal directly. This approach fosters transparency and dialogue without compromising the City’s impartial position. Formal opportunities are provided by the City for public input during the review and public hearing stages, when complete project details, environmental analysis, and staff recommendations are available.
Community Meeting
On Monday, January 12, 2026, The Previti Group held a community meeting from 5:00 – 6:30 p.m. It was set up open house style with different stations related to commercial development, density, housing, community and public art, landscaping and community parks, CEQA and schools around the room for the public to ask questions related to their concerns. Around 25 people attended the meeting with City staff present, as is our general practice with all developer- led community meetings. Activity at many of the tables was lively, particularly stations related to density and housing.
3 2
8 8
Council Alternatives
The City Council has several options available when considering the proposed amendments to the Plan. The options below are consistent with the Council’s authority under State law and the City’s adopted plans and regulations.
Option 1 – Approve the amendments as originally proposed. The Council may approve the amendments as submitted if it determines that the amendments are consistent with the general plan goals, policies and implementation programs.
Option 2 – Approve the amendments with modifications. The Council may approve the amendments with changes recommended by Planning Commission and staff. Council may approve the amendments with all changes currently proposed or modify these changes at their discretion. In addition, Council can make additional modifications it deems appropriate to address specific concerns or better align the Plan with general plan goals and policies.
Option 3 – Deny the amendments. The Council may deny the amendments if it determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the general plan goals and policies.
If the Council approves the amendments to the Plan, it may consider whether to approve the proposed tentative subdivision maps for Planning Areas 1 and 2. This decision should be based on whether the Council believes that the tentative maps are consistent with the Plan, as amended, and the General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
One of the six guiding principles of the Plan was to ensure that the Plan was fiscally responsible.
Conservation and Neighborhood development were expected to pay their own way and not place new tax burdens on existing residents. The amount collected in property taxes that is allocated to the City ($0.054 per dollar) is lower than surrounding cities in the area, due to our incorporation after the passage of Proposition 13. Shops and restaurants were included in the plan to offset the cost of services for housing and to ensure that the plan is fiscally self-sustaining. Development of PA1 and PA2 will bring in some additional property tax, but the project will not be cost neutral until the shops and restaurants area is built and leased.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed amendments support the Council goals of building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere and intentionally embracing and anticipating our future. The amendments to the Plan will create a variety of new housing types with new opportunities for home ownership and families to continue to grow and thrive in Rancho Cucamonga.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Excerpt from the General Plan for Traditional Neighborhood Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 10, 2026 Attachment 3 – Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-042, 2025-043 and 2025-045 Attachment 4 – Correspondence received after the Planning Commission Meeting Attachment 5 – Draft Ordinance Number 1055
Attachment 6 – Resolution 2026-001
Attachment 7 – Resolution 2026-002
67 VOLUME 2 • CHAPTER 1: LAND USE & COMMUNITY CHARACTER
TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD
Purpose & Intent
To maintain and promote single family housing in neighborhoods with traditional pedestrian-oriented neighborhood development patterns, including in new master planned neighborhoods.
Land Use & Development Intensity
Uses are primarily low and low-medium density residential. Context-sensitive neighborhood commercial uses are also allowed in certain locations, such as neighborhood edges and at designated nodes within new master planned neighborhoods (see Chapter 2 Focus Areas for additional details on the Etiwanda Heights Town Center).
Civic uses, such as fire stations, schools, and churches may be allowed provided such uses are oriented toward serving the needs of neighborhoods. + Residential Density: Max. 8 units/acre
+ Non-Residential Intensity: Max. 0.4 FAR
Built Form & Character
Neighborhoods are traditional in character. Buildings are set back from the sidewalk with moderately sized front yards and welcoming entries scaled and oriented to pedestrians. Commercial groundfloors may be set nearer to the sidewalk to support such activities as outdoor dining and provide clear views into shopfronts. Buildings are up to 2.5 stories in height with varied massing and a wide range of architectural styles compatible with the existing character of adjacent houses. Multifamily and mixed-use buildings are compatible in scale, form, and character with nearby houses.
Lots, blocks, and streets conform to the natural terrain, minimizing grading and preserving natural landforms. Streetscapes provide safe and comfortable environments for pedestrians and bicyclists with continuous sidewalks uninterrupted by wide driveways, large shade trees and native landscaping.
Access & Connectivity
Streets are highly interconnected with a grid network pattern and human- scale blocks. Pedestrian and equestrian connections to trail systems are provided from neighborhood streets. Buffered or protected bike lanes may be added to collector streets along with street trees and other landscape enhancements that define the public spaces and provide shade canopy.
Parks & Open Space
Open space is in the form of neighborhood parks for active and passive recreational use for all ages and other small open spaces such as plazas and squares at mixed-use and commercial areas.
Lots conform to natural terrain
Traditional Neighborhood
“House-form” town houses
ALTA LOMA
RED HILL
CUCAMONGA
CENTRAL
SOUTH SOUTHEAST
EASTSIDE
ETIWANDA
CENTRAL
NORTH
Attachment 1
2 8
3 1
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
December 10, 2025
Final Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on December 10, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll C all
Planning Commi ssion prese nt: C hairman Morales, Vice Ch airman Bol ing, Commissio ner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Ulises Benavente, Associate Engineer; Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Community Affairs Officer; Sophia Serafin, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public C
ommunications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1.
Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chai rman Boli ng; Seconde d by Commi ssioner Da niels. Motio n carried unanimously, 5-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1.
DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION – TRINITY ALLIANCE – A request for site plan and design review of 6 single-family residences and a Minor Exception to increase maximum wall height to allow up to an 8-foot combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at the terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone and the Equestrian Overlay; APN 1074-201-01 and -02. Staff finds the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2021, through Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244).
Previously approved related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218
Associate Planner
Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
HPC/PC
Final Minutes
Attachment 2
2 8
3 1
Applicants Badiola and Gomez were present and available to answer questions.
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following comment is noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:
Email from San Bernardino County Department of Public Works requesting permits that the applicant must obtain, and a wall barrier constructed adjacent to the North of the site.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the infill project is well designed, that the minor exceptions and other development standards are being met, and that the layout and architecture are good. He also noted that the corner location is appropriate.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the property owners for developing a well-designed six-home project. He concurred with Commissioner Daniels regarding the placement of the single-story homes on the corner and noted that the infill project addresses a need for this type of housing, which the city is required to provide across all housing types, income levels, and affordability ranges, and which is much needed in the community.
Chairman Morales stated that the homes are well designed and expressed his support for the project.
Motion:
Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025-044 Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D2. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) to Amend the Neighborhood Area Density Consistent with the Existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood; Add Nine New Building Types and Amend Development Standards for Existing Building Types; Amend the Regulating Zones to Permit New Building Types and Expand Existing Building Types in the Camino Overlay, Neighborhood Estates, Neighborhood General 1 and Neighborhood General 2 Regulating Zones; Add New Open Space Types and Standards and Add “Shared Yard” As A Frontage Type; Add New Block Configurations; And Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development Rights (Density) Within the Neighborhood Area to Enable Less Density Near Existing Neighborhoods and Facilitate Appropriate Clustering of Residential Uses Elsewhere Within the Neighborhood Area. (DRC2025-00022).
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20853 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 1(27.73 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20853)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20854 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 2 (39.22 Acres) Into 233 Numbered Lots and 11 Lettered Lots for the Development of 233 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20854)
An addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR (SCH#201711102) has been prepared for this project. This item will go to the City Council for final action.
Commissioner Daniels recused himself due to living adjacent to this proposed project.
Chairman Morales asked for a five-minute recess at 7:20 p.m.
