Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-12 - Minutes - HPC-PCHPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 1 of 6 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda November 12, 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 November 12, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:03 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; Jared Knight, Assistant 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 October 22, 2025. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC – A Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to allow for the development of three (3) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet on approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad line to the south; APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, - 94, -96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2019-00742. Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted that the draft resolution contained grammatical errors which included incomplete APN references. In addition, the title of the Conditions of Approval was amended. No other changes were made aside from the title block. Commissioners received a redlined version of the changes on the dais for review. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 Applicant Sizemore was present and available to answer questions. The following individuals spoke in support of the project: Wyatt Stiles, Amy Smith, Eddie Campos, Louie Lopez, Steven Salazar, and Robert, also known as ”Maddog”. The following individuals expressed questions about the project: Felicia Zhu and Dick Takemoto. Their concerns included: • Noise and suggested to install a 10-12 feet block wall to mitigate it • Privacy • Pollution • Type of manufacturing business proposed • Traffic • School children’s safety For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following comments are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: • Email from Advocates for the Environment, withdrawing their comment letters, indicating they no longer oppose the project. • Email from Judy Summers expressing truck traffic and safety concerns for the school children. • Email and a hard copy from Steven Piepkorn with Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, expressing environmental concerns and requesting that a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be drafted and circulated. This correspondence also included a letter previously provided as part of the FEIR process from Gary Ho with Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance dated August 2, 2024. Applicant provided an explanation on the following: • Block wall – The City’s development code allows a maximum wall height of 8 ft.; however, a minor exception permits a height of up to 10 ft. Staff would have to review a request for a minor exception separately since it is not part of the project application, which the developer intends to pursue at a later date. • Noise – stating that the proposed screen wall will diminish the sound. • Type of business proposed – Does not have an end user. • Traffic – Installation of traffic signals at 8th and Baker and other traffic improvements is expected to minimize traffic concerns and reduce congestion. Commissioner Dopp stated that his contention with projects like this is that trucks need to get to the freeway the quickest route accessible and going north is prohibited by the city in numerous ways. It creates undue burdens. He said the preferred method is south. He asked how developer intends to prevent trucks from going into the northern parts of the city where it is more residential. Applicant answered that it is 5-mile stretch to go through stop sign-controlled intersections through very narrow roadways. He said they have a truck routing plan, and tenants are on a tight schedule as they want their goods dropped off fast. He said along the northernly bounds they are improving Vineyard/Arrow and Foothill Blvd. with a single authorization which will make things better. In terms of the restriction on northbound traffic, he does not have the ability to control it. Commissioner Dopp stated that from a general understanding, warehouses still have a big impact on neighborhoods, particularly in the southwest part of the city. He mentioned to the applicant that the EIR expressed alternate avenues for development outside of just pure warehouses. He is not convinced that the warehouse furthest to the west is not going to have a negative impact on the quality of life to the residents in those neighborhoods. He asked the applicant if there was any consideration to do something other than a warehouse, as opposed to making all three buildings warehouse developments. Applicant responded that it seemed to be the most efficient layout, and it made more sense to them than other layouts. They did everything they could within reason to produce a good project that is as low of an impact as possible given the location to the neighbors. HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Daniels asked the applicant whether the public art funds allocated for renovating the 1-acre property would be sufficient for their proposed plans. Applicant confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling referred to the submitted comments and requested clarification for the benefit of the public and future readers of the minutes, on one issue: the visibility of the truck docks and bays from the street. Applicant explained that at street level, there is an 8-foot wall which was the maximum allowed. As the site slopes to the south, additional grade lowers the truck docks below both street level and the base of the wall, resulting in no visibility of the trucks. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Commissioner Dopp expressed that he has a problem with warehouse projects being close to residential areas due to their potential impact. He expressed his opinion regarding logistic jobs versus manufacturing, or strong blue-collar jobs, expressing that in the long-term, these tend to be lower wage jobs. He expressed concern that 9th Street may struggle to accommodate the traffic. He noted that given the zoning, his primary concern is Building 3, which is closest to the residential area. He appreciates the community development fee but if this project does go forward to Council, he has a question about why $5 million dollars would be enough to mitigate some of the harm to the southwest community. He also expressed that he likes what they did with the Baker House. The more that can be done for historic preservation, the stronger the benefit in the long term. Commissioner Dopp then expressed that he was unsure how he might vote. Commissioner Daniels stated that these projects are always somewhat difficult because the zoning has been there for approximately 45 years. There are a lot of residential homes in the area, and he believes the developer tried to mitigate it as much as possible. He commended the developer for doing the conditional use permit upfront. He questioned Development Agreement Section 11.E, specifically the in- lieu fee. He expressed that they did a very good job with the architect, but questions continue to come up relating to traffic. He asked Engineering staff for an explanation as to why 9th and Vineyard was not indicated in the traffic study. Principal Engineer Sotomayor answered that based on the study of the traffic impact analysis, the two intersections to be optimized is Vineyard/Foothill and Vineyard/Arrow, but Vineyard/9th is not indicated due to some of the re-stripping that will take place at that intersection where trucks will be going south and not necessarily north. Commissioner Daniels stated that because of the zoning, the developer did a very good job mitigating any impacts. Although, it is unfortunate, there is residential around the project. He commends the developer for the job they have done and the time it has taken. He expressed his support. Commissioner Diaz concurred with the other Commissioners that warehouse projects tend to be difficult due to their negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, particularly residential areas, however, it is zoned properly, and it complies with everything it needs to comply with. There have been comments made about working close to home. She told the developer that it is important to the community that the jobs these tenants are providing are sustainable wages for people to be able to live in this community. One of the positive impacts of this development is that we can have people work close to home and create an even more positive impact in that neighborhood. Vice Chairman Boling highlighted that in the Conditions of Approval, Building and Safety’s number one condition calls out for connection on the three developed parcels. He asked if Baker House is on sewer. Principal Engineer Sotomayor answered that he is not certain at this time. HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6 Vice Chairman Boling mentioned that if it is not, he suggests getting it put on sewer before the city takes possession of the property. He said that this is an interesting site we have within the project boundaries proposed, industrial, as well as business park, and residential. This is the typical interface we like to see where the residential is right next to a business park, which has been successful, and businesses there have been flourishing. The developer has done a good job in stepping down the magnitude of the buildings as it approaches the residential area. He commended the applicant for doing the best he can in pushing truck traffic in one direction away from the residential neighborhoods. The geography of where we are located, with its proximity to the freeways, major rail lines, and international airport almost forces us to consider projects like this because of the major infrastructure the region has invested in. There are concerns where it is placed but the need for development like this exists and they have done a good job with the concerns of the community. He asked for clarification earlier with regard to the truck dock and bays for a specific purpose, in reference to the letter received from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and there were several assertions in that letter with reference to CEQA concerns. In this public hearing tonight, we have identified that at least one of those assertions was a falsehood at their assertion that the truck bay is visible from the street, which does not exist. He wanted those in the audience to understand that people can assert anything but what is important is to have the facts to back it up and often times, organizations like that do not have the facts to back up their assertions or statements. He expressed that the architecture looks great. The project fits in and elevates the surrounding community, as it pertains to the business park, as well as the larger buildings to the north. He hopes they get the right tenants there at the right time. Principal Planner McPherson mentioned that in regard to utility connections, Engineering Condition Approval number 30 requires separate utility services to each parcel, including sanitary sewer systems. Vice Chairman Boling stated that given that, Building and Safety’s requirement for all three developed parcels to connect to the public sewer appears redundant, as the same requirement is already addressed in Engineering conditions 29 and 30. Principal Planner Confirmed. Chairman Morales thanked the developer for working with staff to come up with the best development possible for that piece of land. He thanked them for being a responsible developer committed to hiring skilled labor. Also, he liked the Baker House restoration as a community benefit because he is sure they will use it in the future. He is in support of the project. Commissioner Dopp stated that there was a discussion regarding a minor exception for a 10-feet wall adjacent to Building 3 on the north side. He asked staff when the appropriate time would be to bring it up. Planning Director Nakamura replied that the minor exception is a separate entitlement and is assigned at the administrative level. She does not think it would be appropriate for the Commission to require them to apply for a minor exception because it has not been reviewed for the necessary conditions. She said it would be best to allow the developer and staff to better understand what the final needs are in order to make the wall work for everyone involved. She said we do not want to guarantee approval on something that has not yet been fully evaluated. Commissioner Daniels asked to confirm that an 8-foot wall is what is being proposed tonight. Principal Planner confirmed. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-039 recommending that to City Council approve Design Review DRC2019-00742, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 and Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, as amended in the resolution and the conditions of approval. Motion carried, 4-1, with Commissioner Dopp voting no. HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 D2. 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 to 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 Use Regulations 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. This item will be forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from the October 22, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting (DRC2025-00255, DRC2025-00256). Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels mentioned that with eliminating the mandate for the Floor Area Ratio, he believes the developer will not comply if it is not mandated. Planning Director Nakamura mentioned we would have a dimensional standard for what that ground floor has to be. The developer can always do more than what would be proposed and required under these standards. She reiterated that this is a floor, not a ceiling, that is being proposed. Vice Chairman Boling stated that by eliminating the requirement and categorizing it as a target, if the City later finds that developers are not coming close to meeting that target, nothing will prevent the City from taking the same steps it is taking now–amending the code-to revise the target or ultimately establish a hard minimum. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and said this is just to get back to what it originally was intended to be. Commissioner Dopp mentioned as a follow-up that for some of the more intensive uses on the matrix, the real problem for him is that he understands the argument, he has seen time and time again that these housing developers of these housing projects will waive it away if they do not want to do it Planning Director Nakamura asked him to clarify what he is expecting to see in some of those environments that would be different that would create these community buildings. Commissioner Dopp mentioned the city center or city corridor is more intensive. These are parcels in the General Plan where the city said we want higher quality development. Therefore, the floor area ratios need to be very high to support a mix of retail, commercial, restaurant use, and maybe office space. Planning Director Nakamura clarified that it is required in any of the center or corridor designations, regardless of whether it is off of Foothill and Haven. Commissioner Dopp stated that he still believes, even with the ground floor requirements, that we will not come anywhere near those Floor Area Ratio targets for those specific zones. Planning Director Nakamura provided an example of the city center parcel. Commissioner Diaz asked if we reduce the floor area ratio to what it is now, can a developer still use density bonus law to do all the things they want to do. Planning Director Nakamura answered that they can always use state bonus density law to waive certain standards. Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Dopp stated the biggest discussion seen from the Commission is what the intended target is. At the end of the day, he understands that we have seen a lot of projects that involve some parts of that metric. For him, the biggest thing about this specific amendment is that he does not think we could lose that tool as a strategy for some of these developments. If we are going to use ground floor non-residential as a strategy, his recommendation would be to continue to encourage mixed-use in these areas, take a second look at some of the corridor centers, and maybe extend the language beyond just Foothill and Haven. Planning Director Nakamura, due to a possible misunderstanding, clarified that this is not a strategy but an actual requirement that is going to be required by code. She explained that the corridor fronting retail requirement is an actual linear designation on the zoning map, applicable to Foothill and Haven. What it did is break up where they wanted retail only on the corners and then any other non-commercial could be further away from the corners, and that is being collapsed so it could be any sort of commercial use because it was becoming far too complicated for everybody to program it that way. She said the 15-foot minimum ground floor requirement applies not only to Foothill and Haven, but to all corridor designations and all center designations. Chairman Morales stated that the changes are positive and reflecting public input received over the years. He noted that it has often been challenging to fill the ground-floor spaces. He expressed support for considering preparations for bus rapid transit options as they arise. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-040 and 2025-041 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendments and Municipal Code Amendments. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. Director Announcements Planning Director Nakamura mentioned that there will not be a second meeting in November and that the Commission will reconvene in December. 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 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC December 10, 2025