Resolution No. 2026-XXX – Page 5 of 6
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City):
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) (the “Maintenance District”) represents various landscaped areas, parks and community trails located at various sites throughout the City.
These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. As such, the parcels within this District do not represent a distinct district area as do the other LMD’s within the City.
Typically, new parcels within this District have been annexed upon development.
The various sites maintained by the District consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hermosa Park, and the undeveloped Don Tiburcio Tapia Park.
Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2023-00418:
None.
Resolution No. 2026-XXX – Page 6 of 6
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Landscape Maintenance District No.1 (General City):
The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2026/27. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) for DRC2023-00418:
Land Use Basis
EBU*
Factor
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $92.21
Multi-Family Residential Unit 0.50 92.21
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 92.21
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
1.00 Parcel x 1.00 EBU Factor x $92.21 Rate per EBU = $ 92.21 Annual Assessment
DATE: August 19, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Community Parks and Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee SUBJECT: Summary of Review of Results of Annual Independent Audit Concerning the FY 2024-25 Expenditures in Landscape Maintenance Districts No. 1 General City, No. 2 Victoria, No. 4-R Terra Vista, No. 6-R Caryn Community, and No. 7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting District No. 2 Residential, and Park and Recreation Improvement District No. 85. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend the City Council receive and file this report.
BACKGROUND:
Established by Resolution 19-075, the Community Parks and Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee is made up of members of the public who reside and own property within Landscape Maintenance Districts No. 1 General City, No. 2 Victoria, No. 4-R Terra Vista, No. 6-R Caryn Community, and No. 7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting District No. 2 Residential, and Park and Recreation Improvement District No. 85 (collectively “the Districts”), and do not serve on any other standing City Commission or Committee. The primary purpose of the Committee is to review the annual audit after it is prepared and report the results of its review to the City Council and the community on an annual basis.
The Committee does not have budgetary, operational decision-making authority, nor the authority to allocate financial resources or direct staff.
ANALYSIS:
At the meeting on June 24, 2026, Finance Director Jevin Kaye, along with partners Berrett Warnick and Chloe Zabrek of Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP, provided an overview of the FY 2024-25 audit for the Districts. The reports generated by the audit include:
• Audit Communication Letter
• Independent Auditors’ Report on Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
• Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting By law, each District accounts for its revenues and expenditures within its respective funds. The auditors reviewed the Special Districts audit report, and a discussion was held regarding the audit process and how the City ensures that funds collected for maintenance and operations are spent
to benefit each District. The auditors and City staff confirmed that revenues received have been appropriately expended on maintenance, operations, and capital improvements within each District.
The Committee appreciates the opportunity to serve our community. Members of the Committee will be present at the City Council meeting to present the annual report and respond to any questions from Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s core value of courageous leadership in service to the community and community engagement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Audit Communication Letter
Attachment 2 – Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances for the Districts for the year ended June 30, 2025
Attachment 3 – Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters
LSLCPAS.COM
May 1, 2026
To the Community Parks Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
We have audited the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances of the Landscape Maintenance Districts #1 General City, #2 Victoria, #4R Terra Vista, #6R Caryn Community and #7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential, and Park and Recreation Improvement District #85 (collectively, the “Districts”) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereafter, the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2025. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated June 13, 2025. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Matters
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the Districts are described in the notes to the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during FY 2024-2025. We noted no transactions entered into by the District during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
The statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management.
Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors’ report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
ATTACHMENT 1
To the Community Parks Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated May 1, 2026.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the Districts’ financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the Districts’ auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Future GASB Pronouncements
The following Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements will be effective for the following fiscal years’ audits and should be reviewed for proper implementation by management:
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
GASB Statement No. 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements.
GASB Statement No. 104, Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets.
Future Projects
Comprehensive Project, Revenue and Expense Recognition.
Major Project, Going Concern Uncertainties and Severe Financial Stress.
Major Project, Infrastructure Assets.
Practice Issue, Subsequent Events.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the information and use of the Community Parks and Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee and management of the Districts and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
Irvine, California
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
#1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA,
#6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
#2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
ATTACHMENT 2
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
#1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA,
#6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA,
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL,
AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Table of Contents
Page
Number
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
in Fund Balances ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ................................................................................................................................................. 5
LSLCPAS.COM
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Community Parks Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Report on the State of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Opinions
We have audited the accompanying statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances financial statements of the Landscape Maintenance Districts #1 General City, #2 Vicotria, #4R Terra Vista, #6R Caryn Community and #7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential and Park and Recreation Improvement District #85 (collectively, the “Districts”) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereafter, the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, as listed in the table of contents.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the financial statements of the Districts of the City, as of June 30, 2025 in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the Districts and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances of the Districts, and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City, as of June 30, 2025, the changes in its financial position, or, where applicable, its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
To the Community Parks Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Districts’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.
Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditors’ report that includes our opinions.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, we:
• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. • Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Districts’ internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. • Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated May 1, 2026, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Irvine, California
May 1, 2026
2
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Satement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Revenues:
Taxes $ 4,206,270 1,271,984 $ 3,086,002 $ $ 610,247
Intergovernmental - - - -
Charges for services 16,286 518 1,045 -
Use of money and property 161,827 240,901 487,929 55,206 Contributions from General Fund:
General benefit contribution - 370,940 - -
General benefit equivalent 68,190 - - 39,540
Contributions from other funds 152,160 - - -
Miscellaneous 92 21 108 5
Total Revenues 1,670,539 4,818,650 3,575,084 704,998
Expenditures:
Personnel services 57,140 1,015,547 1,021,984 26,915
Operating costs:
Operations and maintenance 61,131 84,560 89,108 8,259
Contract services 631,937 2,177,663 719,637 361,003
Utilities 393,618 1,003,023 554,839 126,804
Interfund allocation 660 86,840 - -
General overhead allocation 132,170 537,980 427,690 38,500 Capital outlay 98,753 578,694 430,655 124,826
Total Expenditures 1,375,409 5,484,307 3,243,913 686,307 Net Change in Fund Balances 295,130 (665,657) 331,171 18,691 Fund Balances, Beginning of Year 4,092,571 1,872,583 8,072,700 911,185 Fund Balances, End of Year $ 3,426,914 2,167,713 $ 8,403,871 $ 929,876 $ Landscape
Maintenance
District #1
General City
Landscape
Maintenance
District #4R
Terra Vista
Landscape
Maintenance
District #6R
Caryn
Community
Landscape
Maintenance
District #2
Victoria
See Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances. 3
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Satement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Revenues:
Taxes $ 393,462 963,909 $ $ 1,165,323
Intergovernmental - - -
Charges for services 4,091 - 33,975
Use of money and property 142,119 68,467 386,987
Contributions from General Fund:
General benefit contribution - - -
General benefit equivalent - 70,200 117,420
Contributions from other funds - 86,540 86,890
Miscellaneous 80 - 16
Total Revenues 1,110,199 618,669 1,790,611
Expenditures:
Personnel services 92,714 - 262,255
Operating costs:
Operations and maintenance 37,613 114,232 55,726
Contract services 486,113 676 338,883
Utilities 320,752 423,324 299,867
Interfund allocation 680 - 2,960
General overhead allocation 86,780 27,380 193,260
Capital outlay - - 194,808
Total Expenditures 1,024,652 565,612 1,347,759
Net Change in Fund Balances 85,547 53,057 442,852
Fund Balances, Beginning of Year 1,043,538 1,023,647 3,481,777 Fund Balances, End of Year $ 1,096,595 1,109,194 $ 3,924,629 $ Street Lighting
Maintenance
District #2
Residential
Park and
Recreation
Improvement
District #85
Landscape
Maintenance
District #7
North Etiwanda
See Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances. 4
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
NOTE 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORTING ENTITY
The City of Rancho Cucamonga was incorporated on November 30, 1977, under the laws of the State of California and enjoys all the rights and privileges applicable to a General Law City. It is governed by an elected five-member board.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has formed certain maintenance districts and authorized the levy of assessments pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 22500). The City levies annual assessments to finance the costs and expenses necessary for maintenance and improvements in each assessment district.
The City cannot levy and collect annual assessments within an assessment district without complying with the procedures specified in the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. On an annual basis, an Engineer's Report must be prepared for each assessment district which contains a full and detailed description of the improvements and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district.
The City Council must also adopt a resolution of intention which:
• Declares the intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within the assessment district for the fiscal year stated therein.
• Generally, describes the existing and proposed improvements and any substantial changes proposed to be made in existing improvements.
• Refers to the assessment district by its distinctive designation and indicates the general location of the district. • Refers to the Engineer’s Report for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district.
• Gives notice of the time and place for public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the proposed assessment. • States whether the assessment is proposed to increase from the previous year.
The improvements for the districts include, but are not limited to turf, ground cover, planter beds, shrubs, plants and trees, landscape lighting, irrigation systems, electrical energy for irrigation controllers, hardscapes, entry signs, sound walls, and all associated appurtenant facilities. A description of the specific improvements to be maintained and serviced within each assessment district is set forth in the Annual Engineer’s Report. Maintenance may include the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Service may include the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for the lighting or operation of any improvements, and water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
The accompanying statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances contains information relative only to the Landscape Maintenance Districts #1 General City, 2 Victoria, #4R Terra Vista, #6R Caryn Community, and #7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential, and Park and Recreation Improvement District #85 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which are an integral part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This report does not purport to present balance sheet information or ending fund balance of the funds in relation to the City’s basic financial statements.
5
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
NOTE 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORTING ENTITY (CONTINUED) Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 General City (LMD 1) was formed in 1979 and consists of 8,413 single family homes, 10,382 multi-family units, and 8.83 acres of vacant land, seven parks, and trails. Landscape improvements provided in LMD 1 may include, but are not limited to: turf, ground cover, shrubs and trees, sprinkler and irrigation systems, ornamental lighting, drainage systems, masonry walls, entryway monuments, and associated appurtenances. These improvements include all necessary services, operations, administration, and maintenance required to keep the abovementioned improvements in healthy, vigorous, and satisfactory working condition.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home $ 92.21 $ 92.21 0.00%
Condominium unit 46.11 46.11 0.00%
Multi-family unit 46.11 46.11 0.00%
Commercial/industrial parcel per acre 184.42 184.42 0.00% Victoria Neighborhood Parks and Landscape Maintenance District (LMD 2) was formed in 1982 and consists of 5,890 single family homes, 972 condominiums, 729 multi-family units, 57.97 acres of commercial/industrial,
75.28 acres of public service parcels, and 16.97 acres of vacant land, six parks, and trails. On June 5, 2013, a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding was held, and residents approved a rate increase.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home 572.06 $ 589.22 $ 3.00%
Condominium unit 420.99 433.62 3.00%
Multi-family unit 399.96 411.96 3.00%
Commercial/industrial parcel per acre 2,704.31 2,785.44 3.00% Public service parcel per acre 156.02 160.70 3.00%
Undeveloped parcel per acre 113.91 117.33 3.00%
Landscape Maintenance District No. 4R Terra Vista (LMD 4R) was formed in 1984 and consists of 2,652 single family homes, 1,249 condominiums, 4,001 multi-family, 35.41 acres of schools, 176.40 acres of commercial/industrial, and 61.08 acres of vacant land. On December 2, 2009, a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding was held, and residents approved a rate increase.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home 437.86 $ 451.00 $ 3.00%
Condominium unit 350.29 360.80 3.00%
Multi-family unit 306.51 315.70 3.00%
Commercial/industrial parcel per acre 1,423.05 1,465.76 3.00% Undeveloped parcel per acre 109.47 112.76 3.00%
School parcel per acre 109.47 112.76 3.00%
6
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
NOTE 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORTING ENTITY (CONTINUED) Landscape Maintenance District No. 6R Caryn Community (LMD 6R) was formed in 1986 and consists of 966 single family homes in Zone 1, 310 single family homes in Zone 2, 5.35 acres of schools, and 0.00 acres of vacant land. On September 1, 2010, a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding was held, and residents approved a rate increase.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home - Zone 1 504.32 $ 519.13 $ 2.94%
Single family home - Zone 2 378.24 389.35 2.94%
School parcel per acre 126.08 129.78 2.94%
Undeveloped parcel per acre 126.08 129.78 2.94%
Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 North Etiwanda (LMD 7) was formed in 1989 and currently consists of 3,096 single family homes.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home 307.05 $ 307.05 $ 0.00%
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 Residential (SLD 2) was formed in August 1983 and consists of 7,339 single family homes, 2,144 multi-family units, and 35.16 acres of non-residential land. The SLD 2 assessments pay for energy and maintenance for streetlights within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements within the boundaries of SLD 2.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home 39.97 $ 39.97 $ 0.00%
Multi-family unit 39.97 39.97 0.00%
Commercial/industrial parcel per acre 79.94 79.94 0.00% 7
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
NOTE 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORTING ENTITY (CONTINUED) Park and Recreation Improvement District No. 85 Red Hill and Heritage Park District (PD 85) was formed in April 1985. PD 85 is a combination Improvement and Maintenance District. This special tax was issued to pay for bonds that were sold in 1985 and refinanced in 1993. The bonds that were sold for the construction of the parks have been paid off as of 2005. However, all parcels in PD 85 will continue to be assessed for the on-going maintenance of both parks. The boundary of PD 85 is citywide except properties within the planned communities.
The assessment rates are as follows:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percentage
2024/25 2025/26 Change
Single family home 31.00 $ 31.00 $ 0.00%
Condominium unit 31.00 31.00 0.00%
Multi-family unit 31.00 31.00 0.00%
Commercial/industrial parcel
<1.50 acres 15.50/Lot 15.50 0.00%
1.51 - 3.50 acres 46.50/Lot 46.50 0.00%
3.51 - 7.00 acres 108.50/Lot 108.50 0.00%
7.01 - 14.00 acres 217.00/Lot 217.00 0.00%
14.01 - 25.00 acres 434.00/Lot 434.00 0.00%
>25.01 acres 775.00/Lot 775.00 0.00%
NOTE 2: MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION The statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances is reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the government considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period.
Expenditures are generally recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting except for sales tax and grant revenue where the government considers revenue to be available if collected within 180 days of the end of the current fiscal year period. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due.
Assessment Revenue
Assessment revenue is recognized on the modified accrual basis, that is, in the fiscal year for which the assessments have been levied providing they become available. Available means then due, or past due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The County of San Bernardino collects the assessments for the Districts.
Assessment liens attach annually as of 12:01 A.M. on the first day in January proceeding the fiscal year for which the assessments are levied. Assessments are levied on real property as it exists on that date. The assessment levy covers the fiscal period July 1 to June 30. One-half of the assessment is due November 1; the second half of the assessment is due February 1. All assessments are delinquent if unpaid on December 10 and April 10, respectively. 8
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS #1 GENERAL CITY, #2 VICTORIA, #4R TERRA VISTA, #6R CARYN COMMUNITY, AND #7 NORTH ETIWANDA, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #2 RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #85
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Notes to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
NOTE 2: MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
Fund Type
The Landscape Maintenance District #1 General City, #2 Victoria, #4R Terra Vista, #6 Caryn Community, and #7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting Maintenance District #2, and Park and Recreation Improvement District #85 funds included in this report are accounted for in the City’s financial records as special revenue funds. Special revenue funds account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes. Special revenue funds are designed to help determine and demonstrate resources that must be used for a specified purpose are, in fact, used for that purpose.
NOTE 3: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GENERAL FUND
A General Benefit Contribution quantifies the dollar value of a general benefit to parcels within a district which is required by law to be funded from sources other than special assessments. This general benefit is contributed from general revenues by the City’s General Fund. In the event a district is operating at a deficit, lacks the resources for necessary maintenance or maintains insufficient operating reserves, a General Benefit Equivalent may be authorized by the City Council through the annual budget process. Per City policy, the amount of the General Benefit Equivalent will not exceed 11% of the adjusted total budget of the district under consideration for the subsidy.
NOTE 4: ADVANCES FROM CITY
On August 16, 2017, the City Council authorized an advance of $4,286,054 from the General Fund to the Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential Fund to provide funding for the purchase and acquisition of Southern California Edison owned streetlights, the installation of LED lighting to streetlights, and other one-time costs necessary to inventory the streetlights. The advance was completed in phases and bears interest at 1.0% on the outstanding balance. The advance is to be repaid to the City’s General Fund at such time as funds are available by Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential Fund at the end of each fiscal year. At June 30, 2025, the outstanding balance amounted to $3,481,246.
NOTE 5: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY’S ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT The ending fund balance reported on the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) differs from the ending fund balance reported within this report for the Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential Fund by $3,481,246. This difference is the result of advances from the City, noted within Note 4, which are excluded from this report as the advances represent long-term interfund balance sheet items. As payments are being made to reduce the advances due back to the City’s General Fund, the activity is represented within the current year statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance. At the time repayment is completed, the difference between fund balance reported in this report and fund balance reported in the City’s ACFR will be eliminated.
NOTE 6: SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
The City evaluated subsequent events as they relate to the Districts for recognition and disclosure through May 1, 2026, the date on which the financial statements were available to be issued. Management concluded that no material subsequent events have occurred since June 30, 2025, that required recognition or disclosure in these financial statements.
9
LSLCPAS.COM
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON
COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Community Parks and Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances (financial statements) of Landscape Maintenance Districts #1 General City, #2 Victoria, #4R Terra Vista, #6R Caryn Community, and #7 North Etiwanda, Street Lighting Maintenance District #2 Residential, and Park and Recreation Improvement District #85 (collectively, the Districts) of City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (hereafter, the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated May 1, 2026.
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control as it relates to the Districts over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control as it relates to the Districts.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.
Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Districts financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.
However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
ATTACHMENT 3
To the Community Parks and Landscape Citizens’ Oversight Committee City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Irvine, California
May 1, 2026
DATE: August 19, 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: Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance 1060, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, to Make Administrative Amendments to Chapters 2.08 (City Manager), and 2.20 (Planning Commission) and Repeal Chapter 2.52 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. This Item is Statutorily Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). (ORDINANCE NO. 1060) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance 1060, to be read by title only and waive further reading, to make administrative changes to Title 2 relating to the City Manager, Planning Commission, and Park and Recreation Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The City periodically reviews its Municipal Code to ensure that its provisions remain current, internally consistent, and reflective of the City's operational practices. As organizational structures, administrative procedures, and governance practices evolve over time, certain code provisions may become outdated or no longer align with existing City policies.
The proposed ordinance includes a series of administrative amendments to Chapters 2.08 (City Manager) and 2.20 (Planning Commission), as well as the repeal of Chapter 2.52 (Park and Recreation Commission). These amendments are intended to update the Municipal Code, clarify existing practices, eliminate obsolete provisions, and improve administrative efficiency without changing the City's fundamental governance structure.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed ordinance contains the following amendments:
Chapter 2.08 – City Manager
The proposed ordinance repeals Section 2.08.020, which requires the City Manager to satisfy a residency requirement. Removal of this provision aligns the Municipal Code with State law. The ordinance also proposes amendments to Section 2.08.060(B) regarding severance compensation. Rather than prescribing severance terms within the Municipal Code, the amendment references the severance provisions contained in the City Manager's Employment Agreement as approved by the City Council. This approach allows future modifications to
severance benefits through the employment agreement without requiring amendments to the Municipal Code while maintaining City Council oversight.
Chapter 2.20 – Planning Commission
Several amendments are proposed to modernize and clarify the administration of the Planning Commission.
The ordinance proposes updating appointment procedures by formally recognizing the City Council Community Development/Historic Preservation Subcommittee's role in reviewing and recommending applicants prior to City Council appointment. The City Council retains its authority to appoint Planning Commissioners.