Chairman Morales resumed the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). It was noted due to the notice boundaries of property owners exceeding 1,000 owners, no individual notices were sent pursuant to state law and municipal code. On December 3rd, staff became aware that the posted signs incorrectly stated that the notices were mailed rather than posted, and corrected posters were placed at various locations.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
2 8
3 1
Commissioner Dopp asked staff about the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process requested by the developer. He asked for an explanation on how the 29-units per acre does not violate traditional neighborhood standards or the General Plan provisions in place.
Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief explanation in response to the question.
Vice Chairman Boling noted that, regarding the density bank, it was stated that the credits would expire after 10-years. If the developer does not pull permits within that period, the ability to apply for higher density – up to 29 dwelling units per acre – would be lost. He asked when the 10-year period begins.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that once the project is approved, a covenant is required on the properties to ensure that current or future owners are aware that the density has been transferred from that area. She stated that the 10-year period begins when the covenant is recorded with the County.
Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that on ce the convenient is recorded with the County, the City does not monitor or track the timeline; the 10-year period begins upon recording with the County.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling asked staff what the basis was for establishing 29-units per acre as the maximum density.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that the 29-units per acre represented the developer’s proposed maximum density.
Vice Chairman Boling recalled that in regard to the density bank, it was mentioned that there is a stepped approach to reach 29-units per acre so that single-family and medium-density units would not be immediately adjacent to the highest-density units. He asked where the stepped approach is defined and delineated, noting that clarity is important for the City, the developer, residents, and any future developers who may purchase portions of the property. He inquired where future developers would find guidance on the stepped approach to ensure they understand the allowable progression of density within the bank.
Planning Di rector Nakamu ra
responded that the stepped approach is expl ained in the Spe cific Plan Amendment, Chapter 7, page 324.
Vice Chairman Boling asked whether the city would be responsible for making that determination.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales asked staff to clarity why the Etiwanda Heights Plan is being amended and what the potential consequences would be if the amendment is not approved.
Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief explanation in response to the question.
Chairman Morales asked in regards to the land use and community character, the detached single-family and the attached homes – such as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhomes – would still be considered house-form building types.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales reiterated that tonight, Planning Areas 1 and 2 are being considered. What will happen
when each of the planning areas of the remaining tract maps are ready to be developed.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that a pre-application will be submitted and reviewed by the city to provide initial comments and feedback, followed by submission of a tract map for the development. She said that all standard practices and noticing requirements will apply, and the project will come before the Planning Commission for review and approval.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
2 8
3 1
Chairman Morales asked staff for clarity on the following points:
Large signs providing notice of the public hearing were posted a few weeks ago, which is standard procedure.
Agenda packets are posted on Thursday evening before the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed the information.
Chairman Morales asked staff how many calls were received after the notice of filing signs were installed.
Planning Director replied that staff received three calls when the signs were originally installed.
Chairman Morales aske d staff to explain w hy a new community meetin g was not held to inform the community and discuss the proposed amendments prior to tonight’s public hearing.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that, by policy, developers are typically asked to hold a neighborhood meeting for most development applications; however, it is not required by code, and the developer chose not to hold a meeting.
Chairman Morales clarified with staff that the master developer respectively declined the suggestion to hold a neighborhood meeting.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales noted that some commentors in social media posts seem to suggest the entire development will consist of 12-plex and 4-plex homes. He clarified that this is not the case, as the development is zoned in with existing neighborhoods, and asked staff to confirm.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and said those are options, not mandates.
Chairman Morales noted that, according to Exhibit B – Specific Plan Amendment, page 131, the table limits the height of 12-plex units to 40-feet, restricting them to three stories and preventing a seven-story building.
He asked staff to confirm if this is correct.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales stated that, for the most reliable
source of info rmation, the publ ic should refer to the City’s agenda packets posted rather than social media.
Commissioner Diaz addressed the 12-plex, noting that it has been a topic of interest within the community.
She referenced that the original plan called for 2-dwellings per acre, while the General Plan requires 8- dwellings per acre, indicating a significant increase. She asked staff to explain how the 12-plex was introduced as a building type.
Planning Director Nakamura clarified that, based on the current unit cap of 3,000, the plan equates to approximately four dwelling units per acre, not two. She explained that staff engaged with the consultant who helped design the original plan to integrate the developer’s objectives while guiding them toward appropriate building types. The 12-plex was one of the types suggested and has been maintained in the plan.
Commissioner Diaz asked whether existing 12-plex units in the surrounding areas are generally for rent or for purchase.
Planning Director Nakamura was unsure and could not answer with accuracy.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that, in reviewing Exhibit B, page 324, of the Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution 2025-045) and Draft Ordinance, the 10-year timeline begins upon recordation with the County.
He requested clarification on what exactly is being recorded and on which property.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
HPC/PC Final Minutes
2 8
3 1
Planning Director Nakamura indicated that she would need to review the matter more closely but agreed that the 10-year timeline should start when the units are moved into the density bank, and not when they are moved out.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant was present and available to answer questions.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Ryan Paglinawan, Cynthia Campos Dachao Li, Fred Sanchez, Mailan Pham, David Horwitz, Edward Aldaz, Phil Hakopien, Jennifer Pacheco, Henry Liu, Dr. William Smith, Robert Gallardo, Robert Abbruzzese, Des Alvarez, Richard Santucci, Hazel Wilkinson, Starr Bose, Justin Nottingham, Alicia Mosley, Michael Miramontes, Chris Little, William Marror, Ron Fakhoury, Mike Vogel, Christy Dicesare, Jack Warshaw.
The following concerns were expressed:
High fire risks
Traffic congestion
School impact
Water supply
Crime
Sidewalks
High density
Children safety
Broken promises
Strain on Fire Stations
Environmental concerns
For the record, it is noted that the following emails were received after the preparation of the agenda packet in opposition of the project and should be referred to for details:
Email from [email protected] in opposition of the project Email from Barbara Sommers
Email from [email protected]
Email from Darlene Reyes
Email from Mr. Valdovinos
Email from Kim Earl
Email from Brian Johnson
Email from Al Engelking
Email from Kim Harless
Email from Jason Solano
Email from Jason Wilkerson
Email from My Kha, MD and Scan Brennon, PH.D.
Email from Brook Harris
Email from Brian Spatz
Email from Richard Trujillo
Email from Stephanie and Robert Reimer
Email from Jesse Barajas
Email from Brian Patrick
Email from Martin and Anastasia Liska
Phone call received from Brook Bowen in opposition of the project.
Applicant responded to comments as follows:
Could do affordable housing using density bonus to build more units but would prefer not to. No more than 8-units per acre across the entire area. Street improvements will be completed.
Schools will be constructed.
Sidewalks will be installed along major streets throughout the community, along with bike lanes. Fire safety measure will include fuel modification zones.
2 8
3 1
Landscaping will comply with fire codes and be fire resistant. Product types will include detached and some attached units, offering a variety of housing types that are affordable.
Additional environmental studies will be conducted for the Crotch’s bumblebee.
Commissioner Dopp noted that there are a number of requests in the plan. He asked the applicant why they are seeking a significant increased number of units and expressed concern that developers are interpreting the law in a way that allows them to pursue their objectives without considering broader community impacts.
Applicant explained that the increase in units is based what was approved in the 2021 General Plan. While the Specific Plan capped the development at 3,000 units, the General Plan allows the additional units. He stated that, under housing law, there is an opportunity to align with the General Plan, which requires distributing the density throughout the site at approximately eight units per acre.
Commissioner Dopp stated that the applicant had not fully addressed the community’s concerns. While fire safety was mentioned, he noted that emergency egress and other logistical considerations were not discussed, emphasizing that these are the key issues that need to be addressed.
Applicant explained that, regarding the 2019 Specific Plan, the project has not yet been built in 2025 because many plans do not reach the market, as development costs for large lots – such as ½ acre lots – are often not feasible. He stated that, for fire evacuation, the Wilson corridor will provide an evacuation access route.
Commissioner Dopp noted that building types such as the 12-plex and walk-up units represent higher- density housing that is not included in the Specific Plan, making it a significant request from a development perspective. He asked what the decision-making process was behind proposing these building types.
Applicant explained that the goal is to provide a variety of housing types rather than repeating the same product. The original plan was designed for four dwelling units per acre, and allowing higher densities requires introducing denser product types. This approach provides additional housing types to blend the density and ensure a diverse mix of units.
Commissioner Dopp addressed the Specific Plan for Planning Area 1, specifically the Motor Court building type. His stated that cottage courts are more effective, as motor courts tend to prioritize vehicle access over livability and do not provide sufficient parking for single-family homes, increasing overall pressure on the site. He noted that Plans 1 and 2 lack adequate green space, which is why he prefers cottage courts, and asked why the motor court was selected.
Applicant replied that the first two neighborhoods are constrained by smaller lot sizes. As the project progresses, a greater variety of building types will be incorporated. He added that, whenever feasible, cottage courts will be included with similar footprints.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he strongly recommends considering cottage units, particularly in Planning Area 2, due to the higher density and available space. He encouraged the applicant to include cottage units as a third housing type. He also noted for the record that, per the Specific Plan, all roads require sidewalks, and this should be verified prior to final City Council approval.
Commissioner Diaz asked the applicant to define what constitutes high-density housing.
Applicant explained that definitions of high-density housing vary by city, but based on his observations, he
considers multi-story apartment buildings to be high-density housing.
Commissioner Diaz stated that she is trying to balance community desires with affordability. She noted that a $700,000 house, as presented, does not feel truly affordable. She added that reducing density, as requested by the community, would increase costs, and that the 12-polex units are not consistent with community preferences. She asked why the applicant chose not to hold an additional neighborhood meeting as suggested by staff, noting that many of the issues raised could have been addressed through such a meeting.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
2 8
3 1
Applicant explained that he agrees not everyone will be able to afford their homes. He noted that smaller units, such as motor courts or cottages, may be more attainable for first-time buyers or those looking to move up, highlighting the need for diverse product types. Regarding public comment, he stated that he worked closely with staff, who were heavily involved in the 2019 Specific Plan. The intent was to bring Planning Areas 1 and 2 to market quickly with community input, ensuring consistency with the character of the neighborhoods, while reserving discussion of the remaining areas of the Specific Plan for future meetings. He acknowledged that additional discussion would occur in the future.
Commissioner Diaz stated that failing to engage with the public beforehand was a significant oversight, as the community has many concerns to express. She indicated that this suggests the developer may not know the community well enough to be granted the level of leeway being requested.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that the original plan documents indicated the neighborhoods would provide a mix of housing sizes, types, and styles to meet the needs of various household sizes, incomes, and lifestyle preferences. He noted that what this meant five years ago appears significantly different from what the Previti Group is proposing today, as market conditions and housing demands have changed.
He explained that current challenges include housing prices, limited availability, and the impact of numerous state laws that have been introduced and, in some cases, adopted. He observed a disconnect between community desires for larger lot sizes, increased open space, and additional amenities, while also expressing concern that a $600,000 home is considered unaffordable. He noted that a new home on a half- acre lot in that neighborhood would likely approach $1 million, making it difficult to accommodate both expectations.
He stated that the Previti Group needs to better identify housing product types and, more importantly, their placement. He emphasized that areas adjacent to existing neighborhoods should reflect similar housing characteristics. While acknowledging that attempts were made, he noted that features such as motor courts are not present in neighboring communities.
He concluded by clarifying that the Commission is currently reviewing a Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps with recommendation to City Council, and not evaluating product type, style or housing types. He strongly encouraged the applicant to look at product type and placement because that is key to community acceptance.
Chairman Morales asked
the applicant why Previti Group chose not to pull the state leverage and work with the Planning Commission to make this amendment.
Applicant answered that they do develop projects throughout Southern California and noted that, depending on the community, some projects require the use of state housing laws to obtain approval. He explained they came to Rancho Cucamonga and chose not to purse that approach. Instead, they worked with staff to design a product they believed the community would appreciate and that would be consistent with the character and heritage of the community. He added that they are mindful of the existing residents and strive to provide a variety of housing product types to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to purchase a home.
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Morales asked for a five-minute recess at 10:28 p.m.
Chairman Morales resumed the meeting at 10:33 p.m.
Commissioner Dopp asked staff how the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) calculation resulted in 29 units per acre in terms of banks.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that the approach was developed in concert with the conceptualization of certain product types and how they would be implemented, which led to the resulting number.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
2 8
3 1
Commissioner Dopp asked whether the figure could be discussed and adjusted during the course of deliberations.
Planning Director Nakamura outlined several options for the Commission’s consideration:
Recommend that the City Council approve the amendments as presented. Recommend approval of the proposed amendments with modifications Recommend denial of the proposed amendments, in which case the Commission must provide findings to support the recommendation of denial.
Commissioner Dopp stated it is his understanding that the General Plan density numbers supersede what is in the Specific Plan in terms of units per acre according to state law, and that this is not something that can be changed. It is automatic and does not require rezoning.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Commissioner Dopp stated the Commission is being asked to evaluate unit counts, lot sizes, and housing types from a policy and numerical perspective. He expressed some sympathy for the developer, explaining that increasing housing supply is one of the primary ways to address affordability and that many residents of Rancho Cucamonga cannot afford the proposed price points.
He added that when the Commission reviews a project and considers potential ways to alleviate pressure points, it must also acknowledge strong public sentiment, noting that Commissioners are City residents as well. He stated that certain elements of the Specific Plan go too far and indicated that he is not supportive of walk-up 12-plex as a housing strategy. He acknowledged that the density associated with two specific housing types would allow the project to reach the proposed density threshold but emphasized that this represents a maximum limit.
He stated that these two housing types present his greatest concerns with the Specific Plan. He further explained that state law requirements must be accommodated, and that Option 1 must remain, as it cannot be modified. However, he noted that building types allow for greater discretion, emphasizing that the current proposal is an amendment request and a recommendation to the City Council, not a state law mandate.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that transfer of development rights it is not mandated, it is an ask.
Commissioner Dopp indicated than this is an ask and for him personally these two housing types represent the upper limit of what he would support. He has lived in this city for a very long time and would like to see the city look a lot like it did in the 1980’s, but you run into two different types of problems, you either create a community that is unsustainable from a price point that only allows upper class people to live here or you have to find an alternative way.
Commissioner Diaz stated that she is having difficulty supporting the project due to concerns about trust.
She noted that the developer is asking the community, the Commission and the City Council to place significant trust in them to act in accordance with the community wishes and feedback. She emphasized that the skipped neighborhood meeting raises questions about whether the developer will adequately respond to community needs. While she acknowledged the need for development and attainable housing, she expressed concern over the significant requests being made. She concurred with Commissioner Dopp regarding the 12-plex and recommended that it be removed as a building type, noting that it is likely to remain a rental product than a for-sale option.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that, to his understanding, state housing legislation has made it difficult, if not illegal, to take local legislative actions that would reduce the number of housing units planned and allowed under the approved General Plan. He asked Assistant City Attorney to confirm if this is correct.
Assistant City Attorney Young confirmed.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
HPC/PC Final Minutes
2 8
3 1
Vice Chairman Boling stated the Commission heard from the residents that they felt like this was a last- minute thing dumped on them. He said that Commissioners receive the same information as the public and as resident volunteers, review extensive application materials. He explained that the Commission’s role is advisory, working within the state law limitations to review projects, listen to the community and make recommendations rather than final decisions.
He stated that he has issues with aspects of the proposed project and asked his colleagues to consider the following points:
Density of 29 to the acre is too high. He would like to see it at high-end range for medium density.
Restrict the density transfer and start the 10-year clock earlier.
Chairman Morales stated the following:
Expressed that he is sorry that the residents experienced the feeling of betrayed. The State is inserting itself into local city planning to break down barriers to more housing and the city has to deal with that even though we have higher standards. In addition to all the great public comments tonight, he expressed that he has the same concerns and feelings as they do.
He stated that this would not be an easy decision for him tonight, as he took an oath to diligently review the packet and make a good-faith decision.
The Commissioners reached a consensus to recommend the following actions to the City Council:
Reduce the expiration period for years allowed within the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) bank from 10-years to 8-years.
Eliminate walkup housing option type.
Reduce the maximum density from 29 to 20 dwelling units per acre within the TDR program.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-042, Resolution 2025-043 , Resolution 2025-045 recommending to City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 , Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 and DRC2025-00022 . Commissioner Daniels recused. Motion carried, 4-0.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced that there will be no meeting on December 24 th due to the Christmas Eve holiday, and that the Commission would reconvene in January.
F. Commission Announcements - None
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 11:27 p.m.
Respe
ctfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
HPC/PC January 14, 2026 Meeting.
Attachment 3
1 Linda Warda
5579 Carmello Ct
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
January 1, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga, CA and Members of the City Council, Honorable Planning Commissioners:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD COMMENT
Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Amendment Reliance on 2019 EIR and Claimed Conformity with the 2021 General Plan Update This executive summary accompanies the attached full administrative record comment regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The amendment is described as a conformity update to align the 2019 Neighborhood Plan with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan Update.
Purpose and Posture
These comments are not intended to oppose housing or growth. They are submitted to ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), post-2019 wildfire and evacuation legislation, and the conservation purpose of the EHNCP. The intent is to support informed decision-making and reduce legal risk to the City by identifying areas requiring additional analysis.
Key Issues for Decision-Makers
1. Reliance on the 2019 EIR
The environmental review supporting the EHNCP dates to 2019. Since that time, wildfire risk, evacuation policy, and state planning law have materially changed. CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163 require subsequent or supplemental review where changed circumstances or new information may result in new or more severe impacts. Reliance on a 2019 EIR without updated analysis presents legal vulnerability.
2. General Plan Consistency Does Not Replace CEQA Review Conformity with the 2021 General Plan Update does not eliminate the City’s obligation to conduct neighborhood-specific environmental analysis. Program-level policy documents do not provide evacuation modeling, wildfire exposure analysis, or circulation evaluation at the Etiwanda Heights scale.
3. Wildfire and Evacuation Feasibility
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Wildfire) requires evaluation of evacuation impairment, wildfire exposure, emergency access and infrastructure limitations. Increased residential density north of the I-210 Freeway, adjacent to Los Osos High School, raises location-specific evacuation concerns that must be addressed at the plan amendment stage.
Attachment 4
2 4. Post-2019 State Law SB 99, AB 747, and SB 815 raise the standard for land-use decisions in fire-prone areas and constitute changed circumstances under CEQA. These laws require consideration of evacuation capacity and wildfire risk reduction in land-use planning. 5. Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires evaluation of cumulative impacts, including multiple rezonings and developments along the I-210 corridor. Segmentation of environmental review risks understating evacuation and emergency response impacts. 6. Observed Traffic and Evacuation Constraints Weekday travel between Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard has averaged approximately fifteen minutes during school drop-off periods, despite staggered school start times. Key access routes, including Banyan Street and Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue, remain single-lane, raising evacuation feasibility concerns that warrant CEQA review. 7. Conservation Purpose The EHNCP’s conservation objectives must be clearly defined and reconciled with increased residential density. In a wildfire-prone interface, conservation reasonably includes defensible space, wildfire buffers, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure constraints, rather than land designation alone. Requested Clarifications Decision-makers should ensure the administrative record clearly identifies: • The specific CEQA exemption, tiering, or reliance on prior environmental review relied upon for this amendment • Updated wildfire, evacuation, and circulation analyses; • Evaluation of cumulative impacts; and • How conservation objectives are preserved.
3 Linda Warda 5579 Carmello Ct Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 January 1, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga, CA and Members of the City Council, Honorable Planning Commissioners: FULL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD COMMENT Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Amendment Reliance on 2019 EIR and Claimed Conformity with the 2021 General Plan Update I respectfully submit this letter for inclusion in the formal administrative record regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP), which is described as an effort to bring the 2019 Neighborhood Plan into conformity with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan Update. In preparing these comments, I sought general guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) regarding applicable CEQA considerations related to wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility, and cumulative impacts. OPR appropriately clarified that it does not provide project-specific determinations or legal advice, but directed attention to the CEQA Guidelines—particularly Appendix G (Wildfire), cumulative impact requirements, and recent wildfire-related legislation that local agencies are now required to address. My intent is not to oppose housing production or growth. Rather, I request that any increase in residential density be evaluated in compliance with CEQA, post-2019 wildfire legislation, and the stated conservation purpose of the EHNCP. 1. Reliance on the 2019 EIR The environmental review supporting the EHNCP dates to 2019. CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163 require additional review where changed circumstances or new information may result in new or more severe impacts. Wildfire conditions, evacuation standards, and land-use expectations have materially changed since 2019. 2. General Plan Consistency General Plan consistency does not substitute for environmental review. The 2021 General Plan Update is a policy-level document and does not provide neighborhood-scale evacuation or wildfire analysis for Etiwanda Heights. 3. Wildfire and Evacuation Analysis Appendix G requires analysis of evacuation impairment and wildfire exposure. A plan amendment increasing residential capacity in a WUI-adjacent area must evaluate evacuation feasibility before approval.
4 4. Post-2019 Wildfire Law SB 99, AB 747, and SB 815 impose affirmative obligations on local governments to consider evacuation capacity and wildfire risk reduction. These constitute changed circumstances under CEQA. 5. Cumulative Impacts CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h) and 15130 require evaluation of cumulative impacts along the I-210 corridor. Incremental density increases must be analyzed collectively. 6. Traffic Observation Weekday travel between Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard has taken approximately fifteen (15) minutes under normal conditions, including during school drop-off periods when start times for the high school and nearby primary schools are staggered. These concerns were reported to the City’s Traffic Engineering Department in August 2024, at which time staff indicated that the City was in the design stage of advanced traffic management system projects, with updates anticipated in spring 2025; however, observed conditions have not materially improved. Key access routes, including Banyan Street and Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue, currently operate as single-lane roadways, which raises evacuation feasibility concerns—particularly for nearby schools that rely on parental pickup due to the absence of a school bus evacuation system. If these same corridors were required to serve simultaneous evacuation demand, CEQA requires that the feasibility and safety of such conditions be evaluated. 7. Conservation Purpose The EHNCP’s conservation objectives must be clearly articulated and preserved. Increasing density without redefining conservation goals raises internal consistency concerns. In closing, Council and Commission members are entrusted with ensuring public safety and legal compliance. I respectfully urge the City to require the appropriate level of environmental review before approving amendments that may permanently alter wildfire exposure and evacuation conditions. Respectfully submitted, Linda Warda Rancho Cucamonga Resident
From: Linda Oda
To: Nakamura, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Administrative Record Comment re: EHNCP Amendment (CEQA Review) Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 10:49:27 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2026-01-08 at 10.06.31 PM.png
Jennifer,
Thank you for you response and link. I’m not an expert, but to my understanding, while SB 99 addresses evacuation at the General Plan level, AB 747 and CEQA still require the City, as the Lead Agency, to evaluate whether a specific project could impair evacuation or emergency response under project and cumulative conditions. I have reviewed the City’s evacuation assessment.
I may be completely mistaken, based on my review, the EIR does not appear to account for the proposed development area at all within its evacuation scenarios at the potential capacity assumed under the General Plan, as reflected in the TAZ-based analysis (see attached figure) based on census data in 2021. If the proposed project would change that assumption by introducing additional density in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it seems reasonable and prudent for the City to evaluate whether the existing citywide analysis fully addresses those changed conditions based on the scale of this development.
