Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-13 - Minutes HPC-PCHPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 1 of 5 FINAL Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda November 13, 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 November 13, 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; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Lupe Biggs, Executive Assistant; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2024. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp. Motion carried 5- 0 approved the minutes as presented. D. Public Hearings D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES – A request to subdivide a 43,428 square foot lot into four parcels, for a site located in the Low (L) residential district at 6808 Hermosa Avenue; APN: 1076-081-02 (Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20808). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15315; Minor Land Division’s. Associate Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 2 of 5 FINAL Project Manager Shen was in attendance and available to answer questions. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated the wall issue is in the special condition. He said the project with 4 lots is appropriate for this specific site. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if there is a concern over a private drive vs. a cul-de-sac on the lot. Associate Planner van der Zwaag answered that the Engineering and Planning department reviewed it and they felt since it is such a small subdivision, it does not make sense to put a large cul-de-sac at the end of the street, which would cut into the farthest lot. He said this way the applicant will maintain the street rather than the city in the future. Vice Chairman Boling commented that he appreciates the applicant coming in with an infill project like this. He said there are not too many parcels similar left in the city, so seeing additional housing units potentially come online is a plus for the city. Chairman Morales stated this is a good redevelopment of this lot. He said it will improve the neighborhood and add more affordable housing to our community. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-034, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20808. Motion carried 5-0. D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – FORE PROPERTY - A request to consolidate six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel totaling approximately 9.15 acres of land within the Traditional Town Center General Plan Designation and Center 1 (CE1) Zone, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue; APNs: 0207-011-35, -36, -41, -43, -44, and -45. This item is consistent with the City’s General Plan and certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) pursuant to CEQA Section 15183(c) Compliance Memorandum (SUBTT20863; Related file: Design Review DRC2022-00379). Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Finger was present to answer questions. Commissioner Daniels asked why the commercial was not carved out for a second parcel. Why was this one parcel for the entire project. Applicant Finger answered that it has always been designed to be one project as mixed use. It was the desire of the city to have the commercial as part of the residential. He said at this stage they did not have any intention to sell it off individually. They intend to keep it as one project. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Chairman Morales stated the proposed map has been reviewed by both the Engineering and Planning departments and found it to be consistent with all the relevant standards and mapping regulations. He expressed his support. HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 3 of 5 FINAL Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2024-033, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20863. Motion carried 5-0. D3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request for site plan and architectural review of 75 multi-family units located on approximately 3.18 acres of land within Planning Area N-12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00360). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item to December 11th, 2024, due to questions for the applicant and additional time is required to complete. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales announced this item will remain open to December 11th, 2024, HPC/PC meeting. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz. Motion carried 5-0. D4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request for site plan and architectural review of 84 multi-family units located on approximately 3.4 acres of land within Planning Area N-14 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00331). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item to December 11th, 2024, due to questions for the applicant and additional time is required to complete. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales announced this item will remain open to December 11th, 2024, HPC/PC meeting. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried 5-0. HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 4 of 5 FINAL D5. Consideration to amend Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels asked staff to explain the nuances of the types of industrial development. He said there are a lot of different industrial uses but is there something we are discussing a nonconforming for. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura provided examples on warehouse uses. Commissioner Daniels asked the type of building we are talking about is the very large warehousing buildings. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied that our industrial code impacted buildings of a wide variety of sizes. Vice Chairman Boling stated the timing on when this will become effective. He said if there are any properties that would be subject to 180-day vacancy period, he asked would they then get the remainder of their 180 and then 185+ tacked onto their current 180 that they are already experiencing, or will 1-year start when the new ordinance becomes effective. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered we have yet to find a user in that position. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned because this was publicly noticed, we did receive one correspondence, it appears those in the industry are aware of this potential change and there are no properties we are aware of that would fall within that time period. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Assistant City Attorney Young mentioned the ordinance is not written to be retroactive and once it goes into effect, it starts from that point going forward. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp mentioned the real issue is the timeline. He wondered at what point some of the existing nonconforming industrial would change to meet the new vision in the General Plan. He is comfortable with 1-year rather than 2-years, which is extreme, regarding the letter from the public. He recommends we do not go past that. Commissioner Daniels stated the purpose of the nonconforming use is to potentially phase that use out. He said he is comfortable with the 180 days and really does not have a problem with the longer time period for this specific use. He wonders if we are giving them a special license that the other nonconforming uses are not getting. He asked about the uses that have been made nonconforming they can become conforming by getting a conditional use permit. HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 5 of 5 FINAL Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered not all can become conforming by getting a conditional use permit. She said if they are no longer permitted in that zone, they are phased out. She also mentioned that industrial land uses received a fair degree of change during the industrial code update and the General Plan update, more than most commercial uses. Vice Chairman Boling commented that staff has been tasked a difficult and delicate situation where they are trying to balance the needs or concerns of some of our business constituents that have invested millions of dollars recently in building within our city that then generates tax revenue, property tax revenue, jobs and employment and trying balance that against a recent change in direction vision of the City Council as they adopted the update to the General Plan. He said the 1-year extension seems to be a reasonable striking a balance between those two diametrically opposed in some cases instances. While he understands the need for insuring ultimately Council’s vision of development in the future moves forward and that non-conforming uses ultimately wither away, this seems to be a reasonable balance to help protect that investment of millions of dollars in construction and development that occurred within the last 5, 10 years. Chairman Morales stated that 1-year is adequate to do what they have to do, and 2-years would be too long. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-037 recommending Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-00170 to the City Council for approval. Motion carried 5-0. E.Director Announcements Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura announced there will be no meeting on November 27th, returning on December 11th. F.Commission Announcements - None G.Adjournment Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved: HPC/PC December 11th, 2024 meeting.