The ordinance establishes that commissioner stipends shall be set by City Council resolution. As commissioner compensation was not previously established in the Municipal Code, this provision provides a clear mechanism for establishing and adjusting stipend amounts through future Council action without requiring amendments to the Municipal Code. Additionally, the ordinance establishes the Planning Director, or designee, as Secretary to the Planning Commission. This codifies existing administrative responsibilities, including maintaining commission records, conducting official correspondence, and coordinating clerical and technical support.
Finally, the ordinance adds provisions establishing annual terms and procedures for the election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, including procedures for filling vacancies. As the Municipal Code previously did not address these matters, these provisions provide clarity regarding commission leadership, establish a consistent process for selecting commission officers, and help ensure continuity in commission operations.
Chapter 2.52 – Parks and Recreation Commission
The proposed ordinance repeals Chapter 2.52 of the Municipal Code, eliminating provisions establishing the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has not been active since the City Council suspended the commission's operations for a two-year period in 2017. In 2019, the City Council took formal action to permanently discontinue the commission, and its responsibilities have since been incorporated into City administrative processes and City Council oversight. Repealing Chapter 2.52 removes obsolete provisions from the Municipal Code, aligns the Code with actions previously taken by the City Council, and better reflects the City's current organizational structure.
Collectively, these amendments improve the clarity, organization, and administration of the Municipal Code by removing outdated provisions, codifying current administrative practices, and providing flexibility for future administrative actions. The proposed amendments are organizational and administrative in nature and do not substantially alter existing City policies or the authority of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Manager.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). It can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment because they involve administrative procedures governing the administration of the city and will not result in either direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.
Public Notice
This item was noticed with a 1/8th page legal ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on August 3, 2026. Because this amendment is citywide, individual noticing was not required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This ordinance addresses the Council values of relentless pursuit of improvement ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Draft Ordinance No. 1060
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1060
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2.08 (CITY MANAGER)
AND 2.20 (PLANNING COMMISSION) AND REPEALING
CHAPTER 2.52 (PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION) OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE
CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga periodically reviews the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to ensure that its provisions remain current, consistent, and reflective of the City's administrative practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend certain provisions relating to the City Manager and Planning Commission and repeal provisions pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that these amendments will improve the organization, clarity, and administration of the Municipal Code and ensure consistency with existing City practices and procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.08.020 (Residence requirement) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Subsection B of Section 2.08.060 (Compensation) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“B. On termination of employment of the city manager by reason of involuntary removal from service other than for willful misconduct or other due cause in office (as defined in the city manager’s employment agreement), the city manager shall receive cash severance pay in accordance with the severance structure approved by the City Council in the City Manager’s employment agreement. Involuntary removal from service shall include a reduction in pay not applicable to all employees of the city.”
SECTION 3. Section 2.20.030 (Membership—Number) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“§ 2.20.030 Membership—Number.
The planning commission shall consist of five members who shall be appointed by the city council. Candidates for appointment may be nominated in a manner determined by the city council. The city council subcommittee on community development/historic preservation shall review and recommend candidates for appointment to the planning commission. Upon such appointment by the city council, the name of the appointee shall be recorded in the minutes of the city council meeting. All members of the planning commission shall be residents of the city and over 18 years of age.”
SECTION 4. Section 2.20.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Ҥ 2.20.040. Stipend.
Members of the planning commission shall be paid a stipend for their attendance at meetings of the commission in the amount established by resolution of the city council.” SECTION 5. A new Section 2.20.090 entitled “Secretary” is hereby added to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows:
Ҥ 2.20.090. Secretary.
The planning director, or his or her designee, shall act as secretary to the planning commission and shall be the custodian of its records, conduct official correspondence, and generally coordinate the clerical and technical work of the commission in administering this chapter.”
SECTION 6. A new Section 2.20.100 is hereby added to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows:
Ҥ 2.20.100. Chairperson and vice-chairperson selection and terms.
The terms of office of the chairperson and vice-chairperson shall be for the calendar year or that portion remaining after the chairperson or vice-chairperson is appointed or elected. When there is a vacancy in the office of chairperson and/or vice-chairperson, the commission shall elect a chairperson and/or vice-chairperson from among its members to serve for the remainder of the pending term. The chairperson shall preside at each meeting of the planning commission and the vice-chairperson shall preside over such meetings in the absence of the chairperson.”
SECTION 7. Chapter 2.52 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 8. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) because it involves organizational and administrative activities of government that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 2026. _____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the _____ day of _______________, 2026, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 19, 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 to Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 1059, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Chapters
17.04 (Administrative Responsibility), 17.14 (General Application Processing Procedures), 17.16 (Planning Director Decisions), 17.20 (Planning Commission Decisions), 17.64 (Parking and Loading Standards), and 17.96 (Mobile Homes) of the Municipal Code to Update Public Hearing Noticing Requirements, add a Requirement for Neighborhood Meetings for Certain Projects, and Sunset the Design Review Committee; and Delete Chapter 19.04 (Grading Standards) of the Municipal Code to Delete References to the Previously Terminated Grading Review Committee. This Item is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). (ORDINANCE NO. 1059) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1059, to be read by title only and waive further reading to amend the Municipal Code to update public hearing noticing requirements, add a requirement for neighborhood meetings for certain projects, sunset the Design Review Committee and delete references to the previously terminated grading review committee.
BACKGROUND:
In December 2025, the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). During the public hearing, both members of the public and the Planning Commission expressed concern that the project applicant had not conducted a neighborhood meeting prior to the Commission's consideration of the project.
Although the City has long encouraged applicants to hold neighborhood meetings for projects subject to Planning Commission review, this policy had not been codified, allowing applicants to proceed without conducting such outreach. In response, on January 21, 2026, the City Council amended the EHNCP to require neighborhood meetings for all future development projects within the plan area and eliminated the requirement for those projects to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. The City Council also directed staff to prepare amendments to the Development Code establishing a neighborhood meeting requirement for applicable new development projects citywide, extending the requirement beyond the EHNCP.
In carrying out the City Council's direction, staff also evaluated the City's broader public notification requirements for new development. This effort presented an opportunity to review and update related provisions of the code to improve clarity, consistency, and transparency in the development review process. In addition to establishing a neighborhood meeting requirement, the proposed amendments enhance public notification procedures and outreach requirements to promote earlier and more meaningful community engagement, ensure that residents have timely access to project information, and provide greater transparency throughout the entitlement process.
ANALYSIS:
To implement the City Council's direction and improve the overall public participation process, staff is proposing amendments in the following key areas:
Neighborhood Meeting Requirement
The proposed amendments add Section 17.14.065 (Neighborhood Meetings) to Chapter 17.14 (General Application Processing Procedures) of the Development Code to require neighborhood meetings for development projects that require review by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Neighborhood meetings have long been a key component of the City's development review process, providing nearby residents with an opportunity to learn about proposed projects, ask questions, and engage directly with applicants before public hearings. Although applicants have historically complied with staff's request to conduct neighborhood meetings, the practice has been based on longstanding policy rather than a codified requirement. As a result, applicants have retained the ability to forgo neighborhood outreach. Following recent public concern regarding the absence of a neighborhood meeting for a Planning Commission project, the City Council directed staff to amend the Development Code to formally establish this requirement, ensuring a consistent and transparent public engagement process for future projects.
Design Review Committee
As part of its discussion on the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) amendments, the City Council also considered the overall number of public meetings required for development projects. The California Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65905.5) limits local agencies to a maximum of five hearings for development projects. As a designated Prohousing community, the City has committed to further streamlining the entitlement process by limiting projects to no more than three hearings whenever feasible.
Requiring a neighborhood meeting in addition to Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and, when applicable, City Council review would exceed that objective.
Furthermore, the implementation of objective design standards over the past several years has significantly reduced the need for Design Review Committee review, as state law has increasingly limited discretionary design review in favor of objective standards. In recognition of these changes, the City Council directed staff to replace Design Review Committee review with enhanced early community outreach for projects within the EHNCP. Staff recommend extending this approach citywide to provide a more efficient review process while strengthening opportunities for public participation.
Accordingly, the proposed amendments remove references to the Design Review Committee from Chapter 17.04 (Administrative Responsibility), Sections 17.16.130 (Minor Design Review),
17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review), 17.20.040 (Major Design Review), Chapter 17.96 (Mobile Homes), and Section 17.64.050 (Number of Parking Spaces Required).
Public Notification Requirements
Staff are also proposing several amendments to the City's public notification requirements to improve transparency and provide greater flexibility in the placement of project notice signs.
Currently, the Development Code requires two types of on-site notice signs: large 4-foot by 8-foot project information signs installed early in the review process for certain major developments, and smaller 11-inch by 17-inch public hearing notices posted at least 10 days before a hearing. The proposed amendments expand the use of the larger project information signs to include additional development applications requiring Planning Commission and/or City Council review, such as four-unit residential developments, increasing early public awareness of pending projects.
The amendments also revise the standards governing sign placement by removing the prescriptive requirement for signs to be installed every 300 feet of street frontage. Instead, staff would have the flexibility to determine the appropriate number and location of signs based on site characteristics to ensure they are highly visible and accessible to the public. These changes are intended to improve the effectiveness of project noticing while allowing greater flexibility to accommodate varying project sites.
Grading
Finally, staff is proposing a housekeeping amendment to delete Chapter 19.04 (Grading Standards) in its entirety. This chapter established the former Grading Review Committee, which was eliminated from the development review process through Ordinance No. 867, adopted on July 14, 2014. However, the chapter itself was inadvertently left in the Municipal Code. The proposed amendment removes this obsolete chapter and aligns the code with the City's current review procedures.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). It can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment because they involve administrative procedures governing the development review process and will not result in either direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.
Planning Commission Hearing
On July 22, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Municipal Code amendments at a duly noticed public hearing. Commission discussion focused primarily on the proposed elimination of the Design Review Committee, including the benefits of streamlining the review process and the Committee's evolving role under state laws requiring objective design and development standards for housing projects. Staff and the Assistant City Attorney clarified that the Planning Commission would continue to review project design during public hearings and retain authority to discuss design-related issues and impose appropriate conditions of approval.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
Public Notice
This item was noticed with a 1/8th page legal ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on August 3, 2026. Because this amendment is citywide, individual noticing was not required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendments may result in minor cost savings of staff time currently allocated to preparing and managing the Design Review Committee.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
These amendments address the Council values of relentless pursuit of improvement through the streamlining of development review processes and community engagement by prioritizing neighborhood meetings for development projects to increase community engagement and transparency.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Draft Planning Commission Minutes, July 22, 2026 Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution 2026-027
Attachment 3 – Draft Ordinance No. 1059
\
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
July 22, 2026
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
6:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission was held on July 22, 2026.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Boling at 6:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Boling, Vice Chairman Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Diaz, and Commissioner Cooke.
Staff present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Haide Aguirre, Contract Planner; Jared Knight, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Boling opened the public communications
Resident Beth Ullum spoke regarding the proposed 135-unit Warmington Townhome project and expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns regarding vehicle speeds and traffic impacts. She would prefer the installation of emergency access gates.
Resident Erin Hansen spoke regarding the Monte Vista Homes project and expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns over traffic impacts, pedestrian safety, and school safety.
Resident Camille Gentry spoke regarding the Monte Vista Homes project and expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns over potential environmental impacts to protected hawks and impacts to local schools.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Boling closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2026.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Morales; seconded by Commissioner Cooke to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D. Public Hearings
D1. THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED. IT WILL BE RENOTICED WHEN A NEW HEARING DATE IS SCHEDULED. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW – MONTE VISTA HOMES – A request for the subdivision of an existing 5.45-acre parcel into 60 numbered parcels for the development of 60 singlefamily residential units consistent with the provisions of State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code 65915- 65918), within the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and located at 13361 Banyan Street (APN: 0225-472- 25). The project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ATTACHMENT 1
(CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, as enacted by Assembly Bill 130. (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20859 and Design Review DRC2026-00042).
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Dopp to continue this item to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D2. TIME EXTENSION – CARLOS RANGEL – A request to allow for a one-year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT18012-1) for the subdivision of an existing 6.96-acre parcel into 9 new numbered parcels within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone, located at 12774 Banyan Street, generally located north of Banyan Street and west of Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 0225-111-07). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Time Extension DRC2026-00036).
Associate Planner Knight provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). A redline version of the Conditions of Approval was placed on the dais for the Commissioners to review. The revised Conditions of Approval changed the total number of allowable extensions from five to six.
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Applicant was not in attendance.
Chairman Boling, hearing no comments from the public, closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion: No discussion took place.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Dopp, to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 026 approving Time Extension DRC2026-00036, as amended by the revised Conditions of Approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND MINOR DESIGN REVIEW – JOHN CAGLIA ON BEHALF OF DUTCH BROS COFFEE - A request for the development of an approximately 1,000 squarefoot coffee shop featuring dual drive-through lanes and pedestrian walk-up service window, with queuing capacity for 19 vehicles and up to 24 vehicles when utilizing the bypass lane. A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the proposed drive-through use, and a Variance has been requested to modify four development standards. The project site is a 0.6-acre remainder infill area located within an existing 7.3- acre commercial center, south of Baseline Road and east of Carnelian Street, zoned Neighborhood General 3 – Limited (NG3-L) within the Neighborhood Center (C) land use designation (APN: 0207-031-28).
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project qualifies for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects). (DRC2024-00432, DRC2025-00173, and DRC2024-00433).
Contract Planner Aguirre provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
The Applicant was not present at the beginning of the meeting but arrived later.
Resident Sofie Gomez spoke regarding the project and expressed opposition due to concerns about increased traffic and potential safety impacts to residents in the surrounding neighborhood located directly south of the project site.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Boling closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morales expressed concerns regarding the Traffic Management Plan and asked what enforcement measures would be implemented if the plan was not properly managed, resulting in impacts to the parking lot.
Contract Planner Aguirre explained that a Traffic Management Plan was prepared in conjunction with a Traffic Impact Analysis. She stated that the project is not anticipated to create traffic impacts and is consistent with the traffic analysis and noted the project qualified for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria under CEQA. She further noted that a Condition of Approval requires the applicant to comply with the Traffic Management Plan, not only for the initial 90-day operating period but throughout the life of the project, as necessary.
Commissioner Morales asked staff whether a notice would be provided in the event that complaints or concerns are received.
Contract Planner Aguirre confirmed that the Conditional Use Permit allows the City to monitor the operation of the approved use. She also noted that the Conditions of Approval provide the authority to issue notices of compliance.
Vice Chairman Dopp expressed concern that, if the Dutch Bros location is as successful as the others, vehicle queues could back up onto Carnelian Street. He emphasized the importance of the developer and Dutch Bros proactively managing traffic to prevent queuing from extending onto the street, noting that it would become a public safety issue. He stated that he was comfortable with City staff monitoring the operation and evaluating traffic conditions after the initial 90-day period.
Planning Director Nakamura agreed and stated that the City anticipated that the use could become more popular than initially expected and could continue beyond the initial period. She explained that this was the reason for requiring a queueing study and a Traffic Management Plan, noting that a strict 90-day requirement alone would not adequately address the City’s needs. She further stated that, as with other projects, the City could utilize its available enforcement tools, including the Community Improvement department, to monitor compliance and escalate actions when necessary.
Contract Planner Aguirre noted that the applicant had arrived.
Chairman Boling reopened the public hearing and invited the applicant to respond to questions from the Commission.
Applicant responded to the traffic concerns, stating that as additional Dutch Bros locations opened, traffic volumes in the surrounding locations have decreased. He also explained that the Traffic Management Plan is not limited to the initial 90-day period; rather, its policies and procedures will remain in effect for the life of the store.
Commissioner Morales asked the applicant whether the employees could ensure that vehicles in the drivethrough queue do not leave unnecessary gaps that could cause the line to back up into the parking lot. He also asked whether the Traffic Management Plan would help keep traffic moving efficiently and maintain a continuous flow of vehicles.
Applicant responded that staffing levels would include as many employees as necessary to efficiently queue vehicles. He stated that the goal is to serve customers within approximately two minutes. He also explained that the site includes an escape lane, which allows customers whose drinks are ready to receive their orders and exit without waiting in the drive-through queue.
Commissioner Cooke expressed his appreciation to the Design Review Committee and staff for establishing the timeframe for the southbound left-turn lane on Carnelian Street, noting that it was a thoughtful consideration, particularly during peak hours. He asked the applicant how many vehicles could be accommodated within the two drive-through lanes and the internal circulation lanes on-site before vehicles would begin queuing onto Carnelian Street.
Contract Planner Aguirre responded that a total of 24 vehicles could be accommodated within the double drive-through lane and stated that traffic is directed within the interior of the site, which would allow additional queuing to remain on site for approximately double the drive-through capacity.
Chairman Boling closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diaz stated that she also had significant concerns regarding traffic impacts on Carnelian Street and the potential effects on the neighborhood to the south. She noted that the shopping center has excess parking capacity and expressed her belief that the Traffic Management Plan should be revised to further address and alleviate traffic concerns.
Commissioner Morales stated that the variance request makes sense due to the site-specific restraints. He thanked the public for their comments and concerns. He expressed his support for the project.
Chairman Boling stated that the applicant and staff addressed a significant portion of his concerns regarding vehicle queuing, noting that it would be effectively managed through the implementation of the Traffic Management Plan. He also noted that the additional Condition of Approval restricting southbound left-turn movements on Carnelian Street during peak hours, which he recommended during the Design Review Committee meeting, would help improve traffic safety.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Commissioner Morales, to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 021 approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00432, Variance DRC2025-00173 and Minor Design Review DRC2024-00433. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D4. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Chapter 17.04 (Administrative Responsibility), 17.14 (General Application Processing Procedures), 17.16 (Planning Director Decisions),
17.20 (Planning Commission Decisions), 17.64 (Parking and Loading Standards), and 17.96 (Mobile Homes) to update public hearing noticing requirements, add a requirement for neighborhood meetings for certain projects, and sunset the design review committee; and delete Chapter 19.04 (Grading Standards) to delete references to the previously terminated grading review committee. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. (DRC2026-00228) Planning Director Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She presented a series of proposed code amendments for the Commissioner’s consideration and recommendation to the City Council. A revised Ordinance was placed on the dais for Commissioners’ review.
Commissioner Morales asked staff if he could attend a neighborhood meeting for a development project as a member of the public and not in a commissioner role.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that any member of the public may attend a neighborhood meeting.
She noted that a commissioner may attend but cannot speak on the item.
Assistant City Attorney Young stated that it is not appropriate for commissioners to engage during neighborhood meetings. She advised that if a commissioner attends a neighborhood meeting, they should do so solely as an observer and should not participate in discussions. She also cautioned commissioners to be mindful of the public’s perception of their presence at such meetings.
Vice Chairman Dopp stated that, based on his time serving on the Commission and observing residents’ participation, the purpose of the design review process has been to address community concerns and provide feedback on the project design. He asked what the process would look like for the Commission moving forward.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that the Design Review Committee typically conducts a thorough review of the overall project design. She clarified that the entire Commission is not precluded from commenting on a project prior to its approval or denial. She noted that, particularly for housing projects subject to objective standards, design-related comments are not requirements. While some developers may be receptive to feedback and others may not, the distinction between Design Review and Planning Commission review is that the Commission may incorporate Conditions of Approval during a public hearing that would make certain modifications enforceable. She explained that items discussed during design review serve as discussion points but do not create obligations for the applicant.
