HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-22 - SupplementalsPlanning Commission
June 22, 2022
Case No. DRC2022-00205
Project Background
•Who:Kermit Smith (applicant);Charles Carelli (property
owner);
•Where:Generally,northwest corner of East Avenue and
Chickasaw Road ;
•Why :Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment and lot
merger to reconfigure three adjacent parcels in order to
create one new lot.The resultant lots cannot meet lot depth
requirements,thus the applicant has requested a variance.
Etiwanda AvenueWhittram Avenue
Parcel A
APN: 0225-181-39
6378 East Avenue
19,079 s.f.
Parcel B
APN: 0225-181-38
6380 East Avenue
18,148 s.f.
Parcel C
APN: 0225-181-35
6382 East Avenue
8,482 s.f.
Etiwanda AvenueWhittram Avenue
Parcel A (former)
APN: 0225-181-39
6378 East Avenue
19,079 s.f.
Parcel B (former)
APN: 0225-181-38
6380 East Avenue
18,148 s.f.
Parcel C (former)
APN: 0225-181-35
6382 East Avenue
8,482 s.f.
Parcel D (B+C)
6378 East Avenue
24,491 square feet
Parcel A (enlarged)
APN: 0225-181-39
6378 East Avenue
21,218 square feet
Variance Request
•Currently, lots are nonconforming with regard to lot size and lot depth;
•Lot reconfiguration improves status of lots as it makes lots now a conforming
size, but the applicant has requested a variance to allow deficient lot depth for
Parcels A and D;
•Staff supports this request due to existing constraints on the site.
Noticing
•Notices mailed to all property owners within 660 feet (~63
mailers)on June 7,published in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin and the site was posted on June 10,2022;
•To date,staff has received one phone call from a concerned
neighbor worried that this project involved the construction
of multiple-family housing.Upon explaining the project,the
caller expressed no further concerns but did state other
neighbors may have similar concerns.
Recommendation
•Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the Variance through the Resolution
included to the report.
Questions/Comments?
CHRISTIAN GARCIA
CHRISTIAN@CAFORHOMES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
June 22, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Email: c/o Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us
RE: Haven & Arrow Project
APNs: 0209-092-09, - 13.
To the Planning Commission:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools
to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the Haven & Arrow project. The
City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code
Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter
constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with the project.
The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing
development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan,
zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the
time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as
“objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official
and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”
Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the
evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are
judged against the City’s standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).
The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find
that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to
that effect within 30 to 60 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be
complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent
with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
June 22, 2022
Page 2
If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project
is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must
make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have
a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have
“a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written
public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application
was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II).
Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official
and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”
Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it
may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable
measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue.
For projects that provide housing for lower-income families, the Act is even more
restrictive. In many cases, the City must approve such a project even if it fails to meet the City’s
objective land use standards. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).
These provisions apply to the full range of housing types, including single-family homes,
market-rate multifamily projects, and mixed-use developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see
Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature
has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible
weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code
§ 65589.5(a)(2)(L).
When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying
with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed
this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a
private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov.
Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the
project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality
that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own
expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an
enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the
organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also
impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
June 22, 2022
Page 3
In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:
In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of
Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the
development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify
any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore
violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application.
In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied
a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the
factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and
the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to
specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform.
San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council , Alameda
County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases
relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes
and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court
ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees.
In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that
the Los Altos violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing
laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed-
use residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay
approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case.
In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, a case brought by our
organization, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing
Accountability Act when it rejected a 48-unit condominium project based on vague
concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay
$600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.
In other cases, localities have settled lawsuits by agreeing to approve the subject projects
and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
Sincerely,
Christian Garcia
1
Thornhill, Elizabeth
From:Eoff, David
Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 4:04 PM
To:Thornhill, Elizabeth
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Meeting / 6/22/2022 - comments / concerns on 8500 Haven, LLC
Email 2 for the Commissioners.
DE
From: Christine Wright <cwright@arrowheadcu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:54 PM
To: Eoff, David <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us>
Cc: Judy Perez <jperez@arrowheadcu.org>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting / 6/22/2022 ‐ comments / concerns on 8500 Haven, LLC
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon David,
On behalf of Arrowhead Credit Union, located at 8686 Haven Ave., Rancho Cucamonga – we would
like to submit the following concerns for the new project on the Southwest Corner of Haven Avenue
and Arrow Route – 8500 Haven, LLC.
Storage units adjacent to our parking lot:
o The developer didn’t have much information to respond to our questions at the
community meeting:
Who will these storage units be available to? Tenants? Public?
Being that these are adjacent to our parking lot, we have concerns
Parking variance:
o We are concerned with the parking request variance and overflow parking occurring in
our parking lot, which also brings foot traffic, potential vandalism and trash being left
behind
Our Facilities Manager, Judy Perez (also on this email) will be present at the meeting on Wednesday,
June 22nd.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chris
Chris L. Wright
Vice President, Administration
(909) 379-6718 Office
(909) 708-6986 Cell
PO Box 4100 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
2
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is non‐public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and delete this message.
