Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-22 - Minutes - HPC-PCHPC/PC Final Minutes Page 1 of 9 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda October 22, 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 October 22, 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; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner; Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst; 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 8, 2025. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – ROBERT TOBIN ON BEHALF OF ADRIAN BUIGUES – A request to subdivide an existing 19,252-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Low (L) Residential Zone, located at 9817 Base Line Road; APN: 1077-011-02. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20935). Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Robert Tobin, along with Architect Doug Andresen were present and available to answer questions. They stated that they did not receive the Conditions of Approval. Planning Director Nakamura stated that the Conditions of Approval, along with the Staff Report, was sent to the applicant via email, and was posted on the website on Thursday, October 16th. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 2 of 9 Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that the applicant had been given the opportunity to review the Conditions of Approval provided by staff and therefore had ample time to do so. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Commissioner Daniels suggested to allow the applicant a few minutes to look over a hard copy of the Conditions of Approval while the Commission deliberates. Applicant Tobin, along with Architect Andresen reviewed the documents. Commissioner Daniels stated that he had spoken with the City Engineer regarding the ingress and egress easement on Parcel 2. He noted that he had not realized the easement was intended for Parcel 1, ensuring that any future development on that parcel would access London Avenue rather than Base Line Road. He commented that this was an excellent addition to the map. Vice Chairman Boling stated that in the Conditions of Approval, number 7, Subsection 1, the Engineering Services Department requires the applicant to provide fiber optic conduit along Base Line Road. He further stated that Subsection 2 requires the same along London Avenue and inquired about the rationale for this requirement, given that London Avenue is a small residential cul-de-sac. He asked to explain how this aligns with the City’s Master Plan for fiber optics. Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that it is the City’s requirement for developers to install fiber optic conduit along project frontages to support future connectivity. He added that the City’s long-term goal is to have fiber installed citywide. Vice Chairman Boling expressed appreciation to the applicant for preparing the proposed parcel map noting that it aligns the subject site with the General Plan and zoning for future use. He added that while it may not reflect the current use, it appropriately prepares the site for future development while respecting the long-term operation of Parcel 1 as a valued community asset, the Child Care Center. He asked staff to confirm that the Child Care Center would be permitted to continue operating as legal nonconforming use, provided that operations are not discontinued for an extended period of time. Assistant Planner Lee confirmed. Chairman Morales re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond after reviewing the Conditions of Approval. Applicant Tobin stated that they had reviewed the Conditions of Approval, found them to be standard, and had no objections. He apologized for the earlier confusion. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-038 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20935. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – JACLYN MCDOWELL ON BEHALF OF MARK REYNOSO – A request to subdivide an existing 76,782-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone Avenue; APN: 1061-251-32. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20985). Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) and noted that a few typographical errors had been identified in the Staff Report and draft Resolution; corrections were made, and red-lined copies were provided on the dais. Corrections in the Proposed Lots; changed Parcel 1 from 21,926 sq. ft. to 54,855 sq. ft., and Parcel 2 from 54,855 sq. ft. to 21,926 sq. ft. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Dopp inquired about Parcel 2 on the east end of the lot, nothing that the staff report lists the minimum lot width as 142 feet and 383 feet, though it appears to be approximately 9-10 feet. He asked how the measurement was calculated and how it complies with applicable standards. Assistant Planner Lee responded that staff had expressed similar concerns. However, she noted that there are no objective findings to recommend denial, as the subdivision meets the development standards required for the underlying zone. She added that the measurements are based on definitions of lot depth and lot width as outlined in the Development Code. Commissioner Daniels stated that the Government Code allows denial of subdivisions based on issues of public health or safety, referencing Section 66474, which provides legal grounds for denial if a project poses serious health problems. He noted that while the subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning, be believes the proposed layout of the two parcels is poor. He expressed concern that the flag portion of the lot may not be properly maintained and could become an eyesore to the community. He then sought assistance from legal counsel. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she is not sure we can correlate a bad design to a health problem. She said we would need a bit more facts, such as studies to back up a denial based on a health issue. Commissioner Daniels stated that the proposed design creates an untenable situation with the long, narrow flag portion of the lot and the adjoining areas to the west. He commented that the configuration appears to serve no purpose other than to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. The applicant explained that the lot’s angled design is due to the existing contours of the site. He noted that an existing driveway and a grove of mature trees along that driveway influenced the layout, as they wished to preserve the trees. He stated that one of the requirements is that the lot must extend completely through the site and connect to both sides. He explained that, although that portion of the lot is not necessary, it was included to meet site requirements. He added that the intent is to divide the property, so the back house and pool remain, with plans to rebuild the house and resurface the pool. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Larry Weidinger, Gary Drejdan, Maureen Malady-Myers. The comments included the following concerns: • Privacy • Health hazard • Mountain view • Wall height • Habitat area • Septic • Bridle trail around property The applicant provided an explanation on the following: • Trees – The grove of mature pine trees will be left alone. • Septic – Septic will be done by professional engineers. • Height and placement of the building – They are abiding by all code standards. • Bridle Trail – Will be addressed during planning. Commissioner Dopp stated that there is a gate at the rear of Parcel 2 and inquired whether the future property owner would be responsible for maintaining the area. He expressed concern that, while there is an intent to preserve the existing trees, lack of proper maintenance could pose a public health and safety risk, particularly related to wildfires. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 4 of 9 Applicant confirmed and indicated maintaining the area it is something that can be added to the Conditions of Approval. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Commissioner Dopp asked staff to clarify the requirement for property lines to extend from the front to the back of the site. He referenced the applicant’s statement that the lot was designed to reach the east end of the parcel to satisfy a city code requirement and requested confirmation as to whether such a provision exists in the regulations. Planning Director Nakamura responded that staff would review the subdivision ordinance during deliberations, noting that the cited requirement is not one she is familiar with. She clarified that the current application pertains solely to the lot split and is unrelated to any future approval of the house design, which would be addressed separately through the entitlement process. She emphasized that today’s focus is on the subdivision of the two lots. Commissioner Dopp stated that he finds it difficult to support a parcel with such an irregular shape due to potential management and liability concerns. He commended that a large portion of the parcel appears unviable as a standalone property. While acknowledging that this is not sufficient grounds for denial, he expressed discomfort with the configuration. Commissioner Daniels concurred with Commissioner Dopp. He also stated he would like to see the rear flag portion combined with Parcel 1. He explained that as a Commission, part of their responsibility is to try to make good planning and have parcels that makes sense. With that in mind, he is uncomfortable approving this because he believes it is a terrible design, especially after seeing the amount of land available in Parcel 1. Commissioner Diaz and Vice Chairman Boling concurred. Planning Director Nakamura suggested re-opening the public hearing to allow the applicant to return and clarify which concerns they are willing or unwilling to address. She said that she was unable to identify any provision in the subdivision ordinance requiring the east-west lot configuration but stated that staff would further review and examine the matter. Regarding variances, she explained that they may be granted for development standards outlined in Title 17. Therefore, if a variance related to lot standards were necessary, it could be considered. In response to concerns about the existing trees, she explained that all departments will review the site once a development application is submitted. If the property is located within a high fire hazard zone, there may be requirements for the removal of certain trees and the replanting of fire-adaptive trees as part of the new development. Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing. Applicant stated if there is nothing in the code that indicates they have to extend all the way across the subdivision, he would be open to revising that and going with the quickest approval process possible to avoid further delays for his client. He said he would be okay with going perhaps a little bit under 20,000 sq. ft. in Parcel 2 and could easily remove 1,200 sq. ft. right away. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Planning Director Nakamura stated the Commissioners have the following choices to make: • Accept staff’s recommendation for approval, • If they feel they have the findings to make a denial, they can do so, or • Continue the item to a date uncertain and allow staff to work with the applicant to finalize any revisions and to determine what the best path forward would be. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to continue this item to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 5 of 9 Commissioner Daniels noted that the Commission is not reviewing the development of the parcels at this time and stated he was unclear whether the existing structure would be refurbished. He requested that a small reference map be provided showing the locations of structures on the parcels. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that it would not be appropriate if only considering a lot split. The potential proposal on a lot split could change over time because it is in preliminary review right now. Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on whether the house will remain. Planning Director Nakamura replied that as staff mentioned in the report, the house is to be demolished but the idea is to rebuild in the same place. Commissioner Daniels stated that it was not clear as the applicant indicated something different. D3. DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION, VARIANCE – VINOVA (LENNAR) - A request for site plan and architectural review of 166 single-family residences within an approved tract map on approximately 70- acres located near the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue; (Tracts 16072 and 16072- 2). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162. (Design Review DRC2024-00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, Variance DRC2025-00169). Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant was present and available to answer questions. For the record, correspondence from Lozeau Drury, LLP was received following the preparation of the agenda packet, expressing opposition to the project. The correspondence should be referred to for further details. Resident Edward Aldaz had the following concerns: • Wall placement • Health risk – vermin • Digging close to home Applicant responded to the wall concerns and said there will be permitted walls built around the homes. They will be developing everything within property line and the track boundaries. Principal Planner McPherson clarified that the walls referenced were primarily interior walls to the approved lots. He said this project will also include walls along the perimeter as is standard in a subdivision like this. Relative to the comment about any additional grading, it has already commenced. There is no expectation that grading beyond the boundaries which have already been graded will occur. The application before the commission tonight is relative to the construction of the homes on those, previously graded lots. Commissioner Daniels referred to the two different roofing materials being proposed and that several of the units feature standard seam walls. He commented that typically only one type of roofing material is used and asked for the reason behind the use of two. Applicant explained that it is an architectural feature intended to create diversity. Commissioner Daniels commented on the gable roof extending over the entrance appears awkward with the flat wall positioned in front of it. He also inquired how the two subdivisions will be phased. Applicant responded that they are trying to revisit the traditional style in a contemporary way. In terms of the phasing, there are essentially two different product lines. The one-story and two-story homes will be built simultaneously. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Daniels stated that the Fire Department will likely require two access points prior to the storing of lumber for construction and asked if the developer will construct the street network. Applicant confirmed that approximately 90% of the street network has been constructed. Commissioner Daniels asked if Lennar designed the parks. Applicant answered that it is a mutual effort and want to do the best they can for the community. Commissioner Daniels complimented the project. He said it is very nice and will be a good asset to the development of the community. He asked if Wilson Avenue will be open soon. Applicant answered that they will open it as soon as they can. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that he got to see this at the Design Review Committee meeting. He remembers comments being made about the front wall, possibly making it a balcony. Aside from that, it was decided that most of the designs were appropriate for the neighborhood. He indicated he is a big fan of some of the amenities. For example, the Central Paseo he originally was pushing for with the developer when there was a lack of one on a map that was before them a few years ago. It is nice to see it carried out because it was not a requirement at the time. He said that the design helps create a stronger sense of community within a subdivision, noting that traditional urban studies show such connectivity is often missing in developments characterized by long roads. He added that incorporating amenities and green spaces at a central nexus point will provide an excellent gathering area and be a valuable enhancement to the project. Commissioner Daniels stated he went through all the minor exceptions and the variances and did not have any problems with the waivers that are being requested which are very minor. Commissioner Diaz stated that we have 166 new single-family homes coming to an area of the city where people want them, and it is very exciting. She said the issues presented are minor exceptions and expressed no concerns. She supports staffs’ determination that the CEQA report on file remains relevant and applicable, and stated that she looks forward to seeing the project move forward. Vice Chairman Boling stated, as mentioned previously, there were some issues and concerns addressed at the Design Review Committee meeting related to a couple of the models and elevations. The applicant’s submission and provision of the 3D rendering helped give them a better perspective of what those products are intended to look like. As it pertains to the minor exceptions and variances, they are nominal. Regarding the letter that was received by the city late in the process challenging the previously certified EIR, there have been no substantial changes nor new uses planned for this project, so he sees no issues or problems. As it pertains to the comment made by the public, he strongly encouraged the resident to speak directly to the applicants representative pertaining to the issues and questions that he has that are beyond the scope of the commission’s actions being taken tonight. Chairman Morales addressed the public comment regarding rodents, stating that those issues should subside as the site is developed. He thanked the applicant for working collaboratively with staff to ensure the project is completed properly. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025- 036 approving Design Review DRC2024-00395, Variance DRC2025-00169 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00168. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 7 of 9 D4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in compliance with State ADU Law. This item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15282(h). A public hearing will be held by the City Council for final action at a future date to be determined. (DRC2025-00072). Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification regarding the ADU pre-approved plans and whether any member of the public may request access to those plans. Planning Director Nakamura described the pre-approval process. Any licensed contractor, engineer or architect may submit a plan for an ADU. The City conducts an initial review, and once approved, the plans are filed and posted on the City’s website. She noted that anyone may use the City’s pre-approved plans to apply for an ADU, which is the basis of the City’s ADU Pre-Approved Program. Commissioner Daniels asked Assistant City Attorney Young why penalties cannot be imposed for an unpermitted ADU built two to five years ago and later discovered by the City. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she had not reviewed the legislative intent behind the provision but suggested that the state may have recognized the large number of unpermitted additions constructed by property owners for various reasons. She explained that if those additions were built to code and can be legalized, this process provides a pathway for doing so without penalty, thereby creating additional housing units that the City can count toward its housing requirements. Commissioner Daniels asked if there is a timeframe for compliance, if an ADU is discovered. Staff responded that they do not believe there is a timeframe. Planning Director Nakamura mentioned if work is done without building permits there is a 50% penalty. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that the amendment will make it somewhat easier to meet the City’s housing goals. He noted that while the overall impact may be limited due to the small number of lots over 20,000 square feet, it still represents a move in the right direction. Vice Chairman Boling said he is encouraged at the number of ADU’s that have been developed in the city over the past few years. He expressed appreciation for staff’s diligence in bringing forward Municipal Code Amendments such as this one. Chairman Morales thanked staff for their hard work in updating the regulations to ensure consistency with state ADU law. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-035 recommending that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00072. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D5. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to amend Section 12.20.080 of Chapter 12.20 of Title 12 and Sections 17.20.020 and 17.20.040 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(B)(5) and 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. (DRC2025-00254). HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 8 of 9 Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief summary and report on the item. She requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Municipal Code Amendment in order to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. Vice Chairman Boling recommended that staff send a letter of appreciation to the committee members, formally thanking them for their service and notifying them that their duties have concluded. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-034 recommending that the City Council approve the Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00254 to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D6. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating First Floor Non-Residential Dimensions and Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Non-Residential Dimensions for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 MEETING) Planning Director Nakamura requested that this item be continued to November 12th, 2025, meeting to allow additional time to finalize remaining details. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Chairman Morales announced that this item will remain open to the November 12th HPC/PC meeting. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to continue this item to November 12th Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. General Business E1. Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting bylaws for the Design Review Committee Management Analyst Estrada provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that several Commissioners previously requested clarification regarding absences, so he appreciates the effort. Commissioner Daniels thanked staff for doing a great job. Vice Chairman Boling thanked staff for helping to address concerns that come up which have the potential to delay developer and resident applications. He said these steps moving forward, reflect the City’s pro- business and pro-resident position. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Diaz expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts on this item and that it responds to the needs raised by the Commissioners. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-033 repealing Resolution 79-61 and approving the bylaws for the Design Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F.Director Announcements Planner Director Nakamura announced that one meeting is scheduled for both November and December. She noted there will be no second meeting in November due to the Thanksgiving holiday and no second meeting in December, as it falls on Christmas Eve and City Hall will be closed until after the new year. She provided an update on the Planning Commissions memo which was presented to City Council last week. City Council expressed their appreciation for the work the Commissioners do and know that density bonus projects are very difficult and complicated. They are considering the following actions: 1) Sharing the memo with the City’s lobbyists, who can communicate the real-world impacts of certain housing laws during meetings with state representatives. 2)Having Council Member Kristine Scott, who serves on the Board for the Inland Empire Division of the League of California Cities, raise the issue at their next meeting to explore whether other cities may wish to collaborate on a unified message regarding density bonus law projects and their impacts. G.Commission Announcements - None H.Adjournment Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC November 12, 2025 Meeting.