Commissioner Morales stated that if the majority of the Commission felt strongly about an item and requested that it be added as a Condition of Approval, the Commission could discuss the matter and seek guidance from the City Attorney and Planning Director.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that it would be important for the Commission to ask questions and address any concerns during the period of discussion with the Applicant. She explained that once the public hearing is closed and the Commission begins deliberation, Commissioners may discuss their priorities and, if a majority supports an additional Conditional of Approval, the condition could be developed and considered at that time.
Commissioner Diaz confirmed that any discussion or action previously conducted during Design Review Committee (DRC) meetings would now take place during the regular public hearing. She noted that requests or recommendations previously made during DRC meetings would no longer be an available option and would instead be addressed during the public meeting as part of Commission deliberations.
Assistant City Attorney Young confirmed.
Chairman Boling stated that if a Condition of Approval needs to be drafted during deliberations, the City Attorney and Planning Director will prepare the language during a recess. The drafted condition will then be read aloud and incorporated into the final motion for adoption.
Assistant City Attorney Young confirmed.
Commissioner Morales stated that community meetings are very important because they provide an opportunity for the public to provide input with full transparency. He noted that staff clearly explained how Commissioner’s suggestions and concerns will be addressed in the future. Overall, he stated that the change is positive, provided the Commission retains the ability to address items that may make a meaningful difference.
Commissioner Cooke asked whether the proposed neighborhood meeting requirements would result in additional meetings or whether the number of meetings would remain the same.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that there may be a few additional meetings. She explained that staff is updating its informal guidelines and emphasized the importance of providing the public with an opportunity to learn about the proposed projects as early in the process as possible.
Commissioner Cooke asked whether there is a requirement specifying where neighborhood meetings must be held.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that staff are currently working to formalize informal guidelines developed in response to Council feedback. She explained that staff generally seek to hold neighborhood meetings within one-quarter mile of the project site and, whenever possible, in the neighborhood where the project is located.
Chairman Boling discussed the proposed guidelines for neighborhood meetings, noting that staff would establish requirements to ensure meetings are not held during inconvenient hours and are scheduled at times that provide the public with an opportunity to attend. He stated that remote locations would be limited and that developers would be required to identify the meeting start and end times, allowing the public an opportunity to engage with the developer.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and explained that the proposed guidelines recommend a preferred neighborhood meeting start time of 6:00 p.m., with a designated ending time to provide the public with sufficient opportunity to attend and learn about the project. She noted that the developer would coordinate with staff regarding meeting dates to ensure they do not conflict with Planning Commission meetings. She further stated that the meeting schedule would require approval by the project planner to ensure it is feasible for staff as well.
Chairman Boling noted that neighborhood meetings require notification for industrial projects 1,500-foot radius and asked how it compares to Senate Bills 1898 and 415.
Planning Director Nakamura explained the differences between the proposed notification requirements and those established under Senate Bills 1898 and 415.
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Boling closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Dopp stated that neighborhood meetings could be a double-edged sword. While these meetings may help reduce some pressure during public hearings before the Planning Commission, he cautioned that there may be instances where a developer notice limited organized opposition to a project and chooses to proceed to the Planning Commission with the expectation of addressing concerns during the hearing process.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Morales; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 027, recommending that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2026-00228 as amended. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
F. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced that the next meeting is scheduled for August 26th. She also announced that the August 12th meeting will be cancelled.
G. Commission Announcements - None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Dopp to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Boling adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
ATTACHMENT 2 Page 11776677
ORDINANCE NO. 1059
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2026-
00228, AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.14, 17.16, 17.20, 17.64, AND 17.96 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO TERMINATE THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE, DELETE REFERENCES TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE, ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD
MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS, AND AMEND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS, DELETING CHAPTER 19.04 OF TITLE 19 OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE
REFERENCES TO THE PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED GRADING
REVIEW COMMITTEE, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF, AND FINDING AN EXEMPTION FROM CEQA
UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
I. Recitals.
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) is proposing to amend the Development Code to update public hearing noticing requirements, add a requirement for neighborhood meetings for certain projects, and sunset the Design Review Committee Additionally, the City is proposing to delete Chapter 19.04 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to delete references to the previously terminated Grading Review Committee. The City has prepared Municipal Code Amendment (DRC2026-00228), as described in the title of this Ordinance collectively referred to as the “Amendment.”
B. On July 22, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment, opened and concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-027, recommending that the City Council adopt the Amendment.
C. On August 19, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date.
D. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
II. Findings.
A. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part I of this Ordinance, are true and correct.
B. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on August 19, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. The provisions of the Development Code subject to the Amendment are as follows, and as set forth in Exhibit A:
ATTACHMENT 3
a. Section 17.04.020 (Planning Agency) of Chapter 17.04 (Administrative Responsibility) of Article I (In General) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to terminate the Design Review Committee and re-letter Subsections (C) through (F) to Subsections (B) through (E), respectively; b. Section 17.14.050 (Public Hearing and Public Notice) of Chapter
17.14 (General Application Processing Procedures) of Article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete references to the terminated Design Review Committee and amend certain public hearing notice requirements;
c. Chapter 17.14 (General Application Processing Procedures) of Article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Section 17.14.065 concerning neighborhood meeting requirements for certain development projects; d. Section 17.16.130 (Minor Design Review) of Chapter 17.16 (Planning Director Decisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Subsections (C)(3) and (C)(4), referencing the terminated Design Review Committee.
e. Section 17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review) of Chapter 17.16 (Planning Director Decisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Subsection (E)(2), referencing the terminated Design Review Committee.
f. Section 17.20.040 (Major Design Review) of Chapter 17.20 (Planning Commission Decisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Subsections (C)(2) and (C)(3), referencing the terminated Design Review Committee.
g. Footnote (1) of Table 17.64.050-1 (Parking Requirements by Land Use) of Section 17.64.050 (Number of Parking Spaces Required) of Chapter 17.64 (Parking and Loading Standards) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete references to the terminated Design Review Committee; and
h. Section 17.96.020 (Development Standards for Mobilehomes) of Chapter 17.96 (Mobilehomes) of Article V (Specific Use Requirements) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete references to the terminated Design Review Committee.
2. The provisions in the Title 19 (Environmental Protection) subject to the Amendment is as follows, and as set forth in Exhibit B:
a. Chapter 19.04 (Grading Standards) of Title 19 (Environmental Protection) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.
3. The Amendment conforms to and does not conflict with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including, without limitation, the Housing and
Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.
4. The proposed Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Amendment, as described in this Part II of and Exhibit A to this Resolution, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Amendment is administrative processes of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the proposed Amendment and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the Amendment is not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
III. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Part II above, the City Council hereby adopts the Amendment as set forth in Exhibits A and B, and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason be held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2026. _____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2026, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Amendments to Section 17.04.020 of Chapter 17.04 of Article I of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Amended Section:
Section 17.04.020 Planning agency
Ҥ 17.04.020. Planning agency.
Government Code § 65100 requires each jurisdiction to establish a planning agency to carry out the land use and planning functions of the jurisdiction. The functions of the planning agency, as designated by the title, shall be carried out by the following bodies.
In the absence of an assignment, the city council shall retain responsibility and authority as the legislative body of the city.
A. Planning Director. The planning director, or designee, shall have the responsibility and authority to administer and enforce this title as follows:
1. Application Process. Receive and review all applications for development pursuant to this title. Processing includes but is not limited to the certification of completed applications, the establishment of a permanent file, posting of public notices, collection of applicable fees, preparation of reports, processing of appeals, and presentation of staff reports to the development review committees, planning commission, historic preservation commission, and city council.
2. Interpretation. Interpret the provisions and advise the public on the requirements of this title.
3. Amendment. Initiate action for amendment of this title where it is determined that such amendment would better implement the general plan goals and objectives and increase its effectiveness and/or improve or clarify the contents of this title.
4. Permit Issuance. Issue permits under this title and certify that all such permits are in full conformance with its requirements.
5. Coordination. Refer and coordinate matters related to the administration of this title with other agencies and city departments and provide information on the status of all development permits.
6. Authority. Serve as the administrative zoning body and exercise that authority set forth in Government Code § 65900 et seq.
B. City Manager. The city manager or designee shall oversee the work of the planning director and shall exercise such other powers and duties as are prescribed by state law or local ordinance, or as directed by the city council.
C. Planning Commission. Pursuant to Government Code § 65101, and as provided in chapter 2.20, the city has an established planning commission. The planning commission shall have the following land use responsibilities:
1. Hear and decide applications for entitlements as provided in article II (Land Use and Development Procedures).
2. Initiate studies of amendments to this title and make recommendations to the city council for amendments as provided in article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) and in Government Code § 65853.
3. Hear and make recommendations to the city council on applications for zoning amendments, the general plan and amendments thereto, specific plans, prezoning, and other related planning studies.
4. Exercise such other powers and duties as are prescribed by state law or local ordinance, or as directed by the city council.
D. Historic Preservation Commission. Members of the planning commission are appointed to serve as the city’s historic preservation commission. The historic preservation commission is responsible for determining which buildings and/or sites are historic, designating local historic landmarks, and approving alterations to local landmarks.
E. City Council. The city council is the legislative body of the city and shall have the following land use responsibilities:
1. Hear and decide appeals of the planning commission.
2. Hear and decide applications for permits and entitlements as listed in article II (Land Use and Development Procedures).
3. Direct planning-related policy amendments and special studies as necessary or desired.
4. Exercise such other powers and duties as are prescribed by state law or local ordinance.
“The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (hereinafter District or Fire District) hereby adopts by reference as the District’s Fire Code, the 2025 California Fire Code as published by the California Building Standards Commission, with errata, including Appendix Chapter 4; Appendices A, B,
BB, C, CC, H, I, N, O, P, and Q; and Referenced Standards, with the changes, modifications, amendments, additions, deletions, and exceptions prescribed in Section 4 of this ordinance, and the same are hereby adopted for safeguarding of life, property, and the community from injury; fire; explosion; hazardous materials, substances, devices, conditions, processes, activities, operations, practices, and
functions; environmental damage; and economic harm, and providing for the issuance of permits and the collection of fees. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions, and terms of said Fire Code, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Fire District, are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof as if fully set, out in this ordinance, subject only to the amendments and deletions herein.” Editor’s note: The Fire Code in effect in the city is as adopted by the fire district in Ord. No. FD61, 16/19/2025. An excerpt from that ordinance is as follows: See Ord.
No. FD61, 11/19/2025 which is on file in the city clerk’s office for the amendments to the 2025 California Fire Code adopted and in effect in the city.” Amendments to Section 17.14.050 of Chapter 17.14 of Article I of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Amended Subsections:
Subsection (B)(4), (C)(1), and (C)(3) of Section 17.14.050 Public hearing and public notice
Subsection 17.14.050 (B)(4):
“B. Notice of hearing. Pursuant to Government Code §§ 65090 to 65094, not less than ten days before the scheduled date of a hearing, public notice shall be given of such hearing in the manner listed below. The notice shall state the date, time, and place of hearing, identify the hearing body, and provide a general description of the matter to be considered and the real property which is the subject of the hearing. …
4. Notice of the public hearing shall be posted on the project site the project perimeter fronting on improved public streets. For any project requiring a public hearing that is located within an existing building, a public hearing notice shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the front window of the building visible to the public.” Subsection 17.14.050 (C)(1):
“C. Supplemental notice requirements.
1. Applicability. In addition to standard requirements, large four-foot by eight-foot sign or signs shall be required to be posted at the project site for development related projects in any one of the following circumstances:
a. The proposed project contains more than 4 residential units requiring review and approval by the planning commission or city council; or b. The proposed project is on land greater than 2 acres in size; or c. The proposed project requires a general plan land use amendment; or
d. The proposed project requires an EIR; or
e. As determined to be necessary and desirable by the planning director based on the nature of the proposed project. For large projects, the planning director may determine if more than one sign is necessary to inform the public of the project.”
Subsection 17.14.050 (C)(3):
“C. Supplemental notice requirements.
…
3. Sign criteria/maintenance. In order to implement the large signs as an effective form of public notification, the following rules and standards shall apply:
a. Sign size and specifications. All large sign(s) shall be four feet by eight feet in size and be constructed to the specifications provided by the planning department. The specific project information text on the sign shall be provided by the planning department.
b. Location and installation standards. All large sign(s) shall be installed according to the specifications of the planning department. The large four-foot by eightfoot signs shall be installed on the project perimeter fronting on improved streets, no more than three feet behind the property line closest to, and parallel to, the street, and clearly visible from the street. Signs shall be accessible at all times to allow for the posting of public hearing notices and shall not be placed behind fences or walls. The exact spacing, location, and number of sign(s) on the project site shall be determined by the planning department as part of the sign permit.
c. Timing. All large notification sign(s) shall be installed by the applicant at the project site in accordance with the above criteria. Once the project application is deemed complete and all notification sign(s) installed per city standards, the project will be scheduled for required public hearings. d. Sign removal and maintenance. All large sign(s) must be kept adequately maintained and remain in place until the final decision on the application has been made or the application is withdrawn. All large sign(s) shall be removed by the applicant within 14 days of the final decision or date of withdrawal.
Failure to remove the sign within the prescribed period may result in forfeiture of the cash deposit and removal of the sign by the city.” Amendments to Chapter 17.14 of Article I of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Added Section:
Section 17.14.065 Neighborhood meeting
Ҥ 17.14.065. Neighborhood meeting.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to explain the project, present drawings and obtain input from surrounding residents.
B. Applicability. A Neighborhood Meeting shall be required to be conducted by the project applicant for all developments subject to planning commission or city council approval that meet any of the following criteria:
1. All infill residential projects greater than 4 units; or
2. All mixed use projects; or
3. All new industrial developments within 1,500 feet of any residential property; or
4. Any project deemed by the planning director to have potential impacts to nearby neighborhoods.
C. Responsibility. It is the responsibility of the applicant to schedule and conduct the neighborhood meeting based on guidelines issued by the planning department.
D. Noticing. Noticing for the neighborhood meeting shall conform to the public noticing requirements of 17.14.050.B (Notice of Hearing).
E. Format. The neighborhood meeting shall generally be conducted according to orderly procedures. The meeting should not be so formal that it precludes or unduly limits participation by those in attendance nor should it be so unruly that information gathering and exchange cannot occur. The Planning Department may issue guidelines as appropriate.
F. Summary. A summary of the meeting shall be provided to the city by the applicant within 10 days of the meeting, including a copy of the sign in log and any materials distributed to the public. No public hearing shall be scheduled until the neighborhood meeting has been completed and the summary submitted to the city.” Deletion of Subsections (C)(3) and (C)(4) from Section 17.16.130 of Chapter 17.16 of Article II of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Deleted Subsections:
Subsection (C)(3) and (C)(4) of Section 17.16.130 Minor design review “C. Review process.
1. An application for a minor design review shall be filed with the planning department in a manner prescribed by the planning director with the required fee as established by city council resolution.
2. The planning director shall be the approving authority for minor design reviews.
The procedure for review and action shall be as provided in this section.” Deletion of Subsection (E)(2) from Section 17.16.140 of Chapter 17.16 of Article II of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Deleted Subsection:
Subsection (E)(2) of Section 17.16.140 Hillside development review “E. Review process.
1. The planning director shall be the approving authority for hillside development reviews. The procedure for review and action shall be as provided in this section.” Deletion of Subsection (C)(2) and (C)(3) from Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of Article II of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Deleted Subsections:
Subsections (C)(2) and (C)(3) of Section 17.20.040 Major design review “C. Zones review process. The major design review procedure is outlined below.
1. The planning commission is the designated approving authority for major design review and shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny all major design review applications. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on each application for major design review. The hearing shall be set and notice given as prescribed in chapter 17.14 (General Application Processing Procedures).” Amendments to Footnote (1) of Table 17.64.050-1 of Section 17.64.050 of Chapter
17.64 of Article IV of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Amended Footnote:
Footnote (1) of Table 17.64.050-1 of Section 17.64.050 Number of parking spaces required
“TABLE 17.64.050-1 PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE
…
Table Notes:
(1) Fifty percent of the total required covered spaces shall be within enclosed garage structures.”
Amendments to Section 17.96.020 of Chapter 17.96 of Article V of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Amended Section:
Section 17.92.020 Development standards for mobilehomes
Ҥ 17.96.020. Development standards for mobilehomes.
Mobilehomes are permitted within residential zones with the same density and development restrictions as single-family homes and subject to the following requirements:
A. The mobilehome is placed on a permanent foundation system in compliance with all applicable building regulations.
B. The mobilehome construction is certified under the National Mobilehome Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and was constructed after October of 1976.
Documentation indicating certification and construction date must be submitted to the building and safety department in order to secure valid building permit(s).”
EXHIBIT B
Deletion of Chapter 19.04 of Title 19 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Deleted Chapter:
Chapter 19.04 Grading Standards.
“Chapter 19.04 (RESERVED)”
DATE: August 19, 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
Kirt Coury, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 1058 to Approve Development Agreement DRC2023-00408 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading and to Consider a Resolution to Adopt Design Review (DRC2021-00485), Tentative Parcel Map
(SUBTPM20488), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2025-00061), and a Master Plan (DRC2023-00349) for the Development of Five Concrete Tilt-Up Industrial Buildings Totaling 1,775,098 Square Feet on Approximately 94.25 Acres of Land on Certain Property Bounded By Arrow Route to the North, BNSF/Metrolink Railway to the South, Yellow Wood Road/Juneberry Drive and Industrial Land Uses to the East and West; APNs: 0229-121-35, 0229-131-19, 0229-121-33, 0229-121-34.
Primary Case File No. DRC2021-00485. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110033) Was Prepared for the Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2026-077 AND ORDINANCE NO. 1058)(CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning commission and staff recommend that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report; make findings to the California Environmental Quality Act; adopt a statement of overriding considerations for air quality and transportation; and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
2. Adopt resolution 2026-077 to approve the proposed Master Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Major Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 1058, to be read by title only and waive further reading, approving a Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and BTC III Arrow Route CC, LP.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is approximately 94.3 acres and comprised of four adjacent parcels (APNs: 0229- 121-35, 0229-131-19, 0229-121-33, and 0229-121-34). The subject property was recently occupied by CMC Metals, a steel products manufacturing facility, which has since been vacated and demolished. The project site is no longer an active industrial use. As of November 2023, the project site is vacant, undeveloped land with previously disturbed bare ground, piles of crushed concrete and asphalt aggregate, minimal ornamental and ruderal vegetation, and minimal
impervious surface area.
Due to a notice error, this item was opened as a public hearing item on June 24, 2026, Planning Commission meeting and continued to Wednesday July 8, 2026, public hearing. At the July meeting, members of the public spoke generally supporting and expressing favor for the creation of jobs for the region. After considering the comments and deliberating on the item, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve the project. For details regarding the July 8, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, please see the Planning Commission meeting minutes included with this staff report as Attachment 6.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the project site into five new parcels and redevelop the project site that was previously operated as a steel products manufacturing facility into a modern Class A warehouse development. The proposed project would include the construction, use, and maintenance of five new buildings for warehouse space, office space, loading docks for truck trailers; and include 968 automobile parking spaces and 444 truck trailer parking spaces. The project would also include water quality basins, utility infrastructure, exterior lighting and signage, and approximately nine percent landscape coverage overall. Vehicle access to the project site would be provided by new public roadway connections from existing Arrow Route and Yellow Wood Road/Juneberry Drive, in addition to six new public roads to be constructed as part of the proposed project. A new public Street “A” would be constructed west of the project and would connect to Arrow Route. New public Street “B” would run east to west along the southern property lines of Buildings 1 through 3, Street “C” would be constructed south of Buildings 4 and 5 and run east and west. Street “D” would be constructed east of Building 5 and would run north and south connecting to Streets “C” and “E”. Street “E” would be constructed along the northern boundary of Building 5 and would run east and west connecting to Streets Yellow Wood Road and Street “D.” Yellow Wood Road would be constructed between Buildings 4 and 5 (and east of Building 3) and would run north and south connecting to Arrow Route and Street “C”.
