Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-23 - Minutes - HPC-PCHistoric Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda July 23, 2025 Final Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on July 23, 2025. 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. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Katherine Read, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Justin Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering; Shane Adams, Deputy Fire Marshal; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Claudia Vargas, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; 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 May 28, 2025. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried 3- 0-2 approved the minutes. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. D.Public Hearings D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, & DESIGN REVIEW – HAMILTON LAND DEVELOPMENT – A request to subdivide 1.02 acres of land into 19 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot including site plan and design review of 19 single-family, detached residential units with 1 unit restricted for Very Low Income affordable housing in accordance with State Density Bonus Law for a site located between 19th Street and Hamilton Street in the Medium (M) Residential zone at 10295 19th Street; APN: 1076-121-17. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249). HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 1 of 12 Assistant Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted that the Conditions of Approval were revised to include additional clarifying language. A redline version was placed on the dais. Planning Director Nakamura shared that a letter was received this afternoon by Alta Loma School District expressing concerns about school safety. The letter had been distributed to Commissioners via email and was also placed on the dais for their review. She indicated that the Conditions of Approval related to Engineering Condition #5 will help provide further study on any potential impacts. Commissioner Dopp mentioned that there is already a lot of traffic on 19th and now this is adding another ingress/egress out of that area. He asked Engineering what kind of thought was put in place to handle that extra turn off of 19th, given that Mayberry is exactly to the north of that parcel. Engineering Director Welday responded that the final plans for the project will be required to evaluate any changes to the striping in order to ensure conflicts are avoided to that left turn and there are no issues between Mayberry driveway street interaction. Vice Chairman Boling stated that there will be additional traffic studies required in order to ascertain what traffic mitigation measures might be needed along 19th Street. Engineering Director Welday responded that a design exercise will be conducted to ensure the design accommodates those considerations. Vice Chairman Boling stated that no decision has been made yet because that analysis has not been completed. Engineering Director Welday responded that they have looked at it as part of the development review and they are comfortable they can fit in the turn lanes that may be needed to make it work. Vice Chairman Boling asked if it is determined that there would be a conflict, would there be a possibility of having a right-in/right-out for the Hamilton project. Engineering Director Welday answered that they do not currently have it conditioned that way but that would be an option they would look at. Chairman Morales asked Planning Director Nakamura for a brief summary of the State Density Bonus Law and how it impacts the city. Planning Director Nakamura provided an overview of the State Density Bonus Law and how it impacts the city’s limitations in the development review process. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Hamilton provided a brief PowerPoint presentation with key points on the project. 19- units, 4 Bonus units and 1 unit is very low-income affordable. (copy on file). Commissioner Dopp stated that for the record, the commissioners are generally not opposed to housing projects or creating more affordable units. He shared that the commissioners attended a conference recently, and they discussed urban strategies and how to create more synergic communities and addressed the affordability crisis. He asked how affordable will this project be for the average family, since having one unit does not really make it an affordable project. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 2 of 12 Applicant Hamilton said the very low-income unit will be in the $100,000 - $200,000 range. He said what they found out is there is a big demand for detached houses for young families. Commissioner Dopp asked if he had a price point in mind. Applicant Hamilton responded that the units are between 1,500 and 1,550 square feet and are expected to be priced around $700,000. Commissioner Dopp asked if he thinks it is affordable for people in their 20 and 30’s. Applicant Hamilton answered that it is as affordable as it can be. Commissioner Dopp stated that they are using all these waivers to maximize their revenue and that it is their right but then decided that every single plan on one side of the street is going to look exactly the same and then on the other side of the street will look the same, with almost no variety. Is it too much to ask to have some variety in this project and make it more architecturally vivid. Applicant Hamilton explained that the changes were made in response to the Design Review Committee comments, aiming for a more cohesive project in line with the architect’s vision. Commissioner Dopp responded that the state law grants him that right and respectively disagreed with that assessment. Vice Chairman Boling stated during the Design Review Committee meeting there were a number of issues that were brought up and suggestions to address some of those concerns. He asked how they would characterize the project before them tonight as compared to what was presented at the Design Review Committee. He asked what changes, if any were made. Applicant Hamilton answered they added a second-floor plan and made additional enhancements to the elevations on the end units by adding some additional windows and siding. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the color scheme between 1 and 2 had changed. Applicant Hamilton answered no. Vice Chairman Boling asked if any amenities were added elsewhere throughout the project. Applicant Hamilton answered no. Vice Chairman Boling went through all 29 Waivers being proposed and asked the Applicant to provide how each waiver, if not approved, would preclude construction. Applicant Hamilton answered to most of the questions, if not all, by stating it is a physical constraint or impossibility. Vice Chairman Boling asked about Wavier number #29; the minimum number of floor plans elevations variations, two floor plans would be required and three elevations. He asked if he is providing two floor plans but only one elevation. Applicant Hamilton answered they have three different elevations, including the enhanced right and enhanced left design. Vice Chairman Boling asked if he added a second-floor plan, after the Design Review Committee meeting. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 3 of 12 Applicant Hamilton confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling asked if Waiver number #29 could potentially be withdrawn. Applicant Hamilton replied if that is how staff interprets it, then potentially yes. Vice Chairman Boling commented that this is the highest number of waivers he recalls seeing on a residential project without a master plan or development agreement and there are only 19 units. Chairman Morales stated the applicant mentioned he has completed several of these attainable housing developments and asked whether any of them featured more diverse architecture and color schemes, or if they were all similarly minimal in design. Applicant Hamilton answered he has done both. Chairman Morales asked if he thinks having at least three-color schemes would help make it look better. Applicant Hamilton responded that they would be open to adding a third color scheme. Alta Loma School District Board Member Rebecca Davies expressed concerns about student’s safety and traffic congestion near the elementary school at Hamilton Street and requests a gate to prevent through traffic. Resident and friend of the Applicant, Steve Landis, expressed support of the project, stating that it would be a positive addition to the area. He added that from a financial standpoint, if nothing is done now, the site may never be developed. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp noted that while the applicant’s intent to reduce home prices is commendable, the core frustration lies in the sheer volume of those requests. Although the project meets a real housing need, it shows little innovation in design or planning. Instead, it seems the applicant focused primarily on maximizing legal allowances to push the project through. Commissioner Dopp talked about the gate. He expressed sympathy for Deer Canyon Elementary and understands the dynamics on Hamilton Street in itself and concerns of what adding an extra street will have on the community. He said that it is not being ignored but he is just unsure about having a gate there, sometimes they add more problems than they actually solve. He asked staff if there is a way to put in the conditions for a traffic study and have a conversation if there might be ways to solve this problem or alternate solutions. Planning Director Nakamura acknowledged the concerns and stated that discussions have taken place with the school district. She emphasized the need to avoid unintended consequences from new development and said evaluations will be conducted prior to construction to assess potential impacts, and that the situation will continue to be monitored as it progresses. She also remarked that the Engineering Department is typically very responsive in addressing concerns as they arise. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 4 of 12 Vice Chairman Boling addressed a couple of the comments made by the applicant. It was indicated that 1 out of 4 units were affordable, specific to the density bonus units. He wanted to make sure that was clear so no one in the audience or the general public think that 1 out of 4 of all the units are going to be affordable or attainable. The applicant also indicated, during his presentation, that one home for one lot relegates us into a reduction to the standards. He asked the applicant are we not subdividing this parcel into individual lots for each unit and is that not normally how residential is developed one unit per lot, unless it is an ADU. He said there are plenty of instances throughout the city where one unit is on one lot and deviations, waivers and requests of this magnitude are not profitable. He expressed he does agree that the choice of product definitely drives a number of units, and the choice of his product has driven a significant number of waivers and reductions, and it feels like the only codes that we are following are Building and Safety Codes and Fire Codes. Development codes are out the window. Vice Chairman Boling addressed a comment to Alta Loma School District and the concerns that were brought up by the Board Member. He said it is always interesting when a new development comes into a neighborhood that has an existing school, and the school is concerned about additional traffic and potential safety issues that might come forth as a result of adding new housing. However, what is often forgotten, is that decades ago when existing residential housing was there and a school was not, residents that lived in the neighborhood prior to the school, had significant concerns about a new school going in and what traffic hazards and increased safety measures were going to transpire. He said as it pertains to state law and the challenges the commission faces, this is more geared to the general public and partially to staff. Vice Chairman Boling said in regards to the Design Review Committee meeting there were several concerns from residents, as well as commissioners, about this project; inadequate parking, setbacks, lack of amenities, density, singular style for all units leading to a cut and paste look and we also heard from residents the sentiment the city probably should not build housing units like this but beyond our city boundaries, Rancho Cucamonga and other cities are being blamed for not producing enough housing in response to a declared housing crisis but it is actually private market forces coupled with state mandates that control the outcome of what gets built and when, not the city. He said Rancho Cucamonga is not trying to over develop or compromise the character of our neighborhoods, but rather, trying to follow complex state laws while fighting an uphill battle to keep or regain local control over residential development matters. Vice Chairman Boling stated what we are dealing with here is the untenable scenario of state bureaucrats and developers taking over how our community is built. We the city are often the ones forced to implement the consequences of a one size fits none state policy or mandates passed in Sacramento which then affects our neighborhoods. He said if the community is upset from this reality, he strongly encourages them to hold their state elected officials accountable and push for reform. He said here in Rancho, we are doing everything we can to navigate the state- imposed requirements while trying to protect the character and quality of life that makes Rancho Cucamonga a world class city. Chairman Morales mentioned that the applicant is willing to do three color schemes and asked staff how we can take him up on his offer. Planning Director Nakamura responded if the commissioner would like to entertain this, staff has prepared a Condition of Approval that could be added to the project. It would state; prior to the issuance of building permits, a minimum of three-color schemes shall be provided subject to Planning Director review and approval. Vice Chairman Boling asked the Assistant City Attorney that of the remaining waivers that are on the table, is there any legal grounds for us denying any of the remaining waivers that have been requested. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 5 of 12 Assistant City Attorney Read explained that per state law, the standard is you have to make specific findings based on substantial evidence that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on public health or safety, and this requires significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impacts based on objective identified written public or health safety standards. She recalled the applicant mentioned Waiver number #29 potentially being removed from the list. She recommended that the Chairman ask the applicant to come back up to state that on the record. Chairman Morales invited the applicant back to the podium. Applicant Hamilton stated that as long as what we have are considered two floor plans and three elevations, then we do not seem to need that wavier. Planning Director Nakamura stated she had staff do additional research on this and they do not believe the current enhancement was considered an additional elevation, it would have to be of a separate design. She said the wavier can be proposed and modified since they did provide two floor plans because they had the primary and reverse floor plan but that it would need to maintain the elevations as only one was provided. Vice Chairman Boling stated Waiver number #29 could be amended to reflect the request of three distinct elevations being waived as opposed to the two floor plans. Applicant Hamilton agreed. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-019 to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249 with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval adding three-color schemes and the affirmation amendments to Conditions #3 and #6 for Planning, and #5 for Engineering and staffing conditions to amend Waiver number #29 to element the wavier for two floor plans. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION – TRUE LIFE COMPANIES - A request for site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use project comprised of 50 multi-family units including 10 live/work units, and a tentative tract map for condominium purposes located on approximately 2.3 acres of land within the Neighborhood General 3 (NG3) Zone, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue; APN: 0208-432-16. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15332 (SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109, Minor Exception DRC2025-00055). Associate Planner Mendez provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Dopp asked staff if there were conversations with the developer about traffic calming devices on that major north-south street near the development, like speed humps to make it a bit more difficult for the average vehicle to see it as a short cut. Associate Planner Mendez responded that while there is nothing preventing vehicles from driving through, the section of Ruby Avenue includes two speed humps that will help reduce vehicle speeds and slow traffic down. Vice Chairman Boling asked staff for clarification on the speed hump for Ruby Avenue. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 6 of 12 HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 7 of 12 Associate Planner Mendez clarified that the extension of Ruby Avenue with the speed humps applies only on the project site. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. True Life Properties Vice President Gordon Jones introduced Applicant David Stearn who provided a brief PowerPoint presentation to the Commissioners. (copy on file). Commissioner Dopp asked the applicant what work experience does their firm have with live/work units, and what do they see in terms of potential out there to develop those units. He said, for the record, it has been his contention that live/work units usually do not hit the metric for retail. This is not a site that is super conducive to retail, but the mixed-use component still needs to be there. Applicant Stearn answered they have a fair amount of experience with it. He mentioned there are some challenges with this site such as the grade being 4 ft. below Base Line. Also, they have an existing retaining wall the city built that preserves that grade, and they have the access easement they share with assisted living facility. He said that makes a true retail site challenging here. There are a couple of unique things the city asked for them to do; 1) There is a restriction renting them out. 2) It is not set up for food uses. He said as a benefit, there are two entrances with a separate residential entrance from the entrance to the commercial space. Commissioner Dopp asked whether anything would prevent someone from using the space for storage. Applicant Stearn responded that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) include provisions for annual garage inspections to ensure they are being used for actual parking rather than storage and noted that these measures can be expanded. Commissioner Dopp expressed concern about the units facing a major corridor and emphasized the importance of establishing clear guidelines to prevent owners from making unauthorized modifications. Vice Chairman Boling clarified that the parking management plan includes provisions for periodic inspection of the garage spaces. He noted that enforcement would primarily be handled by the Homeowners Association (HOA), with city enforcement serving as backup if necessary. The following persons commented on the project: Suzanne Luegering, Jennifer Diaz, Kristine Hatanaka, Travis T van Bibber, and Ronald Rempel. Included the following concerns/comments: •Traffic •Trash •Design does not fit with neighborhood •Ruby Avenue connection •Setback •Homeless •Privacy •Parking •Crime/Safety •Replace with a park 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 details: •Letter from California Housing Defense Fund reminding the city of its obligation to abide by the relevant state laws. •Email from Kristine Hatanaka expressed concerns about safety, traffic, parking, noise pollution, crime and obstructed views. •Email from James and Karen Cordova expressed concerns on the parking and traffic. •Email from Patrick and Angelina Soto noted concern about backyard view and building mass, amenity area setback and parking. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Applicant Stearn responded to the setback concern, stating that considerable time was spent ensuring all utilities worked. He added that they made every effort to honor 30-foot setback from the property line. Commissioner Dopp noted public testimony was heard. He said he would like to have more conversations with developers that are open, and flexible. He said we are going to look at the project that is placed in front of them with the parameters given by the General Plan. Some of the resident’s concerns about setbacks are reasonable and some concessions were made by the developer. He asked staff if there is a way to add a condition or through code compliance to ensure those units are used as live/work. Planning Director Nakamura reiterated his concern that the live/work unit will not actually be used as work use space. She noted that the applicant plans to include this requirement in the deed restrictions as part of the CC&Rs upon purchase. She added that enforcement could potentially begin with the HOA and, if necessary, be followed by the city. Associate Planner Mendez added that this site does require a non-residential component because the project is including 3,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor place, the property is held to that. It could not be legally converted or used as a residential space. If that were to happen, there would be a response to that through Code Enforcement to correct that action because that space itself also has separate occupancy from the residential component of that unit. Vice Chairman Boling stated that we heard an example presented by the developer of what could be built in order to put things in perspective that they have scaled back, and they did a good job of identifying the maximum extreme on this site and we heard residents speak to the extreme on the other side. He said, a developer could do a more intense project and alternatively, residents could all pony up the money, buy it from the developer and leave it vacant. He said that when he first heard about this project, his concern was the northbound ingress/egress. He understood initially there may not have been an alignment of Amethyst for this project and that would have been horrendous to have an offset entry, that was concerning to him, but it has been worked out through an agreement with the residential housing facility. Vice Chairman Boling addressed one of the concerns that came up a few times by residents, that this type of project being placed here; project good, placement bad. He said in traditional urban planning you have to have some kind of transition from single-family residential to something else because it cannot all be single-family residential. At Base Line, if you look across the street, you have a shopping center and at Archibald, you have true retail. He said having mixed-use serves as a buffer, as something to take you from this to that. The project, as proposed, is in between and is even more residential than retail in that the 10 live/work units cannot support true retail. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 8 of 12 You cannot put food or retail store front where your customer base is coming through constantly, since there is not enough parking, and the visibility is not good. It is not conducive to that type of retail business. He said what it is conducive to is professional services. Those type of businesses in this development are less impactful to the surrounding community than if it had been built out with a more traditional retail space. He noted that he applauds them for providing something less. Vice Chairman Boling stated that we saw a project earlier tonight and in contrast with another developer, this developer had reduced the bedroom in one unit in order to address the city and community concerns of meeting the parking requirements. That is profit margin they had taken out. They addressed landscaping in order to help with privacy and visibility to the neighboring houses. They relocated HVAC units to address noise concerns from the community. They addressed some of the privacy issues, they changed the number of windows and the type of windows and the placement in order to help ensure greater privacy. He said those types of compromises are what makes this process work. As opposed to state mandates and having the developer force us to approve projects some might consider to be lousy. He expressed how he appreciated the communities’ inputs, and he hopes they appreciate that some developers are listening and are working to try their best to address their concerns. The commissioners work hard on behalf of the community as dedicated volunteers, striving to ensure that the highest- quality projects are brought into the community. Chairman Morales expressed his support for building for-sale homes rather than apartments noting that homeowners are more likely to take pride over ownership. He thanked the residents for their participation and efforts in helping to improve the development. He also expressed appreciation for the developer’s responsiveness to the concerns raised by the community and for listening to their needs. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-021 to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109 and Minor Exception DRC2025- 00055. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz D3. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 16.36.09 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, repeal Planning Commission Resolution 87-96, and add Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code concerning undergrounding overhead utilities. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Principal Engineer Miguel Sotomayor provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Dopp asked whether the commissioners will see at any point what the determinations have been on undergrounding on a specific project. Planning Director Nakamura responded that it could be included if that determination is made early on during the review process. Commissioner Dopp recommended including it as an addendum. He asked about the six regions in-lieu fees previously collected, if they would get deposited into the respective bank. Engineering Director Welday explained that since the fees were collected citywide, they would likely be allocated to projects within the six regions as needs arise. If a project is underfunded, the regional bank would be used to cover the gap. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 9 of 12 Commissioner Dopp said he noticed parts of the south side of Foothill are not included in the focus areas and asked what the reason was for not being included, especially on the eastern end of town. Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that the focus areas correspond to those identified in the General Plan. Commissioner Dopp explained that his reasoning is based on the idea that if Foothill is being presented as the major corridor, it should logically be the primary focus area. Engineering Director Welday added that the focus areas are aligned with the General Plan the way the ordinance is currently written. He said there is also a provision in the ordinance that requires undergrounding in adopted specific plan areas. He said for most part, the areas along Foothill have been undergrounded and the areas that have not been undergrounded likely would not fall into any of the categories for exemptions anyway. Vice Chairman Boling clarified that we have projects that would require undergrounding but not right now because it is unfeasible for that particular developer to do it, in which case, they would pay in-lieu fees. He asked if there are projects that would be exempt from having to pay in-lieu fees. Principal Engineer Sotomayor confirmed that there would be and said it would be spelled out in the ordinance. Vice Chairman Boling reaffirmed there will be three types of projects that would be under consideration; 1) Those that would require undergrounding, 2) Those that would pay the in-lieu fees which would be used at a future time when sufficient funds are collected to pay for the total underground project, 3) Those projects that would be accepted. He asked what would happen if money is being used that was collected in another area of town in order to make up some deficiency that exists, and now that area has to be underground and the money had already been spent. Engineering Director Welday explained that the dollars that have been collected are not delegated to any particular region, they are delegated city wide. He said they would have to go back and look at nearly 50 years of transactions to try to untangle that. The cleanest way to do it is to look at it as there is still a general benefit within those regions and going forward, they would segregate it into the regions and before that they would have to use it as a bank to supplement the projects that are in each of those regions. Vice Chairman Boling asked what happens to the undergrounding of the area where that first project 50 years ago paid their in-lieu fees, and now and now it is going to be undergrounded. Where did those dollars come from. Engineering Director Welday said he is not sure he is following, adding that there seems to be a lot of hypotheticals. Vice Chairman Boling stated it seems like we are leap frogging the money, but we will figure it out. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 10 of 12 For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet expressing support of the proposed ordinance. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: •Letter from Esoteric Homes Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp mentioned that streamlining parts of the process makes a lot of sense. He emphasized that as a discussion moves forward to City Council, it is important to understand the outcomes of projects, especially when utilities like wiring are involved, so they can develop a holistic vision of what future developments might look like. Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the callout regarding the exemptions related to the focus areas. He also said he valued the clearly defined appeal process, noting that it will certainly help developers and project applicants. He added that these measures encourage responsible development in streamlined infill projects and expressed gratitude for the hard work of the Engineering department. Chairman Morales stated that the commissioners had previously reviewed some projects that required undergrounding, which raised concerns due to limited frontage. He noted this will fix it and make it better. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-022 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 16.36.09 and adding Chapter 17.84 to the Municipal Code. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz D4. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend the zoning map designation for Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072-2, and 16072-3, totaling approximately 150.79 acres, to amend the zoning designation from neighborhood Estate 2 (NE- 2) to Low Residential (L), and ensure consistency with the configuration and development standards of a previously approved 359 lot single-family residential subdivision, in a manner consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. This project qualifies for an exemption under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), as the proposed zoning map amendment will not have any direct impact on the environment. Tracts 16072, 16072- 1, 16072-2, and 16072-3. (Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141). Associate Planner Claudia Vargas provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Resident Stephen P. Gutierrez expressed concerns about noise, increased traffic, trash and crime. Resident Erick Space had questions about zoning and requested clarification if any new lots would be created. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed that no new lots would be created and amending the zoning designation would allow the developer to use the same development standards and the homes to the west. HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 11 of 12 HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025 Page 12 of 12 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-018 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the zoning map as presented in the Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. E.Director Announcements Planning Director Nakamura announced we have been awarded the Award of Merit which makes us the second-best Planning Agency in the State of California this year. She also mentioned that the next Planning Commission meeting will take place in the Tri-Communities Room due to construction in the Council Chambers. F.Commission Announcements - None H.Adjournment Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved: