Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-14 - Minutes - HPC-PCHPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 1 of 7 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2025 Final Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:30 p.m. The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on May 14, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:30 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director; Justine Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering; Deborah Allen, Management Analyst; Clarence De Guzman, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Resident Nicole Myerchin shared details of her recent visit to Santa Barbara, noting the abundance of open space, lack of large-scale development, and the lack of active development projects. She urged the Commissioners to take a similar stance by pushing back against overdevelopment and preserving the community’s integrity and open space. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 23, 2025. Executive Assistant Thornhill noted the following minor corrections to the minutes: • Called to order to reflect Chairman Morales, not Vice Chairman Boling • Item D1: Misspelling of Architect in the title • Item D1: Second paragraph - CEQA vendor, replace vendor with consultant HPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 2 of 7 Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz. Motion carried 5-0 approved the minutes as amended. D. Public Hearings D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - KIMLEY HORN - A request to permit wholesale and distribution, manufacturing, e-commerce distribution/fulfillment, and storage warehouse uses at two existing industrial buildings totaling 418,265 and 331,872 square feet, currently occupied with legal non-conforming e-commerce distribution/fulfillment and wholesale and distribution uses within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone and the Neo-Industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation at 11555 and 11599 Arrow Route, respectively; APNs 0229-111-64 and 0229- 111-65. This item is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (DRC2024-00378 and DRC2024-00379). Assistant Planner Serafin presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels asked staff if there have been any issues within the last few years at either of the two sites. Assistant Planner Serafin indicated there are no recorded issues. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Burnett was present and stated she had no concerns or issues with the conditions as presented and was available to answer questions. Vice Chairman Boling asked the applicant to confirm whether the buildings are currently occupied. Applicant Burnett confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the buildings were occupied prior to 2021. Applicant Burnett responded that the buildings have been continuously occupied with the same type of uses. She explained that the Conditional Use Permits are being sought in anticipation of future tenant changes, to ensure those uses remain consistent and comply with conditions under which the space is occupied. Vice Chairman Boling asked whether the buildings are configured to allow subdivisions for multiple tenants. Applicant Burnett confirmed. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated the commissioners have seen a lot of these development code issues and given that there have been no past incidents with these types of projects, he expressed a greater level of comfort. He thanked the applicant for formalizing the request, stating that the proposed uses appear appropriate and consistent. HPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Daniels commended the applicant for submitting the application in compliance with code requirements and noted that the existing developed site has been fully occupied for some time. He expressed his appreciation for taking the steps to process and obtain the Conditional Use Permit. Vice Chairman Boling concurred with the commissioners and expressed his appreciation to the applicant for proactively addressing a legal nonconforming situation that arose due to the City’s changes to occupancy and use requirements. He said if approved, the Conditional Use Permit would provide greater flexibility for the buildings’ use, help maximize the property’s economic value and reduce the risk of prolonged vacancies in the future. He commended the applicant for taking action before any issues developed. Chairman Morales commended the applicant for taking the right approach and collaborating with staff to responsibly address the issue. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-015 to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00378 and Resolution 2025-016 Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00379. Motion carried 5-0. D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & DESIGN REVIEW - STUDIO ROCA - A request for site plan and design review of 8 single-family residences on 4.78 acres of land on a previously approved tract map (Tract 14644) at the terminus of Camellia Court in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone, Hillside Overlay, and the Equestrian Overlay; APN: 1076-381-24 thru 31. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects (Design Review DRC2024-00174). Associate Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Miller was in attendance and available to answer questions. Nicole Myerchin expressed her opposition to the project and submitted photos of wildlife around her property, which were collected and included in the official record. The following individuals provided comments on the project and expressed their opposition to it: William Hobbs; Barbara DeWitt; Zaher Azzaw; Dru Davis; Sandra Stillwell Mora; Ron Davis; Gail Burnley; John Peterson. For the record, the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. • An email from Jennifer Allen expressed strong opposition to the proposal site plan, citing concerns about the development’s impact on the local environment and quality of life. • An email from Mike Atchison in opposition, citing safety concerns, increased traffic, and the potential impact on the residents due to the construction. • An email from Dru Davis expressed strong opposition of the project and how it will affect their quiet neighborhood. • An