From a layperson’s perspective and based on daily observation, Banyan St functions as a two-lane road with limited capacity.
While mid-day conditions may not be explicitly modeled during school hours, it is a foreseeable scenario that could coincide with an emergency event, making timely evacuation more difficult under current road infrastructure. While I recognize that post Camp Fire legislation did not specifically call out every evacuation scenario, it seems reasonable to acknowledge that certain foreseeable conditions, such as evacuations occurring during daytime and school hours can present unique challenges for evacuation and emergency access (specifically Los Osos with 2,000+ students). Considering these conditions at the city level as part of CEQA review may help ensure that evacuation planning reflects how emergencies can unfold in practice.
As the City proceeds with this development, I respectfully ask that project-related revenues not be limited to future flood control efforts alone as noted by the County, but also directed toward necessary road and evacuation road infrastructure improvements/expansion. I appreciate the City’s service and its consideration of public safety. Unfortunately, recent fire events remind us that evacuation risks are very real, with or without new development and deserve careful attention.
No further response is necessary. I appreciate the City’s time and respectfully request that these comments be included in the administrative record for consideration as part of the decision-making process. Thank you again for your time and for the care you bring to these complex decisions. I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective and wish the best for our community.
Best, Linda
On Jan 8, 2026, at 7:30 PM, Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Linda,
Thanks for reaching out.
The City’s evacuation assessment is available on our website here .
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important SB99 and AB747 require an evacuation assessment when the General Plan is updated (which was done in 2021). It is not a project specific mandate under State law and the assessment is citywide based on existing development.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
<image001.jpg>
Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A
Planning Director
Planning Department
(909) 774-4324
[email protected]
www.CityofRC.us
Receiving this email outside normal working hours? Managing work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone.
I have sent this email at a time that works for me. Please respond at a time that works for you.
From: Linda Oda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 3:29 PM
To: Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council <[email protected]>; Planning, City <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Administrative Record Comment re: EHNCP Amendment (CEQA Review)
Thank you so much Jennifer! Is there SB99/AB747 wild fire evacuation reports prepared for the planned density increase in Etiwanda Heights for public review? If available, please let me know where I’m able to stop by to view them ahead of the vote. I have some time this week.
Thank you again, Linda
On Jan 5, 2026, at 2:44 PM, Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected] > wrote:
Ms. Oda,
Thank you for reaching out. This email confirms receipt of your comment and will be added to the administrative record.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
<image001.jpg>
Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A
Planning Director
Planning Department
(909) 774-4324
[email protected]
www.CityofRC.us
Receiving this email outside normal working hours? Managing work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I have sent this email at a time that works for me. Please respond at a time that works for you.
From: Linda Oda <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2026 10:01 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Planning, City <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Linda Oda <[email protected]>
Subject: Administrative Record Comment re: EHNCP Amendment (CEQA Review)
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Good morning and Happy New Year,
Attached please find my Executive Summary and Full Administrative Record Comment regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, submitted for inclusion in the official administrative record.
I respectfully request confirmation of receipt and confirmation that this comment has been admitted into the administrative record for this item.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Warda-Oda
Rancho Cucamonga Resident
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Nakamura, Jennifer
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mcpherson, Sean
Subject: Fw: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:50:43 AM
Mr. Wang,
Thank you for your email and providing comments. Unfortunately we were unable to share these with the Planning Commission as the meeting had already started. However, we will make sure the City Council receives your comments when they hold a hearing on the item. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Nakamura
From: Planning, City <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:08 AM
To: Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Mcpherson, Sean <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
From: Danny Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 7:47 PM
To: Planning, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. While I recognize the importance of responsible long-term planning, the current proposal presents significant concerns for traffic congestion, wildfire evacuation, school capacity, and overall community safety.
1. Severe Increase in Traffic Congestion
The new proposed development would significantly increase the number of daily vehicle trips on major corridors such as Day Creek Blvd, Milliken Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street. These roadways are already heavily congested during peak hours, and there is insufficient roadway infrastructure to handle additional volume.
More vehicles on limited-access roads will:
Increase commute times
Reduce road safety
Slow down emergency vehicle response
Without substantial upgrades to transportation infrastructure, this development would negatively affect mobility and daily life for existing residents.
2. Wildfire Evacuation Safety Risks
The plan area lies near the foothills, a region with a well-documented history of wildfire activity and strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Increasing population density in this zone dramatically raises the number of residents who would depend on the same limited evacuation routes.
This poses a serious public safety concern because:
Evacuation routes are already limited to a few north-south arterials Traffic bottlenecks during an emergency could delay evacuation A larger population introduces higher life-safety risk during wildfire events The new plan does not sufficiently address wildfire evacuation capacity or provide meaningful mitigation strategies.
3. Overburdened Schools in the Etiwanda School District Local schools serving this area are already near or at capacity. Additional residential development would further strain:
Classroom space
Staffing
Educational resources
School transportation
Without a clear, funded, and guaranteed plan to expand school facilities, this proposal risks significantly reducing educational quality for both existing and future students.
4. Lack of Adequate Infrastructure Planning
Growth on the scale proposed by the plan will require expanded services, including:
Water supply
Public safety staffing
Parks and community services
Environmental protections
At present, the new plan does not demonstrate a sufficiently detailed or feasible strategy
for ensuring infrastructure is expanded in proportion to population growth.
Conclusion and Request
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission:
Reject the new changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan.
Thank you for your time, attention, and commitment to keeping Rancho Cucamonga safe, sustainable, and livable for all residents.
Sincerely,
Danny Wang
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Nakamura, Jennifer
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mcpherson, Sean
Subject: Fw: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:51:32 AM
Ms. Wang,
Thank you for your email and providing comments. Unfortunately we were unable to share these with the Planning Commission as the meeting had already started. However, we will make sure the City Council receives your comments when they hold a hearing on the item. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Nakamura
From: Planning, City <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:08 AM
To: Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Mcpherson, Sean <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
From: Maggie Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 7:49 PM
To: Planning, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. While I recognize the importance of responsible long-term planning, the current proposal presents significant concerns for traffic congestion, wildfire evacuation, school capacity, and overall community
safety.
1. Severe Increase in Traffic Congestion
The new proposed development would significantly increase the number of daily vehicle trips on major corridors such as Day Creek Blvd, Milliken Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street. These roadways are already heavily congested during peak hours, and there is insufficient roadway infrastructure to handle additional volume.
More vehicles on limited-access roads will:
Increase commute times
Reduce road safety
Slow down emergency vehicle response
Without substantial upgrades to transportation infrastructure, this development would negatively affect mobility and daily life for existing residents.
2. Wildfire Evacuation Safety Risks
The plan area lies near the foothills, a region with a well-documented history of wildfire activity and strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Increasing population density in this zone dramatically raises the number of residents who would depend on the same limited evacuation routes.
This poses a serious public safety concern because:
Evacuation routes are already limited to a few north-south arterials Traffic bottlenecks during an emergency could delay evacuation A larger population introduces higher life-safety risk during wildfire events The new plan does not sufficiently address wildfire evacuation capacity or provide meaningful mitigation strategies.
3. Overburdened Schools in the Etiwanda School District Local schools serving this area are already near or at capacity. Additional residential development would further strain:
Classroom space
Staffing
Educational resources
School transportation
Without a clear, funded, and guaranteed plan to expand school facilities, this proposal risks significantly reducing educational quality for both existing and future students.
4. Lack of Adequate Infrastructure Planning
Growth on the scale proposed by the plan will require expanded services, including:
Water supply
Public safety staffing
Parks and community services
Environmental protections
At present, the new plan does not demonstrate a sufficiently detailed or feasible strategy for ensuring infrastructure is expanded in proportion to population growth.
