Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-096 - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2025-096 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (DRC2024-00395), MINOR EXCEPTION (DRC2025-00168) AND VARIANCE (DRC2025-00169) - A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 166 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN AN APPROVED TRACT MAP ON APPROXIAMTELY 70-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND WILSON AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. Lennar Homes filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2024- 00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, and Variance DRC2025-00169, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 2025-036 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3. On November 3, 2025, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving the application. 4. On December 3, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the application and making findings in support thereof. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 3, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The project site consists of approximately 70 acres, generally located northeast of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue in the northeastern portion of Rancho Cucamonga, bounded by Etiwanda Avenue to the west and Wilson Avenue; and Resolution No. 2025-096— Page 1 of 7 b. The Tract Map (SUBTT16072) was approved by the City Council on June 16, 2004, the Final Map was approved and recorded in 2023, and associated grading permits were issued in January 2024; c. The applicant proposes the construction of 166 single-family residences on the aforementioned subdivided and graded lots; d. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Low Residential (L) North Vacant General Open Space and Flood Control/Utility Corridor Facilities (FU/UC) South CVWD Facility/ General Open Space and Very Low(VL)/Parks (P) Residential Facilities East Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2) West Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Residential (L) Residence e. In addition to the Design Review application which permits the construction of the proposed single-family residences, the Project also includes a request for a Variance to permit deviations from the following requirements on specific lots within the proposed development: permitted driveway frontage, deficient side yard setbacks, and front yard setbacks the encroachment of structures into required setback areas, and the construction of walls which in certain cases will exceed allowable height limitations. These deviations are necessary due to the design of existing cul-de-sacs, topographical constraints caused by the configuration of the proposed lots, steep terrain, and proximity to seismic fault zones. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 90 and 91, and TR16072 Lots 18, 19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, and 60; and f. The addition to the Design Review and Variance, the application also proposes a Minor Exception to permit deviations from permitted wall heights on certain lots within the proposed development due to topography and proximity to seismic fault zones. The specific lots to which the requested Minor Exception will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 1 and TR16072 Lots 2, 5, 6,12 and 50; and 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby makes the following findings for Design Review (DRC2024-00395) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.040: finds and concludes as follows: Resolution No. 2025-096— Page 2 of 7 a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project site is designated as Traditional Neighborhood. The proposed project aligns with the land use goals and policies identified in the general plan, including the construction of traditional neighborhoods including single-family residences not to exceed 8 dwelling units to the acre; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of this Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Low Residential (L) zone which is intended to accommodate the development of single-family residential neighborhoods. The underlying subdivision map is consistent with subdivision standards which were in place at the time that the subdivision was approved. The subject Low Residential (L) zone anticipates the development of single-family neighborhoods as proposed by the application; and c. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project meets the required standards for site design, circulation, landscaping and parking upon approval of the related request for a variance and minor exception; and d. The City Council has considered all issues raised in the appeal and determines that the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by on June 16, 2004 relative to SUBTT16072 and related grading activities. The proposed project proposing to construct residences on the previously subdivided and graded lots will not result in any additional significant environmental impacts which had not already been considered by the previously approved EIR. Further, the proposed project to construct the residences will be required to comply with all mitigation measures associated with previous approvals. 4. The City Council also hereby makes the following findings in support of Variance (DRC2025-00169) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.030: a. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this code. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 90 and 91 and TR16072 Lots 18, 19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, and 60. The Variance is requested to accommodate a greater driveway frontage width on certain lots, and side yard and front setback encroachments on other lots. These deviations are requested due to the existing lot size of the previously approved lots, some of which are located on cul-de-sacs, and others which are complicated by topography and proximity to seismic fault zones. A strict of literal interpretation of the specified regulations would result in the developer not being able to construct housing product of a compatible size when compared to other similarly situated properties throughout the project area which would be inconsistent with the objectives of the code; and b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The subject project area comprises approximately 70 acres located within the northeast portion of the City.This area is characterized by steep terrain Resolution No. 2025-096 — Page 3 of 7 and proximity to seismic fault zones. Further, the underlying subdivision map upon which the project proposes to construct 166 single-family residences was approved in 2004 at such a time that development standards in place today did not exists. As such, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; and c. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. The granting of the requested variance is necessary in order for the subject lots to accommodate single-family residences of the size which are enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Specifically, topographical constraints, including steep slopes and proximity to seismic fault zones deprive the subject lots identified in(a)above the ability to develop to the size of other similarly situated lots in the vicinity. Granting the variance permits these property owners to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone; and d. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Due to topographical constraints, such as steep slope areas and proximity to seismic fault zones, require that multiple properties within the project area will require variances to develop to a size consistent and compatible with other properties in the same zone. Thus, the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties as other properties within the zone which are similarly encumbered have also requested a variance; and e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variance is intended to allow for housing on the select lots identified in (a) above to enjoy the same privileges as other properties in the zone. It is not anticipated that the granting of the variance will be determinantal to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor is it anticipated that the granting of the variance will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as all properties which obtain the granting of a variance are still required to comply with all necessary building and safety codes and regulations. 5. The City Council also hereby makes the following findings in support of Minor Exception (DRC2025-00168) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.110: a. The minor exception is consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The project site has a general plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood, and the zoning is Low Residential (L). The request for a Minor Exception is limited to specific lots and specifically related to wall height on said lots due to topography and proximity of these lots to seismic fault zones. These specific lots include TR16072-2 Lots 1 and 2, and TR16072 Lots 2, 5, 6,12 and 50. The Minor Exception on these specific lots does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and b. The proposed minor exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The surrounding area to the project site includes areas which are similarly steep in slope. Requests for such increases in wall height are not uncommon in steep slope areas. The Minor Exception for increased wall height on the lots identified in (a) above is consistent with other similar requests in similarly sloped areas. Thus, the proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area; and Resolution No. 2025-096 — Page 4 of 7 c. The proposed exception to the specific development standards is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The increased wall height is necessary to accommodate steep slope conditions and unique proximity to seismic fault zones. Permitting the increased wall height allows the subject lots for which the Minor Exception is being requested to be developed similar to other lots in the area which do not have these same unique constraints; and d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct pads and building footprints on the parcels identified in (a) above such that these lots and house sizes will be similar to other lots in the area which do not face the same topographical constraints. Thus, the height increase is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the City. Further, the increased wall height is unlikely to impact public health, safety and/or welfare 6. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 — Infill Development Projects, as it involves the construction of eight single-family residences on a 4.78-acre site. The Class 32 exemption applies to infill developments on sites less than five acres in size that are consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning, and which would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water. To support this determination, a CEQA Section 15332 exemption report was prepared by CSG Consultants, Inc. in April 2025, an environmental consulting firm retained by the City. Staff reviewed the exemption documentation and concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts, including those related to biological resources, traffic, noise, and air quality. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staffs determination of exemption. 7. Both Planning staff and the Planning Commission have determined that the project complies with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004 as part of the original approvals of the underlying subdivision for the project site, SUBTT16072. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i)substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or(iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the construction of housing product and associated features such as walls within the boundaries of a previously approved and previously graded subdivision, staff has determined that: i) no substantial changes Resolution No. 2025-096— Page 5 of 7 are proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, Hi) no new important information has been presented as part of this application which shows that project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-096— Page 6 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2025. L.,it /Wail) nisMi ael, M� �o>r ATTEST: l l(jl/ .11/44/U (ie go_ m Sevy, City CI-r Z/ x STATE OF CALIFORNIA U COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day of December, 2025. AYES: Hutchison, Michael, Scott, Stickler NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy ABSTAINED: None Executed this 4th day of December, 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. /1/2484/14.74/06/ r K evy, City Clerk Resolution No. 2025-096— Page 7 of 7