Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-012 - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2026-012 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 (DRC2024-00373), MINOR EXCEPTION (DRC2025- 00261), AND .VARIANCE (DRC2025-00263) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 188 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN AN APPROVED TRACT MAP ON APPROXIMATELY 80-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE AND WILSON AVENUE IDENTIFIES AS TRACTS 16072-1 AND 16072-3 WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Toll Brothers, filed an application requesting the approval of Design Review DRC2024-00373, Minor Exception DRC2025-00261, and Variance DRC2025-00263 as described in the title-of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th of January 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 2026-001 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3. On January 22"d, 2026, the city received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving the application. 4. On March 4th, 2026 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The 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 the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on March 4th, 2026, 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 80 acres, generally located on the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue; and Resolution No. 2026-012— Page 1 of 6 b. Tentative 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; and C. The application proposes the construction of 188 single-family residences on the aforementioned subdivided and graded lots; and d. 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 Minor Exception to permit deviations from the following requirements on specific lots within the proposed development: the construction of walls which exceed the maximum height, encroachment into the required front yard setback area, providing substandard usable rear yard area, and residential frontages which do not meet minimum front yard setback variation requirements. These deviations are necessary due to topographical constraints of the project site and the pre-existing lot design. The specific lots to which the Minor Exception will apply are as follows: TR16072-1 Lots 14, 48, 49, 80, and 81, and TR16072-3 Lots 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 61, 72, 80, 82; and e. In addition to the Design Review and Minor Exception, the project also includes a request for a Variance to permit deviations from the minimum 5-foot setback from the perimeter wall to the public sidewalk, to accommodate topographic constraints of the project site. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-1 Lot 97, and TR16072-3 Lot 18 f. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Traditional Low Residential (L) Neighborhood North Vacant General Open Space Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Facilities FU/UC South CVWD Facility/ General Open Space Very Low (VL)/Parks (P) Residential and Facilities East Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2) Neighborhood West Vacant graded lots Traditional Low Residential (L) Lennar Project Neighborhood 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above- mentioned public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby makes the following findings for Design Review DRC2024-00373 pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.040 and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The project site's General Plan Land Use.Designation is Traditional Neighborhood. This land use designation supports low and low-medium density residential development with a maximum density of 8 units per acre. The project proposes a maximum density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the 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 supports the development of low-density single-family residential Resolution No. 2026-012— Page 2 of 6 neighborhoods. The underlying subdivision map is consistent with the subdivision standards which were in place at the time that the subdivision was approved; and C. The proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. 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 public health, safety, orwelfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified on June 16, 2004, relative to SUBTT16072 and related grading activities.The subject project proposing to construct residences on the previously subdivided and graded lots will not result in any additional significant environmental impact 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 Minor Exception DRC2025-00261 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 and setbacks on said lots due to topographical constraints and pre-existing lot design. These specific lots include TR16072- 1 Lots 14, 48, 49, 80, and 81, and TR16072-3 Lots 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 61, 72, 80, 82. The minor exception on these specific lots does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project sit; 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 increases in wall height are not uncommon in steep slope areas. Further, the adjoining residential project also featured requests for minor exceptions related to setbacks and wall height that were granted based on topographical constraints. Thus, the proposed minor exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area; and 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. The setback reductions are necessary to accommodate the steep slope and pre-existing lot configuration. Permitting the requested minor exceptions will allow the subject lots to be developed similarly to other lots in the area which do not have these 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, Resolution No. 2026-012— Page 3 of 6 the proposed minor exceptions will not constitute a unique privilege, nor is it likely to impact public health, safety, and/or welfare. 5. The City Council also hereby makes the following findings in support of Variance DRC2025-00263 pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.030. a. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of this 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: TR16072-1 Lot 97, and TR16072-3 Lot 18. The variance is requested to allow for a deviation from the minimum five-foot setback between the perimeter wall and the sidewalk on these lots. Due to the topographical constraints of the project site and the existing layout of the parcels to be developed, strict or literal interpretation of this regulation would result in the developer not being able to construct housing product of comparable size to other similarly situated properties throughout the project area, which would be inconsistent with the objectives of the code. 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 80 acres located within the northeast portion of the City. This area is characterized by steep terrain and proximity to seismic fault zones. Further, the underlying subdivision map upon which the project proposes to construct 188 single-family residences was approved in 2004 at such a time that development standards in place today did not exist. As such, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 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, the existing lot configuration and the topographical constraints of the site including steep slopes would prevent the applicant from developing the subject lots identified in (a) above the ability to develop to the size of other similarly situated lots in the vicinity while maintaining the 5-foot perimeter wall setback requirement. 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 and the existing lot layout, the two lots identified in (a) require a variance to be developed to a size consistent and compatible with other properties in the same zone, and the project as a whole. Thus, no special privilege is granted as the variance is intended to maintain consistency of development in the project area. 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) to be developed in a manner consistent with the rest of the 188 lots in the project area. Setback is still provided to the subject sidewalks from the perimeter wall. It is not anticipated that the reduced setback will constitute a safety concern, or that the variance will otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. All properties which obtain the granting of a variance are still required to comply with all applicable building and safety codes and regulations. 6. Planning Staff have determined that the project complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. An Environmental Resolution No. 2026-012— Page 4 of 6 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. When the EIR was certified and the subdivision was approved, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations for several unavoidable significant environmental impacts, including air quality. 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 (1) 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 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 are proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, as the construction of single family homes was the intended outcome of the original subdivision as included in the project description of the Environmental Impact Report, (ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, as the mass grading, lot grading and street work activities that have already occurred in preparation of the construction of single family homes was analyzed in the 2004 EIR, including the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for air quality impacts and an adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (iii) no new important information has been presented as part of this application which shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered as the project is for the design review of single family homes on already graded lots and (iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. The project has undergone significant grading and construction activities prior to and during the Design Review application process under the certified EIR and adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Accordingly, this project is exempt from further review under CEQA and this analysis serves as an Addendum to the certified Richland Communities EIR (SCH#2002091053). The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgement, concurs with staff's determination of exemption. 7. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, the City Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2026-012— Page 5 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 41h day of March, 2026. L. D n'U Micha I, M r ATTEST: 4C& im Sevy, Cit C STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 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 4th day of March, 2026. AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Stickler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Executed this 5th day of March, 2026, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ASevy, City Jerk Resolution No. 2026-012— Page 6 of 6