Figure 1 Project Site Plan
Truck circulation would travel East/West along Arrow Route, to a new public Street “A.” A secondary roadway connection from Arrow Route would be through the existing Yellow Wood Road/Juneberry Drive. Both access points allow for a simultaneous right and left turn in and out of the property. Development Code Section 17.36.040.D.9.a.ii, industrial projects also provide access to at least two arterials. Thus, a future connection of the project site to Etiwanda Avenue via an extension of Whittram Avenue has been included as part of the project description. Details of the new roadway network included in the project’s proposed Master Plan and Development Agreement.
Truck courts for each of the buildings are proposed to be secured through manual gate access and the project is required to comply with all on-site queueing requirements to prevent on-street truck queueing. Electrical conduits are proposed to be installed to accommodate future tenant requests for electric gates and site security guard shacks. Screening between neighboring parcels will be installed with eight-foot screen walls painted to match the building’s architecture, and all utility structures are proposed to be screened by landscape.
The table below provides a breakdown of the maximum number of buildings proposed by square footage for warehouse area, office area and mezzanine area:
Project
Data
Proposed Use Warehouse
Area
Office Area Mezzanine
Area*
G.F.A.
Building 1 Industrial
Warehouse
90,233 SF 7,000 SF 3,000 SF 87,223 SF
Building 2 Industrial
Warehouse or
Auto Parking Lot
81,929 SF or
none
5,000 SF or
none
3,000 SF or
none
78,929 SF
or none
Building 3 Industrial
Warehouse
70,637 SF 5,000 SF 3,000 SF 67,637 SF
Building 4 Industrial
Warehouse
1,022,180 SF 30,000 SF 20,000 SF 1,002,180
SF
Building 5 Industrial
Warehouse or
combination of
warehouse/trailer
parking
510,129 SF or
364,100 SF
10,000 SF 10,000 SF 500,129 SF
or 354,100
SF
*Mezzanine areas may be used for office space. To consider a conservative worst-case scenario, the project has included parking based on the mezzanine area as usable office space.
The Project is also proposing an optional alternative as indicated below:
o Parcel 2: Eliminate Building 2 in exchange for additional automobile parking (397 spaces).
o Parcel 5: Reduce Building 5 footprint from 510,129 to 364,100 square feet and convert approximately 6.6 acres of the parcel for use as truck trailer parking (187 parking spaces).
Figure 2 Alternative Site Plan
As part of the proposed alternative site plan, concrete screen walls would be constructed to screen the proposed alternative truck parking for Building 5. These screen walls are required to be designed to appear the same as the proposed surrounding buildings in articulation, color, and material.
Architecture
The proposed industrial warehouse buildings meet the City’s architectural design standards. The buildings would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels with reveal lines that create an aesthetic reveal between two panels, with multiple gray paint tones, vision glass, and spandrel glass to provide a modern aesthetic. Offices would be located at one or more corners of the buildings that will feature more extensive glass work, tiles, metal canopies, and aluminum storefront framing with tempered glazing at all doors. Buildings range in height from 39 feet six inches for Buildings 1-3, 49 feet six inches for Building 4, and 47 feet for Building 5. The project also provides an attractive and varied color pallet to break up the expanse of the façade.
Figure 3 Aerial Rendering of Buildings from the Corner of Arrow Route and Yellow Wood Drive Figure 4 Rendering of Building 4 from Yellow Wood Drive Entitlements for Proposed Development
The project requires a Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and a Master Plan. Further, the applicant proposes entering into a Development Agreement with the City, which requires the review and adoption of an ordinance by the City Council.
Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20488)
As mentioned, the project includes a request to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the subject area into five new parcels, ranging from 3.7 acres to 45.2 acres. All proposed parcels meet the minimum development standards for lot size and configuration.
Conditional Use Permit (DRC2025-00061)
The applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a warehouse facility more than 75,000 square feet pursuant to Development Code Section 17.36.040(C).
Master Plan (DRC2023-00349)
As previously mentioned, this project site is within the Neo-Industrial and Industrial Employment zones which require specific zoning and building standards including building, parking, landscaping setbacks, floor area, landscaping, and land use standards.
The applicant has applied for a master plan to establish site-specific development standards pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.020. The purpose of a master plan is to allow for the coordinated comprehensive planning of a subarea of the city to accomplish specific objectives including to allow the development of an exceptional project design that cannot be built under an existing zone or due to constraints of existing development standards.
This area, commonly known as the southeast industrial quadrant, was originally agricultural land that converted to large scale manufacturing uses prior to city incorporation. This area has limited circulation infrastructure and only two primary east/west arterials (Arrow Route and 4th Street) and one north/south arterial (Etiwanda Avenue). Expanding circulation access in this area is paramount to reducing impacts on truck travel in the area as this area redevelops. The developer and staff worked together to address the issue, prioritizing the development of a comprehensive circulation network in exchange for some reductions in landscape setbacks to allow for appropriate industrial development to meet market needs through the master plan process.
The table below outlines all proposed deviations from code standards.
Table 1: Street Changes
Street City Standard Proposed Deviation
Street A 66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
57’ right-of-way; 44' paved
roadway; 11’ parkway
(including sidewalk and
landscaping on east
property line) and 2’
parkway on west property
line;
Parkway setback
reduced from 11' to
approx. 2' adjacent to
west property
line/project boundary
Yellow
Wood Road
66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
66' right-of-way; 44’ paved
roadway; 11’ parkway
(including sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
approx. 3' and 4'
landscaped setback
Landscape setback
reduced from 25' to
approx. 3' adjacent to
Building 3 area, and 4’
adjacent to Building 5
area
Street B 66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
66' right-of-way; 44’ paved
roadway; 11’ parkway
(including sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
approx. 4' landscaped
setback each side
Landscape setback
reduced from 25' to
approx. 4' on each side
of the Street for Street B
(Between Buildings 1, 2,
3, and 4).
Street D 66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
50’ right-of-way; 20’ paved
roadway; 6’ parkway
proposed on westerly
right-of-way, 4’ landscape
parkway proposed on
easterly right-of-way.
Landscape setback
reduced from 25' to
approx. 6' feet on
westerly right-of-way;
and 4’ landscape
parkway proposed on
easterly right-of-way.
Street
Knuckle
Standard
Engineering Standard Modified knuckle with a
small radius on the outside
and a large radius on the
inside
Allows for the ultimate
curb alignment to stay
consistent throughout
development
Table 2: Code Standards
Code
Standard
City Standard Proposed Deviation
Maximum
Building
Footprint
Neo-Industrial (NE) =
200,000 square feet
Industrial Employment
(IE) = 450,000 square
feet
1,200,000 in the NeoIndustrial (NE) zone; and
520,000 in the Industrial
Employment (IE) zone
Increase allowable
square footages by
1,000,000 square feet in
the NE zone, and 70,000
square feet in the IE
zone
Minimum
Open Space
10% in Industrial Zones Proposal for a single
parcel open space
standard proposed at
7.5% and the project wide
open space standard at
9%
Reduction of 2.5% for
proposed single parcels;
and a 1% reduction
overall project wide.
Block
Network
Intersection spacing
inside arterial/arterial
blocks bound by
arterials to be a
minimum of 200 feet and
a maximum 1,320 feet
Proposed alternative
language requests a
maximum intersection
spacing standard of 1,700
feet
Intersection spacing
increased by 380 feet.
Permitted
Uses
Permitted and
Conditionally Permitted
by Municipal Code
The applicant is proposing
to allow some uses
currently requiring a minor
use permit or conditional
use permit to become
permitted uses in the NE
and IE zones
Please see Attachment
4 of the proposed Master
Plan Narrative within the
attached project plans.
Wall Heights Wall heights shall not
exceed eight feet,
measured from the
finished grade
immediately adjacent to
the wall and the top of
the wall
Proposing wall heights
shall not exceed 12’ along
the southern property
boundary
4’ maximum deviation
along southern project
boundary only.
Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.36.040, a minimum 25-foot landscaped setback is required along public street frontages for industrial collector streets. Further, the industrial collector street width is required at a full street improvement/dedication of 66-feet with a roadway width of 44-feet (half width of 33-feet with a roadway width of 22-feet).
The proposed landscaping setbacks along Yellow Wood Road, Street “B”, and Street “D” range from approximately three feet to six feet, which is less than the 25-foot standard. However, these reduced setbacks occur in conjunction with the construction of five new public frontage roads, Yellow Wood Road, Street “A”, Street “B”, Street “C”, and Street “D”. The proposed roadway section for Street “D” also differs from the standard collector street section, with a 20-foot paved roadway in lieu of the 22-foot standard.
In summary, the project includes a request for a master plan to allow for deviations to allowable maximum building footprints, minimum open space, block network parameters, allowable land uses, the reduction in roadway width, street knuckle standards, maximum wall/retaining wall heights, and landscaping setbacks.
Development Agreement (DRC2023-00408)
The applicant has also proposed entering into a Development Agreement with the city. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.060.A.1:
1. Increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public;
2. Provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development;
3. Enable the city to plan for and finance public facilities, including but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing.
The proposed Development Agreement includes, but is not limited to, the following major terms which are summarized below:
• The term of the development agreement would initially be from the effective date of approval and continue for six consecutive calendar years thereafter. • A requirement that the developer shall pay a Fair Share Payment in Lieu of Traffic Improvements, a Public Art Fee, and a Community Benefit Payment; and • The applicant has agreed dedicate a 3.3-acre parcel of land for a “New Substation Parcel” and to contribute a sum amount for the cost for construction for the new substation.
Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No.2023110033), has been prepared for this project. Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public
participation. The contents of the EIR become a planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site.
The intent of this EIR is to address and evaluate potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. A summary of all the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
Draft EIR (DEIR) Preparation and Circulation
Following the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Public Scoping Meeting, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and was distributed to Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had requested to review the DEIR. The DEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on October 1, 2025, with the comment period concluding on November 17, 2025. A Notice of Availability including electronic links to the DEIR and all technical appendices was posted at the County Clerk’s Office, published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, made available at the City’s Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive and posted on the City’s website on October 1, 2025. Further, and on October 1, 2025, the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation via the online CEQAnet portal for distribution to Responsible and Trustee agencies and hard copies of the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided for public review at the following locations:
• Archibald Library – 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; • Paul A Biane Library – 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; • Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall – 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company (So Cal Gas), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Department of Transportation (CDOT), and the law firm of Blum, Collins, Ho LLP., regarding the content of the DEIR. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5). In other words, no new significant impacts or other conditions set forth in Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines were identified. The DEIR and FEIR, inclusive of the comments listed above, as well as responses to these comments, are included with this staff report as Attachment 5. Technical appendices and supporting documentation can be referenced on the City’s website under the tab “CEQA Documents Available for Review” under the Current Projects & Planning Initiatives.
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP)
In compliance with CEQA, a monitoring program (MMRP) has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure.
Findings of Fact in Support of Determinations Related to Significant Environmental Impacts The EIR concludes that the construction and implementation of this project will result in two significant and unavoidable impacts pursuant to Appendix A: Initial Study Checklist Form of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines, namely Air Quality (Appendix I, Section 3.3) and Transportation (Appendix I, Section 3.17), summarized as follows:
• Air Quality: Proposed project construction activities would generate criteria pollutant emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional construction-period thresholds for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), and proposed operations would exceed SCAQMD regional operations-period thresholds for VOC, nitrogen oxide (Nox), and carbon monoxide (CO). Therefore, this impact is significant.
Implementation of project Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a through 3.2-2d would substantially lessen construction and operational emissions. However, VOC emissions from operations would not be reduced below thresholds. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation, operational impacts associated with VOC emissions would be considered significant and unavoidable.
• Transportation: Construction activities would be temporary and intermittent and thus would not result in long-term increases in vehicular trips. The operation of the proposed project would result in a project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee of 23.8 in a baseline scenario and 22.7 VMT per employee in a future year scenario, which would exceed the City’s threshold of 22.3 VMT per employee. The proposed project effect on VMT would increase the levels of VMT per service population within a 30-mile boundary from the project site, which exceeds the City’s threshold of no increase. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. This impact is potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-2a through
3.13-2d, proposed project generated VMT in the baseline and future scenarios would be reduced to less than the City’s threshold, but the project effect on VMT would still result in an increase in VMT per service population within a 30-mile boundary of the project site.
Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Prior to the June 24, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, staff received a letter from the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance identifying concerns relating to environmental technical studies and analysis of the project’s EIR. The City’s environmental consultant for this project (Ascent Environmental Inc.) has provided responses to this letter (Attachment 8).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site when constructed and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The proposed project would allow for the development of new warehouse facilities to benefit the community job base and tax revenue. Furthermore, the project proponent would be responsible for paying permit and impact fees, in addition to other fees required by the Development Agreement associated with the project such as community benefit fees.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The development of the project achieves the City Council’s Core Values of “Relentless pursuit of improvement,” and a “commitment to prosperity.” The project will provide the City with new industrial warehouse facilities which will attract quality tenants. Further, the Project meets the implements the key priorities of the Southeast Industrial Area (Focus Area 8) of the General Plan by creating a complete network of streets to allow for efficient goods movement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph
Attachment 2 – Link to Project Plans
Attachment 3 – Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment 4 – Master Plan Narrative
Attachment 5 – Link to CEQA Documents (DEIR, Appendices, Findings, MMRP) Attachment 6 – Planning Commission Minutes Dated July 8, 2026 Attachment 7 – Planning Commission Resolution 2026-019
Attachment 8 – Response to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Comment Letter Attachment 9 – Draft Resolution No.2026-077
Attachment 10 – Draft Ordinance No. 1058 and Development Agreement
Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Project-Plans
ATTACHMENT 3
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Tentative-Parcel-MAP
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
1 | P a g e
April 27, 2026
Jennifer Nakamura
Deputy Director of Planning
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Case number: DRC2023-00349; DRC2021-00485; DRC2023-00351; DRC2023-00408 (Arrow Commerce Center)
Master Plan Application
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP (“Applicant”) is requesting approval of a Master Plan application that includes alternative, site specific development standards as noted within this document and the submitted drawings.
Zoning
The project site falls within two zoning designations: Industrial Employment (IE) and Neo-Industrial (NI).
Please see Exhibit A for delineation of zoning boundaries.
Project Specific Development Standards
A. Table 17.36.040-1
1. Maximum Building Footprint – Primary Buildings: 200,000 SF (NI) & 450,000 SF (IE) i. Building 4 and Building 5 of the proposed project exceed the maximum building footprint. Building 4 has a proposed footprint of 1,022,180 SF and it’s within the NI zoning classification. Building 5 has a proposed footprint of 510,129 SF and it’s within the IE zoning classification.
Proposed alternative maximum building footprint standards:
NI Zone: 1,200,000 SF
IE Zone: 520,000 SF
2. Minimum Open Space (minimum % per parcel or project) i. Building 4 and Building 5 of the proposed project do not meet the minimum open space/landscape area standard. The landscape coverage as proposed is as follows per parcel:
a. Building 4 at 7.5%
b. Building 5 at 9.7%.
ii. The overall project blended landscape coverage 9.2% Proposed alternative single parcel Open Space standard: 7.5% Proposed project-wide Open Space standard: 9%
ATTACHMENT 4
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
2 | P a g e
B. Site design standards
1. Block network parameters for public streets.
Design standard: intersection spacing inside arterial/arterial blocks bounded by arterials shall be a minimum of 200 feet and a maximum of 1,320 feet.
The project is not compliant with the block network development standards as noted below and illustrated in Exhibit B.
o New Street C, segment running along the south of Building 5, intersection spacing is 1,333 feet center line to center line.
o New Street E, east-west along the north of Building 5, intersection spacing is 1,333 feet center line to center line.
o New Street A, north-south to the west of Building 4, intersection spacing is 1,693 feet center line to center line.
•• Proposed alternative maximum intersection spacing standard: 1,700 Feet.
2. Street Right of Way
C. Permitted Uses
1. Allowed Land Uses
Allowed uses and corresponding permit and entitlement requirements for the base zoning districts are listed in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District) and Table 17.30.030-2 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Mixed Use Base Zoning District).
•• The project site falls within zoning designation Industrial Employment (IE). •• Proposed alternative: in addition to the existing Permitted uses, allow the uses as illustrated in Exhibit C, Proposed Change to be Permitted uses.
D. Engineering Standards
1. Street Knuckle: Standard 110
Proposed Project Standard per Street Improvement Plans: the Project is proposing a modified knuckle with a small radius on the outside and a large radius on the inside, this allows for the ultimate curb alignment to stay consistent throughout the conditions adjacent to an exterior boundary line.
2. Roadway Sections: Right of Way (ROW) Width
Street City Standard Proposed Deviation
Street
A
66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
57’ right-of-way; 44' paved
roadway; 11’ parkway
(including sidewalk and
landscaping on east
property line) and 2’
Parkway setback reduced
from 11' to approx. 2'
adjacent to west property
line/project boundary
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
3 | P a g e
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
parkway on west property
line;
Yellow
Wood
Road
66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
66' right-of-way; 44’ paved
roadway; 11’ parkway
(including sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
approx. 3' and 4'
landscaped setback
Landscape setback
reduced from 25' to
approx. 3' adjacent to
Building 3 area, and 4’
adjacent to Building 5 area
Street
B
66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
66' right-of-way; 44’ paved
roadway; 11’ parkway
(including sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
approx. 4' landscaped
setback each side
Landscape setback
reduced from 25' to
approx. 4' on each side of
the Street for Street B
(Between Buildings 1, 2, 3,
and 4).
Street
D
66’ right-of-Way; 44'
paved roadway; 11’
parkway (including
sidewalk and
landscaping each side);
25' landscaped setback
per Industrial Zoning
50’ right-of-way; 20’ paved
roadway; 6’ parkway
proposed on westerly
right-of-way, 4’ landscape
parkway proposed on
easterly right-of-way.
Landscape setback
reduced from 25' to
approx. 6' feet on westerly
right-of-way; and 4’
landscape parkway
proposed on easterly rightof-way.
•• City standards:
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
4 | P a g e
•• Proposed Collector Street at unique project conditions:
Portion of Street A (north-south street along western property boundary) Street D (north-south street along eastern property boundary)
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
5 | P a g e
3. Measurements of Fences and Wall Height: Code 17.48.050 (E) Industrial Zones •• City standards: The height shall not exceed eight feet, measured from the finished grade immediately adjacent to the wall and the top of the wall; except when there is a difference in the ground level between two adjoining parcels, the fence or wall shall be measured at the mid-point of the retaining wall height as measured on the side with the lowest finish grade. See Figure 17.48.030-1 (Measurement of Fence and Wall Height on Parcels with Different Elevations).
Proposed Project Standard: The height shall not exceed 12 feet along the southern property boundary, applicable to the Project’s retaining wall along the southern property line.
