HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-13 - Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Tri-Communities Conference Room
August 13, 2025
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Morales
Vice Chairman Boling
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Daniels
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning
Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the
Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included
on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting.
C. CONSENT CALENDAR
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2025.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION – St. Elias Orthodox Church – A request to modify
existing Conditional Use Permit 85-02 to allow for the use of an approved 7,900 square foot fellowship
hall addition at an existing 15,710 square foot church on a 2.73 acre lot located within the Very Low
(VL) Residential zone and Hillside and Equestrian Overlays, located at 5474 Haven Avenue; APN:
1074-281-20. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 – Existing Facilities. (DRC2025-00135).
D2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TAMARA TANGHERLINI - A request to operate a large indoor fitness
and sports facility in an existing 17,500 square foot warehouse space within the Neo-Industrial (NI)
Zone, located at 9201 Charles Smith Avenue; APN: 0229-284-23. This project qualifies for a Class 1
categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (DRC2025-00101).
E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may
present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience
should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing
impaired.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After
speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your
name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited
to 3 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s
Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted
fee schedule for all decisions for the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 1 of 12
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
July 23, 2025
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was
held on July 23, 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.
Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Katherine Read, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director;
Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Justin Garcia, Deputy
Director of Engineering; Shane Adams, Deputy Fire Marshal; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner;
Claudia Vargas, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Miguel Sotomayor,
Principal Engineer; 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 May 28, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried 3-
0-2 approved the minutes. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
D. Public Hearings
D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, & DESIGN REVIEW –
HAMILTON LAND DEVELOPMENT – A request to subdivide 1.02 acres of land into 19 numbered
lots and 1 lettered lot including site plan and design review of 19 single-family, detached
residential units with 1 unit restricted for Very Low Income affordable housing in accordance with
State Density Bonus Law for a site located between 19th Street and Hamilton Street in the
Medium (M) Residential zone at 10295 19th Street; APN: 1076-121-17. The project qualifies as
a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects.
(Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249).
Page 3
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 2 of 12
Assistant Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted that the
Conditions of Approval were revised to include additional clarifying language. A redline version was
placed on the dais.
Planning Director Nakamura shared that a letter was received this afternoon by Alta Loma School
District expressing concerns about school safety. The letter had been distributed to
Commissioners via email and was also placed on the dais for their review. She indicated that the
Conditions of Approval related to Engineering Condition #5 will help provide further study on any
potential impacts.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned that there is already a lot of traffic on 19th and now this is adding
another ingress/egress out of that area. He asked Engineering what kind of thought was put in
place to handle that extra turn off of 19th, given that Mayberry is exactly to the north of that parcel.
Engineering Director Welday responded that the final plans for the project will be required to
evaluate any changes to the striping in order to ensure conflicts are avoided to that left turn and
there are no issues between Mayberry driveway street interaction.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that there will be additional traffic studies required in order to
ascertain what traffic mitigation measures might be needed along 19th Street.
Engineering Director Welday responded that a design exercise will be conducted to ensure the
design accommodates those considerations.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that no decision has been made yet because that analysis has not
been completed.
Engineering Director Welday responded that they have looked at it as part of the development
review and they are comfortable they can fit in the turn lanes that may be needed to make it work.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if it is determined that there would be a conflict, would there be a
possibility of having a right-in/right-out for the Hamilton project.
Engineering Director Welday answered that they do not currently have it conditioned that way but
that would be an option they would look at.
Chairman Morales asked Planning Director Nakamura for a brief summary of the State Density
Bonus Law and how it impacts the city.
Planning Director Nakamura provided an overview of the State Density Bonus Law and how it
impacts the city’s limitations in the development review process.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Hamilton provided a brief PowerPoint presentation with key points on the project. 19-
units, 4 Bonus units and 1 unit is very low-income affordable. (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp stated that for the record, the commissioners are generally not opposed to
housing projects or creating more affordable units. He shared that the commissioners attended a
conference recently, and they discussed urban strategies and how to create more synergic
communities and addressed the affordability crisis. He asked how affordable will this project be
for the average family, since having one unit does not really make it an affordable project.
Page 4
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 3 of 12
Applicant Hamilton said the very low-income unit will be in the $100,000 - $200,000 range. He
said what they found out is there is a big demand for detached houses for young families.
Commissioner Dopp asked if he had a price point in mind.
Applicant Hamilton responded that the units are between 1,500 and 1,550 square feet and are
expected to be priced around $700,000.
Commissioner Dopp asked if he thinks it is affordable for people in their 20 and 30’s.
Applicant Hamilton answered that it is as affordable as it can be.
Commissioner Dopp stated that they are using all these waivers to maximize their revenue and
that it is their right but then decided that every single plan on one side of the street is going to look
exactly the same and then on the other side of the street will look the same, with almost no variety.
Is it too much to ask to have some variety in this project and make it more architecturally vivid.
Applicant Hamilton explained that the changes were made in response to the Design Review
Committee comments, aiming for a more cohesive project in line with the architect’s vision.
Commissioner Dopp responded that the state law grants him that right and respectively disagreed
with that assessment.
Vice Chairman Boling stated during the Design Review Committee meeting there were a number
of issues that were brought up and suggestions to address some of those concerns. He asked
how they would characterize the project before them tonight as compared to what was presented
at the Design Review Committee. He asked what changes, if any were made.
Applicant Hamilton answered they added a second-floor plan and made additional enhancements
to the elevations on the end units by adding some additional windows and siding.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if the color scheme between 1 and 2 had changed.
Applicant Hamilton answered no.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if any amenities were added elsewhere throughout the project.
Applicant Hamilton answered no.
Vice Chairman Boling went through all 29 Waivers being proposed and asked the Applicant to
provide how each waiver, if not approved, would preclude construction.
Applicant Hamilton answered to most of the questions, if not all, by stating it is a physical
constraint or impossibility.
Vice Chairman Boling asked about Wavier number #29; the minimum number of floor plans
elevations variations, two floor plans would be required and three elevations. He asked if he is
providing two floor plans but only one elevation.
Applicant Hamilton answered they have three different elevations, including the enhanced right
and enhanced left design.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if he added a second-floor plan, after the Design Review Committee
meeting.
Page 5
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 4 of 12
Applicant Hamilton confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if Waiver number #29 could potentially be withdrawn.
Applicant Hamilton replied if that is how staff interprets it, then potentially yes.
Vice Chairman Boling commented that this is the highest number of waivers he recalls seeing on
a residential project without a master plan or development agreement and there are only 19 units.
Chairman Morales stated the applicant mentioned he has completed several of these attainable
housing developments and asked whether any of them featured more diverse architecture and
color schemes, or if they were all similarly minimal in design.
Applicant Hamilton answered he has done both.
Chairman Morales asked if he thinks having at least three-color schemes would help make it look
better.
Applicant Hamilton responded that they would be open to adding a third color scheme.
Alta Loma School District Board Member Rebecca Davies expressed concerns about student’s
safety and traffic congestion near the elementary school at Hamilton Street and requests a gate
to prevent through traffic.
Resident and friend of the Applicant, Steve Landis, expressed support of the project, stating that
it would be a positive addition to the area. He added that from a financial standpoint, if nothing is
done now, the site may never be developed.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp noted that while the applicant’s intent to reduce home prices is
commendable, the core frustration lies in the sheer volume of those requests. Although the
project meets a real housing need, it shows little innovation in design or planning. Instead, it
seems the applicant focused primarily on maximizing legal allowances to push the project
through.
Commissioner Dopp talked about the gate. He expressed sympathy for Deer Canyon Elementary
and understands the dynamics on Hamilton Street in itself and concerns of what adding an extra
street will have on the community. He said that it is not being ignored but he is just unsure about
having a gate there, sometimes they add more problems than they actually solve. He asked staff
if there is a way to put in the conditions for a traffic study and have a conversation if there might
be ways to solve this problem or alternate solutions.
Planning Director Nakamura acknowledged the concerns and stated that discussions have taken
place with the school district. She emphasized the need to avoid unintended consequences from
new development and said evaluations will be conducted prior to construction to assess potential
impacts, and that the situation will continue to be monitored as it progresses. She also remarked
that the Engineering Department is typically very responsive in addressing concerns as they arise.