Conclusion and Request
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission:
Reject the new changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan.
Thank you for your time, attention, and commitment to keeping Rancho Cucamonga safe, sustainable, and livable for all residents.
Sincerely,
Maggie Wang
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Nakamura, Jennifer
To: "Shirley Geihm"
Cc: City Council; Planning, City
Subject: RE: Disapproval of Etiwanda Heights Amendment
Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 2:47:00 PM
Ms. Gehim,
Your comment has been received and will be included in the administrative record.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A
Planning Director
Planning Department
(909) 774-4324
[email protected]
www.CityofRC.us
Receiving this email outside normal working hours? Managing work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone.
I have sent this email at a time that works for me. Please respond at a time that works for you.
From: Shirley Geihm <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 8:14 PM
To: Nakamura, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council <[email protected]>; Planning, City <[email protected]> Subject: Disapproval of Etiwanda Heights Amendment
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Dear Ms.Nakamura, Council and Planning,
I am a homeowner in Compass Rose and I firmly oppose this amendment that was approved on Dec. 10th. I am already subjected to the traffic, students on their Ebikes zipping through Banyan upon dismissal at Los Osos, not to mention all the parents that park on Fredericksburg and the fire station to pick up their children. The morning is just as bad. And now you want to add more to this overpopulated area? I remember when we moved here in 2002 this area would remain low density to protect the
wildlife and natural habitat. I am deeply concerned about the vote to increase the dwelling units per acre in the Etiwanda Heights plan. Before the City Council makes a final decision, the community deserves answers to six critical questions: Why are we approving amendments without seeing the entire plan, rather than just the two tracts shown by the developer? How can a project that jumps from ~3,000 to ~6,300 units rely on a "modified" Environmental Impact Report? A new EIR is clearly necessary.
Where is the updated traffic report regarding the Banyan corridor? Will the City host town-hall style meetings so we can have a two-way dialogue, rather than just formal hearings? Can this amendment include strict conditions of approval to protect residents? Why are we amending a new plan so quickly? Shouldn't the original plan remain in place for at least 5-10 years to see if changes are actually needed? Please do not rush this approval. The residents of Rancho Cucamonga deserve transparency.
I firmly oppose this amendment.
Respectfully,
Shirley Geihm
ATTACHMENT 5
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Draft-Ordinance-1055
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV ING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT20853, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 27.73 ACRE LOT INTO ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (177) NUMBERED LOTS AND NINE
(9) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 OF THE ETIWANDA
HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN ( EHNCP) AREA,
LOCATED BETWEEN BANYAN STREET AND THE 210 FREEWAY, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN 0201-27-215, 0201- 27-216, 0201-27-217, AND 0201-27-218.
A. Recit
als.
1. The Prev
iti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the
10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 2025-042, recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map.
3. On t
he 21st day of January 2026, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All
legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resol
ution.
NOW,
THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This
Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based
upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced meeting on January 21, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The appli
cation applies to an unimproved site located between Banyan Street and the 210 Freeway, east of Lemon Avenue west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-27-215, 0201- 27-216, 0201-27-217, and 0201-27-218; and
b. The proj
ect site is made up of four (4) parcels of land with an area of approximately 27.73 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Medium (M) Residential Zone respectively; and c. The exis
ting land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties , relative to the above- noted parcels, are as follows:
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 – The Previti Group
d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 is for the subdivision of a 27.73 acre parcel into one hundred seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lot s for the development of single-family, detached residences. Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisle off Banyan Street; and
e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of one hundred seventy- seven (177) single -family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation.
b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. The proposed tentative tract map will subdivide four (4) existing, unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of one hundred and seventy-seven (177) single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.
c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to human s and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177) single- family lots. The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives; and
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family
Residential Traditional Neighborhood
Neighborhood General
1 - Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan
North Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential South Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential East Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential West Single-Family
Residence Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 – The Previti Group
d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
The scope of the project is the subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred seventy-seven (177) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH # 201711102) was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, which determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing that n o new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing easement.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council considered the Addendum and the previously certified EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) adopted by the City Council in 2019. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council finds and determines that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the Project because:
a. Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
b. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
c. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and d. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/EIR was adopted showing that: (a) the changes proposed with the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to feasible would i n fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 – The Previti Group
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council approves the application for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval , attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
___________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy , City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the _______ day of ___________, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on ____________, 202_, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and of no force or effect.
1. Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.
2. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials , officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees” ), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures ) (collectively “Actions” ), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions , related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit , action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve , which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. This includes , but is not limited to, the Specific Plan Amendment, Subdivision Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 and the EIR Addendum.
3. 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.
4. Prior to submission of a Notice of Determination, the applicant shall be required to submit payment for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Clerk of the Board of Supervisors processing fee as published on the Clerk 's website. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the public hearing.
5. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
6. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The applicant shall dedicate street right -of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan.
Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline
Proposed internal streets A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, and Marbella Drive shall be 62 feet from right -of-way to right-of-way.
Proposed internal neighborhood edge streets, C, F, I, and L shall be 40 feet from right -of-way to right-of-way.
Proposed internal rear lanes, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, and GG shall be 30 feet from right -of-way to right-of-way and HH shall be 26.5 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way.
1. 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.
2. All in -tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this requirement shall be included in the project’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the CFD prior to filing of the Final Map.
3. Standard Conditions of Approval
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
The project shall be designed and constructed such that post -development stormwater runoff flows do not exceed pre -development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit.
4. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan including, but not limited to:
Street Name: Banyan Avenue
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Street Lights
Street Trees
Multipurpose Trail with landscape buffers
Bike Lane
Fiber Optic Conduit
Traffic Signal Modification -Intersection of Fredericksburg Ave.
Street Name: Intract Streets
Curb & Gutter
Curb Ramps
A.C. Pvmt
Sidewalk
Street Lights
Street Trees
Fiber Optic Conduit
5. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits , whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring .
Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
7. A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582
8. All existing easements lying within future rights -of-way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final map.
9. The applicant shall verify with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is any applicable permit is required for work within its right-of-way.
10. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.11. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards .
Easements shall be provided as required.
12. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
13. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District
14. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.15.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
1. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.
2. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.
3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
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. 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. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.
11. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.
12. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
13. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
14. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
15. Prior to 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.
16. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
17. The land /property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
18. 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.
19. 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”.
20. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As -Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
21. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
22. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20853
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Swales.
2. Water collection and disposal systems.
3. French drains.
4. Water retention gardens.
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department.
24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.
25. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 39.22 ACRE LOT INTO TWO HUNDRED THIRTY ONE (231) NUMBERED LOTS AND ELEVEN
(11) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE ETIWANDA
HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) AREA,
LOCATED BETWEEN WILSON AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN 0201-19-127.
A. Rec
itals.
1. The Pr
eviti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On t
he 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 2025-045, recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map.
3. On the
21st day of January 2026, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All
legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resol
ution.
NOW,
THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This
Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon
the substantial evidence presented to this C ouncil during the above-referenced meeting on January 21, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The applic
ation applies to an unimproved site located between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, east of the Deer Creek Channel and west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-19-127; and
b. The projec
t site is made up of one (1) parcel of land with an area of approximately
39.22 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Milliken Avenue respectively; and
c. The ex
isting land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcel, are as follows:
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 – The Previti Group
d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 is for the subdivision of a 39.22 acre parcel into two hundred thirty-one (231) numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of two hundred thirty-one (231) single-family, detached residences. Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisles off Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue; and
e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this C ouncil during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of two hundred thirty-one (231) single -family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation.
b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. The proposed tentative tract map will subdivide one (1) existing, unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-one (231) numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of two hundred and thirty-one (231) single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.
c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to human and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-one (231) single-family lots.