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
6 | P a g e
Exhibit A
Delineation of Zoning Boundaries
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
7 | P a g e
Exhibit B
Block Parameters: Intersection Spacing
BTC III Arrow Route CC LP
8 | P a g e
Exhibit C
Allowable Uses
Existing Permitted Designation Proposed Change
NeoIndustrialIndustrial
Employment
NeoIndustrialIndustrial
Employment
E-Commerce Distribution
Distribution/Fulfillment Center
Small Permitted Permitted
Large Minor Use Permit Minor Use Permit Permitted Permitted Manufacturing, Custom Permitted Not Permitted --- Permitted Recycling Facility, Collection CUP CUP Permitted Permitted Recycling Facility, Processing CUP CUP Permitted Permitted Storage Warehouse CUP CUP Permitted Permitted
Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Medium CUP Permitted Permitted ---
ATTACHMENT 5
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
CEQA-Documents (DEIR, Appendices, Findings, MMRP)
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
July 8, 2026
Final Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
6:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission was held on July 8, 2026.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Boling at 6:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Boling, Vice Chairman Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Diaz and Commissioner Cooke.
Staff present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Kirt Coury, Contract Planner; Melanie Hall, Senior Planner; Jared Knight, Associate Planner; Sophia Serafin, Associate Planner; Blanca Madrigal, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Boling opened the public communications and hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Boling closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2026.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Morales to approve minutes as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Cooke abstaining.
D. Public Hearings
D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MASTER PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – BTC III Arrow ROUTE CC LP – A request for development and operation of five buildings totaling 1,775,098 square feet within approximately 3,513,101 gross square feet in lot size on certain property bounded by Arrow Route to the north, BNSF/Metrolink Railway to the south, Yellow Wood Road/ Juneberry Drive and industrial land uses to the east and west; APNs: 0229-121-35, 0229-131-19, 0229-121-33, 0229-121-34. An Environmental Impact Report ( SCH No. 2023110033) was prepared for the project. ( DRC2021- 00485). ( Continued from June 24, 2026)
Contract Planner Coury provided a PowerPoint presentation ( copy on file).
Chairman Boling stated the public hearing is still open from the June 24, 2026, meeting.
Applicants Palafox and Sanford were in attendance and available to answer questions. They provided a PowerPoint presentation.
ATTACHMENT 6
HPC/PC Final Minutes
The following people commented on the project: Louie Lopez, Amy Smith, David Hanson, Keely Hason, Cesar Lamas and Leo Padilla.
The comments included the following:
Highlighted the local union members involved in constructing the facility and expressed their support.
Highlighted the creation of career path opportunities in skilled trades for local residents.
For the record, the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet. The original correspondence should be referenced for complete details:
Mitchell M. Tsai – Expressed support for the project.
Chairman Boling, hearing no further comments, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diaz asked whether the EV charging stations would be available to the public.
Applicant responded that the availability would be contingent upon tenant operations. The stations are proposed for employee use, and there are no current plans to make them available for public charging.
Commissioner Morales stated that the project represents a significant improvement to the site and will contribute to enhancing the city by attracting quality tenants and supporting Rancho Cucamonga’ s continued status as a premier city. He emphasized the importance of utilizing local union labor, noting that they are skilled and trained to construct the project. He expressed his support for the project.
Vice Chairman Dopp requested confirmation that the public art fee would be paid for by the developer and not funded through the public art program.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that under the terms of the agreement, it could be an either-or scenario. She stated that the agreement would be clarified to ensure the requirements are clear. She further explained that the developer may either install public art and receive a credit toward the fee or pay the established public art fee.
Vice Chairman Dopp noted that, as a member of the Public Art Committee, and given the significant amount of the public art fee, he recommended that the applicant make it an in-lieu fee.
Applicant acknowledged.
Vice Chairman Dopp expressed concern regarding the potential pollution impacts associated with industrial projects of this scale, given the amount of square footage dedicated to industrial uses. He stated that, from his perception, the city continues to rely heavily on logistics and industrial development. He acknowledged the significant effort invested in the General Plan and noted that the developer did a good job aligning the project with the previously approved plans.
Commissioner Cooke expressed his appreciation to the public speakers and union members wanting to move this project forward. He thanked staff and the developer for the time and effort spent on this project.
Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation to the applicant for their collaboration with staff and the Design Review Committee. He commended the applicant for incorporating smaller, highly articulated architectural buildings along Arrow and noted that the design enhances this portion of the City’s industrial area.
Chairman Boling acknowledged the applicant’ s goal of achieving LEED Silver ( Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification and stated that attaining this level requires meeting rigorous standards.
He further noted that projects involving the redevelopment of previously utilized land, which supported vital businesses in the past, help create economic value for both the present and future. He stated that such developments are instrumental in supporting the City’s long-term success and providing residents with the amenities they have come to enjoy, appreciate and expect within the city.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chair Dopp to adopt Resolution No. 2026-019 recommending that the City Council approve Design Review DRC2021- 00485, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20488, Conditional Use Permit DRC2025- 00061, Development Agreement DRC2023- 00408 and Master Plan DRC2023- 00349. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – KIMLEY HORN ON BEHALF OF CLOVER RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATION – A request to permit Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Storage Warehouse, Manufacturing Light – Large, and E-Commerce Distribution/ Fulfillment Center – Large uses at an existing 170,275 square foot industrial warehouse building that is currently occupied with a legal non- conforming Wholesale and Distribution use as well as a permitted Office use within the Neo-Industrial ( NI) zone located at 11335 Jersey Boulevard; APN: 0229- 111-50. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities DRC2025- 00294).
Associate Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation ( copy on file).
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Applicant Karadimos was in attendance and available to answer questions.
Chairman Boling, hearing no comments from the public, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morales thanked the Applicant for collaborating with City staff throughout the process to bring the project forward.
Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation to the applicant for proactively requesting the expansion and bringing forward additional potential uses that may be considered in the future in the event of a change in tenancy. He noted that the City’s economic goal is to efficiently repurpose vacant buildings and plan for potential future transitions by allowing expanded uses that enhance the City’s economic viability.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Dopp seconded by Commissioner Morales to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 024 Conditional Use Permit DRC2025- 00294. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – MEGHAN KARADIMOS – A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued operation of an existing Manufacturing, Light - Large use within an existing 220,712 – square-foot industrial structure, as well as allowing for the future use of the project site as E-Commerce Distribution; Distribution/ Fulfillment Center, Large; Storage Warehouse; and/or Wholesale and Distribution Medium within the Neo Industrial Zone, located at 8535 Oakwood Place ( APN: 0209- 481-01). This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 – Existing Facilities. ( DRC2025- 00326).
Associate Planner Knight provided a PowerPoint presentation ( copy on file).
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Applicant Karadimos was in attendance and available to answer questions.
Chairman Boling, hearing no comments from the public, closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Dopp expressed his appreciation to the developer for doing their due diligence and ensuring that all required details and requirements were addressed.
Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation to the applicant for their proactive approach in creating additional economic development opportunities that may be available at the time of a future tenancy change.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Commissioner Morales to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 023 Conditional Use Permit DRC2025- 00326. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D4. TIME EXTENSION – LIONS GATE PARTNERS, LLC - A request for a time extension of a previously approved Design Review ( DRC2022- 00354) for the construction of a multi-family development comprised of 138 residential units, which were reduced from 145 units under Design Review Modification DRC2026- 00004, within the Corridor 1 (CO-1) Zone, located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street; APN:
0208- 632-47. (Time Extension DRC2026- 00153).
Senior Planner Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation ( copy on file).
Chairman Boling opened the public hearing.
Applicant was not in attendance.
The following people commented on the project: Kathy Ring, Susan Pittington, Cathy Stanford, Donald Cook.
The comments included the following concerns:
Potential impacts from increased traffic.
Safety concerns regarding vehicles backing out of driveways due to traffic conditions.
Potential impacts to mail delivery if vehicles are parked in front of mailboxes.
Concerns regarding multiple vehicles parking on the street and in front of neighboring residences.
Concerns related to child safety.
Potential reduction in property values.
For the record, the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet.
The original correspondence should be referenced for complete details:
Letter from James Dvorak expressing concerns regarding the multiple variances requested by the Applicant.
Email from Rob Harrison expressing concerns regarding the potential loss of privacy in his backyard, as well as traffic impacts and safety concerns.
Chairman Boling, hearing no further comments, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morales asked staff why the Applicant requested a time extension.
Planning Director Nakamura stated that the Applicant has been working to secure financing for the project since its approval.
Commissioner Diaz asked staff what recourse would be available to the Applicant if the requested time extension was not approved.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that the developer would need to appeal the Planning Commission’ s decision to the City Council. She noted that an additional consideration for this project is that it is a density bonus project, which could result in increased visibility to the Attorney General’ s Office and potentially the Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD), who may provide input regarding the decision. She further explained that the focus of the time extension findings is whether there have been any changes to the General Plan, Municipal Code, or other circumstances that would differ from the conditions that existed when the project was originally approved.
Commissioner Morales expressed his appreciation to the public for providing their thoughts and comments and stated that he understands their concerns.
Vice Chairman Dopp stated that he wanted the Applicant to be aware that, if approved, the timeclock is ticking.
HPC/PC Final Minutes
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chair Dopp to adopt Resolution No. 2026- 022 Time Extension DRC2026- 00153. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
F. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced that a meeting is scheduled to take place in two weeks.
G. Commission Announcements
Vice Chairman Dopp formally welcomed Commissioner Cooke and expressed his gladness to be serving with him.
Chairman Boling concurred and expressed his enthusiasm for accomplishing positive outcomes for the community.
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Boling adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Blanca Madrigal, Executive Assistant
City Clerk’s Office
Approved: HPC/PC July 22, 2026 Meeting.
ATTACHMENT 7
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
July 2026
ATTACHMENT 8
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 2
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ARROW COMMERCE CENTER PROJECT EIR
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact:
Christine Delostrinos
Senior Planner
909.477.2750
[email protected]
Prepared by:
Ascent
530 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact:
Chad Beckstrom, AICP
Project Principal
949.569.9448
[email protected]
July 2026
18010188.06
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT ................................................................................................... 1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Appendices
Appendix A Comment Letter
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments iv This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT
This Supplemental Responses to Comments document has been prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), in response to comments received after the publication of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Arrow Commerce Center Project (proposed project) (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2025; State Clearinghouse No. 2023110033).
On October 1, 2025, the City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review and comment period. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies and posted on the CEQAnet Web Portal.
The Draft EIR was also posted on the City’s website and was made available at the City Clerk’s Office, the City Planning Department Public Counter, Archibald Library, and Paul A. Biane Library. The City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and distributed the notice to a project-specific mailing list.
In response to these notification efforts, written comments were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP. The City previously obtained and responded to comments received on the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, and published those responses in the Final EIR in April 2026 prior to the City’s Planning Commission hearing on July 8, 2026.
Subsequently, one additional comment letter was received following the publication of the Final EIR from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). This Supplemental Responses to Comments is intended to be informative to the City Council in their deliberations on the certification of the Final EIR and consideration of whether to approve the proposed project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (CEQA Statute) Section 21092.5(c), a lead agency is not required to respond to comments not received within the comment period, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on an EIR.
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 2 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The comment letter is provided in Appendix A. Each comment is indicated by a line bracket and an identifying number in the margin of the comment letter. The individual comments are reproduced in their entirety in this section, and each comment is followed by a response. Some of the written comments describe regulatory processes and requirements related to the proposed project and do not address environmental issues or the adequacy of the EIR.
Written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues raised in comments on the Final EIR.
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Steven Piepkorn
June 22, 2026
Comment 1
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) has previously submitted comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Arrow Commerce Center Project by way of a Comment Letter dated November 13, 2025, which documented systematic violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including failure to define the whole of the action as required by CEQA's prohibition on piecemealing, an inaccurate and incomplete project description that omits grading plans and withholds site coverage data, deficient environmental justice analysis that ignores the Project's location within a SCAG Priority Equity Community, failure to use Title 24-approved energy compliance software, inadequate land use consistency analysis with PlanRC, the City's Climate Action Plan, and the SCAG RTP/SCS, a GHG analysis that relies on unenforceable mitigation, an incomplete and methodologically deficient VMT analysis, and a Transportation section riddled with internal inconsistencies regarding RTP/SCS conformance.
GSEJA also provided technical review comments prepared by Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), concluding that the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts were underestimated and improperly addressed.
Response 1
The comment states that GSEJA previously submitted comments on the Final EIR. The commenter is likely referring to the Draft EIR, and it should be noted that there is no record of GSEJA submitting comments on the prior Draft EIR. However, the City acknowledges that Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP previously submitted comments on the Draft EIR on behalf of GSEJA, as well as the technical review provided by SWAPE that was attached to the prior letter. The comment provides an introduction and summary of the prior deficiency claims that were documented in the previous comment letter, but does not raise new issues that were not previously addressed and responded to. Responses to supplemental comments are provided below.
Comment 2
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has since published the Final EIR containing responses to GSEJA's comments (Comments 4-1 through 4-45). GSEJA has reviewed those responses and submits this Supplemental Comment Letter to reiterate its opposition to the Project and to place on record that the City's responses do not adequately resolve the deficiencies identified in GSEJA's prior submissions. The City's responses largely fail to constitute the good-faith, reasoned analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response 2
The comment reiterates the opposition to the proposed project and asserts that the City’s responses in the Final EIR do not adequately resolve deficiencies identified in the previous comment letter. The supplemental comments are acknowledged and responses to those comments are provided below. The City disagrees that reasoned good-faith analysis was not provided, and submits these supplemental responses to further demonstrate engaging in good-faith.
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 3 Comment 3
In several instances, the responses substitute procedural assertions and cross-references for substantive environmental analysis, dismiss technical findings from SWAPE without meaningful rebuttal, and defer resolution of significant concerns to post-approval permitting processes in a manner inconsistent with CEQA's informational mandate. Unrefuted technical evidence from SWAPE stands as fact in the record.
The proposed Project would construct five 2-story industrial buildings totaling 1,830,729 gross square feet on a 94-acre site at 12451 Arrow Route Road, functioning as a warehouse distribution complex with cold storage, high-cube fulfillment, and general warehouse uses. This is not a modest infill project on an underutilized site; it is a large-scale logistics development proposed for a census tract that already bears among the most severe pollution burdens in the state. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the Project's census tract (6071002207) ranks in the 93rd percentile for overall pollution burden, the 95th percentile for ozone burden, the 94th percentile for PM2.5 burden, and the 95th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. The surrounding community includes 53% Hispanic and 21% African-American residents, with 70% of households below the poverty level and 85% of residents over age 25 without a high school diploma. Rather than avoiding further harm to this already-burdened community, the City's responses dismiss GSEJA's environmental justice concerns with little more than the assertion that environmental justice analysis falls outside CEQA's purview. This is not adequate, and the Planning Commission should not accept it as such.
Response 3
The comment asserts that the Final EIR dismissed findings from SWAPE without meaningful rebuttal, deferred resolution of concerns to post-approval permitting process, and failed to adequately address the pollution burden experienced by the surrounding community. As discussed in Responses 4-34 through 4-45 in the Final EIR, the City considered SWAPE’s comments and provided responses addressing the technical issues raised, including identification of mischaracterizations in SWAPE’s conclusions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 recognizes that an EIR need not be exhaustive or perfect; rather, it must provide a good-faith effort at full disclosure based on what is reasonably feasible. The CEQA Guidelines further recognize that disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, provided the lead agency’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The City has determined that the analysis and conclusions contained in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence and satisfy CEQA’s requirements.
The comment further suggests that the Final EIR responses dismiss environmental justice concerns. As described in Response 4-7 of the Final EIR, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not identify environmental justice as a separate environmental issue area; however, the Draft EIR evaluated the underlying environmental effects relevant to the concerns raised in the comment. Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR provides information from CalEnviroScreen for informational purposes and includes a health risk assessment (HRA) that evaluates the risks to human health from emissions associated with long-term operations of the proposed project. As demonstrated in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.2-2b through 3.2-2d would reduce lifetime cancer risk below SCAQMD’s cancer risk threshold and health risk impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, the EIR provides the information necessary for the City to evaluate whether the proposed project would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, including residents of the surrounding community, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4). The comment does not identify substantial new information or a deficiency in the EIR requiring additional revision or recirculation.
Comment 4
I. The Fair Argument Standard and the Need for a Revised EIR The City's responses invoke the substantial evidence standard throughout, but this Project was reviewed under a Mitigated Negative Declaration process, which means the applicable threshold is the fair argument standard, not substantial evidence. Under No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if other substantial evidence supports the contrary conclusion.
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 4 SWAPE's independent technical analysis, submitted with GSEJA's November 13, 2025 comment letter, identified that the Project's construction-phase VOC emissions were modeled at zero demolition hauling trips despite 555,664 ft2 of demolition debris entered in the Demolition screen, that the construction model omitted 44 acres of parking lot space, and that Tier 4 Final engine requirements were applied as a model input without being incorporated as binding mitigation in the MMRP. These modeling deficiencies, individually and collectively, constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project's air quality impacts were underestimated and that the Final EIR's significance conclusions cannot be relied upon. The City's responses to Comments 4-36 and 4-37 partially acknowledge these errors—Response 4-36 accepts the parking lot omission, but do not provide corrected modeling output for public review. Unrefuted expert analysis establishing that the model inputs were incorrect stands as fact in the record and compels preparation of a revised EIR.
Response 4
The comment incorrectly asserts that the proposed project was reviewed under a Mitigated Negative Declaration process and that the fair argument standard applies. The proposed project was evaluated through preparation of an EIR, and the adequacy of the EIR is evaluated based on whether the City’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15151. The fair argument standard applies to a lead agency’s determination whether to prepare an EIR for a project initially evaluated under a Negative Declaration, not to review the adequacy of an EIR.
The comment also asserts that the air quality analysis underestimated construction emissions because haul trips associated with demolition debris were not included in the demolition phase of the CalEEMod model. As described in Section 2.5.9, “Construction,” of the Draft EIR, the demolition/site clearing phase consists of the demolition of the existing paved surface areas on-site, and may include the removal of walls, fences, trees, and associated debris. The grading and excavation phase includes export of approximately 10,000 tons of material, including approximately 3,500 cubic yards of contaminated soils, requiring approximately 1,000 roundtrip haul truck trips. The construction emissions analysis accounted for these and all other anticipated constructionrelated trips, including 105 import trips during building construction and 8,585 additional truck trips associated with concrete imports during building construction. Although the CalEEMod demolition screen identifies quantities associated with demolition/site clearing activities, the haul trips associated with material export were modeled during the grading and excavation phase rather than the demolition phase. This modeling approach does not omit haul truck emissions; rather, it assigns export haul trips to the construction phase in which off-site material export is expected to occur. Accordingly, the emissions associated with haul trips were accounted for in the construction emissions analysis and were included in determining the project’s maximum daily construction emissions.
If the haul trips were assigned to the demolition phase rather than the grading and excavation phase, the resulting emissions would not change the significance conclusion. As shown in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR, the grading phase represents the most emissions-intensive construction phase for most criteria air pollutants and would generate approximately one pound per day of volatile organic compounds (VOC), while the demolition phase would generate approximately less than one pound per day of VOC. As a conservative analysis, even if the emissions associated with haul trips were evaluated during the demolition phase rather than the grading and excavation phase, the resulting VOC emissions would be less than two pounds per day, which would remain well below SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. As noted in the Draft EIR, application of architectural coatings is the primary source of VOC emissions during construction, while haul truck emissions represent a negligible contribution to total VOC emissions. No other criteria air pollutant significance thresholds would be exceeded under the same conservative assumptions. Therefore, the assignment of haul trips to the grading and excavation phase rather than the demolition phase does not result in an omission of emissions or an underestimate of construction emissions.
The comment asserts that Tier 4 Final engines cannot be relied upon because their use is not included as a mitigation measure and is therefore not enforceable through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As explained in Response 4-38 of the Final EIR, the use of Tier 4 Final engines is a project design feature committed to by the project applicant and was therefore incorporated into the emissions modeling
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 5 assumptions for the project. Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR disclosed the construction equipment assumptions, including the anticipated use of Tier 4 Final engines for all but one piece of modeled construction equipment. These assumptions were provided by the applicant and do not need to be identified as mitigation measures when they represent characteristics of the project being evaluated.
The modeling deficiencies related to parking lot space were addressed in Response 4-36 of the Final EIR. As described in Section 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of the Final EIR, revisions to the modeling were reflected within the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change sections. The revised modeling results were included in Appendix C of the Final EIR. These revisions did not result in changes to the significance conclusions. Accordingly, the comment does not identify substantial new information or a deficiency in the EIR requiring additional revision or recirculation.
Comment 5
II. Project Piecemealing
The City's Response 4-3 asserts that the Arrow Commerce Center has independent utility and that all relevant cumulative projects are addressed in Chapter 4 of the Final EIR. This does not resolve the piecemealing deficiency. CEQA Section 15378 defines "project" as the whole of an action with the potential for direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The Arrow Commerce Center (1,830,729 ft2
, five buildings, DRC2021-004852) and the Etiwanda Commerce Center (1,214,131 ft2
, five buildings, DRC2021-004841) were submitted to the City on the same day, December 29, 2021, by the same developer, for adjoining parcels separated only by BNSF railroad tracks. A third project (DRC2016-00726) constructed a 611,573 ft2 distribution center at 12400 Arrow Route, immediately north of the project site across Arrow Route. Cumulatively, the three projects total 3,648,153 ft2 across 11 buildings.
The California Supreme Court has held that a lead agency may not segment a single integrated development to artificially reduce the apparent significance of environmental impacts. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263.) The City's characterization of each Ares/Black Creek development as independently entitled does not sever the factual connection between them. A project EIR must be prepared that evaluates the whole of the action, including all three Ares/Black Creek developments, as a single project.
Response 5
The comment continues to assert that the proposed project has been improperly piecemealed from other nearby development proposals because the same developer submitted separate applications for adjoining parcels. As described in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate the “whole of the action;” however, CEQA does not require separate projects to be combined into a single project solely because they share a common applicant, were submitted concurrently, or are located in proximity to one another.
The comment cites Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263; however, reliance on this case is misplaced. In Bozung, the lead agency asserted that annexation of land by itself was not a project subject to CEQA because annexation did not directly authorize physical development. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the proposed annexation was an integral first step toward reasonably foreseeable urban development and that the environmental review could not be limited to the annexation action while disregarding the foreseeable consequences of that action. Unlike the circumstances in Bozung, the City is not attempting to avoid environmental review by separating an initial governmental action from the physical development that it would foreseeably facilitate. The EIR evaluates the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed Arrow Commerce Center Project. The proposed project has “independent utility” and is appropriately evaluated as a separate and independent project for purposes of CEQA review. The record does not demonstrate that the proposed project is necessary for, or dependent on, the operation of any other project, or that it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving any other project. The Etiwanda Commerce Center is identified as a cumulative project in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, and the cumulative impacts are adequately described and evaluated.
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 6 Comment 6
III. Project Description
The City's Response 4-4 argues that the project description satisfies CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. It does not address the specific deficiencies GSEJA identified. The EIR states that approximately 255,000 yd3 of cut and fill would be balanced on site yet provides no grading plan or earthwork quantity notes through which the public or decisionmakers can verify this figure. The site plan in Figure 2-11 has been edited to remove earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, site coverage calculations, and key notes. The elevations in Figures 2-12 through 2-16 omit building colors and materials.
These omissions matter because the grading data directly informs demolition hauling trip generation, the same variable SWAPE demonstrated was set to zero in the CalEEMod model. An RMND that states a grading balance without disclosing the underlying calculations, and a model that uses zero demolition hauling trips without explanation, together provide no meaningful opportunity for independent verification. This does not constitute adequate disclosure under CEQA Guidelines Section 15121.
Response 6
The comment suggests that the project description omits information necessary to verify the assumptions used in the CalEEMod emissions modeling. The EIR project description includes the required contents pursuant to Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires a project description to include the precise location and boundaries of the project on a detailed map and a regional map; a statement of project objectives; a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and a statement of intended uses of the EIR, including a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR, a list of permits and other approvals, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 also recognizes that a project description should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. Accordingly, CEQA does not require a project description to include final construction-level plans or other detailed engineering information beyond what is necessary to evaluate the project’s potential environmental impacts. The EIR provides sufficient information regarding the project’s physical characteristics, including grading quantities, building square footage, site layout, access, and other features that informed the assumptions used in the environmental analysis.
The comment also asserts that the lack of additional grading documentation prevents verification of demolition hauling assumptions and requests an explanation for the assumption of zero demolition hauling trips. As discussed in Response 4, the construction emission analysis accounted for all anticipated construction-related haul trips, including 1,000 export trips associated with export of approximately 10,000 tons of material during the grading and excavation phase, 105 import trips during building construction, and 8,585 additional truck trips associated with concrete imports during construction. Although CalEEMod identifies zero haul trips in the demolition phase, the analysis did not omit haul truck emissions. The export trips associated with removal of material from the site were included in the grading and excavation phase, which is the phase during which exported material would be hauled from the site. Assigning those trips to a different construction phase would change only the distribution of emissions among phases and would not increase the project’s maximum daily emissions or alter the significance conclusions.
The level of detail provided in the project description, together with the supporting technical analyses in the EIR, provided the public and decision-makers with sufficient information to understand the project, evaluate the environmental effects, and meaningfully review the adequacy of the environmental analysis.
Comment 7
IV. Environmental Justice
The City's responses to Comments 4-7, 4-8, 4-17, 4-41, and 4-42 uniformly assert that environmental justice analysis falls outside the purview of CEQA and is not identified as an environmental issue area under Appendix G of the State
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 7 CEQA Guidelines. This response illustrates precisely the problem: by treating the environmental justice analysis as simply outside its obligation, the City declines to perform it. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) requires a finding of significance where a project may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In a community ranking in the 93rd percentile for overall pollution burden and carrying a 70% poverty rate, the Project's incremental contribution to diesel particulate matter, truck traffic, and ozone precursor emissions cannot be dismissed as insignificant by reference to Appendix G alone.
Poverty compounds pollution exposure: residents cannot afford the healthcare, nutritious food, and quality living conditions needed to withstand additional environmental stress. The City's responses do not analyze the disproportionate burden this Project imposes on this specific community, do not identify enhanced mitigation commensurate with the community's vulnerability, and do not address barriers to public participation. The City's own General Plan requires more. PlanRC Policy RC-5.5 directs the City to ensure that new development does not disproportionately burden residents based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status with health effects from air pollution. Policy RC-5.6 requires a community benefit plan for any land use generating more than 100 trucks per day.
This Project will generate 684 trucks per day. The Final EIR requires neither. The record as currently constituted does not support the findings required for project approval under CEQA.
Response 7
The comment asserts that the EIR declines to consider environmental justice analysis as it pertains to diesel particulate matter, truck traffic, and ozone precursor emissions, and that CEQA requires additional analysis of the disproportionate burdens of the project on the surrounding community. As discussed in Response 3, CEQA does not require a separate environmental justice chapter or standalone environmental justice analysis. Rather, CEQA requires evaluation of a project’s physical environmental effects, including adverse effects on human beings where those effects result from physical changes in the environment. Consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR evaluated the proposed project’s potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, noise, hazards, and other environmental issue areas, including effects on nearby sensitive receptors where applicable. Thus, the EIR includes the necessary information for the City to make findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4).
The comment also references General Plan Policies RC-5.5 and RC-5.6. Whether the proposed project complies with these General Plan policies is separate from CEQA’s determination of environmental significance. CEQA does not require a finding of significance solely because a project may be alleged to be inconsistent with a General Plan policy. Rather, CEQA requires an evaluation of whether an inconsistency with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would result in a significant physical environmental impact. The environmental issues addressed by Policies RC-5.5 and RC-5.6 relate to potential health effects associated with air pollution, toxic air contaminant exposure, and truck traffic. These topics were addressed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR, which included an analysis of toxic air contaminant exposure and health risks, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The comment does not identify substantial evidence demonstrating that the EIR failed to analyze these environmental issues or that additional physical environmental impacts would occur beyond those evaluated in the EIR. Preparation of a community benefit plan required in accordance with General Plan Policy RC-5.6 does not alter the CEQA analysis of the project’s physical environmental effects.
Comment 8
V. Energy Analysis and Title 24 Compliance
The City's Response 4-9, echoed in Response 4-32, argues that the project will be required to comply with whichever Building Energy Efficiency Standards are in effect at the time construction begins, and that future codes will likely require more efficient buildings than assumed in the EIR analysis. GSEJA does not dispute that the project will be required to comply with Title 24 at the building permit stage. The issue is that the Final EIR's own energy significance thresholds ask whether the Project would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Title 24 is that plan. The EIR concludes compliance without using software the California Energy Commission has
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 8 designated for that purpose, CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, or IES VE. CalEEMod and spreadsheet-based modeling are not on that list.
Deferring Title 24 verification to the building permit stage does not cure the CEQA disclosure deficiency. The public and decision-makers are entitled to know, before project approval, whether the Project will meet the state's energy efficiency standards, not merely that it will be required to demonstrate compliance at a later stage.
Response 8
As explained in the Final EIR, the energy analysis conservatively assumed compliance with the 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), which were the applicable standards at the time the analysis was prepared. The proposed project would be required to comply with the version of the standards in effect at the time building permits are issued and construction begins. Subsequent updates to these standards may require additional energy efficiency measures and renewable energy features beyond those assumed in the EIR analysis. Compliance with applicable Title 24 requirements would be verified through the City’s building permit review process. Mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements is incorporated into the project design and is not considered mitigation under CEQA; therefore, verification of compliance with applicable building codes does not constitute deferred mitigation.
The comment asserts that the EIR is inadequate because it did not use California Energy Commission software to demonstrate compliance with Title 24 requirements. However, CEQA does not require an EIR to perform Title 24 compliance review, which occurs during the building permit process. Rather, in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR evaluates whether the proposed project would (1) result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or (2) conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The EIR evaluated the project’s anticipated energy consumption based on project-specific characteristics and included assumptions reflecting compliance with applicable Title 24 requirements.
The comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in wasteful or inefficient energy consumption, conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, or otherwise fail to comply with Title 24 requirements. Accordingly, the EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant energy impact remains supported by substantial evidence.
Comment 9
VI. GHG: CAP Consistency and Enforceability of Reduction Measures The City's responses to Comments 4-10 through 4-13 characterize the Project's GHG reduction features as simultaneously project design features, regulatory requirements, and future mitigation measures, depending on which argument is being made at the time. This inconsistency is revealing. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1a requires 50% of construction equipment to be NZE/ZE but includes an escape valve allowing the applicant to demonstrate commercial unavailability, which courts have repeatedly found to be the case for heavy-duty drayage trucks. If the mitigation can be avoided on a showing of commercial unavailability, it provides no enforceable commitment to GHG reduction and cannot support a less-than-significant finding.
Response 4-13 asserts that the CAP-based mitigation measures, once implemented, will ensure consistency with the City's CAP and CARB Scoping Plan. But the EIR itself acknowledges that the Project does not comply with all relevant CAP and Scoping Plan strategies before mitigation. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1)(D), a CAP may only be used as the basis for a less-than-significant cumulative GHG finding if it specifies measures that substantial evidence demonstrates will collectively achieve the specified emissions level. The City has not made that showing for mitigation measures conditioned on commercial availability of technology that courts have found unavailable. The GHG impact must be declared significant and unavoidable, and the City's commitment to incorporate CAP measures into conditions of approval in the future does not cure the deficiency in the current Final EIR.
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 9 Response 9
The comment suggests that Mitigation Measure 3.7-1a cannot support a less-than-significant impact conclusion because it allows the applicant to demonstrate that near-zero-emission (NZE) or zero-emission (ZE) construction equipment is not commercially available. Although Mitigation Measure 3.7-1a includes this provision, the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes the same provision for circumstances where NZE or ZE equipment or fuels are not commercially available. In addition, the mitigation measure requires documentation demonstrating that the applicant evaluated the availability of such technologies. Therefore, the measure establishes an enforceable process for implementing the CAP strategy.
Further, the EIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion is not dependent on implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1a alone. The EIR evaluated the combined effects of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a through 3.7-1c; Mitigation Measures 3.2-2b and 3.2-2c in Section 3.2, “Air Quality;” and Mitigation Measures 3.13-2a through
3.13-2d in Section 3.13, “Transportation.” These measures include requirements related to renewable energy, low-global-warming-potential refrigerants, zero emission electrical design, transport refrigerant unit electrical hookups, and transportation demand management. Collectively, these measures address the project’s major GHG emission sources and implement applicable strategies identified in the City’s CAP and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan.
The comment also suggest that the EIR does not demonstrate that the CAP measures would collectively achieve a specified emissions level necessary to support a less-than-significant impact conclusion. As described in the “Thresholds of Significance” discussion of Section 3.7, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides lead agencies discretion regarding the methodology used to evaluate GHG emissions and allows reliance on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards, where appropriate. Consistent with this guidance, the EIR quantified project-generated GHG emission to characterize emissions associated with construction and operation and evaluated whether the project would conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans.
The EIR’s significance determination was based on consistency with the City’s CAP and applicable CARB Scoping Plan strategies, rather than on a calculation of post-mitigation emissions compared to a numerical threshold. The City’s CAP is a qualified GHG reduction strategy pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and identified quantified GHG reduction targets and measures necessary to achieve those targets.
The CAP Consistency Checklist establishes the applicable measures necessary for development projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. The EIR identified that the proposed project would be inconsistent with applicable CAP and Scoping Plan strategies prior to mitigation and incorporated those applicable strategies as enforceable mitigation measures. Therefore, the EIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the methodology identified in the EIR.
Comment 10
VII. VMT: Methodology and RTP/SCS Inconsistency
The City's Response 4-25 defends the VMT analysis's assumption that 100 percent of future employees are eligible to participate in the rideshare, carpool, bicycle, and vanpool mitigation programs. The EIR simultaneously acknowledges throughout the document that future tenants are unknown. Asserting that the workforce cannot be characterized while assuming full participation eligibility is logically inconsistent and contrary to the substantial evidence standard.
Response 4-26 declines to make a specific finding of significance based on the Project's demonstrated inconsistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The EIR's own transportation appendix states that the Project was determined to be inconsistent with the land use growth assumptions in PlanRC and in the RTP/SCS by reviewing the regional travel model SBTAM+. Per the City's own Resolution No. 2020-0056, a significant VMT impact occurs when a project is determined to be inconsistent with the RTP/SCS. That determination has been made. The finding of significance must be included in the EIR.
On onsite circulation, Response 4-27 defers the hazard analysis to the construction permitting phase. CEQA does not permit deferral of environmental analysis to future permitting. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 10 Cal.App.3d 296.) Multiple locations on Figure 2-17 show truck/trailer movements requiring encroachment across the street centerline into oncoming traffic lanes, and driveway configurations that cannot accommodate simultaneous truck movements. These are present, identifiable impacts that must be analyzed now.
Response 10
The comment incorrectly states that the VMT analysis assumes full participation in rideshare, carpool, bicycle, and vanpool programs. The analysis does not assume universal participation. Rather, as described in Section
3.13, “Transportation,” of the Draft EIR, VMT reductions associated with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-2a through 3.13-2d were quantified based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA 2021), which provides substantial evidence regarding the expected effectiveness of transportation demand management measures. For example, as identified in Mitigation Measure 3.13-2d the Draft EIR, the employer-sponsored vanpool analysis assumes participation by up to two percent of employees. Although the identify of future tenant(s) is unknown, the mitigation measures would be required as conditions of project approval and would apply to future tenant(s) occupying the project site.
The identification of future tenant(s) is not necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that would be required as part of project implementation.
The comment also suggests that the proposed project would result in a significant VMT impact solely because the project was determined to be inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). However, this interpretation is incorrect. As described in Appendix I of the Draft EIR, RTP/SCS consistency serves as a screening criterion under the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for evaluating cumulative VMT impacts. A project that is consistent with the RTP/SCS may be presumed to have a less-than-significant cumulative VMT impact, subject to consideration of other substantial evidence. A determination that a project is not consistent with the RTP/SCS does not, by itself, establish a significant VMT impact; rather, additional VMT analysis is required. Because the proposed project did not meet the RTP/SCS consistency screening criteria, the EIR appropriately evaluated the project’s effect on VMT using the cumulative link-level boundary analysis methodology. Clarifications regarding the VMT methodology have previously been provided in the Final EIR as revisions to Section 3.13, “Transportation,” of the Draft EIR as shown in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR” of the Final EIR. Nevertheless, the project analysis concluded that the impact related to the project effect on VMT would be significant and unavoidable, which was disclosed in the EIR.
The comment asserts that Response 4-27 defers analysis of transportation hazards to the construction permitting phase. Transportation hazards associated with the proposed project were addressed under Impact 3.13-3 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in that analysis, the proposed project would include new roadway connections, signalized access, and other roadway improvements designed in accordance with City and industry standard roadway design and safety standards, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga Standard Drawings and design guidelines provided in Chapter 17.120 and Section 17.122.030 of the Municipal Code. Compliance with these standards would be reviewed through the City’s design review process.
Reliance on applicable roadway design standards and mandatory regulatory requirements does not constitute deferred analysis because these requirements are existing standards applicable to the proposed project and were considered as part of the environmental analysis. The City’s subsequent design review process would confirm compliance with these standards and does not defer environmental review of the proposed project.
Comment 11
VIII. Health Risk Assessment
The City's Response 4-43 acknowledges that the FAH (Fraction of Time At Home) values displayed in Draft EIR Table
3.2-9 were incorrect, and states that the corrected values appear in the Final EIR Chapter 3 revisions. This is a concession that the public reviewed and commented on an HRA containing incorrect exposure factors. A postcomment-period correction, provided without recirculation, deprives the public of any opportunity to review the
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 11 corrected methodology and results before project approval. This is precisely the type of significant new information that warrants recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
SWAPE identified three independent HRA deficiencies that remain unresolved: the Final EIR failed to prepare a quantified construction-phase HRA; failed to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk from construction and operation together; and presented incorrect FAH values now acknowledged to be wrong. These deficiencies are compounded by the existing baseline conditions. The SCAQMD MATES V study places the project census tract in the 92nd percentile for residential carcinogenic risk from air toxics, with a cancer risk of 785 in one million, among the highest in the South Coast Air Basin. Adding an unquantified construction-phase risk and an operational risk calculated with incorrect exposure factors to a community already at 785 in one million does not constitute adequate health risk disclosure under CEQA. A complete, transparent, and publicly reviewed health risk assessment covering both construction and operation phases must be prepared and recirculated.
Response 11
The comment asserts that correction of the fraction of time at home (FAH) values displayed in Table 3.2-9 constitutes substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR. As explained in Response 4-43 of the Final EIR, the incorrect FAH values presented in Table 3.2-9 were corrected in the Final EIR. The correction did not alter the methodology, assumptions, or conclusions of the operational HRA, and the impact conclusion remains less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, the correction does not constitute substantial new information requiring recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 because it does not identify a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that would substantially reduce a significant impact.
The comment asserts that the EIR should have included a construction-phase HRA. The EIR evaluated the potential for health effects associated with construction emissions. As discussed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR, the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the project site. Construction activities would occur intermittently over an approximately 18-month period, which is substantially shorter than the 70-year exposure period used to estimate lifetime cancer risk. Accordingly, the EIR concluded that construction of the proposed project would not result in elevated health risks to exposed persons because of the temporary nature of construction activities and short-term duration of diesel particulate matter exposure. A separate quantitative construction HRA was not necessary to support this determination.