Page 6
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 5 of 12
Vice Chairman Boling addressed a couple of the comments made by the applicant. It was
indicated that 1 out of 4 units were affordable, specific to the density bonus units. He wanted to
make sure that was clear so no one in the audience or the general public think that 1 out of 4 of
all the units are going to be affordable or attainable. The applicant also indicated, during his
presentation, that one home for one lot relegates us into a reduction to the standards. He asked
the applicant are we not subdividing this parcel into individual lots for each unit and is that not
normally how residential is developed one unit per lot, unless it is an ADU. He said there are
plenty of instances throughout the city where one unit is on one lot and deviations, waivers and
requests of this magnitude are not profitable. He expressed he does agree that the choice of
product definitely drives a number of units, and the choice of his product has driven a significant
number of waivers and reductions, and it feels like the only codes that we are following are
Building and Safety Codes and Fire Codes. Development codes are out the window.
Vice Chairman Boling addressed a comment to Alta Loma School District and the concerns that
were brought up by the Board Member. He said it is always interesting when a new development
comes into a neighborhood that has an existing school, and the school is concerned about
additional traffic and potential safety issues that might come forth as a result of adding new
housing. However, what is often forgotten, is that decades ago when existing residential housing
was there and a school was not, residents that lived in the neighborhood prior to the school, had
significant concerns about a new school going in and what traffic hazards and increased safety
measures were going to transpire. He said as it pertains to state law and the challenges the
commission faces, this is more geared to the general public and partially to staff.
Vice Chairman Boling said in regards to the Design Review Committee meeting there were
several concerns from residents, as well as commissioners, about this project; inadequate
parking, setbacks, lack of amenities, density, singular style for all units leading to a cut and paste
look and we also heard from residents the sentiment the city probably should not build housing
units like this but beyond our city boundaries, Rancho Cucamonga and other cities are being
blamed for not producing enough housing in response to a declared housing crisis but it is actually
private market forces coupled with state mandates that control the outcome of what gets built and
when, not the city. He said Rancho Cucamonga is not trying to over develop or compromise the
character of our neighborhoods, but rather, trying to follow complex state laws while fighting an
uphill battle to keep or regain local control over residential development matters.
Vice Chairman Boling stated what we are dealing with here is the untenable scenario of state
bureaucrats and developers taking over how our community is built. We the city are often the
ones forced to implement the consequences of a one size fits none state policy or mandates
passed in Sacramento which then affects our neighborhoods. He said if the community is upset
from this reality, he strongly encourages them to hold their state elected officials accountable and
push for reform. He said here in Rancho, we are doing everything we can to navigate the state-
imposed requirements while trying to protect the character and quality of life that makes Rancho
Cucamonga a world class city.
Chairman Morales mentioned that the applicant is willing to do three color schemes and asked
staff how we can take him up on his offer.
Planning Director Nakamura responded if the commissioner would like to entertain this, staff has
prepared a Condition of Approval that could be added to the project. It would state; prior to the
issuance of building permits, a minimum of three-color schemes shall be provided subject to
Planning Director review and approval.
Vice Chairman Boling asked the Assistant City Attorney that of the remaining waivers that are on
the table, is there any legal grounds for us denying any of the remaining waivers that have been
requested.
Page 7
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 6 of 12
Assistant City Attorney Read explained that per state law, the standard is you have to make
specific findings based on substantial evidence that the proposed development would have a
significant adverse impact on public health or safety, and this requires significant quantifiable
direct and unavoidable impacts based on objective identified written public or health safety
standards. She recalled the applicant mentioned Waiver number #29 potentially being removed
from the list. She recommended that the Chairman ask the applicant to come back up to state
that on the record.
Chairman Morales invited the applicant back to the podium.
Applicant Hamilton stated that as long as what we have are considered two floor plans and three
elevations, then we do not seem to need that wavier.
Planning Director Nakamura stated she had staff do additional research on this and they do not
believe the current enhancement was considered an additional elevation, it would have to be of
a separate design. She said the wavier can be proposed and modified since they did provide two
floor plans because they had the primary and reverse floor plan but that it would need to maintain
the elevations as only one was provided.
Vice Chairman Boling stated Waiver number #29 could be amended to reflect the request of three
distinct elevations being waived as opposed to the two floor plans.
Applicant Hamilton agreed.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution
2025-019 to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249
with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval adding three-color schemes and the
affirmation amendments to Conditions #3 and #6 for Planning, and #5 for Engineering and staffing
conditions to amend Waiver number #29 to element the wavier for two floor plans. Motion carried
3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz
D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN
REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION – TRUE LIFE COMPANIES - A request for site plan and
architectural review of a mixed-use project comprised of 50 multi-family units including 10
live/work units, and a tentative tract map for condominium purposes located on approximately 2.3
acres of land within the Neighborhood General 3 (NG3) Zone, located on the southwest corner of
Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue; APN: 0208-432-16. This item is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15332
(SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109, Minor Exception
DRC2025-00055).
Associate Planner Mendez provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp asked staff if there were conversations with the developer about traffic calming
devices on that major north-south street near the development, like speed humps to make it a bit
more difficult for the average vehicle to see it as a short cut.
Associate Planner Mendez responded that while there is nothing preventing vehicles from driving
through, the section of Ruby Avenue includes two speed humps that will help reduce vehicle speeds
and slow traffic down.
Vice Chairman Boling asked staff for clarification on the speed hump for Ruby Avenue.
Page 8
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 7 of 12
Associate Planner Mendez clarified that the extension of Ruby Avenue with the speed humps applies
only on the project site.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
True Life Properties Vice President Gordon Jones introduced Applicant David Stearn who
provided a brief PowerPoint presentation to the Commissioners. (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp asked the applicant what work experience does their firm have with live/work
units, and what do they see in terms of potential out there to develop those units. He said, for the
record, it has been his contention that live/work units usually do not hit the metric for retail. This is not
a site that is super conducive to retail, but the mixed-use component still needs to be there.
Applicant Stearn answered they have a fair amount of experience with it. He mentioned there are
some challenges with this site such as the grade being 4 ft. below Base Line. Also, they have an
existing retaining wall the city built that preserves that grade, and they have the access easement
they share with assisted living facility. He said that makes a true retail site challenging here.
There are a couple of unique things the city asked for them to do; 1) There is a restriction renting
them out. 2) It is not set up for food uses. He said as a benefit, there are two entrances with a
separate residential entrance from the entrance to the commercial space.
Commissioner Dopp asked whether anything would prevent someone from using the space for
storage.
Applicant Stearn responded that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) include
provisions for annual garage inspections to ensure they are being used for actual parking rather
than storage and noted that these measures can be expanded.
Commissioner Dopp expressed concern about the units facing a major corridor and emphasized
the importance of establishing clear guidelines to prevent owners from making unauthorized
modifications.
Vice Chairman Boling clarified that the parking management plan includes provisions for periodic
inspection of the garage spaces. He noted that enforcement would primarily be handled by the
Homeowners Association (HOA), with city enforcement serving as backup if necessary.
The following persons commented on the project: Suzanne Luegering, Jennifer Diaz, Kristine
Hatanaka, Travis T van Bibber, and Ronald Rempel.
Included the following concerns/comments:
• Traffic
• Trash
• Design does not fit with neighborhood
• Ruby Avenue connection
• Setback
• Homeless
• Privacy
• Parking
• Crime/Safety
• Replace with a park
Page 9
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 8 of 12
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation
of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence
should be referred to for details:
• Letter from California Housing Defense Fund reminding the city of its obligation to abide by
the relevant state laws.
• Email from Kristine Hatanaka expressed concerns about safety, traffic, parking, noise
pollution, crime and obstructed views.
• Email from James and Karen Cordova expressed concerns on the parking and traffic.
• Email from Patrick and Angelina Soto noted concern about backyard view and building mass,
amenity area setback and parking.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Applicant Stearn responded to the setback concern, stating that considerable time was spent
ensuring all utilities worked. He added that they made every effort to honor 30-foot setback from
the property line.
Commissioner Dopp noted public testimony was heard. He said he would like to have more
conversations with developers that are open, and flexible. He said we are going to look at the
project that is placed in front of them with the parameters given by the General Plan. Some of
the resident’s concerns about setbacks are reasonable and some concessions were made by the
developer. He asked staff if there is a way to add a condition or through code compliance to
ensure those units are used as live/work.
Planning Director Nakamura reiterated his concern that the live/work unit will not actually be used
as work use space. She noted that the applicant plans to include this requirement in the deed
restrictions as part of the CC&Rs upon purchase. She added that enforcement could potentially
begin with the HOA and, if necessary, be followed by the city.
