Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-14 - Minutes - HPC-PCHPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 1 of 11 Final Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2024 Final Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on August 14, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, Bond Mendez, Associate Planner, Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner; Jason Welday, Director of Engineering; Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Hearing no comments, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2024. Executive Assistant Thornhill announced the minutes be amended to reflect Commissioner Daniels absent. He was listed as both present and absent. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp, to approve Minutes as amended. Motion carried 4-1, Abstain – Commissioner Daniels D. Public Hearings D1. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE – PETE VOLBEDA - A request for site plan and architectural review of a two-story 2,349 square foot single-family residence with a 487 square foot attached garage on a 4,738 square foot parcel of land including a request to reduce the required corner side yard setback by 6 feet for a site located in the Low Residential (L) Zone located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Avenue; APN: 0202-111-93. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Sections 15303, which covers the construction of a limited number of structures in an urbanized area, and Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations (Minor Design Review DRC2023-00259 and Variance DRC2023-00244). HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Final Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He stated one comment was received from a nearby resident with concerns to a sink hole on the property. He explained the property was previously developed with a water well. The City responded to a complaint of the sink hole after a heavy rain. The City required the property owner conduct a geotechnical evaluation of the site and a copy of report is placed on the dais indicating that the site could safely be developed with a single-family residence. He said the property owner filled the sink hole with rock for the interim. A required technical report will be submitted and reviewed as part of the plan check process to the Building Department when the applicant submits for the building permits. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Pete Volbeda spoke about the concerns regarding the sink hole. They will cap and recompact that area. He said it will be built to code. Vice Chairman Boling asked would any of the development of the unit sit over the sink hole. Applicant Volbeda confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling stated if it will be a driveway. Applicant Volbeda confirmed. Public Comment by Chris Boesen, resident, expressed his concerns about the sink hole. No other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp asked if there is a report that this land is safe to be built on. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura responded that prior to any grading or construction on the site, the appropriate measures and mitigation have been taken place in accordance with the Structural Engineers report. Commissioner Daniels stated this is a classic example, under these special circumstances, as to why a variance is needed for approval on these types of projects. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned the corner lot width being so narrow has existed for many years and this is why it is legal non-conforming. He stated if going northbound on Amethyst, south side on 19th, with new residential going there, if the occupants wanted to park their vehicles on Amethyst and with it being narrow, is there any concern for traffic engineering that allowing parking on Amethyst northbound in front of the house be problematic. Planner Tabe van der Zwaag answered it would partially be limited by the fire hydrant, there is a certain distance in each direction you would not be able to mark. Although, it is marked no parking, there is potential for vehicle parking on Amethyst. Vice Chairman asked if the city might consider now or in the future that could restrict parking on northbound Amethyst, so it does not create obstruction for vehicles going northbound. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered it would be best to look at it once development is complete and if there are any additional needs at that point, the Engineering Department could help guide us through any appropriate mitigations at that time. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 3 of 11 Final Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 24-23 Minor Design Review DRC2023-00259 and Resolution 24-24 Variance DRC2023-00244. Motion carried 5-0. D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION – ARROW 6-LOT SUBDIVISION - A request to subdivide an existing 0.83-acre lot into six numbered lots, one lettered lot, and one dedication lot, and to construct six new single-family dwelling units including setback minor exceptions within the Suburban Neighborhood Low General Plan designation and Medium Residential Zone, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 0207-262-05. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15332 (SUBTT20616, Design Review DRC2023-00111, Minor Exception DRC2023-00237). Planner Bond Mendez presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Project manager and architect Daphne Shen thanked the Commission and staff. Public Comment by Kirk Rissinger, resident, expressed the following concerns near his home which is located on the south side of the proposed project: • Storm and Runoff • Above ground power lines • Sidewalk • Pest abatement • Gopher abatement • Existing fence on the property line • Dust pollution • Noise pollution No other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura mentioned while we understand this property owner’s concerns, none of his street frontage, including sewer improvements on his property, will be improved as part of this project as there is no nexus to allow such improvements. The city can only require infrastructure upgrades as part of the actual development. She suggested that possibly he can collaborate and work together with the developer to realize some cost savings. When his property undergoes significant development or redevelopment, that will trigger those types of public improvements. These types of improvements occur as incremental development occurs. Commissioner Dopp stated regarding this project itself, fitting 6-units on such a tiny lot is creative given the lot size. He expressed his support. Commissioner Daniels asked staff that these 6 lots will be served by sewer not septic. Planner Mendez confirmed. Commissioner Daniels mentioned that the property owner work together, at his cost, with the developer to come to some conclusion. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the city is requiring underground electrical. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 4 of 11 Final Vice Chairman Boling suggested the property owner work with adjacent development to get costs down. He said at some point the city would expect this property owner to bring their property into full compliance with development standards at such time the property is redeveloped. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Vice Chairman expressed that he appreciates the attempt to get 6 high-quality, nice architecture units on a small lot. He said this city is tasked with planning and zoning for and potentially allowing for the development of residential units of all types and these meet a specific niche. He mentioned there are not too many units of this caliber that is offered. He thanked the developer for providing additional housing units for the community. Commissioner Diaz expressed she is glad to see this housing in our community. Chairman Morales concurred, especially with the design of the property and he hopes the neighbors can work together. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 24-25 Design Review DRC2023-00111, Resolution 24-26 Minor Exception DRC2023-00237 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20616. Motion carried 5-0. D3. DESIGN REVIEW - BISHOP VENTURES – A request has been made to construct a multi-family development comprised of 145 residential units located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street in the Corridor 1 (CO1) Zone. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Sections 15332, which covers infill projects of less than five acres in an urbanized area. APN: 0208-632-47 (DRC2022-00354) Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He mentioned a revised version of the Conditions of Approval adding Planning Department Special Condition #1 was placed on the dais. Commissioner Daniels mentioned that he has no difficulty with the added condition but there should be something in there related to parking on the adjacent commercial lots. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the 12 affordable units are low or very low. Planner Pisarkiewicz replied they are very low. Vice Chairman Boling asked what percentage would hit very low. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura responded it would be 50% of the area medium income. Vice Chairman Boling confirmed they would have to be at or below that to occupy these units for very low income. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed and clarified the remainder of the units are market rate units. Commissioner Diaz asked what is that number for very low income per year on the affordable units. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied they would get that number before ending of the meeting. She said it is calculated annually and provided by the state. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the affordable units are predominantly Studios, 1 or 2 bedrooms. He is trying to understand what the city is potentially receiving in return for the significant waivers that are being requested. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Final Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied that they have not identified the units yet. It is part of the density bonus agreement, and they would typically require a range of unit sizes consistent with the unit breakdown proposed by the developer. Vice Chairman Boling confirmed a range meaning a mix. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicants Russ Murfey and Gilman Bishop presented a brief presentation to the Commissioners. They responded to Commissioner Diaz question regarding the area medium income is $46,000. Principal Planner McPherson clarified according to statistics provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, median income in the area for 1 person would be $35,900, with a range going up with 8-person household of $67,650. The applicant requested the name be changed on the Resolution from Foothill and Lion to Lion Gate Partner, LLC. Commissioner Dopp inquired given the complexity that there is nowhere outside the residential area to park, he asked if they see a problem with having a project park out at 1.3 cars per unit. Applicant Murfey answered 1.3 parking ratio and lower is reasonable in today’s market. He mentioned there are people who take public transportation, carpool, and share cars. Commissioner Dopp asked where their other projects are located. Applicant Bishop answered Southern California, primarily in San Diego. Commissioner Dopp asked if they would say their other projects in San Diego are more urban in nature than this project. Applicant Bishop answered some are and some are not. Commissioner Dopp mentioned that Rancho Cucamonga is not there yet and to say people would use rideshare or public transportation that is maybe a long-term goal for the city but not short term. To expect residents to incur the added expense is not fair. He said there are a lot of people who still rely on their cars. Applicant Bishop stated that they would have to find tenants that have less cars and they are willing to take on a longer absorption to find those households at a lower rent price. Commissioner Dopp mentioned the waiver list is extensive and the most the Commissioners have ever seen, and asked if the ground floor residential units have entrances facing Foothill directly or will the residents be able to enter the ground floor through the internal residential apartment complex itself. Applicant Murfey answered some of them enter along Foothill and said they created the multi-way along Foothill Boulevard and multiple lanes of landscaping to try and to create more of a Boston Brownstone type of infill similar to their San Diego projects, and those end up being some of their most popular units. Commissioner Dopp mentioned some of the comments received from residents is privacy concerns and asked how tall the landscaping trees will be. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 6 of 11 Final Applicant Murfey answered he does not have the size but said everything selected is intended to be a hedge and wanted to make sure there is green buffer between the project and existing residential for privacy. He said there are multiple layers of landscaping, green screening, trellis, and space to separate as much as possible. Commissioner Dopp asked if they believe it would be at least as tall as the wall itself. Applicant Murfey confirmed and said at least 6 ft. or taller. Vice Chairman Boling asked if carports are along the perimeter. Applicant Murfey confirmed and said they are facing north towards the mountains and towards the east. Vice Chairman Boling asked when did their projects in San Diego open. Applicant Murfey answered 2013-2024. Vice Chairman Boling asked if they developed, built, hold, and managed those projects and if that is their intent with the Rancho project. Applicant Murfey confirmed and added that the parking ratio used is exactly per the state law. Chairman Morales asked why they requested a waiver on the balconies. Applicant Murfey explained out of 145 units, there are only 12 units with balconies facing residential units and that these were needed to meet ingress/egress requirements, so the waiver was to allow those balconies at that location. The following persons commented on the project: Micah Talbot, Mary Harrison, Donald Cook, Susan Pittington, Barbara Monclova, Jim Dvorak, Stan Hillory, Cathy Stanford, Kathy Ring. The comments included the following concerns: • Privacy • Traffic • Parking blocking driveways and mailbox • Recommended to close off Lion Street with a gate • One-way street • Home value • Low income • Recommended trees for privacy and not bushes/hedges • High-density • Kids safety • Security • Noise • Trash • Freedom will be taken away • Delay of Emergency Response Services • Bright lights • Recommended speed bumps For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Final details: • Email from Chris Kish expressed parking concerns and the one-way street • Email from Tejas Randeria expressed parking concerns • Email from Cathy Stanford expressed safety concerns • Email from Cathy Gwaltney expressed concerns with the development • Email from Judy Perez expressed concerns with more crime to the area • Email from Jeannine Dibble opposed to the project being built • Email from Kathryn Harrison expressed concerns with increased traffic and speeding through the neighborhood • Mary Robinson expressed their disapproval of the proposed development • Mary Harrison is in opposition of the project No other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Chairman Morales asked the developer regarding the parking management plan if they had experience before with violations, for example with residents parking in the adjacent neighborhood and how effective a parking management plan was in solving the problem. Applicant Murfey explained another project they had developed in another city adjacent to a city college where they have a shared parking agreement, and they have decals that indicate who is allowed and not allowed to park in certain areas. To get a decal, residents of the project have to register their vehicle. He said that removing a vehicle is smooth if it needs to get towed. He said it works out well. Chairman Morales asked how effective their enforcement is with people not on the lease that have moved in with family and friends. Applicant Murfey explained it would not be allowed. They have on-site property management and people will not be moving in without them knowing. He said it will be tightly controlled. Commissioner Diaz asked if there are any EV charging stations. Applicant Murfey answered that will be something that will come up in the building permit process, depending on building code. Commissioner Diaz asked if they would have on-site security or maintenance 24 hours a day. Applicant Murfey replied that they will have on-site management, porters, and maintenance. He said that at any time of the day there will be someone there on-site. Commissioner Diaz asked what they would have to do to increase the parking by 10%. Applicant Murfey answered it would make it cost prohibitive. You would lose unit count and possibly have to construct subterranean parking. Commissioner Daniels mentioned the 1.3 parking per unit and asked what about visitors. He said this will be problem for the city. Arte is a good example, and this project will be even worse than that. Applicant Bishop responded that would be part of the parking management plan. Visitors would have to check in and get a pass. He said there will be parking for visitors. Chairman Morales asked staff to explain why there was a zoning change in the General Plan and explain the State Housing Laws implemented to all the cities and why things had to be zoned the way they were. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 8 of 11 Final Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura provided a detailed explanation about RHNA, and the goal of the General Plan to accommodate more housing in the corridor to maintain single family neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible. Chairman Morales asked staff to explain why Lion Street needed to change from a one-way street to a two- way street. Principal Planner McPherson explained that improving circulation and increasing accessibility, most importantly for emergency services, is a critical general plan goal. He said it is a fire code requirement for new projects that there would be two-points of access. Because of this, Lion Street must be modified to accommodate two- way traffic. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura added that it has been observed that vehicles currently travel northbound on Lion Street disregarding the barriers. Therefore, the existing configuration of Lion Street represents a traffic hazard which forces northbound vehicles to use the southbound lane, as observed and as stated. Opening up Lion Street to two-way traffic would eliminate this dangerous traffic condition. Commissioner Diaz mentioned there are plenty of streets that run along Foothill and asked if there any other streets where we have a similar situation that we have turned it into a one-way street. Principal Planner McPherson answered that there are no other streets along Foothill that have this similar situation. Chairman Morales stated on the condition of approval if the neighbors to the north have problems with people at the project parking in their neighborhood, the property owner of the project site will be responsible for the costs implementing the parking permit plan. City Engineer Director Welday confirmed. Chairman Morales stated that if there is a problem with residents parking in the neighborhood, he asked who they would contact. Engineering Director Welday replied if someone is parking illegally in front of a driveway, call the police department. If there is a problem in the neighborhood with overrun general parking, they would contact the Engineering department. Vice Chairman Boling asked the administrative cost to set up the permit parking would be the responsibility of the project applicant. Engineering Director Welday confirmed. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was any discussion about closing off Lion Street. Engineering Director Welday replied doing so would be in violation of the General Plan because the need of accessibility to Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Daniels asked about placing a gate. Engineering Director Welday answered it would not be permissible because it would create a private access to a public street. Commissioner Dopp asked what other strategies in the Planning toolbox that could possibly deter people trying HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 9 of 11 Final to get around Foothill traffic. As suggested by a resident, what about speed bumps? Commissioner Dopp also suggested creating a bicycle path on Lion Street. Engineering Director Welday answered in response to speed bumps there are mixed reviews if whether they are effective. He said they did look at narrowing shoulders and it was considered, and they would have to look and see the best way to approach that. Regarding a bike path, it could be problematic with parking on Lion. Vice Chairman Boling stated the existing road network is a poorly laid out set of streets. He said Estacia dead ends to the west and perhaps the remainder of the street has been abandoned over time and at some point, the master plan may have seen Estacia continue to the west, providing additional cul-de-sacs, as well as through puts to San Bernardino Road. We are left with a scenario of trying to make the best of a bad situation. He said there is no good way to solve the problem we have inherited. He asked does it seem appropriate that Estacia probably should have been continued. Engineering Director Welday confirmed. He said as it stands now from Lion to Estacia, the existing off set may create a traffic deterrent as opposed to if Lion were a straight through to San Bernardino. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura asked the Engineering Director to clarify why we are proposing the right turn only onto Foothill Boulevard. Engineering Director Welday answered by adding in the right turn only from southbound Lion Street onto Foothill Boulevard, as recommend in the Level of Service Analysis, it would remove that left turn waiting southbound on Lion Street and by doing that it would reduce the average wait time and improve the level of service for those turning right. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura mentioned that if residents experience impacts of noise and problematic behavior from the commercial center, she suggested to contact the Police to report any suspicious behavior. Commissioner Dopp stated what he liked some aspects of the project, asked to consider more affordable housing and the design reminds him of roadside architecture. He said what he does not like is asking for a lot of waivers. He suggested people upset with this situation to talk to your legislatures and put pressure on them about the regulations. Commissioner Daniels expressed that he is skeptical about this project and if it was not for the State Density Bonus, we would not be looking at this project. He does not like the number of waivers being asked for and he is very skeptical about the parking because it will be a problem for the city. Vice Chairman Boling stated we are looking for very low-income units. He said there has been a lot of talk about the reduction in parking and the potential for households to rent these units that may not be as dependent upon having a personal vehicle. He hopes the developer is aware there is a major bus line along Foothill Boulevard operated by Omni Trans and he encourages the developer to strongly invest their time and money in enhancing the bus rider experience. He suggested staff work with the developer to add in the condition of approval that garages be utilized for vehicles only and not used for storage. Principal Planner McPherson stated that it is noted in the applicants parking management plan. Vice Chairman Boling requested in the future if the Commissioners can be given copies of the parking management plans. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed and indicated they will amend the parking management plan condition to specify that garages must be used for the parking of cars and not storage for projects requiring a parking management plan for future projects moving forward. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 10 of 11 Final Vice Chairman Boling mentioned the density bonus law and it establishes what the minimum requirements are, and the developers are well within their ability to provide more parking than what the state’s minimums are. There are costs associated with that and it is a business decision the developer has to make, but we all heard they are committed to trying and make this work. He expressed he is in favor of the design, it looks modern, but the amenity for residents is very anemic. He said typically for projects they see that are more positively received they see a gym, business center, etc. where residents can interact with their neighbors. Applicant Bishop mentioned they do have a first floor with space to allow for any and all those things. Vice Chairman Boling suggested having a play area if they are focused on families, calling that out would be beneficial. He expressed that their project presentation was very methodical, almost clinical, and not a lot of how we, as an outside developer, are going to fit within your culture. He said it is a “give and take” and it seems there has been a lot of taking and not a lot of giving. As it pertains to staff, he asked if they could discuss from an urban planning perspective, the concept of buffer zones because nobody wants to live right behind a high intensity use, so what do urban planners see as that kind of buffer. Principal Planner McPherson explained that as part of the outreach for the General Plan process, new development would be focused on corridors. Following the adoption of the General Plan, the city embarked upon creating form-based zoning standards, such as setbacks for ground floors and setbacks for upper floors that speak to buffering new development when adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned he looks at developments at very simple terms. He sees there is industrial manufacturing and next to that obviously you do not want housing. What is the next logical thing, probably a business park, commercial retail, then maybe multi-family housing which gets you into a higher density single- family and then medium density single family and then low-density single family. He sees that transition from high density use to single family residential and that in between what gets put there would be something that came to this. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura explained this project without the increased density could have been configured differently. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura noted that as part of the recent General Plan and zoning code updates, it was intentional to zone those properties along Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue at a lower density than elsewhere along Foothill Boulevard because there were these adjacencies to single family residential. She said the zoning for this site was intentional to be at a lower density than elsewhere along Foothill to provide less of an impact to the single-family residential to north of it. Vice Chairman Boling stated if it were not for state mandates and the state incentive for developers to provide low-income affordable housing, the project would be required to be built at a lower density than what is being proposed. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling stated that some of the public comments received tonight requested for the project to be moved but we do not own the property. We as a Commission enforce zoning and land use regulations and as long as the developer proposes a project that fits within the guidelines, they have the ability to propose such projects. Commissioner Diaz mentioned comments heard tonight regarding low-income was associated with crime and that was hard to hear especially when the starting salary for teachers is not much higher than that and they are the type of people that need these types of housing. She said if you are trying to attract young families, there is nowhere for children to go, and she does not see that happening. Regards to parking, she hopes they get an agreement with the commercial center next door and hopes it works out positively for the residents. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 11 of 11 Final Chairman Morales expressed it is a great neighborhood and that is what makes Rancho Cucamonga a great place. He said with everything that was built into the Conditions of Approval it will control the neighbor’s concerns. He said the developers have the experience in this business and will be able to control issues for the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Boling recommended the following more prominent waivers be discussed for the record: •Balconies and Decks - The majority of public comments surround the lack of privacy with balconies being in existence. There will be a limited number of units toward the north side of the project. •Privacy Issues – If converted to windows, a majority of the residents will still have that concern. •Ground Floor Residential Units along Foothill – The developer will provide significant landscaping as well as a frontage road with parking spaces to provide some buffer between traffic on Foothill and the ground floor residential units. •Reduced Parking •Floor Area Ratio - Not providing any non-residential. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 24-28 Design Review DRC2022-00354, with the amendment to correct the applicant’s name in the Resolution and the amended Resolution presented in Staff’s presentation. Motion carried 5-0. E.General Business - None F.Director Announcements – None G.Commission Announcements - None H.Adjournment Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved: HPC/PC August 28, 2024 meeting.