The comment also asserts that the EIR should have evaluated the combined lifetime cancer risk from construction and operation together. However, the comment does not identify any requirement in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, or guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or SCAQMD that requires a project-specific HRA to combine temporary construction emissions with long-term operational emissions into a single lifetime cancer risk calculation. The EIR appropriately evaluated each exposure scenario using methodologies applicable to the duration and nature of the emissions. The comment does not provide substantial evidence that combining these distinct exposure scenarios would be appropriate or would alter the EIR’s conclusions regarding project health risks.
Comment 12
IX. Land Use Consistency
The City's Response 4-16, repeated in Response 4-31, asserts that the proposed large distribution and fulfillment center uses are permitted on NI- and IE-zoned parcels through the CUP and Master Plan process under RCMC Section 17.30.030. This response conflates the zoning code's permitted use list with the General Plan's land use designations. The Neo-Industrial designation in PlanRC expressly states that more intensive industrial uses with substantive impacts on adjacent uses are not permitted, and that low-impact industrial uses that are context-sensitive and calibrated to minimize impacts to adjacent residential uses are preferred. A 1.83-million-squarefoot warehouse complex generating 684 trucks per day, resulting in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and VMT
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 12 inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, is an intensive industrial use with substantive impacts on adjacent uses by any reasonable reading of that language. The Zoning Code's permitted use list does not override the General Plan's express limitation.
Response 4-15 dismisses the Housing Crisis Act concern by noting that the City's Housing Element does not identify parcels within the Southeast Industrial Area as residential sites. The HCA's replacement housing requirements are not waived because a City's Housing Element prefers other locations for residential development. They are triggered whenever land with residential capacity is converted to an incompatible use. The EIR fails to analyze this impact, and that failure is not cured by pointing to a Housing Element that shares the same omission.
Response 12
The comment asserts that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Neo-Industrial land use designation; however, this assertion is based on a misinterpretation of PlanRC and the City’s implementing zoning regulations. As stated in Response 4-16 of the Final EIR, large distribution/fulfillment center uses are permitted on parcels zoned as NI and IE with issuance of a CUP and a Master Plan for the site pursuant to Section 17.30.030, “Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements”, of the RCMC. Consistency with the applicable General Plan policies and implementing zoning regulations is evaluated as part of the City’s discretionary review process, while the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate whether the proposed project would result in significant environmental effects, including those that could arise from conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and regulations.
With respect to Response 4-15, the comment also asserts that the EIR dismisses concerns regarding consistency with the Housing Crisis Act. However, the project site and adjoining parcels are designated and zoned for industrial uses. While the zoning may allow for secondary residential uses, PlanRC envisions the Southeast Industrial Area as a modernized industrial employment district with convenient access to a wide range of services and amenities and does not envision the area for residential development. The Southeast Industrial Area is surrounded by existing industrial uses. In addition, the project site and adjoining parcels are not identified in the City’s Housing Element as sites intended to accommodate future residential development. Accordingly, the comment’s premise that the proposed project would preclude planned residential development or conflict with the Housing Crisis Act is unsupported by the City’s adopted land use designations, zoning regulations, and Housing Element. Furthermore, the City emphasizes that General Plan Policy RC-5.7 states that sensitive uses (e.g., residential, hospitals, schools, and childcare facilities) should not be located within 1,000 feet of industrial land uses that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week. Given the existing and planned industrial character of the area, residential development on the project site would introduce land use compatibility conflicts between sensitive receptors and industrial uses.
CEQA requires analysis of a project’s reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect physical environmental effects supported by substantial evidence. Speculation regarding future residential development does not constitute a reasonably foreseeable physical environmental effect of the proposed project. Any future development on surrounding properties would require separate discretionary approvals and environmental review at the time such development is proposed. Accordingly, the Draft EIR is not required to evaluate hypothetical replacement housing sites or speculative future redevelopment scenarios on properties that are not part of the proposed project.
Comment 13
X. Alternatives Analysis
The City's Response 4-29 concludes that the alternatives range is adequate because it includes alternatives that achieve the project's objectives while resulting in similar or reduced environmental impacts. This misreads the CEQA standard. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires evaluation of alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The obligation is not merely to evaluate alternatives with reduced impacts — it is to evaluate alternatives capable of
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 13 reducing significant and unavoidable impacts to less-than-significant levels where feasible. Neither the Reduced Project Alternative nor the Inclusion of Commercial/Retail Use Alternative does this for air quality or VMT. The alternatives analysis is legally inadequate.
Response 13
The comment incorrectly asserts that CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to evaluate alternatives capable of reducing significant and unavoidable impacts to less-than-significant levels. Rather, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, “which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to foster informed decision-making. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to consider only the alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The City identified the alternatives because they had the potential to reduce or avoid the project’s significant environmental impacts while meeting most of the project’s objectives. The subsequent analysis determined that the alternative would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts, but would in fact reduce the significant impacts, albeit not to less-than-significant levels. That conclusion does not render the alternatives analysis inadequate. The comment does not identify other alternatives that should have been considered or evaluated. Accordingly, the comment does not identify a deficiency in the alternatives analysis.
Comment 14
XI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to decline to certify the Final EIR and deny approval of the proposed Project entitlements. The City's responses do not cure the fundamental deficiencies in the Final EIR's environmental analysis. Across every major impact category — including the fair argument threshold, environmental justice, health risk, GHG enforceability, VMT disclosure, piecemealing, land use consistency, and alternatives — the City's responses substitute procedural assertions for substantive analysis, defer critical determinations to post-approval processes, or fail to provide meaningful rebuttal to unrefuted expert findings from SWAPE. The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the findings required for project approval under CEQA.
If this Project proceeds as proposed, it will add 684 trucks per day, 1,830,729 ft2 of warehouse and cold storage activity, and significant and unavoidable air quality and VMT impacts to a community already ranking in the 93rd percentile for overall pollution burden, without an honest accounting of those impacts, without adequate mitigation, and without the environmental justice analysis that California law and the City's own General Plan require.
The Planning Commission has both the authority and the obligation to demand a legally adequate environmental review before approving a project of this scale and consequence.
Response 14
As demonstrated in the response to comments above, the City maintains that the Final EIR adequately evaluates and discloses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The comments and responses will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration during the consideration to certify the Final EIR and as part of their deliberations on the proposed project.
Ascent
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Arrow Commerce Center Project EIR Supplemental Responses to Comments 14 This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
Comment Letter
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
22 June 2026
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Delivered via email to: [email protected] [email protected]
Re: Supplemental Comments on Arrow Commerce Center Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110033)
Commissioners.
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) has previously submitted comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Arrow Commerce Center Project by way of a Comment Letter dated November 13, 2025, which documented systematic violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including failure to define the whole of the action as required by CEQA's prohibition on piecemealing, an inaccurate and incomplete project description that omits grading plans and withholds site coverage data, deficient environmental justice analysis that ignores the Project's location within a SCAG Priority Equity Community, failure to use Title 24-approved energy compliance software, inadequate land use consistency analysis with PlanRC, the City's Climate Action Plan, and the SCAG RTP/SCS, a GHG analysis that relies on unenforceable mitigation, an incomplete and methodologically deficient VMT analysis, and a Transportation section riddled with internal inconsistencies regarding RTP/SCS conformance.
GSEJA also provided technical review comments prepared by Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), concluding that the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts were underestimated and improperly addressed.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has since published the Final EIR containing responses to GSEJA's comments (Comments 4-1 through 4-45). GSEJA has reviewed those responses and submits this Supplemental Comment Letter to reiterate its opposition to the Project and to place on record that the City's responses do not adequately resolve the deficiencies identified in GSEJA's prior submissions. The City's responses largely fail to constitute the good-faith, reasoned analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. 1-1
1-2
2 In several instances, the responses substitute procedural assertions and cross-references for substantive environmental analysis, dismiss technical findings from SWAPE without meaningful rebuttal, and defer resolution of significant concerns to post-approval permitting processes in a manner inconsistent with CEQA's informational mandate. Unrefuted technical evidence from SWAPE stands as fact in the record.
The proposed Project would construct five 2-story industrial buildings totaling 1,830,729 gross square feet on a 94-acre site at 12451 Arrow Route Road, functioning as a warehouse distribution complex with cold storage, high-cube fulfillment, and general warehouse uses. This is not a modest infill project on an underutilized site; it is a large-scale logistics development proposed for a census tract that already bears among the most severe pollution burdens in the state. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the Project's census tract (6071002207) ranks in the 93rd percentile for overall pollution burden, the 95th percentile for ozone burden, the 94th percentile for PM2.5 burden, and the 95th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. The surrounding community includes 53% Hispanic and 21% African-American residents, with 70% of households below the poverty level and 85% of residents over age 25 without a high school diploma. Rather than avoiding further harm to this already-burdened community, the City's responses dismiss GSEJA's environmental justice concerns with little more than the assertion that environmental justice analysis falls outside CEQA's purview. This is not adequate, and the Planning Commission should not accept it as such.
I. The Fair Argument Standard and the Need for a Revised EIR The City's responses invoke the substantial evidence standard throughout, but this Project was reviewed under a Mitigated Negative Declaration process, which means the applicable threshold is the fair argument standard, not substantial evidence. Under No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 1-3
1-4
3 (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if other substantial evidence supports the contrary conclusion.
SWAPE's independent technical analysis, submitted with GSEJA's November 13, 2025 comment letter, identified that the Project's construction-phase VOC emissions were modeled at zero demolition hauling trips despite 555,664 ft
2 of demolition debris entered in the Demolition
screen, that the construction model omitted 44 acres of parking lot space, and that Tier 4 Final engine requirements were applied as a model input without being incorporated as binding mitigation in the MMRP. These modeling deficiencies, individually and collectively, constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project's air quality impacts were underestimated and that the Final EIR's significance conclusions cannot be relied upon. The City's responses to Comments 4-36 and 4-37 partially acknowledge these errors—Response 4-36 accepts the parking lot omission, but do not provide corrected modeling output for public review.
Unrefuted expert analysis establishing that the model inputs were incorrect stands as fact in the record and compels preparation of a revised EIR.
II. Project Piecemealing
The City's Response 4-3 asserts that the Arrow Commerce Center has independent utility and that all relevant cumulative projects are addressed in Chapter 4 of the Final EIR. This does not resolve the piecemealing deficiency. CEQA Section 15378 defines "project" as the whole of an action with the potential for direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The Arrow Commerce Center (1,830,729 ft
2 , five buildings, DRC2021-004852) and the Etiwanda
Commerce Center (1,214,131 ft
2 , five buildings, DRC2021-004841) were submitted to the City on the same day, December 29, 2021, by the same developer, for adjoining parcels separated only by BNSF railroad tracks. A third project (DRC2016-00726) constructed a 611,573 ft 2 distribution center at 12400 Arrow Route, immediately north of the project site across Arrow Route. Cumulatively, the three projects total 3,648,153 ft 2 across 11 buildings.
1-4 cont.
1-5
4 The California Supreme Court has held that a lead agency may not segment a single integrated development to artificially reduce the apparent significance of environmental impacts. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263.) The City's characterization of each Ares/Black Creek development as independently entitled does not sever the factual connection between them. A project EIR must be prepared that evaluates the whole of the action, including all three Ares/Black Creek developments, as a single project.
III. Project Description
The City's Response 4-4 argues that the project description satisfies CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. It does not address the specific deficiencies GSEJA identified. The EIR states that approximately 255,000 yd3 of cut and fill would be balanced on site yet provides no grading plan or earthwork quantity notes through which the public or decision-makers can verify this figure.
The site plan in Figure 2-11 has been edited to remove earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, site coverage calculations, and key notes. The elevations in Figures 2-12 through 2-16 omit building colors and materials.
These omissions matter because the grading data directly informs demolition hauling trip generation, the same variable SWAPE demonstrated was set to zero in the CalEEMod model. An RMND that states a grading balance without disclosing the underlying calculations, and a model that uses zero demolition hauling trips without explanation, together provide no meaningful opportunity for independent verification. This does not constitute adequate disclosure under CEQA Guidelines Section 15121.
IV. Environmental Justice
The City's responses to Comments 4-7, 4-8, 4-17, 4-41, and 4-42 uniformly assert that environmental justice analysis falls outside the purview of CEQA and is not identified as an environmental issue area under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. This response illustrates precisely the problem: by treating the environmental justice analysis as simply outside its obligation, the City declines to perform it. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) requires a finding of significance where a project may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
In a community ranking in the 93rd percentile for overall pollution burden and carrying a 70% poverty rate, the Project's incremental contribution to diesel particulate matter, truck traffic, and ozone precursor emissions cannot be dismissed as insignificant by reference to Appendix G alone.
Poverty compounds pollution exposure: residents cannot afford the healthcare, nutritious food, and quality living conditions needed to withstand additional environmental stress. The City's responses do not analyze the disproportionate burden this Project imposes on this specific community, do not identify enhanced mitigation commensurate with the community's vulnerability, and do not address barriers to public participation. The City's own General Plan requires more. PlanRC Policy RC-5.5 directs the City to ensure that new development does not disproportionately burden residents based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status with health effects from air pollution. Policy RC-5.6 requires a community benefit plan for any land use generating more than 100 trucks per day. This Project will generate 684 trucks per day. The Final 1-5 cont.
1-6
1-7
5 EIR requires neither. The record as currently constituted does not support the findings required for project approval under CEQA.
V. Energy Analysis and Title 24 Compliance
The City's Response 4-9, echoed in Response 4-32, argues that the project will be required to comply with whichever Building Energy Efficiency Standards are in effect at the time construction begins, and that future codes will likely require more efficient buildings than assumed in the EIR analysis. GSEJA does not dispute that the project will be required to comply with Title 24 at the building permit stage. The issue is that the Final EIR's own energy significance thresholds ask whether the Project would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Title 24 is that plan. The EIR concludes compliance without using software the California Energy Commission has designated for that purpose, CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, or IES VE. CalEEMod and spreadsheet-based modeling are not on that list.
Deferring Title 24 verification to the building permit stage does not cure the CEQA disclosure deficiency. The public and decision-makers are entitled to know, before project approval, whether the Project will meet the state's energy efficiency standards, not merely that it will be required to demonstrate compliance at a later stage.
VI. GHG: CAP Consistency and Enforceability of Reduction Measures The City's responses to Comments 4-10 through 4-13 characterize the Project's GHG reduction features as simultaneously project design features, regulatory requirements, and future mitigation measures, depending on which argument is being made at the time. This inconsistency is revealing. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1a requires 50% of construction equipment to be NZE/ZE but includes an escape valve allowing the applicant to demonstrate commercial unavailability, which courts have repeatedly found to be the case for heavy-duty drayage trucks. If the mitigation can be avoided on a showing of commercial unavailability, it provides no enforceable commitment to GHG reduction and cannot support a less-than-significant finding.
Response 4-13 asserts that the CAP-based mitigation measures, once implemented, will ensure consistency with the City's CAP and CARB Scoping Plan. But the EIR itself acknowledges that the Project does not comply with all relevant CAP and Scoping Plan strategies before mitigation. 1-7 cont.
1-8
1-9
6 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1)(D), a CAP may only be used as the basis for a less-than-significant cumulative GHG finding if it specifies measures that substantial evidence demonstrates will collectively achieve the specified emissions level. The City has not made that showing for mitigation measures conditioned on commercial availability of technology that courts have found unavailable. The GHG impact must be declared significant and unavoidable, and the City's commitment to incorporate CAP measures into conditions of approval in the future does not cure the deficiency in the current Final EIR.
VII. VMT: Methodology and RTP/SCS Inconsistency
The City's Response 4-25 defends the VMT analysis's assumption that 100 percent of future employees are eligible to participate in the rideshare, carpool, bicycle, and vanpool mitigation programs. The EIR simultaneously acknowledges throughout the document that future tenants are unknown. Asserting that the workforce cannot be characterized while assuming full participation eligibility is logically inconsistent and contrary to the substantial evidence standard.
Response 4-26 declines to make a specific finding of significance based on the Project's demonstrated inconsistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The EIR's own transportation appendix states that the Project was determined to be inconsistent with the land use growth assumptions in PlanRC and in the RTP/SCS by reviewing the regional travel model SBTAM+. Per the City's own Resolution No. 2020-0056, a significant VMT impact occurs when a project is determined to be inconsistent with the RTP/SCS. That determination has been made. The finding of significance must be included in the EIR.
On onsite circulation, Response 4-27 defers the hazard analysis to the construction permitting phase. CEQA does not permit deferral of environmental analysis to future permitting. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) Multiple locations on Figure 2-17 show truck/trailer movements requiring encroachment across the street centerline into oncoming traffic lanes, and driveway configurations that cannot accommodate simultaneous truck movements. These are present, identifiable impacts that must be analyzed now.
VIII. Health Risk Assessment
The City's Response 4-43 acknowledges that the FAH (Fraction of Time At Home) values displayed in Draft EIR Table 3.2-9 were incorrect, and states that the corrected values appear in the Final EIR Chapter 3 revisions. This is a concession that the public reviewed and commented on an HRA containing incorrect exposure factors. A post-comment-period correction, provided without recirculation, deprives the public of any opportunity to review the corrected methodology and results before project approval. This is precisely the type of significant new information that warrants recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
SWAPE identified three independent HRA deficiencies that remain unresolved: the Final EIR failed to prepare a quantified construction-phase HRA; failed to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk from construction and operation together; and presented incorrect FAH values now acknowledged to be wrong. These deficiencies are compounded by the existing baseline conditions. The SCAQMD MATES V study places the project census tract in the 92nd percentile 1-9 cont.
1-10
1-11
7 for residential carcinogenic risk from air toxics, with a cancer risk of 785 in one million, among the highest in the South Coast Air Basin. Adding an unquantified construction-phase risk and an operational risk calculated with incorrect exposure factors to a community already at 785 in one million does not constitute adequate health risk disclosure under CEQA. A complete, transparent, and publicly reviewed health risk assessment covering both construction and operation phases must be prepared and recirculated.
IX. Land Use Consistency
The City's Response 4-16, repeated in Response 4-31, asserts that the proposed large distribution and fulfillment center uses are permitted on NI- and IE-zoned parcels through the CUP and Master Plan process under RCMC Section 17.30.030. This response conflates the zoning code's permitted use list with the General Plan's land use designations. The Neo-Industrial designation in PlanRC expressly states that more intensive industrial uses with substantive impacts on adjacent uses are not permitted, and that low-impact industrial uses that are context-sensitive and calibrated to minimize impacts to adjacent residential uses are preferred. A 1.83-million-squarefoot warehouse complex generating 684 trucks per day, resulting in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and VMT inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, is an intensive industrial use with substantive impacts on adjacent uses by any reasonable reading of that language. The Zoning Code's permitted use list does not override the General Plan's express limitation.
Response 4-15 dismisses the Housing Crisis Act concern by noting that the City's Housing Element does not identify parcels within the Southeast Industrial Area as residential sites. The HCA's replacement housing requirements are not waived because a City's Housing Element prefers other locations for residential development. They are triggered whenever land with residential capacity is converted to an incompatible use. The EIR fails to analyze this impact, and that failure is not cured by pointing to a Housing Element that shares the same omission.
X. Alternatives Analysis
The City's Response 4-29 concludes that the alternatives range is adequate because it includes alternatives that achieve the project's objectives while resulting in similar or reduced environmental impacts. This misreads the CEQA standard. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires evaluation of alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The obligation is not merely to evaluate alternatives with reduced impacts — it is to evaluate alternatives capable of reducing significant and unavoidable impacts to less-than-significant levels where feasible. Neither the Reduced Project Alternative nor the Inclusion of Commercial/Retail Use Alternative does this for air quality or VMT. The alternatives analysis is legally inadequate.
