Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-27 - Minutes - HPC-PCHPC/PC Minutes Page 1 of 8 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda August 27, 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 August 27, 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, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Jared Knight, Assistant Planner; Caleb Richards, Senior Landscape Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Resident Marsha Banks inquired about the future of the Etiwanda Depot property on Etiwanda Avenue. Principal Planner McPherson shared with the Commission that comment is related to an item on a recent closed session agenda of a City Council meeting. He explained that the property in question is a city-owned parcel that the city is currently in the process of disposing. As part of that process and in accordance with state law, the city is required to notify potential developers and buyers whenever a city owned property is being considered for disposal. He noted that the city received one response and has been in negotiations with that developer. At this time, there is nothing to present to the Historic Preservation Commission/Planning Commission. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2025. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. HPC/PC Minutes Page 2 of 8 D. Public Hearings D1. Tentative Parcel Map - EGL - A request for the subdivision of an existing 21,000 square foot parcel into two new parcels within the Medium Residential (M) zone and the Hillside Overlay, located at 7444 Avila Avenue. This project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b) (3), as it will not result in a significant or direct impact upon the environment. APN: 0208-921-09 (SUBTPM20986). Assistant Planner Knight provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted in the presentation that the Engineering Department made changes to Conditions 3 and 5 in their section of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioners received a redlined version of the changes on the dais for review. Commissioner Daniels noted that during his site visit to Avila Avenue, he observed the area where the curb curves around. He asked if there would be enough room for the front yard setback once the dedication on Avila is made. Additionally, he noted that the staff report did not indicate what the rear end setback would be at the new property line. He asked whether the setbacks would be met in that zone with that subdivision. Principal Planner McPherson responded that this parcel is on a bit of a slopped nature. To the extent that the property owner would want to propose an actual development of the site in the future, in addition to meeting all the other standards, they would also have to meet our slope requirements and slope density requirements to the extent there would need to be any deviations to those standards because of the topography of the lot, the applicant at that time could apply for a variance. Commissioner Daniels stated that he was curious about existing Parcel 1. He was unsure how much dedication had already been made along Avila Avenue and, if dedications had occurred, whether there was sufficient space between the right-of-way and the front of the garage to meet front yard setback requirements. He also inquired about the rear yard setbacks for the zone, particularly in relation to the existing house rear the west rear property line, and whether any variances would be required for the existing development on Parcel1 to meet setback standards. Principal Planner McPherson responded that, not necessarily, as the residence is existing. To the extent there are any deviations, they would be considered a legal nonconforming situation. Commissioner Daniels expressed his disagreement, stating that with the subdivision, the existing house should be required to meet setback standards since it is creating the parcel on which it is located. Assistant Planner Knight explained that the staff report displays a chart that shows the existing residence’s current and proposed setback as a result of the subdivision. He said the new setback would comply even with the new property lines as the front yard setbacks are measured to curb face, not to the right-of-way. Commissioner Daniels stated that he was unsure of the required setback and asked staff whether Avila Avenue will extend through to the street on the north side. Principal Planner McPherson responded that he would follow up with the information at a later time. HPC/PC Minutes Page 3 of 8 Assistant City Attorney Young noted that according to page 11 of the staff report, the minimum required rear yard setback is 10 feet. She stated that the current rear yard setback before the subdivision is 134 feet, and after the subdivision, it would be 36 feet – still well above the minimum requirement. Commissioner Daniels asked what the front yard setback would be if there is a dedication. Assistant Planner Knight stated the front yard set back would be fundamentally unchanged. Vice Chairman Boling asked for clarification on whether the current configuration of the existing structure is considered legal nonconforming with respect to the current yard setback requirements. Vice Chairman Boling stated that, since the existing structure is not being moved, it would remain in conformity following the parcel split. Principal Planner McPherson confirmed. Assistant City Attorney Young mentioned that the front yard line is not changing. Commissioner Daniels stated that he did not understand how the existing structure could remain conforming. He gave the following example, if a dedication is required on Avila Avenue and reduces the existing 30-foot setback by moving the right-of-way closer to the garage, it would create a parcel with a nonconforming condition. He expressed that in such a case, a waiver should be required, and he did not believe it would qualify as legal nonconforming with the creation of a new parcel. Principal Planner McPherson stated that he does not have that dimension available. Vice Chairman Boling asked staff to display the proposed tentative parcel map for the benefit of the public to view the dimensions, noting that the exhibit is provided as a link in the report. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Engineer could provide the dimensions, if present. For the record, no representative from the Engineering Department was present to answer. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Kent Tsen was in attendance on behalf of the property owner and was available to answer questions. Resident Tran, who lives next door to the property, expressed concerns about trees leaning onto his property and requested their removal. Resident Peterson expressed concern about why the site is being split into two parcels if no construction is planned. Kent Tsen responded to the resident’s concern about the tree issue, stating he would inform the property owner. He also addressed the question about splitting the property into two parcels, explaining that their plan is to sell the parcels and not develop them. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. HPC/PC Minutes Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Dopp stated he has no objections to the lot split. He acknowledged concerns about measurements but noted that, given the medium-density zoning (10,000 sq ft minimum), the existing conditions do not pose a significant issue. He appreciated the staff’s due diligence in addressing the details. He also inquired whether the city plans to install a sidewalk due to the right-of-way or if it is already accounted for. Principal Planner McPherson confirmed that they plan to put in a curb, gutter and sidewalk. Chairman Morales asked staff whether any future development on the new parcel would require review by the Planning Commission or be handled solely by the Planning Department. Principal Planner McPherson answered that it would depend on the project and would be determined at the time of application. Commissioner Daniels expressed that he has no issue with the subdivision but is concerned about the front yard setback and requested guidance. Principal Planner McPherson asked for the applicant’s engineer to address that point. For the record, no representative from the applicant’s engineering team was present to provide a response. Commissioner Diaz asked staff, in relation to Commissioner Daniels’ question, whether the site would become legally nonconforming if a sidewalk is installed, or if it would remain conforming. Principal Planner McPherson responded that, without precise dimensions, he could not provide a definitive answer but noted that the existing house will not be moved. According to the tentative tract map, the house appears to be about 13 feet from the front property line, and any additional dedications would establish the ultimate setback. He clarified that this is an existing condition with no proposal to modify the house footprint. Vice Chairman Boling asked legal counsel whether the subdivision and resulting dedication, created a legal nonconforming situation that would prevent the Commission from approving the subdivision at tonight’s meeting. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she cannot say for certain whether the subdivision would create a legal nonconforming situation, as the Engineering Department, which reviewed and recommended the conditions, was not present. She suggested there may be some flexibility, and if issues arise during the final map processing or if the applicant cannot comply with all conditions, the matter could be brought back to the Planning Commission for further review. Vice Chairman Boling asked whether the creation of a legal nonconforming situation would pose a problem for the Commission in approving the subdivision tonight. Assistant City Attorney Young responded if that situation were to come up and is something staff is not comfortable with, then it would likely come back to the Planning Commission as a modification to the conditions of approval for this tentative map. Vice Chairman Boling asked if it is permissible for the Commission to approve a subdivision that creates a legal nonconforming situation. HPC/PC Minutes Page 5 of 8 Assistant City Attorney Young responded that no one could state with certainty that the Commission would be approving a situation that creates legal nonconformity. However, if such an issue arises during the processing of the final map, it would likely return to the Planning Commission for modifications to ensure compliance and avoid the creation of a nonconforming condition. Vice Chairman Boling stated that the solution could involve modifications or possibly a waiver to allow the nonconforming circumstances. Assistant City Attorney Young confirmed. Commissioner Daniels asked whether it is possible to include a condition requiring the item to return to the Commission if the level of nonconformity is substantially increased, rather than leaving the determination solely to staff. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that if the property is currently legal nonconforming and a substantial change affects that status, it would lose its legal nonconforming designation under the City’s code. She noted that the applicant or property owner likely would not want that to occur. She added that the Commission could include a condition requiring the item to return for further review if the dedication on Avila Avenue would result in the creation of a legal nonconforming condition. Regarding the resident with the overgrown trees, Chairman Morales asked staff who they could contact for assistance. Assistant City Attorney Young mentioned that usually when it is between property owners, it is a private conversation. Commissioner Daniels moved to continue the item for two weeks to allow staff additional time to address the question regarding the front setback. Motion was not seconded and therefore did not pass. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-025 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20986 with the amended Conditions of Approval. Motion carried, 4-1, with Commissioner Daniels in opposition. D2. Tentative Parcel Map – Hongjian Tan – A request for the subdivision of an existing 21,163 square foot parcel into two new parcels within the Low Residential – Etiwanda Specific Plan (L- ESP) zone, located at 13261 Victoria Street. This project qualifies for a Class 15 Categorical Exemption under State CEQA Guidelines 15315 as a Minor Land Division. APN: 0227-121-45 (SUBTPM21001). Senior Landscape Planner Richards provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels inquired whether the flag portion of Parcel 2, which extends to Victoria Street is included in the total lot area under the City’s code. He noted that some cities do not include the flag portion in the calculation. Principal Planner McPherson confirmed that it is included. Commissioner Daniels asked whether the driveways on Parcel 1 will need to be removed and replaced with a conforming driveway or will both driveways remain. HPC/PC Minutes Page 6 of 8 Principal Planner McPherson answered that they will both remain. Senior Landscape Planner Richards clarified the westerly driveway will be demolished and a new driveway of 14 feet will be added with setback of 5 feet from property line. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Tan was in attendance and available to answer questions. The following persons commented on the project: Clara Murillo, Jim Banks, Sean Allaway. Their concerns/comments included the following: • Property value • Traffic • Block wall standards missing in the plans • Drive approach adjustment needed • Requested clarification regarding the future use of Parcel 2 Applicant Tan responded to the public’s concern about splitting the lot, stating that he followed the strict guidelines on the Planning website and that none of the lots are nonconforming. He emphasized that city development encourages new construction rather than leaving lots vacant indefinitely. He plans to build two single-family homes on the property in the future. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Principal Planner McPherson provided a brief overview of the history of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Dopp asked staff to clarify the driveway situation for the parcels. Senior Landscape Planner Richards explained that the driveway to the east will remain the same, the driveway to the west will be demolished and be used as an easement to access Parcel 2. Principal Planner McPherson clarified that there would be one entrance to each of the parcels. Commissioner Dopp asked if denying a parcel map would be subject to state housing laws and what standards the commission can use to deny a parcel map under current regulations. Principal Planner McPherson explained that the State of California is looking to increase housing production and by law, there are now multiple avenues by which a developer can choose to propose and have the city approve a sub-division. In this case, the applicant decided to go with a traditional lot split. In addition, the state now allows for various other types of lot splits up to and including SB9 for example. The applicant could also have chosen to process this lot split by way of an SB9 lot split. Had they chosen that route, a public hearing would not have been required, and instead, would have been processed by staff. Assistant City Attorney Young added that to deny a tentative map, the Commission must disagree with staff’s findings as outlined in the code and the Subdivision Map Act. The Commission would need to state the reasons for denial on the record. A resolution of denial, reflecting the Commission’s direction and facts, would then be prepared. HPC/PC Minutes Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Dopp stated that he wanted the public to understand some of the constraints the Commission faces that limit their options. He acknowledged the residents’ concerns and noted that the matter before them today is only the parcel map. He also expressed a desire for the developer to consider a slightly wider driveway in future development. Commissioner Daniels asked legal counsel whether, in a legal nonconforming situation involving a subdivision, the city should require the nonconforming condition to be corrected at the time of subdivision, or if it can be addressed later when development occurs on Parcel 1. Assistant City Attorney Young explained that she does not believe conformance is required at the time of subdivision. Instead, the trigger for required conformance is outlined in the City’s code and depends on the extent of changes made to the property. Chairman Morales expressed his opposition. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-020 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM21001. Motion carried, 4-1, with Chairman Morales in opposition. E. Commission Business E1. Discussion of State Density Bonus Law. (Verbal Only) Commissioner Daniels began the discussion of the State Density Bonus Law and indicated he prepared a letter that would come from the Planning Commission and go to the City Council who would handle the letter as they see fit. Due to this State Density Bonus Law, the Commissioners have seen projects that in his opinion, are terrible. He expressed that the project seen on Hamilton was the worst project he has ever seen in his entire career. The number of units and the number of waivers requested was a travesty, why even have any development codes. He would like the Commission to review the letter he drafted and make edits as necessary. He suggested to add it to the next meeting agenda. He said he would also like to send it to the League of California Cities and other cities in the area as it might help them to provide input to the legislature that this law is not working for communities. It seems the density bonus law is being used for profit instead of affordable housing which is what the state intended it to be used for. He said it appears the developers are disregarding what the community is trying to accomplish and are doing whatever they want to do. Commissioner Dopp stated the Density Bonus Law prevents us from giving the input that we want to provide. He agrees with the majority of this letter and especially for him, the recommended reforms, that 5% threshold is way too low for them to get those many waivers. He said that developers need to provide the community with clear justification if they are seeking waivers that could destroy the hard work the Commission and Staff have spent hours perfecting, then there needs to be something more to hold them accountable to ensure that cities can pursue both quality housing opportunities and high development standards. Commissioner Diaz concurs with Commissioner Dopp and asked legal counsel what the potential upside and downside doing this would be. HPC/PC Minutes Page 8 of 8 Assistant City Attorney Young responded that there is no significant downside, noting that Rancho Cucamonga is not alone in expressing concerns about the loss of local control over planning – many other cities in the state have voiced similar dissatisfaction. She indicated that Commissioner Daniels’ comments seem aimed more at making a formal statement to the state rather than expecting an immediate response. While it would be beneficial if the state took action, the primary goal is to communicate the city’s position, assuming the Council supports moving the letter forward. She added that the effectiveness of such a statement and any legislative response cannot be predicted. Vice Chairman Boling stated that the Commissioners face the ongoing challenge of balancing their vision for ideal development with the constraints of legal standards, while also striving to create opportunities for developers to build a diverse range of housing types throughout the city. He said the points made in the draft document are fitting but do not seem to go far enough in some areas. He suggested to include a comment about a stepped-incentive program to encourage additional affordable units being developed to implement the legislatures’ goal which is to provide more affordable units throughout the state. He also noted the bullet point that goes along with timelines being imposed by the state and that the cities must turn around project applications within an unreasonable amount of time and if they do not, it is automatically approved. He suggested including some instances in reference to the timelines imposed. Also, regarding bullet point #6, he does not feel comfortable saying we did not receive adequate justification. He suggested rather to indicate that developers are not required by law to submit anymore justification then a blanket statement that without the waiver, the project could not move forward. It was decided that Commissioner Daniels will incorporate the Commissions’ comments and direct staff to place this topic on a future agenda with the intent to develop a document for submission to the City Council. F.Director Announcements - None G.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 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC September 10, 2025 Meeting.