Associate Planner Mendez added that this site does require a non-residential component because
the project is including 3,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor place, the property is held to that. It could
not be legally converted or used as a residential space. If that were to happen, there would be a
response to that through Code Enforcement to correct that action because that space itself also has
separate occupancy from the residential component of that unit.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that we heard an example presented by the developer of what could
be built in order to put things in perspective that they have scaled back, and they did a good job
of identifying the maximum extreme on this site and we heard residents speak to the extreme on
the other side. He said, a developer could do a more intense project and alternatively, residents
could all pony up the money, buy it from the developer and leave it vacant. He said that when he
first heard about this project, his concern was the northbound ingress/egress. He understood
initially there may not have been an alignment of Amethyst for this project and that would have
been horrendous to have an offset entry, that was concerning to him, but it has been worked out
through an agreement with the residential housing facility.
Vice Chairman Boling addressed one of the concerns that came up a few times by residents, that
this type of project being placed here; project good, placement bad. He said in traditional urban
planning you have to have some kind of transition from single-family residential to something else
because it cannot all be single-family residential. At Base Line, if you look across the street, you
have a shopping center and at Archibald, you have true retail. He said having mixed-use serves
as a buffer, as something to take you from this to that. The project, as proposed, is in between
and is even more residential than retail in that the 10 live/work units cannot support true retail.
Page 10
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 9 of 12
You cannot put food or retail store front where your customer base is coming through constantly,
since there is not enough parking, and the visibility is not good. It is not conducive to that type of
retail business. He said what it is conducive to is professional services. Those type of businesses
in this development are less impactful to the surrounding community than if it had been built out
with a more traditional retail space. He noted that he applauds them for providing something less.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that we saw a project earlier tonight and in contrast with another
developer, this developer had reduced the bedroom in one unit in order to address the city and
community concerns of meeting the parking requirements. That is profit margin they had taken
out. They addressed landscaping in order to help with privacy and visibility to the neighboring
houses. They relocated HVAC units to address noise concerns from the community. They
addressed some of the privacy issues, they changed the number of windows and the type of
windows and the placement in order to help ensure greater privacy. He said those types of
compromises are what makes this process work. As opposed to state mandates and having the
developer force us to approve projects some might consider to be lousy. He expressed how he
appreciated the communities’ inputs, and he hopes they appreciate that some developers are
listening and are working to try their best to address their concerns. The commissioners work
hard on behalf of the community as dedicated volunteers, striving to ensure that the highest-
quality projects are brought into the community.
Chairman Morales expressed his support for building for-sale homes rather than apartments
noting that homeowners are more likely to take pride over ownership. He thanked the residents
for their participation and efforts in helping to improve the development. He also expressed
appreciation for the developer’s responsiveness to the concerns raised by the community and for
listening to their needs.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution
2025-021 to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708,
Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109 and Minor Exception DRC2025-
00055. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz
D3. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend
Section 16.36.09 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, repeal Planning Commission
Resolution 87-96, and add Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code concerning
undergrounding overhead utilities. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action.
Principal Engineer Miguel Sotomayor provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp asked whether the commissioners will see at any point what the determinations
have been on undergrounding on a specific project.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that it could be included if that determination is made
early on during the review process.
Commissioner Dopp recommended including it as an addendum. He asked about the six regions
in-lieu fees previously collected, if they would get deposited into the respective bank.
Engineering Director Welday explained that since the fees were collected citywide, they would
likely be allocated to projects within the six regions as needs arise. If a project is underfunded,
the regional bank would be used to cover the gap.
Page 11
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 10 of 12
Commissioner Dopp said he noticed parts of the south side of Foothill are not included in the
focus areas and asked what the reason was for not being included, especially on the eastern end
of town.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that the focus areas correspond to those identified in the
General Plan.
Commissioner Dopp explained that his reasoning is based on the idea that if Foothill is being
presented as the major corridor, it should logically be the primary focus area.
Engineering Director Welday added that the focus areas are aligned with the General Plan the
way the ordinance is currently written. He said there is also a provision in the ordinance that
requires undergrounding in adopted specific plan areas. He said for most part, the areas along
Foothill have been undergrounded and the areas that have not been undergrounded likely would
not fall into any of the categories for exemptions anyway.
Vice Chairman Boling clarified that we have projects that would require undergrounding but not
right now because it is unfeasible for that particular developer to do it, in which case, they would
pay in-lieu fees. He asked if there are projects that would be exempt from having to pay in-lieu
fees.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor confirmed that there would be and said it would be spelled out in the
ordinance.
Vice Chairman Boling reaffirmed there will be three types of projects that would be under
consideration; 1) Those that would require undergrounding, 2) Those that would pay the in-lieu
fees which would be used at a future time when sufficient funds are collected to pay for the total
underground project, 3) Those projects that would be accepted. He asked what would happen if
money is being used that was collected in another area of town in order to make up some
deficiency that exists, and now that area has to be underground and the money had already been
spent.
Engineering Director Welday explained that the dollars that have been collected are not delegated
to any particular region, they are delegated city wide. He said they would have to go back and
look at nearly 50 years of transactions to try to untangle that. The cleanest way to do it is to look
at it as there is still a general benefit within those regions and going forward, they would segregate
it into the regions and before that they would have to use it as a bank to supplement the projects
that are in each of those regions.
Vice Chairman Boling asked what happens to the undergrounding of the area where that first
project 50 years ago paid their in-lieu fees, and now and now it is going to be undergrounded.
Where did those dollars come from.
Engineering Director Welday said he is not sure he is following, adding that there seems to be a
lot of hypotheticals.
Vice Chairman Boling stated it seems like we are leap frogging the money, but we will figure it
out.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Page 12
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 11 of 12
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation
of the agenda packet expressing support of the proposed ordinance. The actual correspondence
should be referred to for details:
• Letter from Esoteric Homes
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned that streamlining parts of the process makes a lot of sense. He
emphasized that as a discussion moves forward to City Council, it is important to understand the
outcomes of projects, especially when utilities like wiring are involved, so they can develop a
holistic vision of what future developments might look like.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the callout regarding the exemptions related
to the focus areas. He also said he valued the clearly defined appeal process, noting that it will
certainly help developers and project applicants. He added that these measures encourage
responsible development in streamlined infill projects and expressed gratitude for the hard work
of the Engineering department.
Chairman Morales stated that the commissioners had previously reviewed some projects that
required undergrounding, which raised concerns due to limited frontage. He noted this will fix it
and make it better.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution
2025-022 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 16.36.09
and adding Chapter 17.84 to the Municipal Code. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner
Daniels and Commissioner Diaz
D4. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend
the zoning map designation for Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072-2, and 16072-3, totaling
approximately 150.79 acres, to amend the zoning designation from neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-
2) to Low Residential (L), and ensure consistency with the configuration and development
standards of a previously approved 359 lot single-family residential subdivision, in a manner
consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. This project
qualifies for an exemption under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), as the proposed
zoning map amendment will not have any direct impact on the environment. Tracts 16072, 16072-
1, 16072-2, and 16072-3. (Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141).
Associate Planner Claudia Vargas provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Resident Stephen P. Gutierrez expressed concerns about noise, increased traffic, trash and
crime.
Resident Erick Space had questions about zoning and requested clarification if any new lots
would be created.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed that no new lots would be created and amending the
zoning designation would allow the developer to use the same development standards and the
homes to the west.
Page 13
HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025
Page 12 of 12
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution
2025-018 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the zoning map as
presented in the Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent:
Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced we have been awarded the Award of Merit which makes
us the second-best Planning Agency in the State of California this year. She also mentioned that
the next Planning Commission meeting will take place in the Tri-Communities Room due to
construction in the Council Chambers.
F. Commission Announcements - None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the
meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Page 14
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
SUBJECT:
August 13, 2025
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
Sophia Serafin, AICP, Assistant Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION – St. Elias Orthodox
Church – A request to modify existing Conditional Use Permit 85-02 to
allow for the use of an approved 7,900 square foot fellowship hall addition
at an existing 15,710 square foot church on a 2.73 acre lot located within
the Very Low (VL) Residential zone and Hillside and Equestrian Overlays,
located at 5474 Haven Avenue; APN: 1074-281-20. The project qualifies
as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301
– Existing Facilities. (DRC2025-00135).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Conditional
Use Permit Modification DRC2025-00135 with the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The 2.73-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Hillside Road
in the Very Low (VL) Residential zone and the Semi-Rural Neighborhood General Plan land use
designation. The site is also located within the Hillside Overlay and Equestrian Overlay. The site
is rectangular in shape with an eastern property line (front) which measures approximately 264
feet, a western property line (rear) of approximately 287 feet, a northern property line (interior
side) of approximately 414 feet, and a southern property line (street side) of approximately 389
feet. The site is fully improved and also contains improved community equestrian trails located
along the eastern and southern property lines.
The building is currently occupied by St. Elias Orthodox Church, which is classified as an
assembly use pursuant to Section 17.32.020C.1 of the Development Code. The site is developed
with a 15,710 square foot church building and a 284 square foot accessory structure constructed
in 1987. A minor design review (DRC2024-00129) was recently approved by the planning director
on July 14, 2025 for a 7,900 square foot addition to the existing church along with façade upgrades
and related site improvements. With the addition, the building will total 23,610 square feet upon
completion of construction.
The existing land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning for the project site and
adjacent properties are as follows:
Page 15
Page 2 of 4
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Church Very Low (VL) Residential
North Single-Family Residences Very Low (VL) Residential
South Single-Family Residences Very Low (VL) Residential
East Single-Family Residences Very Low (VL) Residential
West Single-Family Residences / Vacant Very Low (VL) Residential
The applicant, Andresen Architecture on behalf of St. Elias Orthodox Church, proposes to modify
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 85-02 in order to permit the 7,900 square foot addition to be used
as a fellowship hall, which is intended to function as a social and communal gathering space for
the church. There will not be any construction or site improvements proposed or required as part
of the Conditional Use Permit Modification. Conditional Use Permit 85-02 was approved on
September 11, 1985 for the construction and operation of the site as an assembly use. The
addition of the fellowship hall is an intensification of the previously approved CUP and a
modification is required.
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Section 17.14.100 of the Development Code, a modification can be requested to any
permit granted under Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Modifications can include modifications of
the term of the permit itself, as is requested in the subject proposal. Modifications that result in a
change to the character, scope, and/or intensity of the of the development and/or use require
approval from the original approving authority as the original permit. As CUP 85-02 was approved
by the Planning Commission, the proposed modification will similarly require approval from the
Planning Commission. The Commission, as part of this review process must also affirm all
findings that were made in the original approval. The original findings are listed in Resolution 85-
128, which approved Conditional Use Permit 85-02 and are attached to this report as Exhibit B.
The fellowship hall will serve as a social hall and is proposed as the gathering place for members
of the congregation after mass, services, or other church events and holidays. The fellowship hall
is also proposed to host weddings, baptisms, and meetings and events for family night, senior
citizens, youth group, ladies’ night, the church board, and Sunday School. There will be additional
events held for Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, New Years, and graduations. All
events will be held exclusively for church members and will not occur at the same time as any
services held in the main sanctuary. The fellowship hall use will also increase the number of fixed
seats by 83 seats, going from 257 to 340 seats and similarly increasing the intensity of the use.
Although the original Conditional Use Permit for the site was both a construction and use permit,
the approval documents and conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 85-02 were largely
focused on the development of the site rather than the use. The subject Conditional Use Permit
Modification can also be utilized as an opportunity to define and establish the church operations
that had not been previously documented at the time of the original approval in 1985. St. Elias
Church currently contains a congregation size of approximately 450 persons and employs two
full time staff members. Routine services are held every Sunday. The overall hours of operation
vary depending on when special services are being held as well as the schedule of various groups’
Page 16
Page 3 of 4
meeting times, but all operations will conclude no later than 12:00 A.M.
Parking
Pursuant to Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking requirement for Assembly
Uses are one (1) parking stall per every three fixed seats. A total of 340 seats are proposed for
the use, resulting in a parking requirement of 114 parking stalls. The site currently contains 130
parking stalls and the applicant proposes to provide 124 parking stalls to accommodate the
expansion, seven of which are ADA compliant, as was approved through minor design review. As
such, the proposed use will remain compliant with parking standards as ten (10) additional parking
spaces are provided than are required. Additionally, the main sanctuary and the fellowship hall
will not be occupied at the same time so a maximum of 257 seats will be utilized during services
and a maximum of 83 seats will be utilized while in the fellowship hall. This translates to a parking
requirement of 86 parking spaces during services and 28 while the fellowship is being utilized,
both of which can be accommodated with existing onsite parking.
Public Art
Pursuant to Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, the public art requirement does not apply
to conditional use permits or places of worship. As such, the project is exempt from the public art
requirement.
Environmental Assessment
Planning department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class
1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Structures, which includes
the operation of existing private structures. The project scope is to modify Conditional Use Permit
85-02 for the purpose of expanding an existing assembly use. No physical construction is
contemplated as part of this project.
Correspondence
The item was advertised as a public meeting through a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Daily Bulletin newspaper on July 30, 2025. Public notices were mailed to the seventy-nine (79)
property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site only July 29, 2025. The site was posted
with two (2) notices on July 30, 2025.Staff has received comment from a neighbor who shares a
property line with the subject site. Staff clarified the reason for the application and the difference
between the entitlement for the addition and the CUP modification. The neighbor stated their
opposition to the already approved addition due to concerns about viewshed impacts, but
confirmed that they were not concerned about the additional use of the church to include a
fellowship hall.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project site would typically be subject to an annual property tax, a portion of which would be
allocated to the City. As the property is owned by a 501(c)(3) religious organization which
maintains a tax-exempt status, property taxes are not collected on the subject property. As such,
the use of the fellowship hall will generate a fiscally neutral impact.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Modifying Conditional Use Permit 85-02 to allow for the usage of a fellowship hall addresses the
City Council value of building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. The inclusion of the
fellowship hall will allow for church members to have access to a family and community oriented
Page 17
Page 4 of 4
social network that can be supported and accommodated with the additional space. The
fellowship hall will also support a multi-generational community that is conducive to families by
providing a space that will support events and meetings catered to various age groups.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Use Narrative
Exhibit B – Conditional Use Permit 85-02 Staff Report, Resolution 85-128, and Conditions of
Approval
Exhibit C – Draft Resolution 2025-024 with Conditions of Approval
Page 18
Exhibit A
Page 19
D
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY Qr RANCHO CUCAN. ONGA
STAFF REPORT
aepzemoer li, s<<5
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Jack 6_am, Community Development Director
Howard Field_, Ass'estant Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -02
RON ISHII To allow the 'development of - one -story
church (14,740 square Feet), and associated small storage
building (216 square feet), on 3.88 acres in the Very Low
Residential District located on the northwest Corner of
Haver, and Hillside = APN 201- 101 - 027.
s~..
w ajie
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan, elevations,
and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
B. Existing Land iJse: Very low Residential, vacant.
C. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning
North - Existirg sin le- family residences, Very Low
Residential less than 2 du /ac).
South - Vacant, Very Low Residential (less than 2 du /ac).
East Existing sin ?le - family residences, Very Low
Residential less than 2 du/ac).
Rest - Existing sin le- family residences, Very Low
Resident' al Mess than 2 dulac).
D. General Plan Designations:
IroJecctSite - Very Low Residential
North Very tow Residential
South -- Very Low Residential
East - Very Low Residential
West - Very Low Residential
E. Site•Characteristics, The project site is a vacant corner lot
with steep sloping terrain of approximately 7% grade from north
to south and 4% from east tc west. The site is sparsely
populated wit-h =:" ,ds and shrubs, and contains -no significant
tr_es or landforms.
ITEM CExhibit B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 85 -02 RON ISHII
September 5, 1985
Page 2
1
I1. BACKGROUND: On July 24, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewE. CUP
85 -02 ( hurch of the Latter Day Saints) and expressed concerns over
the roof mass which took up two - thirds of the building scale, and
requested the applicant to explore adjustments and variations to
the roof plane, which was too linear (180 feet). The Commission
diected staff to work with the applicant to resolve the
aforementioned concerns.
III. ANALYSIS: .
A. General: The 14,740 sq. ft. church will have a fixed seating
capacity oO 257 seats, requiring a total of 124 parking
stalls. The internal site circulation is adequate to
accommodate the proposed use with ingress and egress occurring
via Haven Avenue and along Hillside Read.
The applicant has proposed the use of low terraced walls for
the dual purpose of providing attractive landscape planters at
the northeast and southeast portions of the project site and to
to ?e up grade with 3 foot %'<aining walls. The northern
perimeter wall will act in toe same fashion, providing a
terraced planter and 6 foot high block wall for retaining
purposes as a mitigation measure for the steep terrain.
B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee
recommended revisions to the building elevations such as
breaking up the roof mass with stucco fascia and for
architectural detail adding long columnar windows, glazed tile,
and bronzed louvers to the east elevation (Exhibit "E "). The
applicant complied with the Committee's request; however, the
Committee expressed concern over the height of the roof line
35 feet).
C. Equestrian Trails Committee: The Equestrian Advisory Committee
recommended approval of the project subject to dedication of a
20 foot community parkway trail along Hillside & Haven and
drivewayprovidingaheavybroaa, finish for the crossing.
Also, the Committee felt that a single railing is an adequate
r uarrier.
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study :as been
compl eted y the applicant. Staff has completed Part I, of the
Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse impact
on the 'environment as a result of this project. If the
Commission concurs with said findings, issuance of a Negative
Declaration would be in order.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 85 -02 - RON'ISHII
September 5,.1985
Page 3
IV. FACTS YOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General
Plan and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to
adjacent 1~operties or cause significant adverse environmental.
impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together'
with the recd amended conditions of approval, are in compliance with
the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City
standards.
V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report
as a public hearing. In addition, the property was posted and
notices advertising, the public hearing were sent to ail property
owners within 300 feet of the project site.
VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning C{ anission
consider all input and elements of this project. If af,;er such
consideration the Commission can support the facts for finding,
then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a
Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
Respec fully b fitted, T
Jack Lam
Community Development Director
JL:HF:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "8" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Elevations (per P.C. 7/24185)
Exhibit "E" Revised Elevations
Exhibit "F" Conceptual Landscape roan
Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan
initial Study, Part II
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
IG
y
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CO "?OITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85 -02 FOR RON ISHII
LOCATED AT THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF HAVEN AND HILLSIDE IN
THE VZRY L012 RESIDENT ?AL DISTRICT
WnEP.EAS, on the 20th day of February, 1985, a complete applicat %:,n
was filed by Ron Ishii for review of the.above- described project; and
WHEREAS, on. the 11th day of_ September, , 1985,, the Rancho _Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Con-- nission; resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findin-s can be met:
1. That the proposed use is zn accord with the General'
Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and
the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed use, together, with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not bf, detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with- -each. of the
applicable provisions of the Development Coda.
SECTION 2: -hat this project will no" create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 11, 15g5.
SECTION 3: That Condi'ional Use Permit No. 85 -02,, is approved
subject to the lZ TTowing conditionsc
DESIGN REVIEW;
1. Frovide 10 feet landscape planters along West and north
property line.
2. Construct 20 fi,,;, wide equestrian trail along both Maven
Avenue and Hillside Road per City standards.
3. Design e'_evations for the small storage building shall beksimilarin- materials and compatibility with the 'main
church sanctuary and shall be approved by the City Planner
i before issuanci of building permits.
Resolution No,
CUP 85 -02 ISHII
Page 2
4. Provide 6 foot block wall design with decorative cap, and
shall be approved by the Design Review Committee before
issuance of building permits.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1985,
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jack Lam, Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission ;of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, d,, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and Aft
regularly introduced, passed, and ,adopted by the Planning Commission of the
Cit.; of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held-
on the 11th day of September, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
f^ r L V
qk-
MG c>.o L MU cq o:e. ^a. •O.°.. =c N u. d .d
G q
p`^ NNO tiL p.apiO L >q.
n
p V' T O Y A _ d 9 0 L « •Li
6i vAy cp. d on E _ _V q L. u
nR «
C9
A 'dam LT do A Vy G P ^L dSp E. yy0i C
4 yaa°a
OF.
d qN ua=i.LO uy-
M
9M d2yY
La
Oath A NCL
EE
O
dZ GO
aG
CO ^ ^Ep
0O
G
a"
cAO
v 4 c
A C d•)
G'
a O p.
jV a r EO
y >
Y
p
PqWu
o d o 0 «
L
E
n0
6 EtTd ds °
o d dqpuu v84!-
U O
G N y aL O O d L Or 9
O,
U V V.
O u E - 6 OaY
i.•u A.ovi N11% lxz-: " r onN u ¢N =u «s
GI
m ,
E _ t C
2.
H
d q L A t
O
1 NO n
W-0
C
F
T day V UY61 a iO L
J a
n « L
E
aO
V C ! f'!
c z
t{-
i
q
aT
YVy
V
N.
pr E O O .
t
ad Se q 0
G add
Y k7—
O Y
0 O+L c 6a. S
O m d C E
aqad
C EL Y tl Y
Ly^
r g d
b' O u
T 0
w p _ Vonw w
va
0 c a i A a c N N
wy
a
y q d
4 wI I qp..9 OwVN^w vo'tlt
Z
Lac
CO o• ° ^i1w alin crn aw
y N
L.
gieL
o
CJ
O
C m r r w p t N +r G d` N y U LdO y w
SN
90
b
uN 'O N£C£: •q
TdgN L L C^ yN
y` >CCN `O
Lewy A gg N°N
t=l71 wL
9gau N.0
Ty 6U tlw
NE 4 a= d C TN y r NL Tqm Yo
r1°
rY
WCtl ^O
w
N°
a
11 y. °qq .-.P E 1C
d y
n
dd`
uyi c NC
y ronr q °n u
zN .-
N o m fJ C^ T
q J VN <, y O ^ a V t E
g L
owjW o ar°.,
L E° >
c5 .i 'W1 ^o Uz,;
w
roc
tl
c
q4
V'
1 c.t:l
ut oL O.r°+
E E.y' SyVI
i °n d.. .N.
o. H noCZ* T° V w. 3
1L <yyONy Wtl EEOTi
wttd
Egta } o W g udC C 9
cp
t
b
1
t
Vt G 6E0 ++« ai YT. N
C
d
Vi`y V
YL.
1°ri_ `
w C6 .yCL.9 •
C 6Lf q.^. L
y d dN
y
0 —
d
L y Nd
L- qC 6m Sd. u mfr GyE ..
1dr
L L
Mro
r a M C h m M
u.
y q d L a S
Y
C C S Z Q y c T
Y,c^ ro^ i NYC 6 V
qEV y0
dL. E° NuQ
f rw — `
n
a01L= rocL
a n
E d.-e u.
1 Oml
L d d w W S CO
d Ac
i.l 01C N` . G'. `.
a °
elcn
LNC yro
G O
A A
d L•O
6F
2
pdq E ZnM
t
CL
y >
q = =7
6q Y
q
V
S 4 wy L tl A YCd
Ny .
OE
wYY.
S C
COI tlU'S a°...0
Q L
L
CA% lyit °.
DO
W.O
a
C V rod ro° dY 0°mgo;LNCC CEgOOa°+ 2Sg1°
cr
stdCN` t;
LNA ^ TO C
tl d LOLL.
v^ Dm N
w4UC
L.dy.N Ud
Nw^ ='°1LA
JwgN
d
N.
CtltC °
r
9r <CL T .<. aq°
d O
L °6V
y4 < yC
E
d
L9 G
O
oiC C
tl. N
9C. <c r r
tdV
d w^ qN G q M'yYL y
CANE
wl~N <O. E LV dE2Y o
ygC Ly CU. N °
r +
n Yet.
3 C 1+ C
r
Y L C b tl a O C.
M:) L =ZEE
ro 9 O O > q E
t+.r
I
1 w 1= •. N 4 N m
e
r
D.OA CO Q CC 1Y O OOq v dLy° r Olt C L9
Nn et' oaY °i 8 9NILON
s1
r•°-
Y
y
a^
Ac
x d
ro A
N.ci eracup aL JNq
T SAO n cd Ny a d
Nd.
ca Y. N9
N
c
nApO
ul
NY1!
A''L p Q pn C , NIV, c L CQy,r
O N° d C L+ t: n
Oao0 u cL V. -
L
r. O N O. L.°. L
O^ V 02
Quo
2:;
N d
C1Y c L QN N 7yUC
Ea Y. 6,St. pd c.1 YiLS r. y L € • CL
NV
c
L M.A
N
1 A YO
C°
pL
d a
Ud L J. d. 6 -pN
57
ad qt
qu d
Y.
a
jW
W Y
dIVO L
W y G ill
c° c y°
YL N
C 6U6 sLr- M» aPA N'^Y. j ^JTC.L w A° 6 =C. YL YCC
9 ^GOL
T.e1pY« E..
cvd
y
NiA
N N N
Ew
Q N
Cm
Q M
wJ
03N f M1 L CJ V 01 > R N N 6 O Q A S O P. Q U dm ^LLLOck-.
av °u-O %°c a L
a.UOw c Oi 6 ^La ie9i
N•" „G G.A OO L
U
U o AA QO dai Tj nP
d._ati« V
ei crr9 rd Eu.. q o; Na> ac q1 Q Ay F2
E G
q °mom a.i• N -
L a«
n4c
y
f Y
KS4CNCA9cLr' Y
d
AJ R?`qM
Ya MMd` YL ^ C.O xgg6Yq
u
1i^
ro Ao L N yt
Ot,
a9 cE
L9y 6Tpr°- .°.ADM
U
LI..,C 'J NNww i"1 hO C Yyu.O
d V.... 0 CV7z- L Yom. Y. NO4^
L «.
T dN °L > .NM:^ Lp -+ °x
uO° °
N. N Qa aA ^L..a
a L A u^^. o Tu
t N.O t ¢DwHn air p °m.. Q9 F='D O 6rc Qv 6A WP pMN.a°+y°.
N
0
DO
l
Z
4JUC)
i
Q
HO OC u iii •= p ^ .
H
N
L ! .tL Egos, L dY
D!nz AT ° C YZ
tl
d7 t3 . •`
6Y OLn
Lp
II
a^
yt
C
2 O " DY
YYY O: aQ OU O+'u YL j Yy Ny i..
rLL
CC ^N G p.y
N i
d
J`
Upp yyo LL
EE
nO
Y• N
l
LOl
H
Y
q ^ q `dC ,
v, p
Y
O
y
nqL _ Miu.M . Wf C5
C
u
z L . ..
n
C .
A
a a =A a °.y
a E
l ,
y%
tl
GA ..
rdY
V
L= m W G
na It y a E
O Np. w O EYT.6 i ,EU
r gFOC q'd p 2u H sgduN O °`YU C N
N G 6 N g
M C 6 ^
P b ° 0= W w A oa q G N
a— C O d G p Y a
tpY.^ -C
HhNr
Y.H L O A. cL N`
W YC C CI b ? ^7n N Q C
dT 2u LL GC
J
u GOffii.
E Y CP` .
A « dH^ 6 6= Y
0 0. > y AX s= Y tl Y
Z 'o
w^ O 'Oq .O a
Ea >
r
eV°s 1 4 2PllN6 A '' L)WL `R t N d..0 AV. N 6ua
m
p•- `PaC°ce , cam. ° mom;$ t o. -tl« ql{1 ..a
2-224
uO1qNpL .% L q V Y ` E Y. i n
E
A^ n S d q t z
q L d W V q M W Nr Z N p
g6Vii
LO
LVy ^^'
DM L O QT Yom,^ O N L M Y. pt Y.N O C> e G
p p q M C r ^,
V
9! g N L y Y 0 ` q ^ Y t UL 1p
Y ..R 2-:! V C. Y .N ;s Y` p G.
y` .
NIL
dpQL . O .
2-s N as
Y
E.uN
y.
Hv=u ca 'uL
N
Nui .
N.
w
oH. a isavNyNNLCNH ' Oq • N.
NnyL .`. {
1LG
max. YC. l GEOd ^ dOY >N HFV
V A L a @ N
O c. > W M 2 C V N n iGLn
d
N q d d 2 q~ .COOqEtPpca+: a N p p{ m E ^ 9 0 N Y Yr
Z CC C d tlON.«2.` 9.r dNp AaaC a °`C.AC +ylE Od.G YL u. H.^ -...
L
tu. '`°y v p c ayp= T €
Cti NOG BE `d o.
q
c ^A c y
p^
n °,e
fr+
t
a^ occ a5E2ul a•L a.o P, «tlgT
wo
6 nN L
yr
L
GL
Q 6NVwN} C S+L° JLE 6 h `N 66® OYM. EyO. W.H2 6rd+
I I a I {
y
WFVI
O
a Y -1 a OI s. bltiOV MVA
Y•r
vN°
ECEi
ur oir'.
i 4 0i
n
e
Y
y Of OI
Ba
T i
O
y
V
GVa$.
A
4REp{a a
V
n
N V
uNL4
a4
p
C
e—
Z
5 2V C
G
LOT
oll
W^
yv
4pE L 'y°yZ
NCL4 4a'rbi
W i 44N^ VO
ar u -c;
VNY G4Oa lyr-
COSH yN `
d CN .. uU g'O DSG
o°a
My
uMOp 4,A136VC
adL
J.1V y. A 3eY ...
ddej
py
p. Ny GS
YQQ-
Y
C C F r E G i L EE py vl
YO
L M
N4
a
N blaHN
4° rr
aVy C41 aV 4 Y Y9r`ym
o. coa
pN
1
D• t ^ y
O
4 W a >tx
y c L
XOWNV
r` 1^
V` Ou a +.
L
C as GN t0 ypgVi YyV.
r.
O Y 4 pO W
O O WyWOY S! 6 9 r l d yy°•LUCUaLi
N V 1b tp
4 ZW J
a Y -1 a OI s. bltiOV MVA
1
Ba 4REp{a a q u y,=c n uy a. n° i dra
a4 e—
yv NCL4 4a'rbi v
4 vcT am pn>
ar u -c;
Y
Ot
c ca. gtr
arnu a.4 g
no
9t9
O c
vo- 6 NLaN a °On.
6y j
yi
L
a O ^ >6
u 'w ^
a..
y
Ot-
LN
C 44 G'Z bl
N
ddej
py
p. Ny GS
YQQ-
CYN
VN
r
y.°C Vr4,Nq
L M
gE
ON
O DY14
V' 2 ay
V 4 V
u yC GO VYVL! u -
V'
V pN
1
D• t ^ y
O
O C O N Y EppOE
V NY94f.i:
L
6Y >
VN
TsYC
XOWNV 1`XV Y OV Cam. 6 47 J.G2
r.
1
a
S6,
Y
Qx
i-t
W
O
0.
Q F O' OOp tJL Otf ? OCPa S
P
a
o ay.N.
L N ai d
i
W
L V a ^u
R
y
OILT'NN O
o
N a4
a
NO YMN w
yy dt: zOa
r t
d V A 4L
N
i i .3
0 N ra[
j
NV
A Vw V d
V
G
1
M
h9 N W
Q
Na
Gl.;z
aW p
all E. E
yore acwa 1^2d w ,<^ .s. r='u: vl.a cH v
6,4oNN
Ao.
Y.
G U C V . it Y is -1 N V., V' U
Sy.41
A.y 3„.;„
6N:J• N
y.4 }VAgiCLLw
WVF
N CO1 ICY SS
aAO. E.P y'r „ W4
N^
L r4 V C k
4
Or.V
p,
41`
J V. V RL V ^l. ,
t0.+
q Ndp N
ga22
gC NN 4L
w Yt'O L pN V.G N wtY Lq C C UNG
r>o y Q
y 4M C
tKi.1 U
LCrN6WS.° NLiO L`.01
4:.pnY Nor L94 6rNUrw ^ >F. Y 1.r wLV4W.+Ni 4V
r9 L'4 O
11
1 tiq c L,
u aN v aN`oo u y
1 p Y Y Y V
d.r.
UL.V
d
M N
yl
rtly V ~ °VG di V
r
C
a
OC d Y O<
A^ <
s y
L
4
fia
AG dr %OprG'f O
O
v
y K -
9Lyd L Z G = 4,... M„E
M Z y.A. 4
p 1 P 4 W= 4 A N 6 C L L) Y
Or
i[
C- n-
rl
a
M y4
CU
6
w
Y
DLL
P
a
o ay.N.
L N ai d
ie L V a ^u
R
c
o a
Ye
w
tl
r t
d V A 4L
1 L
0 N ra[
M
K V
O
l 6NG! V
G
1
M
rl
a
Mu -- ,
v pvn
so
cY€
u
V V O
C q N
N O
N
V U
n a•
xo u
c" a
Q1 Q'VOLa+
09 V
c aOaV
C CQ
R1C1a
O
V 4O EE 6dN V y VC 4
N
L O4
a .
e .
9 L m. _ v .n n u
rt .¢ mTFY
w v N
p
L1 r •b rnE%
wp a < . N
r
mr
u . a T• o
c
r y.. is L
L
zzi a y°_
I mat F
V
aVl _
I-• b d..e. t p YQ .L y 44.. q
d Q D
n A p .:: O.