The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family
Residential Traditional Neighborhood
Neighborhood General
1 - Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan
North Single-Family
Residences Traditional Neighborhood
Neighborhood Estates -
Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan
South Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential East Los Osos High
School Parks and Open Space Parks (P)
West Single-Family
Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 – The Previti Group
severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives; and
d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred thirty -one (231) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, which determined the impact s the project would have on the environment in relation to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment ; and
e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing easements.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council considered the Addendum and the previously certified EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) adopted by the City Council in 2019. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council finds and determines that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the Project because:
a. Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
b. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; c. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
d. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/EIR was adopted showing that: (a) the changes proposed with the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 – The Previti Group
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council approves the application for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
___________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy , City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the _______ day of ___________, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on ____________, 202_, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and of no force or effect.
1. Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
2. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.
3. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials , officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees” ), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures ) (collectively “Actions” ), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions , related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit , action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve , which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. This includes , but is not limited to, the Specific Plan Amendment, Subdivision Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 and the EIR Addendum.
4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet (s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction /grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
5. Prior to submission of a Notice of Determination, the applicant shall be required to submit payment for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Clerk of the Board of Supervisors processing fee as published on the Clerk 's website. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the public hearing.
6. Engineering Services Department
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The applicant shall dedicate street right -of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan.
Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline
Milliken Avenue shall be 60 feet from centerline.
Wilson Avenue shall be 43 feet from centerline.
Proposed internal streets A, B, C, D, and E shall be 62 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way.
Proposed internal "rear lanes" shall be 30 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way.
1. 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.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary easements for the the proposed basin and storm drain improvements located east of Milliken Avenue at APN:0225-091-06-0000.
3. All in -tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this requirement shall be included in the project’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the CFD prior to filing of the Final Map.
4. Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan including, but not limited to:
Street Name: Banyan Ave
Curb & Gutter
Curb Ramps
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Street Lights
Street Trees
Bike Lane
Fiber Optic Conduit
Street Name: Milliken Ave
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt - 2-inch grind & overlay existing from Banyan Ave to Wilson Ave.
Curb Ramps
Sidewalk - (6ft min)
Street Lights
Street Trees
Bike Lane
Raised Median Island - Provide an in -lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related landscape and irrigation attributes.
Fiber Optic Conduit
Traffic Signal Modification - Intersection of Grizzly Drive Street Name: Wilson Ave
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Sidewalk
Street Lights
Street Trees
Bike Lane
Raised Median Island - Provide an in -lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related landscape and irrigation attributes.
Multipurpose Trail
Fiber Optic Conduit
Street Name: Intract Streets
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
5. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Curb Ramps
Sidewalk (6ft min).
Street Lights
Street Trees
Fiber Optic Conduit
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits , whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Notes:
1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
7. A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582
8. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.9.
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.10.
Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards .
Easements shall be provided as required.
11. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
12. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
The project shall be designed and constructed such that post -development stormwater runoff flows do not exceed pre -development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit.
13. All existing easements lying within future rights -of-way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final map.
14. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District
15. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
16. Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
1. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.
2. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.
3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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. 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. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.
11. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
12. 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.
13. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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).
14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The land /property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
18. 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.
19. 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”.
20. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As -Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
21. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
22. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
Project #: SUBTT20854
Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2
Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Swales.
2. Water collection and disposal systems.
3. French drains.
4. Water retention gardens.
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
23. 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”.
24. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11Printed: 1/15/2026
3 2
9 6
DATE:January 21, 2026
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager
Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director
Emily Nielsen, Senior Human Resources Business Partner
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve Resolutions Certifying the Basis for Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period, Government Code Sections 7522.56 & 21224, to Allow a CalPERS Retiree to Fill a Critically Needed Special Assignment. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-003 AND 2026-004) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolutions certifying the basis for exception to the 180-day wait period to allow a California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) retiree to fill a critically needed special assignment.
BACKGROUND:
Under Government Code Section 7522.56 & 21224, a public agency may hire a retiree to fill a critically needed special assignment prior to the normal 180-day waiting period if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are that the City Council must certify the nature of the employment and that the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed special assignment before 180 days have passed. The appointment must be approved by the governing body of the employer in a public meeting and may not be placed on a consent calendar.
Lirio Rosas, the City’s former Payroll Supervisor, retired on December 29, 2025 with 35 years of institutional knowledge of the City’s payroll operations, records, and administration. Alice Espinoza, the City’s former Payroll Account Technician, retired on December 30, 2025 and was an integral part of daily payroll transactions and reporting.
It is in the best interest of the City that we have experienced and knowledgeable staff, versed in the City’s practices and Workday system, to provide guidance on City payroll operations and to develop a comprehensive payroll training manual to support cross-training and provide resources for current and future employees.
Lirio Rosas and Alice Espinoza have the specialized skills and technical expertise necessary to efficiently and effectively provide training resources and guidance to City staff.
The minimum monthly base pay for the Payroll Supervisor is $5,961 and the hourly equivalent is $34.39, and the maximum monthly base pay is $8,041 and the hourly equivalent is $46.39.
The minimum monthly base pay for the Account Technician is $4,485 and the hourly equivalent is $25.88, and the maximum monthly base pay is $6,051 and the hourly equivalent is $34.91.
3 2
9 6
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that Ms. Rosas and Ms. Espinoza are approved to temporarily fill these critically needed assignments. Ms. Rosas will be paid at the maximum hourly rate of Payroll Supervisor. Ms. Espinoza will be paid at the maximum hourly rate of Account Technician.
By approving the attached resolution, the City Council would meet the statutory requirements for Ms. Rosas’s and Ms. Espinoza’s employment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are available within the Finance Department’s personnel budget to cover the costs associated with this action.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the Council’s core value of working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Resolution and Employment Contract for Lirio Rosas Attachment 2 – Resolution and Employment Contract for Alice Espinoza
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CERTIFYING BASIS FOR EXCEPTION
TO THE 180- DAY WAIT PERIOD TO ALLOW A CALPERS
RETIREE TO FILL A CRITICALLY NEEDED SPECIAL
ASSIGNMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 &
21224)
W
HEREAS, in compliance with Government (Gov.) Code section 7522.56 and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and W
HEREAS, Lirio Rosas retired from the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the position of Payroll Supervisor, effective December 29, 2025; and
W
HEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 requires post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 28, 2026, without this certification resolution; and
W
HEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180- day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and W
HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Lirio Rosas certify that Lirio Rosas has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and W
HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby appoints Lirio Rosas as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the duties of Payroll Supervisor for the City of Rancho Cucamonga under Government Code section 21224, effective January 26, 2026; and W
HEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Lirio Rosas and the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
W
HEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and W
HEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and
W
HEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 equal the hourly rate; and
W
HEREAS, the maximum base salary for the position of Payroll Supervisor is $8,041 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $46.39, and the minimum base salary for this position is $5,961 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $34.39; and W
HEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Lirio Rosas will be $46.39 hourly; and W
HEREAS, Lirio Rosas has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and
ATTACHMENT 1
THEREFORE, B E IT RESOLVED THAT , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga herby certifies the nature of the appointment of Lirio Rosas as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement/contract/appointment document (Exhibit A) and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed special assignment as Payroll Supervisor for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by January 26, 2026, to manage continuity of payroll operations.
PASSED
, APROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2026.
January 22, 2026
Li
rio Rosas
7514 Plymouth Way
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE
: Conditional Offer of Employment for Extra Help Assignment D
ear Ms. Rosas:
I
am pleased to extend to you an offer of an at-will, provisional appointment to an Extra Help Assignment under Gov. Code section 21224 with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This special project is to provide guidance on payroll operations and to develop a payroll training manual for current and future staff. If you accept this assignment, your pay rate would be $46.39 per hour. This assignment is to perform work of limited duration and would end when the special project is completed.