1
Thornhill, Elizabeth
From:Eoff, David
Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 4:03 PM
To:Thornhill, Elizabeth
Subject:FW: 0209-092-09. -13 (Haven/Arrow)
Email 1 for the commissioner’s.
DE
From: David Church <dchurch.vintners@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 1:49 PM
To: Eoff, David <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us>
Subject: 0209‐092‐09. ‐13 (Haven/Arrow)
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear David Eoff,
I’m going to do my best to be at the meeting on July 22, but prior engagements for work may prevent me from being at
the meeting. Incase I’m unable to attend, I just wanted to make sure that my voice would be heard on the matter of the
Southwest Corner of Haven Ave. & Arrow Route – 8500 Haven, LLC. My name is David Church and I am the secretary of
the HOA that is directly behind the proposed project, Vintner’s Grove. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the event
they held as I didn’t receive anything in my mail for it, and only learned about it from our community Facebook
page. Unfortunately, I had Tee‐ball practice for my 5 year old twin’s team that I coached and was unable to attend as
the time was literally the time of practice.
In regards to this property, and similar in regards to the proposed project that was a mixed of residential/commercial on
the corner of 26th and Haven, they’re asking to put residential homes in an industrial/commercial zoned property. I can
tell you, that as excited as my community would be to finally have someone break ground on the property, we would
not be excited for residential property running on the back side. Especially as when our community was built and
designed, the selling point was that the gate that was put on the East side of our property, was going to be used an
access way to the business complex that would be created on the two property lots.
When it comes to that gate/property, we haven’t had the greatest luck. It still isn’t developed, however, there always
seems to be homeless camping out in the shrubs/under the trees along the property line and we have had multiple
vandalism to the gate and our community pool that is along that wall. When the 26th Street/Haven property was having
it’s hearings before being put on hold, we were approached by a developer who was asking questions on what we’d like
to have on the empty property. He had mentioned that his company/investor group was looking at a 5 story building for
the property and wanted feedback to what we’d like to have. Our number one responses from the group of us that
stayed after the hearing was that we’d like to have it developed, but not be residential. Would be nice to have a grocery
store nearby as we don’t have many options and the third was to have something that resembled the current
design/layout of the neighboring property.
I haven’t seen anything in regards to the property and what they are proposing, but seeing that once again, they are
looking to change the zoning of the lot isn’t a good start and you’ll have the majority of the community directly being
effected and most likely the neighboring homes near 26th that would be affected if they feed us the same garbage about
living in the properties proposed and then using public transportation as a primary means of public transportation and
2
have the number of residential homes to parking spots be 1.5 to the property. I can tell you, living in the community
behind us and having parking issues inside our community that bleeds out to parking on Center/26th sometimes, no
owner/renters primary use of transportation is public transportation unless they are young at which they’re someone
living with family, not the primary renter/homeowner. Our biggest concern at the proposal at that time was they were
putting a road and a parking structure near the back wall which then shot us privacy issues as most of the condos are 2
stories with their garage on the first floor. Then we have a community pool that would be visible from the parking
structure and at that time possibly a rooftop bar they were looking into.
Not the same project, but still concerns for myself, our property owners and renters and the communities surrounding
the property. The other thing to consider is who they are targeting to bring in to the residential portion. I’d assume that
they’ll pitch the low/middle income, but this is going to be a new building that will cost millions of dollars and bring in
millions of dollars to the community. The price of rent has increased dramatically over the last few years and inflation
has drove prices to increase even more. If they are looking at 248 apartments, the average price of apartments is over
$2‐2.5k per month, which is close to what my wife and I are paying on our current property (8626 Harvest Pl). If a single
family is trying to rent and works 40/hours a week at minimum wage that is $31,200, which would give them 500‐600 in
other expenses. Realistically, the person who would be able to afford this property would be someone who is closer to a
household income of $75,000 as I’d assume a new property in Rancho Cucamonga would more likely have a rent closer
to $4k per month instead of the average $2.5k. I also know that if we’re looking to put more multi‐unit homes in the
close range, the valuation of the homes will be going down, which might not affect the existing apartments, but does to
the condos and homes in the immediate area. And if we’re looking to help housing for the low income, there are better
options than building a brand new multi‐million dollar project that will end up costing taxpayers money instead of
benefiting from a commercial property that is bringing in jobs and tax money.
I’m sorry for the long note, I’m a sales analyst and I like to crunch numbers and I know what a developer would be saying
in order to get a project green lighted compared to what the actuality of it would be after the fact. I appreciate your
time and do I hope you consider that the community that will be sharing a common property line would prefer to not
have a residential property on the empty lot that was told would be a business complex. Personally, if I had the funds, I
would prefer to make a tennis/racquet club similar to Claremont Club, without the number of courts as West San
Bernardino County is missing out on the experiences since the Upland Club closed for residential properties.
Thank you again.
David Church