Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDELETE2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda December 10, 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 December 10, 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; Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Ulises Benavente, Associate Engineer; Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Community Affairs Officer; Sophia Serafin, Associate Planner; 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 November 12, 2025. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; Seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION – TRINITY ALLIANCE – A request for site plan and design review of 6 single-family residences and a Minor Exception to increase maximum wall height to allow up to an 8-foot combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at the terminus of Vista Grove Street within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone and the Equestrian Overlay; APN 1074-201-01 and -02. Staff finds the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2021, through Resolutions 21-01, -02, and -03, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244). Previously approved related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218 Associate Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 1 of 9 2 8 3 1 Applicants Badiola and Gomez were present and available to answer questions. For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following comment is noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: Email from San Bernardino County Department of Public Works requesting permits that the applicant must obtain, and a wall barrier constructed adjacent to the North of the site. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Commissioner Daniels stated that the infill project is well designed, that the minor exceptions and other development standards are being met, and that the layout and architecture are good. He also noted that the corner location is appropriate. Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the property owners for developing a well-designed six-home project. He concurred with Commissioner Daniels regarding the placement of the single-story homes on the corner and noted that the infill project addresses a need for this type of housing, which the city is required to provide across all housing types, income levels, and affordability ranges, and which is much needed in the community. Chairman Morales stated that the homes are well designed and expressed his support for the project. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025-044 Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D2. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) to Amend the Neighborhood Area Density Consistent with the Existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood; Add Nine New Building Types and Amend Development Standards for Existing Building Types; Amend the Regulating Zones to Permit New Building Types and Expand Existing Building Types in the Camino Overlay, Neighborhood Estates, Neighborhood General 1 and Neighborhood General 2 Regulating Zones; Add New Open Space Types and Standards and Add “Shared Yard” As A Frontage Type; Add New Block Configurations; And Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development Rights (Density) Within the Neighborhood Area to Enable Less Density Near Existing Neighborhoods and Facilitate Appropriate Clustering of Residential Uses Elsewhere Within the Neighborhood Area. (DRC2025-00022). TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20853 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 1(27.73 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20853) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20854 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 2 (39.22 Acres) Into 233 Numbered Lots and 11 Lettered Lots for the Development of 233 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20854) An addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR (SCH#201711102) has been prepared for this project. This item will go to the City Council for final action. Commissioner Daniels recused himself due to living adjacent to this proposed project. Chairman Morales asked for a five-minute recess at 7:20 p.m. Chairman Morales resumed the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). It was noted due to the notice boundaries of property owners exceeding 1,000 owners, no individual notices were sent pursuant to state law and municipal code. On December 3rd, staff became aware that the posted signs incorrectly stated that the notices were mailed rather than posted, and corrected posters were placed at various locations. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 2 of 9 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Dopp asked staff about the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process requested by the developer. He asked for an explanation on how the 29-units per acre does not violate traditional neighborhood standards or the General Plan provisions in place. Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief explanation in response to the question. Vice Chairman Boling noted that, regarding the density bank, it was stated that the credits would expire after 10-years. If the developer does not pull permits within that period, the ability to apply for higher density – up to 29 dwelling units per acre – would be lost. He asked when the 10-year period begins. Planning Director Nakamura explained that once the project is approved, a covenant is required on the properties to ensure that current or future owners are aware that the density has been transferred from that area. She stated that the 10-year period begins when the covenant is recorded with the County. Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that once the convenient is recorded with the County, the City does not monitor or track the timeline; the 10-year period begins upon recording with the County. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling asked staff what the basis was for establishing 29-units per acre as the maximum density. Planning Director Nakamura responded that the 29-units per acre represented the developer’s proposed maximum density. Vice Chairman Boling recalled that in regard to the density bank, it was mentioned that there is a stepped approach to reach 29-units per acre so that single-family and medium-density units would not be immediately adjacent to the highest-density units. He asked where the stepped approach is defined and delineated, noting that clarity is important for the City, the developer, residents, and any future developers who may purchase portions of the property. He inquired where future developers would find guidance on the stepped approach to ensure they understand the allowable progression of density within the bank. Planning Director Nakamura responded that the stepped approach is explained in the Specific Plan Amendment, Chapter 7, page 324. Vice Chairman Boling asked whether the city would be responsible for making that determination. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales asked staff to clarity why the Etiwanda Heights Plan is being amended and what the potential consequences would be if the amendment is not approved. Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief explanation in response to the question. Chairman Morales asked in regards to the land use and community character, the detached single-family and the attached homes – such as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhomes – would still be considered house-form building types. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales reiterated that tonight, Planning Areas 1 and 2 are being considered. What will happen when each of the planning areas of the remaining tract maps are ready to be developed. Planning Director Nakamura explained that a pre-application will be submitted and reviewed by the city to provide initial comments and feedback, followed by submission of a tract map for the development. She said that all standard practices and noticing requirements will apply, and the project will come before the Planning Commission for review and approval. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 3 of 9 2 8 3 1 Chairman Morales asked staff for clarity on the following points: Large signs providing notice of the public hearing were posted a few weeks ago, which is standard procedure. Agenda packets are posted on Thursday evening before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed the information. Chairman Morales asked staff how many calls were received after the notice of filing signs were installed. Planning Director replied that staff received three calls when the signs were originally installed. Chairman Morales asked staff to explain why a new community meeting was not held to inform the community and discuss the proposed amendments prior to tonight’s public hearing. Planning Director Nakamura explained that, by policy, developers are typically asked to hold a neighborhood meeting for most development applications; however, it is not required by code, and the developer chose not to hold a meeting. Chairman Morales clarified with staff that the master developer respectively declined the suggestion to hold a neighborhood meeting. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales noted that some commentors in social media posts seem to suggest the entire development will consist of 12-plex and 4-plex homes. He clarified that this is not the case, as the development is zoned in with existing neighborhoods, and asked staff to confirm. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and said those are options, not mandates. Chairman Morales noted that, according to Exhibit B – Specific Plan Amendment, page 131, the table limits the height of 12-plex units to 40-feet, restricting them to three stories and preventing a seven-story building. He asked staff to confirm if this is correct. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales stated that, for the most reliable source of information, the public should refer to the City’s agenda packets posted rather than social media. Commissioner Diaz addressed the 12-plex, noting that it has been a topic of interest within the community. She referenced that the original plan called for 2-dwellings per acre, while the General Plan requires 8- dwellings per acre, indicating a significant increase. She asked staff to explain how the 12-plex was introduced as a building type. Planning Director Nakamura clarified that, based on the current unit cap of 3,000, the plan equates to approximately four dwelling units per acre, not two. She explained that staff engaged with the consultant who helped design the original plan to integrate the developer’s objectives while guiding them toward appropriate building types. The 12-plex was one of the types suggested and has been maintained in the plan. Commissioner Diaz asked whether existing 12-plex units in the surrounding areas are generally for rent or for purchase. Planning Director Nakamura was unsure and could not answer with accuracy. Vice Chairman Boling stated that, in reviewing Exhibit B, page 324, of the Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution 2025-045) and Draft Ordinance, the 10-year timeline begins upon recordation with the County. He requested clarification on what exactly is being recorded and on which property. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 4 of 9 HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 5 of 9 2 8 3 1 Planning Director Nakamura indicated that she would need to review the matter more closely but agreed that the 10-year timeline should start when the units are moved into the density bank, and not when they are moved out. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant was present and available to answer questions. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Ryan Paglinawan, Cynthia Campos Dachao Li, Fred Sanchez, Mailan Pham, David Horwitz, Edward Aldaz, Phil Hakopien, Jennifer Pacheco, Henry Liu, Dr. William Smith, Robert Gallardo, Robert Abbruzzese, Des Alvarez, Richard Santucci, Hazel Wilkinson, Starr Bose, Justin Nottingham, Alicia Mosley, Michael Miramontes, Chris Little, William Marror, Ron Fakhoury, Mike Vogel, Christy Dicesare, Jack Warshaw. The following concerns were expressed: High fire risks Traffic congestion School impact Water supply Crime Sidewalks High density Children safety Broken promises Strain on Fire Stations Environmental concerns For the record, it is noted that the following emails were received after the preparation of the agenda packet in opposition of the project and should be referred to for details: Email from Wilkies2@verizon.net in opposition of the project Email from Barbara Sommers Email from crofcucamonga@gmail.com Email from Darlene Reyes Email from Mr. Valdovinos Email from Kim Earl Email from Brian Johnson Email from Al Engelking Email from Kim Harless Email from Jason Solano Email from Jason Wilkerson Email from My Kha, MD and Scan Brennon, PH.D. Email from Brook Harris Email from Brian Spatz Email from Richard Trujillo Email from Stephanie and Robert Reimer Email from Jesse Barajas Email from Brian Patrick Email from Martin and Anastasia Liska Phone call received from Brook Bowen in opposition of the project. Applicant responded to comments as follows: Could do affordable housing using density bonus to build more units but would prefer not to. No more than 8-units per acre across the entire area. Street improvements will be completed. Schools will be constructed. Sidewalks will be installed along major streets throughout the community, along with bike lanes. Fire safety measure will include fuel modification zones. 2 8 3 1 Landscaping will comply with fire codes and be fire resistant. Product types will include detached and some attached units, offering a variety of housing types that are affordable. Additional environmental studies will be conducted for the Crotch’s bumblebee. Commissioner Dopp noted that there are a number of requests in the plan. He asked the applicant why they are seeking a significant increased number of units and expressed concern that developers are interpreting the law in a way that allows them to pursue their objectives without considering broader community impacts. Applicant explained that the increase in units is based what was approved in the 2021 General Plan. While the Specific Plan capped the development at 3,000 units, the General Plan allows the additional units. He stated that, under housing law, there is an opportunity to align with the General Plan, which requires distributing the density throughout the site at approximately eight units per acre. Commissioner Dopp stated that the applicant had not fully addressed the community’s concerns. While fire safety was mentioned, he noted that emergency egress and other logistical considerations were not discussed, emphasizing that these are the key issues that need to be addressed. Applicant explained that, regarding the 2019 Specific Plan, the project has not yet been built in 2025 because many plans do not reach the market, as development costs for large lots – such as ½ acre lots – are often not feasible. He stated that, for fire evacuation, the Wilson corridor will provide an evacuation access route. Commissioner Dopp noted that building types such as the 12-plex and walk-up units represent higher- density housing that is not included in the Specific Plan, making it a significant request from a development perspective. He asked what the decision-making process was behind proposing these building types. Applicant explained that the goal is to provide a variety of housing types rather than repeating the same product. The original plan was designed for four dwelling units per acre, and allowing higher densities requires introducing denser product types. This approach provides additional housing types to blend the density and ensure a diverse mix of units. Commissioner Dopp addressed the Specific Plan for Planning Area 1, specifically the Motor Court building type. His stated that cottage courts are more effective, as motor courts tend to prioritize vehicle access over livability and do not provide sufficient parking for single-family homes, increasing overall pressure on the site. He noted that Plans 1 and 2 lack adequate green space, which is why he prefers cottage courts, and asked why the motor court was selected. Applicant replied that the first two neighborhoods are constrained by smaller lot sizes. As the project progresses, a greater variety of building types will be incorporated. He added that, whenever feasible, cottage courts will be included with similar footprints. Commissioner Dopp stated that he strongly recommends considering cottage units, particularly in Planning Area 2, due to the higher density and available space. He encouraged