Y
our start date will be January 26, 2026.
I
n compliance with the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act "PEPRA", the City acknowledges that you have the specialized skills and experience needed to perform this special assignment of limited duration, per CalPERS GC Section 21224.
B
y accepting this offer of at-will, provisional employment, you confirm that you were of normal retirement age when you retired on December 29, 2025, and that there has been greater than a 180-day separation from your date of retirement. Furthermore, you certify that you did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer.
I
n addition, you agree that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will enroll you as a retired annuitant and will report your hours worked with the hourly pay rate to CalPERS. As a CalPERS retiree, you will be limited to working a maximum of 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS contracting agencies.
S
tarting Salary: $46.39 hourly. This rate is within the Payroll Supervisor pay range. No other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation will be paid.
Cla
ssification: Temporary, At-Will, Provisional Appointment of Limited Duration The C
ity makes no representation, promises, guarantees, or warranties, expressed or implied, on the impact, if any, the acceptance of this offer may have upon your CalPERS retirement benefits, status, duties, and/or obligations. In entering into this agreement, you acknowledge that you have not relied upon such representations (none of which being in existence) in assessing the CalPERS-related impact of your employment. Therefore, by signing below you release the City, it's employees, elected officials, agents or attorneys from any and all CalPERS-related claims or liabilities that may arise in connection with employment pursuant to this Agreement.
Thi
s offer of employment contains the entire offer. There are no other expressed or implied promises, representations or contracts being offered to you. Your provisional employment is considered "at will" and termination may occur at any time with or without cause.
I
f you have any questions regarding your appointment, please feel free to call me at (909) 774-2401.
R
obert Neiuber
Human Resources Director
Exhibit A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT
I, Lirio Rosas, understand and accept the above terms and conditions of employment. I certify that I did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within the 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer. I further understand that, if hired, I would be an at-will employee and that termination may occur at any time with or without cause without right of appeal or hearing.
_____________________________________________________________________ Received and Accepted by
______________________________________________________________________ Date
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CERTIFYING BASIS FOR EXCEPTION
TO THE 180- DAY WAIT PERIOD TO ALLOW A CALPERS
RETIREE TO FILL A CRITICALLY NEEDED SPECIAL
ASSIGNMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 &
21224)
WHER
EAS, in compliance with Government (Gov.) Code section 7522.56 and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and WHER
EAS, Alice Espinoza retired from the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the position of Account Technician, effective December 30, 2025; and
WHER
EAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 requires post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 29, 2026, without this certification resolution; and
WHERE
AS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180- day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHER
EAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Alice Espinoza certify that Alice Espinoza has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and WHER
EAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby appoints Alice Espinoza as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the duties of Account Technician for the City of Rancho Cucamonga under Government Code section 21224, effective January 26, 2026; and
WHERE
AS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Alice Espinoza and the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
WHER
EAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and WHER
EAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and
WHER
EAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 equal the hourly rate; and
WHER
EAS, the maximum base salary for the position of Account Technician is $6,051 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $34.91, and the minimum base salary for this position is $4,485 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $25.88; and WHER
EAS, the hourly rate paid to Alice Espinoza will be $34.91 hourly; and WHER
EAS, Alice Espinoza has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and
ATTACHMENT 2
THERE
FORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga herby certifies the nature of the appointment of Alice Espinoza as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement/contract/appointment document (Exhibit A) and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed special assignment as Account Technician for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by January 26, 2026 , to advise current staff on payroll operations and develop a payroll training manual for current and future employees.
PASSED,
APROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2026.
January 22, 2026
A
lice Espinoza
6925 Eastwood Ave
Alta Loma, CA 91701
RE
: Conditional Offer of Employment for Extra Help Assignment D
ear Ms. Espinoza:
I
am pleased to extend to you an offer of an at-will, provisional appointment to an Extra Help Assignment under Gov. Code section 21224 with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This special project is to provide guidance on payroll operations and to develop a payroll training manual for current and future staff. If you accept this assignment, your pay rate would be $34.91 per hour. This assignment is to perform work of limited duration and would end when the special project is completed.
Y
our start date will be January 26, 2026.
I
n compliance with the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act "PEPRA", the City acknowledges that you have the specialized skills and experience needed to perform this special assignment of limited duration, per CalPERS GC Section 21224.
B
y accepting this offer of at-will, provisional employment, you confirm that you were of normal retirement age when you retired on December 30, 2025, and that there has been greater than a 180-day separation from your date of retirement. Furthermore, you certify that you did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer.
I
n addition, you agree that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will enroll you as a retired annuitant and will report your hours worked with the hourly pay rate to CalPERS. As a CalPERS retiree, you will be limited to working a maximum of 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS contracting agencies.
S
tarting Salary: $34.91 hourly. This rate is within the Account Technician pay range. No other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation will be paid.
Cla
ssification: Temporary, At-Will, Provisional Appointment of Limited Duration The C
ity makes no representation, promises, guarantees, or warranties, expressed or implied, on the impact, if any, the acceptance of this offer may have upon your CalPERS retirement benefits, status, duties, and/or obligations. In entering into this agreement, you acknowledge that you have not relied upon such representations (none of which being in existence) in assessing the CalPERS-related impact of your employment. Therefore, by signing below you release the City, it's employees, elected officials, agents or attorneys from any and all CalPERS-related claims or liabilities that may arise in connection with employment pursuant to this Agreement.
Thi
s offer of employment contains the entire offer. There are no other expressed or implied promises, representations or contracts being offered to you. Your provisional employment is considered "at will" and termination may occur at any time with or without cause.
I
f you have any questions regarding your appointment, please feel free to call me at (909) 774-2401.
R
obert Neiuber
Human Resources Director
Exhibit A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT
I,
Alice Espinoza, understand and accept the above terms and conditions of employment. I certify that I did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within the 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer. I further understand that, if hired, I would be an at-will employee and that termination may occur at any time with or without cause without right of appeal or hearing.
_____________________________________________________________________
Received and Accepted by
______________________________________________________________________
Date
DATE: January 21, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Deputy City Manager, Community Programs Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Hope Velarde, Management Analyst III
SUBJECT: Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council appoint a member to serve as Rancho Cucamonga’s delegate at the upcoming SCAG General Assembly. The Council may also wish to select an alternate delegate if desired, although it is not required.
BACKGROUND:
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the nation's largest metropolitan planning organization, representing six counties and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG undertakes a variety of planning and policy initiatives to encourage a more sustainable Southern California now and in the future. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, SCAG is mandated by federal and state law to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous materials management, and air quality.
SCAG is governed by the General Assembly which brings together the official representatives of SCAG's membership and helps set the agency's course for the coming year. The General Assembly serves as a forum where policy matters can be identified and addressed. Amendments to SCAG's Bylaws may also be considered at the General Assembly. In addition, members of the General Assembly also vote on SCAG's General Fund budget.
ANALYSIS:
This year's Regional Conference and General Assembly will be held in-person on May 7, 2026, in Palm Desert, CA. If a Member City wishes to select a Delegate to participate in the General Assembly, City Council action is required to appoint the Delegate. An Alternate may also be selected; however, it is not required. Each General Assembly Delegate (or Alternate) will be invited to the SCAG's Regional Conference and General Assembly event. If a City has a Council Member that serves as a Regional Council Member on the SCAG Board, that person is automatically the City's Delegate, however, if an Alternate is also desired, they will need to be appointed by the City Council. Mayor L. Dennis Michael currently serves as a SCAG Regional Council Member and served as the City’s Delegate at last year’s SCAG General Assembly and Councilmember Kristine Scott as the Alternate. Delegates and Alternates are required to submit FPPC Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests to the SCAG office upon appointment.
3 2
7 8
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Participating in the SCAG General Assembly complements the City Council’s Core Values by intentionally embracing and anticipating the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.