L.a Vq 6'
C y
n.
Ua
U 4q WsC
r
p,0 N
V P C `ai
ba
V
y S O
V O V N 4 E L C y E W O so
r
A m M ell
u
am
m cr o
2W
Y
atY
i
Y
u. Lm
ay. . ;:
e °aaHH ao.°. uL w+- ai a>
Y ^
9 s r ^AY.Y
ytYi _
dV pY Ri Eyd
LZ
O LO
V
JagF'^ 4
Cw
4 p NCGYpO w^• r V
TaCiL
yyt1 •. a
p
l
cw
V v o v YY cy bVL p vGOepU9EcE
E. GIN Q n W.6 4 6 1"•
b a'
Mu -- ,
v pvn
so
cY€
u
V V O
C q N
N O
N
V U
n a•
xo u
c" a
Q1 Q'VOLa+
09 V
c aOaV
C CQ
R1C1a
O
13
O
V 4O EE 6dN V y VC 4
N
L O4
a .
e .
9 L m. _ v .n n u
rt .¢ mTFY
e a A Nil
A L
Y p
L1 r •b rnE%
eL.
r
N.V ;4 Abp w Y
N y
C
V °• r K Y- U
O p E p p 4
4 Ty 4 cC n' E yN sG »i d Q D
L q VL pOVA C yLA
t
W rVP C `ai
ba
V
y S O
r
A m M ell
n F 94 V O L C L p
2W
Y
atY
i
Y
u. Lm
ay. . ;:
e °aaHH ao.°. uL w+- ai a>
9 s r ^AY.Y Tt in 'S•.^I•rCoC6N6NginO LZ Li aY
V
l
O
13
Exhibit C
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2025-00135, A
REQUEST TO MODIFY EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
85-02 TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF AN APPROVED 7,900
SQUARE FOOT FELLOWSHIP HALL ADDITION AT AN
EXISTING 15,710 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH ON A 2.73 ACRE
LOT WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL ZONE WITH
HILLSIDE AND EQUESTRAIN OVERLAYS AT 5474 HAVEN
AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF –
APN: 1074-281-20.
A. Recitals.
1. The Applicant, Andresen Architecture, on behalf of St. Elias Orthodox Church, filed
an application for Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2025-00135, as described in the title
of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit Modification
request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of August 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3. 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. This Commission 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 this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on August 13, 2025, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The project site consists of approximately 2.73 acres of land developed with a
15,710 square foot church building, a 284 square foot accessory structure, and was also
previously approved for a 7,900 square foot addition located at the northwest corner of Haven
Avenue and Hillside Road; and
b. 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 Church Very Low (VL) Residential
North
Page 21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-024
DRC2025-00135 – Andresen Architecture on behalf of St. Elias Orthodox Church
August 13, 2025
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The project site
has a Semi-Rural Neighborhood General Plan land use designation and Very Low (VL)
Residential zone, which is intended for low density residential and civic uses, such as churches.
The existing church has been located at the site since the mid-1980s and was recently approved
for an expansion. The subject Conditional Use Permit Modification ensures that the use of the
church is in accord with the General Plan and Development Code, consistent with the purpose of
the district within which the site is located.
b. 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. The proposed use of the church, including the recently approved
Fellowship Hall expansion, is compatible and complimentary in nature to the existing assembly
use on site, which has existed since the mid-1980s. The proposed use will align with how the
church has been operating since the mid-1980’s. For example, upon approval of this Conditional
Use Permit Modification, the previously approved Fellowship Hall will provide a dedicated and
appropriate space for meetings and social events that are already taking place at the church. The
site will continue to comply with the performance standards outlined in Section 17.66 of the
Development Code.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code. The existing assembly use, which is permitted at this location under
Conditional Use Permit 85-02, now includes the usage of a fellowship hall as the use can be a
component to a religious, assembly use. As such, the additional use is compliant with the
Development Code and has been determined to comply with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code.
4. The Planning department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project
qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing
Structures, which includes the operation of existing private structures. The project scope is to
modify Conditional Use Permit 85-02 for the purpose of expanding an existing assembly use. No
physical construction is contemplated as part of this project.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
South Single-Family
Residences
Semi-Rural
Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
East Single-Family
Residences
Semi-Rural
Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
West Single-Family
Residences / Vacant
Semi-Rural
Neighborhood Very Low (VL) Residential
Page 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-024
DRC2025-00135 – Andresen Architecture on behalf of St. Elias Orthodox Church
August 13, 2025
Page 3
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chair
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 23
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2025-00135
Project Name: #23-4934 St Elias Orthodox Church
Location: 5474 HAVEN AVE - 107428120-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00135 authorizes the modification of Conditional Use Permit 85-02
to allow for the use of an approved 7,900 square foot fellowship hall addition at an existing 15,710
square foot church on a 2.73 acre lot within the Very Low (VL) Residential zone with Hillside and
Equestrian Overlays, located at 5474 Haven Avenue; APN: 1074-281-20.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
7.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/28/2025
Page 24
Project #: DRC2025-00135
Project Name: #23-4934 St Elias Orthodox Church
Location: 5474 HAVEN AVE - 107428120-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
8.
9.
10.
11.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 5Printed: 7/28/2025
Page 25
Project #: DRC2025-00135
Project Name: #23-4934 St Elias Orthodox Church
Location: 5474 HAVEN AVE - 107428120-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the
business including changes to the operating days /hours; change in the location on -site or within the
building of the use /activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new
building construction; and/or other modifications /intensification beyond what is specifically approved by
this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to
submittal of documents for plan check /occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or
issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or
intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for
review by the City.
12.
13.
14.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Comply with all Engineering Conditions of Approval under case number DRC 2024-00129.1.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
At least one Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) is required to be installed in accordance with the
California Health & Safety Code Sections 19300 and 104113. Additional AEDs may be required by
these sections of the Health & Safety Code. Compliance with all applicable AED training, notification,
testing, and maintenance provisions is required. See Health & Safety Code Sections 1797.196 and
104113.
Group A assembly building with an occupancy of more than 300.
Group B business building with an occupancy of 200 or more.
Group E educational building with an occupancy of 200 or more.
Group F factory building with an occupancy of 200 or more.
Group I institutional building with an occupancy of 200 or more.
Group M mercantile building with an occupancy of 200 or more.
Group R hotel, motel, dormitory, assisted living facility, and similar residential building.
Membership based health studio, fitness center, cross fit facility, or general exercise facility.
1.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 5Printed: 7/28/2025
Page 26
Project #: DRC2025-00135
Project Name: #23-4934 St Elias Orthodox Church
Location: 5474 HAVEN AVE - 107428120-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any changes or modifications to the fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system, exhaust hood fire
suppression system, or the commercial cooking appliances require the approval of the Fire District .
Plans for modifications are required to be deferred submittals with the work completed under separate
permits.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Submit two sets of structural calculations, and two sets of energy conservation calculations. (if
applicable)
1.
Submit five complete sets of plans.2.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for accessibility to public buildings.3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 5Printed: 7/28/2025
Page 27
Project #: DRC2025-00135
Project Name: #23-4934 St Elias Orthodox Church
Location: 5474 HAVEN AVE - 107428120-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 5Printed: 7/28/2025
Page 28
DATE:August 13, 2025
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TAMARA TANGHERLINI - A request to
operate a large indoor fitness and sports facility in an existing 17,500
square foot warehouse space within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone, located
at 9201 Charles Smith Avenue; APN: 0229-284-23. This project qualifies
for a Class 1 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15301
– Existing Facilities. (DRC2025-00101).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of approval for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2025-00101 subject to the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site consists of a 1.21-acre parcel improved with an existing 17,500 square foot
industrial warehouse building, located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith
Avenue. The site is further improved with a total of 44 parking spaces, including 2 handicap
spaces. An aerial view of the project site is provided in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Site
Page 29
Page 2 of 5
2
9
5
9
The existing land uses, General Plan, and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding
properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site
North
South
East
West
ANALYSIS:
Page 30
Page 3 of 5
2
9
5
9
of this standard.
Figure 2 - Aerial View of Shared Parking Agreement Parties
th street and Charles Smith Avenue. City traffic engineers were consulted
regarding the shared parking agreement and did not raise safety concerns, noting that Charles
Smith Avenue is considered a low-traffic street. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall
provide clear written instructions detailing the path of travel to customers, to be both posted and
available on site and provided directly to customers.