email from Ted Myerchin in opposition, citing that the area should have a second access point due to fire concerns. He also noted safety concerns for the children and the disbursement of wildlife. HPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 4 of 7 Applicant Miller provided the following rebuttal in response to the comments: - This is an ultra-low-density housing project, and they did the traffic study required by CEQA, and they are in compliance. - They are not proposing more houses that are smaller, but instead they are keeping them big. They exceeded the lot size because originally, they were approved to have septic tanks, which has a ½ acre minimum, so they kept that compliance because they wanted to keep the original tract map. He said this could have been divided into additional lots for a higher profit, but they did not want to do that. They wanted to keep what was approved and keep the lots big and have minimal impact on traffic. - Regarding the nature trail, there is a nature trail access at the end of the cul-de-sac. He said the deer will not be restricted. He added that there are 500+ aces of free nature trail access at the end of the cul-de-sac and there will be no restrictions on wildlife. - Regarding RV Access, he explained that there is one horse trail leading to the property with a driveway cutout in the curb, and another more direct path to the north. The request is to cut the curb for easier RV access to the homes that back up to the trail. Currently, the curb presents a challenge for vehicles like horse trailers or RVs to access, so the proposal is to have the curb cut for improved access. Miller stated that he is working with staff to determine what would be required to make this change. Planning Director Nakamura requested to table the RV access discussion for staff to review. She indicated this is the first they are hearing of this tonight and would like to defer for staff to resolve separately. Vice Chairman Boling concurred. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that they are being asked to review the architecture, assuming that is the correct understanding. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and clarified that the lot configuration has been legalized. The vacant parcel constitutes the street right-of-way and is part of eight legal parcels that already exists. Commissioner Dopp wanted to ensure everyone understood that. He expressed empathy for some of the concerns raised. He said when land is purchased and already zoned for single-family development, like the parcel in question, which was previously approved by City Council many years ago, it places the commissioners in a difficult position. With a housing project at hand and the state’s constraints, he noted the challenge. His main concern was the architecture, specifically the window paneling, which he admitted was not his personal favorite but did meet the objective standards set for review. He mentioned that this is not the first infill project the commission has seen, where a street that had been on paper for a long time is now being developed. Although, change is not always easy to accept, he emphasized that, in this case, the key factor for him was adherence to the standards. He said while some commissioners may not be fully in favor of many of the constraints, the fact that the proposal meets existing standards puts them in a tough spot. HPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Daniels concurred with Commissioner Dopp and noted that many members of the commission share empathy for the concerns and issues raised. He explained that the challenge lies in the scope of what the commission is reviewing. He said if they were evaluating the entire development, including the subdivision layout and the length of the cul-de-sac, it would be a different discussion. He emphasized that the developer is simply proposing to build homes on lots that already exist, and the project is in compliance with all city standards for the type of development proposed. As such, it is difficult for the commission to reject the project based on personal references. He added that he likes the modern traditional design of the homes. While he wishes the homes were somewhat smaller, he acknowledged that they meet all setback and lot coverage requirements. Chairman Morales asked Planning Director Nakamura to explain what happens if we do not comply with the state law. Also, what we can do and not do as far as zoning for this property. Planning Director Nakamura explained that the state has declared a housing crisis, leading to significant changes in the rules governing project review. She emphasized that this is no longer a subjective process. If the commission were to deny a project based on subjective standards, the City would face legal challenges and would likely not be successful. Commissioner Diaz she acknowledged that the commission is often faced with difficult decisions but expressed appreciation when housing is brought into the community, especially when it aligns with what the community has expressed a need for. She recognized the ongoing housing crisis in the state and said she empathizes with residents concerned about changes in the neighborhood. She indicated that a public comment was made about children playing in the street and she could relate and expressed hope that the project would bring eight new families who could become part of that community. Vice Chairman Boling stated there have been a number of issues on various topics brought up. He wanted to make sure it gets covered for a better understanding on the following issues: • Water availability and supply: The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not make that determination, but Cucamonga Valley Water District does. Concerns may be directed to the elected official on their board. • Use of the property - Community Garden or Tot Lot: Unfortunately, it is private property, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot direct the developer to do something different with the property then what the development code and the zoning allows for. If the community would like the field to remain an open space, they would need to contact the developer, take up a collection and buy the property. • Cul-de-sac: The current terminus of the street is temporary. The actual end of the street, as outlined in the