the applicant to include cottage units as a third housing type. He also noted for the record that, per the Specific Plan, all roads require sidewalks, and this should be verified prior to final City Council approval. Commissioner Diaz asked the applicant to define what constitutes high-density housing. Applicant explained that definitions of high-density housing vary by city, but based on his observations, he considers multi-story apartment buildings to be high-density housing. Commissioner Diaz stated that she is trying to balance community desires with affordability. She noted that a $700,000 house, as presented, does not feel truly affordable. She added that reducing density, as requested by the community, would increase costs, and that the 12-polex units are not consistent with community preferences. She asked why the applicant chose not to hold an additional neighborhood meeting as suggested by staff, noting that many of the issues raised could have been addressed through such a meeting. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 6 of 9 2 8 3 1 Applicant explained that he agrees not everyone will be able to afford their homes. He noted that smaller units, such as motor courts or cottages, may be more attainable for first-time buyers or those looking to move up, highlighting the need for diverse product types. Regarding public comment, he stated that he worked closely with staff, who were heavily involved in the 2019 Specific Plan. The intent was to bring Planning Areas 1 and 2 to market quickly with community input, ensuring consistency with the character of the neighborhoods, while reserving discussion of the remaining areas of the Specific Plan for future meetings. He acknowledged that additional discussion would occur in the future. Commissioner Diaz stated that failing to engage with the public beforehand was a significant oversight, as the community has many concerns to express. She indicated that this suggests the developer may not know the community well enough to be granted the level of leeway being requested. Vice Chairman Boling stated that the original plan documents indicated the neighborhoods would provide a mix of housing sizes, types, and styles to meet the needs of various household sizes, incomes, and lifestyle preferences. He noted that what this meant five years ago appears significantly different from what the Previti Group is proposing today, as market conditions and housing demands have changed. He explained that current challenges include housing prices, limited availability, and the impact of numerous state laws that have been introduced and, in some cases, adopted. He observed a disconnect between community desires for larger lot sizes, increased open space, and additional amenities, while also expressing concern that a $600,000 home is considered unaffordable. He noted that a new home on a half- acre lot in that neighborhood would likely approach $1 million, making it difficult to accommodate both expectations. He stated that the Previti Group needs to better identify housing product types and, more importantly, their placement. He emphasized that areas adjacent to existing neighborhoods should reflect similar housing characteristics. While acknowledging that attempts were made, he noted that features such as motor courts are not present in neighboring communities. He concluded by clarifying that the Commission is currently reviewing a Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps with recommendation to City Council, and not evaluating product type, style or housing types. He strongly encouraged the applicant to look at product type and placement because that is key to community acceptance. Chairman Morales asked the applicant why Previti Group chose not to pull the state leverage and work with the Planning Commission to make this amendment. Applicant answered that they do develop projects throughout Southern California and noted that, depending on the community, some projects require the use of state housing laws to obtain approval. He explained they came to Rancho Cucamonga and chose not to purse that approach. Instead, they worked with staff to design a product they believed the community would appreciate and that would be consistent with the character and heritage of the community. He added that they are mindful of the existing residents and strive to provide a variety of housing product types to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to purchase a home. Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Morales asked for a five-minute recess at 10:28 p.m. Chairman Morales resumed the meeting at 10:33 p.m. Commissioner Dopp asked staff how the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) calculation resulted in 29 units per acre in terms of banks. Planning Director Nakamura explained that the approach was developed in concert with the conceptualization of certain product types and how they would be implemented, which led to the resulting number. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 7 of 9 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Dopp asked whether the figure could be discussed and adjusted during the course of deliberations. Planning Director Nakamura outlined several options for the Commission’s consideration: Recommend that the City Council approve the amendments as presented. Recommend approval of the proposed amendments with modifications Recommend denial of the proposed amendments, in which case the Commission must provide findings to support the recommendation of denial. Commissioner Dopp stated it is his understanding that the General Plan density numbers supersede what is in the Specific Plan in terms of units per acre according to state law, and that this is not something that can be changed. It is automatic and does not require rezoning. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Commissioner Dopp stated the Commission is being asked to evaluate unit counts, lot sizes, and housing types from a policy and numerical perspective. He expressed some sympathy for the developer, explaining that increasing housing supply is one of the primary ways to address affordability and that many residents of Rancho Cucamonga cannot afford the proposed price points. He added that when the Commission reviews a project and considers potential ways to alleviate pressure points, it must also acknowledge strong public sentiment, noting that Commissioners are City residents as well. He stated that certain elements of the Specific Plan go too far and indicated that he is not supportive of walk-up 12-plex as a housing strategy. He acknowledged that the density associated with two specific housing types would allow the project to reach the proposed density threshold but emphasized that this represents a maximum limit. He stated that these two housing types present his greatest concerns with the Specific Plan. He further explained that state law requirements must be accommodated, and that Option 1 must remain, as it cannot be modified. However, he noted that building types allow for greater discretion, emphasizing that the current proposal is an amendment request and a recommendation to the City Council, not a state law mandate. Planning Director Nakamura explained that transfer of development rights it is not mandated, it is an ask. Commissioner Dopp indicated than this is an ask and for him personally these two housing types represent the upper limit of what he would support. He has lived in this city for a very long time and would like to see the city look a lot like it did in the 1980’s, but you run into two different types of problems, you either create a community that is unsustainable from a price point that only allows upper class people to live here or you have to find an alternative way. Commissioner Diaz stated that she is having difficulty supporting the project due to concerns about trust. She noted that the developer is asking the community, the Commission and the City Council to place significant trust in them to act in accordance with the community wishes and feedback. She emphasized that the skipped neighborhood meeting raises questions about whether the developer will adequately respond to community needs. While she acknowledged the need for development and attainable housing, she expressed concern over the significant requests being made. She concurred with Commissioner Dopp regarding the 12-plex and recommended that it be removed as a building type, noting that it is likely to remain a rental product than a for-sale option. Vice Chairman Boling stated that, to his understanding, state housing legislation has made it difficult, if not illegal, to take local legislative actions that would reduce the number of housing units planned and allowed under the approved General Plan. He asked Assistant City Attorney to confirm if this is correct. Assistant City Attorney Young confirmed. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 8 of 9 HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 9 of 9 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling stated the Commission heard from the residents that they felt like this was a last- minute thing dumped on them. He said that Commissioners receive the same information as the public and as resident volunteers, review extensive application materials. He explained that the Commission’s role is advisory, working within the state law limitations to review projects, listen to the community and make recommendations rather than final decisions. He stated that he has issues with aspects of the proposed project and asked his colleagues to consider the following points: Density of 29 to the acre is too high. He would like to see it at high-end range for medium density. Restrict the density transfer and start the 10-year clock earlier. Chairman Morales stated the following: Expressed that he is sorry that the residents experienced the feeling of betrayed. The State is inserting itself into local city planning to break down barriers to more housing and the city has to deal with that even though we have higher standards. In addition to all the great public comments tonight, he expressed that he has the same concerns and feelings as they do. He stated that this would not be an easy decision for him tonight, as he took an oath to diligently review the packet and make a good-faith decision. The Commissioners reached a consensus to recommend the following actions to the City Council: Reduce the expiration period for years allowed within the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) bank from 10-years to 8-years. Eliminate walkup housing option type. Reduce the maximum density from 29 to 20 dwelling units per acre within the TDR program. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-042, Resolution 2025-043 recommending to City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854. Commissioner Daniels recused. Motion carried, 4-0. E.Director Announcements Planning Director Nakamura announced that there will be no meeting on December 24th due to the Christmas Eve holiday, and that the Commission would reconvene in January. F.Commission Announcements - None G.Adjournment Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 11:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC January 14, 2026 Meeting.