Page 31
Page 4 of 5
2
9
5
9
Figure 3 - Proposed Path of Travel
The agreement further stipulates that the users of each property will only be permitted to use the
shared parking spaces during their normal operating hours, as indicated in the following table:
Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday
9201 Charles Smith Avenue (Project Site)1:00 PM to 8:00 PM 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM
9208 Charles Smith Avenue 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM Closed
As indicated, the hours stipulated by the shared parking agreement ensure that there shall be no
overlap in hours of operation, and thus neither party’s total parking availability will be reduced by
the proposed Shared Parking Agreement. Any changes to the approved hours of operation shall
require an approved Conditional Use Permit Modification, and a modification of the Shared
Parking Agreement.
This shared parking agreement has been reviewed by the city attorney’s office and found to be
prepared to their satisfaction. As a condition of approval, the applicant will provide evidence that
the agreement has been duly recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s office, in
accordance with Development Code Section 17.64.060A.2.c, prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Page 32
Page 5 of 5
2
9
5
9
Public Art
th, 2025. On July 30th, 2025, notices were published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. The
project site was also posted with physical notices on July 30th, 2025. To date, planning staff has
received no comments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
…to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant
city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class
community.”. Additionally, the project promotes the City Council’s core value of “Promoting and
enhancing a safe and healthy community for all,” by creating new opportunities for youth in
Rancho Cucamonga to participate in athletic activities.
EXHIBITS:
with Conditions of Approval
Page 33
Aerial Image of Project Site
Exhibit A
Page 34
Proposed Site Plan and Floor Plan
Figure 1 - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit B
Page 35
Figure 2 - Proposed Floor Plan
Page 36
Docusign Envelope ID: 5DC358A0-883A-419E-8D00-D3A2BEC28AFF SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT
Exhibit C
Page 37
Docusign Envelope ID: 5DC358A0-883A-419E-8D00-D3A2BEC28AFF
Jenny Xu Managing Member
Page 38
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT DRC2025-00101, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A LARGE
INDOOR FITNESS AND SPORTS FACILITY IN AN EXISTING 17,500
SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE SPACE WITHIN THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL
(NI) ZONE, LOCATED AT 9201 CHARLES SMITH AVENUE. APN: 0229-
284-23
A.Recitals.
1.The applicant filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
DRC2025-00101, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 13th day of August 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date at which time the Commission voted to recommend approval of the
subject Conditional Use Permit.
3.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.This Commission 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 this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on August 13th, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to the property addressed 9201 Charles Smith Avenue,
generally located on the southeastern corner of Charles Smith Avenue and 6th Street; and
b.The project site consists of one parcel of approximately 1.21 acres, which is
improved with an industrial warehouse building with a gross square footage of 17,500 square feet;
and
c.The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations
for, the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted parcel) are as
follows:
Exhibit D
Page 39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-023
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2025-00101
City of Rancho Cucamonga
August 13, 2025
Page 2
d.The application is for the operation of a large indoor fitness and sports facility
within the existing industrial warehouse building located on at the project site; and
e.A private Shared Parking Agreement has been entered into by the owners of
9201 Charles Smith Avenue and 9208 Charles Smith Avenue to accommodate the parking
requirements of the proposed large fitness and sports facility. This agreement has been reviewed
by the City Attorney and found to be satisfactory; and
f.There is no new physical development associated with this application except
for potential interior and exterior tenant improvements necessary to meet Building Code
Standards, which shall be reviewed under a separate application.
3.Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this
Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a.The proposed use is consistent with the general plan. The project site is
designated as being within the Neo-Industrial Employment General Plan Land Use District. This
land use designation prioritizes low-impact industrial uses, and the adaptive reuse of existing
industrial buildings. The proposed use involves the adaptive reuse of an existing warehouse.
b.The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and
the purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city
regulations/standards. The project site is located within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone. Pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.30.030 large fitness and sports facilities are permitted in the Neo-
Industrial zone only with an approved Conditional Use Permit.
c.The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the use being
proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints that would make
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Warehouse Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Wholesale/Distribution Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
South Vehicle Services Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Manufacturing Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Manufacturing Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
Page 40
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-023
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2025-00101
City of Rancho Cucamonga
August 13, 2025
Page 3
conduct of the use undesirable. Due to the nature of the use as an indoor fitness and sports facility
a large open interior is necessary to safely accommodate equipment and activities related to the
use. As a condition of approval, the project will be required to obtain all necessary building permits
prior to commencement of use. According to the parking standards detailed in Development Code
Section 17.64.050, a minimum number of 85 parking spaces must be provided to accommodate
the use. The private Shared Parking Agreement entered by the applicant will allow the use to
meet this standard by providing an additional 46 parking spaces, for a total of 90. As a condition
of approval , prior to issuanc e of building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence that the
Shared Parking Agreement has been duly recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s
Office.
d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use
would be compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including
transportation and service facilities. The proposed use will not result in changes to the design of
the existing building, except where necessary to meet building code requirements. The proposed
use will take place entirely within the existing building and is compatible with adjacent uses in that
the intensity of the proposed use is not expected to exceed that of adjacent uses.
e. Granting the permit would not constitute and nuisance or be injurious or
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to
persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The
use will be conducted entirely indoors and will involve no external changes to the existing
structure. As the proposed use shall take place in an ex isting building, the project site shall be
required to meet all current building code requirements to accommodate the change in occupancy
for the new use.
f. The proposed use will not pose an undue burden on city services, including
police, fire, streets, and other public utilities such that the city is unable to maintain its current level
of service due to the use. The proposed use shall take place in an existing building, and no
additional square footage shall be required. All existing services shall remain for the project site.
The proposed use involves no external modifications to the underlying building which would
hinder emergency services. Any modifications to plumbing or electrical utilities which would be
necessary to accommodate the new use will require approval by the Rancho Cucamonga Building
& Safety Department and the respective utility providers.
4. Planning Department Staff have 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 as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 – Existing Facilities. The project scope is the leasing of an existing industrial warehouse
facility for use as a large indoor fitness and sports facility. For the reasons listed above, there is
no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
Page 41
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-023
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2025-00101
City of Rancho Cucamonga
August 13, 2025
Page 4
6.The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 13th day of August 2025 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 42
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2025-00101
Project Name: Younique Fitness LLC
Location: 9201 CHARLES SMITH AVE - 022928423-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Prior to issuance of building permits, evidence shall be provided to the city showing that the Shared
Parking Agreement has been recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder 's Office, in
accordance with Development Code Section 17.64.060A.2.c.
1.
2.
3.
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/5/2025
Page 43
Project #: DRC2025-00101
Project Name: Younique Fitness LLC
Location: 9201 CHARLES SMITH AVE - 022928423-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
4.
5.
6.
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 4Printed: 8/5/2025
Page 44
Project #: DRC2025-00101
Project Name: Younique Fitness LLC
Location: 9201 CHARLES SMITH AVE - 022928423-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit
Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion
Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion
Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and
demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant
must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of
diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the
completion of the construction and / or demolition project.
Contact Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.
Instructions and forms are available at the City 's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering /
Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.
1.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
A change of use/occupancy analysis is required to be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for
the evaluation of the proposed use in the existing building. Some of the issues that must be addressed
include (but are not limited to): Compliance with seismic requirements, Structural Importance Factor ,
ADA accessibility and parking, allowable area ratios, area separation walls, maximum occupant loads ,
type of doors, swing of doors, panic hardware, exit signs, emergency illumination, aisle widths, direct
exiting, and designation of a main exit.
1.
Interior finishes shall comply with all provision of the California Fire Code.2.
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All exit components must comply with the requirements of CBC (adjoining rooms, rated corridors, door
swings, separation of exits, etc.).
Note that all plans submitted to the building department for plan check must be prepared by a licensed
contractor.
1.
2.
3.
4.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 4Printed: 8/5/2025
Page 45
Project #: DRC2025-00101
Project Name: Younique Fitness LLC
Location: 9201 CHARLES SMITH AVE - 022928423-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Building and Safety Services Department requires that change of occupancy plans be prepared by
professional architect licensed in California.
5.
Provide required restroom facilities per the CBC.6.
7.
8.
Submit five complete sets of plans. Plans must be wet stamped and signed.9.
10.
11.
12.
Submit five complete sets of plans.13.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for accessibility to public buildings.14.
Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.15.
16.
17.
Provide draft stops in combustible attics and concealed spaces, in accordance with CBC.18.
19.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for fire-resistive construction.20.
21.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 4Printed: 8/5/2025
Page 46