city’s street master plan does indicate the street is to continue through, but that is not on the table to discuss today. • Evacuation and emergencies: There are fewer other cul-de-sacs in that general neighborhood that contain between 12 or 16 residential units on their cul-de-sac. Having 14 is not anomaly, there is precedent. • Sidewalks: Asking the current developer to install sidewalks in front of existing homes that have been there for decades presents a legal challenge. In order for the city to require this, there must be a direct connection between the proposed development and the specific improvements being requested. Legally, a city cannot require a developer to go beyond what is directly related to their project. The appropriate time for sidewalks to have been installed was when those existing homes were originally built. If the developer at that time had been required to include sidewalks, they would already be in place today. HPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 6 of 7 • Sewer: The existing homes are currently on septic systems, which presents an opportunity; the main sewer line for the new development would need to extend all the way up to Beryl. This could benefit existing homeowners who wish to connect to the sewer in the future, as a portion of this project costs would be subsidized by the new development. These homeowners would only need to cover the cost of connecting their individual properties, rather than installing a main line themselves. He noted that, if a good relationship exists between the current property owners and the developer, coordinating the work now, before the street is paved, could lead to significant cost savings. Waiting until after the road is sealed would place the full burden on the individual homeowners. • Storm drain and water runoff: State requires there must be a storm water quality management plan filed, reviewed and approved for this project and that would address runoff and water that is collected on site for the project. Current standards require that 90% to 95% of the water gets retained on site, so minimal water could potentially come off the new properties. They are required to put in sidewalk curb gutters. Chairman Morales stated that he visited the project site and understands the concerns raised by the neighboring residents. He shared that he could relate to their perspective, as his own neighborhood is adjacent to the foothills and underwent development and fortunately, deer still come down to graze on the landscape, which he recognizes is important to the community. He noted that the project complies with existing zoning regulations, which limits the commission’s ability to deny it. He also confirmed that the storm drain issue has been addressed and expressed satisfaction with it. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-014 to approve Design Review DRC2024-00174. Motion carried 5-0. E. General Business E1. Consideration of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Major Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2025/26. Management Analyst Allen and Management Analyst De Guzman presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). With no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp thanked staff for their presentation and the annual update. He said it is always interesting to read every year and see what is going on around the city. There have been a few parks that have been added, dedicated bike lanes and the Trail Head Cucamonga Canyon. He said it is nice to see that progress is being made on topics of conversations that come up whether it be issues by residents or things they see in projects. Commissioner Daniels commended staff for doing a great job. The documents are very easy to read. He is amazed at the cost for some of the projects. He said it is interesting to see what the city is planning to do in the next 5 years. Vice Chairman Boling stated that, from a commissioner’s perspective, he greatly appreciates staff’s efforts to reference the corresponding General Plan goals for each project, ensuring that the plan is in conformity. He is amazed to see some of the projects and activities going on in the city. He said the identification of the funding source is helpful as a resident. It shows the city is being transparent and it helps educate the public. HPC/PC Final Minutes –May 14, 2025 Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Diaz thanked staff for preparing the report, noting that it is one of her favorite documents to review. She mentioned that she shared it with colleagues in her office, as people appreciate knowing what is happening in the city. She added that the report is easy for the community to understand, so it is very much appreciated. Chairman Morales thanked staff for the informative presentation and well-prepared packet. He stated that the project’s alignment with the General Plan reflects the team’s effectiveness in executing the City’s vision. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-011 approving the Major Projects Program (MPP) for FY 2025/26. Motion carried 5-0. F. Director Announcements Planning Director Nakamura announced that the city was awarded the California American Planning Association Inland Empire Section 2025 Award of Excellence for the Planning Agency. She thanked the Commissioners for their support and staff for all the work they do on a day-to- day basis. G. Commission Announcements Vice Chairman Boling addressed the general public still in attendance, noting that it can be challenging when individuals make statements during public comment without an opportunity for commissioners or staff to respond on corrected potential inaccuracies. He referenced a comment made earlier in the meeting claiming that there is no new development occurring in the City of Santa Barbara. He clarified that, to his knowledge, nearly 4,000 units are currently under consideration in Santa Barbara, including 61 proposed affordable units. He expressed concern that, without the ability to respond, members of the public may leave with misconceptions about how the city’s planning process functions. Chairman Morales congratulated the Planning Department on receiving the award. He indicated they are true professionals and thanked them for being the best. H. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC May 28, 2025 Meeting.