XI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to decline to certify the Final EIR and deny approval of the proposed Project entitlements. The City's responses do not cure the fundamental deficiencies in the Final EIR's environmental analysis. 1-12
1-13
1-14
1-11
cont.
8 Across every major impact category — including the fair argument threshold, environmental justice, health risk, GHG enforceability, VMT disclosure, piecemealing, land use consistency, and alternatives — the City's responses substitute procedural assertions for substantive analysis, defer critical determinations to post-approval processes, or fail to provide meaningful rebuttal to unrefuted expert findings from SWAPE. The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the findings required for project approval under CEQA.
If this Project proceeds as proposed, it will add 684 trucks per day, 1,830,729 ft2 of warehouse and cold storage activity, and significant and unavoidable air quality and VMT impacts to a community already ranking in the 93rd percentile for overall pollution burden, without an honest accounting of those impacts, without adequate mitigation, and without the environmental justice analysis that California law and the City's own General Plan require.
The Planning Commission has both the authority and the obligation to demand a legally adequate environmental review before approving a project of this scale and consequence.
Onwards.
Steven Piepkorn
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
765 N Main Street, Suite 151
Corona, CA 92880
+1 951 279 4697
1-14
cont.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021-
00485, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20488,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2025-00061,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2023-00408, AND
MASTER PLAN DRC2023-00349 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
AND OPERATION OF FIVE NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
TOTALING 1,775,098 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY
94.25 ACRES OF LAND BOUNDED BY ARROW ROUTE TO
THE NORTH, BNSF/METROLINK RAILWAY TO THE SOUTH,
YELLOW WOOD ROAD/JUNEBERRY DRIVE AND
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES TO THE EAST AND WEST; APNs:
0229-121-35, 0229-131-19, 0229-121-33, 0229-121-34
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, Arrow Route – BTC III CC LP, filed applications for the approval of Design Review DRC2021-00485, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20488, Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00061, Development Agreement DRC2023-00408, and Master Plan DRC2023-00349 as described in thetitle of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as “the application”.
2. On the 24th day of June 2026, and the 8th day of July 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on said application recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project and concluded said hearing on that date recommending that the City Council approve the project as proposed by unanimous vote.
3. On the 19th of August 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. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abovereferenced public hearingon August 19, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
ATTACHMENT 9
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
a. The 94.25-acre site is bounded by Arrow Route to the north, BNSF/Metrolink Railway to the south, Yellow Wood Road/Juneberry Drive and industrial land uses to the east and west; and
b. The project site is generally located south of Arrow Route and west of Etiwanda Avenue at 12451 Arrow Route. The project site is flagged shaped and is currently developed with a nonoperative former rebar manufacturing facility; and c. The property is currently vacant, undeveloped land with previously disturbed bare ground, piles of crushed concrete and asphalt aggregate, and sparse vegetation. The project site was used for the manufacturing of rebar products. The previous manufacturing facility is no longer operational (since approximately October 2021); and d. The application is for the development of five new industrial warehouse buildings to be located on five parcels land: Building 1 will total approximately 90,223 square feet including 7,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of mezzanine/2nd floor office, Building 2 will total approximately 81,929 square feet including 5,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of mezzanine/2nd floor office, Building 3 will total approximately 70,637 square feet including 5,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of mezzanine/2nd floor office, Building 4 will total approximately 1,022,180 square feet including 30,000 square feet of office space and 20,000 square feet of mezzanine/2nd floor office, and Building 5 will total approximately 510,129 square feet including 10,000 square feet of office space and 10,000 square feet of mezzanine/2nd floor office. The project requires 904 parking stalls and 268 trailer parking stalls; and e. The application includes the subdivision of the project into five new parcels to accommodate the proposed new buildings: Parcel 1 which will total 4.71 acres and will be developed with Building 1, Parcel 2 which will total 3.82 acres and will be developed with Building 2, Parcel 3 which will total 3.69 acres and will be developed with Building 3, Parcel 4 which will total 45.20 acres and will be developed with Building 4, and Parcel 5 which will total 23.23 acres and will be developed with Building 5; and
f. The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of a warehouse facility in excess of 75,000 square feet (pursuant to Development Code Section 17.36.040(C) table note 10), and a Master Plan application to allow for deviations to allowable maximum building footprints, minimum open space, block network parameters, allowable land uses, the reduction in roadway width, street knuckle standards, maximum wall/retaining wall heights, and landscaping setbacks; and
g. The project also includes a Development Agreement. Pursuant to Section
17.22.060 of the Development Code, Development Agreements have been determined to be beneficial to the public in that:
• Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
• Development Agreements provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development; and h. The proposed Development Agreement is being made and entered into for the project to ensure that the above three goals are fulfilled; and i. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Project
Site
Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment
District (NE) west &
Industrial Employment District (IE) east
Neo-Industrial
Employment District
(NE) west & Industrial
Employment District (IE) east
North Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District (NE) Neo-Industrial
Employment District (NE)
South
Industrial
Warehouse
Industrial Employment District (IE) Industrial Employment (IE) West Industrial Industrial Employment District (IE) Industrial Employment (IE) East
Industrial Industrial Employment District (IE) Industrial Employment (IE)
3. The City Council hereby approves Design Review DRC2021-00485 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section
17.20.040 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is Neo-Industrial Employment District (NE) and Industrial Employment District (IE), which promotes industrial activities of all types and promotes the reinvestment and reuse of industrial lands into cleaner and more sustainable industrial uses and operations. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with a new industrial warehouse building meeting current building and clean energy standards; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the NeoIndustrial Employment (NE) zone and Industrial Employment (IE) zone which permits the development of industrial warehouse developments; and
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
c. The proposed use, together with the Master Plan application, is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions and development standards of the Development Code. The project complies with the requirements of the Development Code except for the maximum building footprints, minimum open space, block network parameters, allowable land uses, the reduction in roadway width, street knuckle standards, maximum wall/retaining wall heights, and landscaping setbacks as described in the staff report; and
d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review determines that the majority of impacts created by the project will be mitigated to less than significant levels, except for related air quality and transportation impacts which will exceed thresholds even with mitigations. These impacts require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, balancing these impacts against the project’s economic development, job creation and infrastructure improvements benefits that align with the City’s long-term goals.
4. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20488 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section
16.20.060 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The proposal is to subdivide a vacant property of approximately 94.25 acres into 5 numbered parcels for the purpose of industrial development. The project site’s General Plan Land Use Designations are Neo Industrial Employment and Industrial Employment. These land use designations support industrial uses. The proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring properties. Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and
b. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The Neo Industrial Employment zoning district requires lots of a minimum area of half an acre, and the Industrial Employment zoning district requires lots of a minimum area of five acres. Both districts require a minimum width of 100 feet. The lots proposed by the tentative parcel map are all in excess of 1 acre in area and 100 feet in width. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the Neo Industrial Employment and Industrial Employment districts; and
c. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-thanPage 11887788 CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
significant. The proposed project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
5. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00061 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section
17.20.060 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed development is in compliance with the General Plan. The General Plan land use designations are Neo Industrial Employment and Industrial Employment, which promotes industrial activities of all types and promotes the reinvestment and reuse of industrial lands into more clean and sustainable industrial uses and operations.
The project applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with five new industrial warehouse buildings; and
b. The proposed use is in compliance with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Neo Industrial Employment and Industrial Employment zoning districts which permits the development of industrial warehouse developments; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed including access and utilities. The project site is well suited for the proposed five new industrial warehouse buildings meeting current building and clean energy standards and is bordered by sites similarly zoned for industrial development; and d. The project site is bound by existing industrial developments to the north and east, and industrially zoned property to the south and west. The proposed use complies with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the size and design of proposed project would be compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity; and
e. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be injurious to detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. Where there exist significant and unavoidable impacts, specifically relative to air quality and transportation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the City Council’s consideration to weigh these impacts with the anticipated benefits of the project; and f. The area is already adequately served by existing fire stations, and no new or altered facilities would be needed to serve the allowed land uses with the area. As presented, Project-related impacts to Public Services including fire, police, schools, libraries, and parks, would be less than significant in conformance with General Plan policies.
Furthermore, the proposed project would pay all applicable development fees associated with fire protection services and would comply with all regulations governing fire prevention and safety, such as those established in the California Building Code, California Fire Code, California Health and Safety Code, and California Occupational
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
Safety and Health Regulation, thus reducing demand for RCFPD services. Therefore, Project impacts related to public services are less than significant; and
6. The City Council hereby approves Development Agreement DRC2023-00408, and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.060 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed project and provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the objectives, policies and general land uses specified in the General Plan; and
b. The project is compatible and in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use and zoning practice. The Development Agreement will increase certainty and provide assurances that any impacts from the Project will offset, including potential impacts to affordable housing stick through the payment of fees by the developer: and
c. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. The Development Agreement, in addition to the other related entitlements, were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would be required for the Project and therefore prepared an EIR that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project, and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and d. The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The project area has been zoned for industrial development since at least the 1980s. The proposed Development Agreement will prevent the inefficient use of resources, reduce the public cost of development through the developer’s contribution of fees, and encourage comprehensive planning.
7. The City Council hereby approves Master Plan DRC2023-00349 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section
17.22.020 in support of the recommendation:
a. The proposed master plan is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. The project furthers the vision of the General Plan and the Industrial Employment land use designation which promotes industrial activities of all types and promotes the reinvestment and reuse of industrial lands into more clean and sustainable industrial uses and operations. The proposed industrial warehouse land use will complement and be compatible with the surrounding area’s character comprising of industrial uses. Project development would also help implement
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
several goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, including the infill development of an underutilized property through flexible design requirements (LC1.9), ensure compatibility of new development with adjacent context (LC-1.11), and maintain a fiscally sound city with a diverse and sustainable tax base (LC-3.6). b. The proposed master plan meets the applicable requirements set forth in this title.
Development Code Section 17.22.020 provides the Master Plan as a tool for establishing site specific development standards for projects of exception design that cannot be built under an existing zone due to constraints of existing development standards relative to site constraints or the location of a subject parcel or parcels within the city. The applicant is proposing to allow for deviations to allowable maximum building footprints, minimum open space, block network parameters, allowable land uses, the reduction in roadway width, street knuckle standards, maximum wall/retaining wall heights, and landscaping setbacks.
8. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the application:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2023110033, was prepared for the project. The EIR was circulated for public review starting on October 1, 2025 and concluding on November 17, 2025, after which the City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR); and b. The FEIR has been completed, and has analyzed the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project; and c. The FEIR contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including without limitation, the Draft EIR and all revisions and additions thereto, comments on the Draft EIR received from various agencies, organizations, companies, individuals or other interested parties, and the City’s responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR, and findings as required by CEQA statue; and
d. The EIR concludes that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, certain impacts would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. These impacts include Air Quality and Transportation. Proposed project construction activities would generate criteria pollutant emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional constructionperiod thresholds for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), and proposed operations would exceed SCAQMD regional operations-period thresholds for VOC, nitrogen oxide (Nox), and carbon monoxide (CO). Therefore, this impact is significant.
Implementation of project Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a through 3.2-2d would substantially lessen construction and operational emissions. However, VOC emissions from operations would not be reduced below thresholds. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation, operational impacts associated with VOC emissions would be considered significant and unavoidable. In addition, the operation of the proposed project would result in a project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee of 23.8 in a baseline scenario and 22.7 VMT per
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
employee in a future year scenario, which would exceed the City’s threshold of
22.3 VMT per employee. The proposed project effect on VMT would increase the levels of VMT per service population within a 30-mile boundary from the project site, which exceeds the City’s threshold of no increase. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. This impact is potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-2a through
3.13-2d, proposed project generated VMT in the baseline and future scenarios would be reduced to less than the City’s threshold, but the project effect on VMT would still result in an increase in VMT per service population within a 30-mile boundary of the project site. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable; and
e. As part of project approval, the City Council has considered CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations which acknowledges these unavoidable impacts, but which also acknowledges project benefits. The CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with this Resolution as “Exhibit A” and is hereby adopted upon approval of the project.
9. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above, City Council hereby approves Design Review DRC2021-00485, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20488, Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00061, and Master Plan DRC2023- 00349 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ____________________________________________,
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: __________________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of August 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
CITY COUNCILRESOLUTION NO. 2026-077
DRC2021-00485 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 19, 2026
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER:
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The project shall comply with all mitigations measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023110033 and the corresponding Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program
1. 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.
2. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee in the amount of $3,889.25. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing.
3. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted, unless otherwise permitted within the approved Development Agreement.
4. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business including changes to the operating days/hours; change in the location on-site or within the building of the use/activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for review by the City.
5. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D.
If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.
If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.
If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.
No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
6. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 2 of 17
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment 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 unless otherwise stated within the approved Development Agreement.
7. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors.
8. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
9. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval.
10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment (I.E. colors and materials consistent with the design theme of the primary structure). If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.
11. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits.
12. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
13. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations.
14. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building.
15. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.
16. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
17. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
18. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 3 of 17
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
19. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans.
20. 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.
21. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20488 is granted subject to the approval of Design Review DRC2021-00485, Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00061, Master Plan DRC2023-00349, and Development Agreement DRC2023-00408.
22. Copies of the signed City Council Resolution of Approval, 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.
23. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department.
24. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
25. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building.
26. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.
27. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
28. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 4 of 17
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses.
29. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
30. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.
31. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, owners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
32. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights.
1. 2. Development impact fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to grading permit, the developer shall submit for review and approval a project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) per the Technical Guidance Document for San Bernardino County for Stormwater Quality Management found at http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/land/npdes.asp and the City of Rancho Cucamonga guidelines and policies found at the City's website https://www.cityofrc.us/community-development/engineering . The final WQMP shall conform to the approved plans under the DRC application and be updated to reflect the drainage management areas and boundaries shown on the preliminary grading plans.
3. Modified street sections and geometrics shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Master Plan Narrative, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 5 of 17
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Gravity Curb: Prior to issuance of construction permit for street improvements, the developer shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney, for the perpetual maintenance, repair, and replacement of all curb and gutter improvements along the west side of Street A (N/S) starting approximately 51-feet from Arrow Highway at the BCR thence South to the BCR at proposed intersection with Street C. Including both standard and non-standard curb and gutter improvements.
The maintenance agreement shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest, and shall , at minimum:
(a) Clearly define the limits of maintenance responsibility along the west side of Street A (BCR to BCR).
Include all gravity curb and gutter, standard curb and gutter transitions, and any associated structural and drainage components.
(b) Establish Maintenance, inspection, and repair obligations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (c) Grant the City the right, but not the obligation, to perform maintenance in the event of default and recover all associated costs.
5. Prior to Building Permit (or Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy), the developer shall submit to the City for review and approval a revised traffic signal timing sheet for the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route prepared and signed by a licensed engineer.
6. Retaining Wall Construction: Prior to issuance of construction permit for street improvements, the Applicant shall submit construction plans, details, calculations, and supporting engineering reports for the proposed retaining wall located within public right-of-way abutting the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (ATSF RR). The Applicant shall also be responsible for obtaining all (if any) necessary easements for construction, maintenance, and encroachments for the retaining wall, including those from the ATSF RR property prior to retaining wall construction permitting.
7. Retaining Wall Maintenance: Prior to issuance of construction permit for street improvements, the Applicant shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney, for the perpetual maintenance, repair, and replacement of the proposed retaining wall located within the public right-of-way along the southerly project boundary, generally running east-west parallel to proposed C Street for approximately 2,200 linear feet, and located adjacent to the ATSF RR.
The maintenance agreement shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest, and shall , at minimum:
(a) Clearly define the limits of the retaining wall subject to private maintenance responsibility; Include all structural components of the wall, appurtenances, drainage features, and any associated improvements.
(b) Establish maintenance, inspection, and repair obligations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (c) Grant the City the right, but not the obligation, to perform maintenance in the event of default and recover all associated costs.
8. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 6 of 17
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Whittram Avenue Construction/Extension: Developer shall construct Whittram Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to proposed “D” Street in accordance with City standards or standards as modified and approved by the City Engineer for this condition prior to receiving the final certificate of occupancy for the final building to be constructed within the Project. Developer shall (i) acquire the required right of way easement for street purposes to construct said portion of Whittram Avenue and (ii) design and construct the aforementioned street improvements. Developer shall obtain written confirmation from the City Engineer for the proposed ROW width and path of street improvements. A security deposit shall be submitted to the City to guarantee construction of Whittram Avenue. Security deposit shall be in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
The obligations contained in this Condition of Approval are subject to Government Code Section 66462.5 in the event that Developer cannot acquire the portion of Whittram Avenue located off-site on land that the Developer does not own, then Developer may notify the Engineering Department in writing within 120 days of the filing of the final subdivision map, and the City shall acquire by negotiation or commence eminent domain proceedings in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5. Prior to delivering such notice, Developer shall engage in a good-faith effort to acquire off-site land for the improvements and shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that the acquisition is infeasible and the Developer was unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary rights-of-way or easements to construct said improvements. If, in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5(a), the City timely acquires by negotiation or eminent domain the property interests necessary to facilitate construction of the Whittram Road improvements, the Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the design and construction of the Whittram Road improvements, as well as the City’s costs of acquiring the offsite real property interests, with the specific acquisitions costs not to exceed $1,500,000. The Developer shall be eligible for Development Impact Fee (DIF) reimbursement for the constructed portion of Whittram Avenue, not to exceed the amount allocated for that segment in the adopted DIF program at the time when Building permits are pulled.
If the City does not acquire by negotiation or commence eminent domain proceedings within 120 days of the filing of the subdivision map, then this condition shall be waived and the City will not withhold the issuance of an occupancy permit for the Project on the basis of failure to comply with this Condition.
9. Driveways - The location and general configuration of proposed driveways shown on the approved conceptual exhibits were reviewed during the entitlement process and are approved in concept as generally shown. Any proposed change to driveway location, spacing, or dimensions shall require prior review and written approval by the City Engineer. Request for modification shall be supported by appropriate technical justification, and approval shall be at the sole discretion of the City Engineer.
10. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 7 of 17
Project #: DRC2021-00485 DRC2022-00345, DRC2022-00375, DRC2023-00349, DRC2023-00351, DRC2023-00408, DRC2025-00061, LSPR2025-00011 Project Name: Ares/Black Creek (Arrow Commerce Center)
Location: 12343 ARROW RTE - 022912134-0000
Project Type: Design Review Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Landscape Review, Master Plan, PD Appeal, Tree Removal Permit, Zoning Map Amendment ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Streets' Alignment - The non-standard street centerline curvature, reduced curb return radii, and related horizontal alignment features shown on the approved conceptual exhibits and Master Plan were reviewed during the entitlement process and are conditionally approved in concept as shown. Final improvement plans shall remain substantially consistent with the approved layout and shall include verification of vehicle turning movements and applicable design criteria to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. Grading Plans - A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing developments where propose improvements will result in 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.
If the developer elects to proceed with grading, a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit Application shall be submitted to the Land Development division for review and approval of the City Engineer. The Rough Grading Plan/Permit shall be processed as a separate permit from the Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.
12. Grading Compaction Reports - Prior to Engineering sign-off for building permits, the corresponding and appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by Land Development.
13. Grading Standards - Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building 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.
14. Grading Bonds - 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 reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and in a form accepted by the City Attorney.
15. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/4/2026 Page 8 of 17