3 1
2 8
Figure 2: Select examples of architectural renderings.
The architectural styles use high-quality material and detailing to create a contemporary, yet compatible, neighborhood character. Building elevations feature concrete slate tile roofing, stucco sliding with optional shingle or horizontal accents for texture and decorative wood barge boards with fascia treatments and wood trim around windows and doors. Decorative front entry doors and garage doors include lights and metal roll-up garage doors with treated windows to add visual interest. Fourteen color schemes highlight each architectural style while maintaining a balanced streetscape, using neutral tones, warm wood accents and darker contracting trim colors to create depth and articulation on all street facing elevations.
Homes are plotted with alternating floor plans, elevations and colors to avoid repetition, with corner lots receiving enhanced elevations for consistent design quality on all public facing sides.
Private driveways, landscaped parkways and pedestrian connections support curb appeal and walkability. Front setbacks and building spacings allow adequate light, air and privacy between residences while maintaining an attractive cohesive neighborhood design.
The proposed project offset 12 floor plans across two series. Series A provides single story homes, from 2,652 to 3,062 square feet with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 to 4.5 baths, including options such as tandem bays, storage bays, and flex space. Series B provides two-story homes from 3,462 to 3,805 square feet with 4 to 5 bedrooms and 4.5 to 5.5 baths, plus tandem or compact third bay configurations. Across both tracts, the mix totals 166 homes, with 79 single-story and 87 two-story.
Unit Summary – Tracts 16072 and 16072-2
Plan Type Square
Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms Garage Number of Homes
1D (Series A) 2,652 4 4.5 2-Bay 4
1XD (Series A) 2,653 4 4.5 2-Bay 1
1YD (Series A) 2,653 4 4.5 2-Bay 2
2 (Series A) 2,747 4 3.5 2-Bay + 1
Tandem
21
3 1
2 8
2X (Series A) 2,678 4 3.5 2-Bay +
Storage
9 3 (Series A) 2,960 4 3.5 2-Bay + 1
Bay
17 4 (Series A) 3,062 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1
Tandem
25 10 (Series B) 3,462 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1
Compact 18
20 (Series B) 3,805 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1
Tandem
30 20X (Series B) 3,751 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1
Tandem
7 30 (Series B) 3,804 5 5.5 2-Bay + 1
Tandem
29 30X (Series B) 3,804 5 5.5 2-Bay + 1
Tandem
3 Total Number
of Single-
Family Homes
- - - - 166
Compliance with Development Standards
The project is within the Low Residential (L) zone and the development standards for the zone are shown in the following table:
Low Residential (L) Development Standards
Required Proposed Compliant
Density 6 Dwelling Units Per
Acre
2.3 Dwelling Units
Per Acre Yes
Lot Area (min) 7,200 SF 7,200-17,536 SF
(Existing Parcels) Yes
Minimum Frontage
(min) 40 Feet 38.5-136.4 Feet
(Existing Parcels) Yes*
Building Height 35 Feet 20 Feet – 34 Feet Yes
Front Yard Setback 37 feet (+/- 5ft) 32-47 Feet Yes*
Interior Side Yard
Setback 5/10 Feet Varies Yes*
Rear Yard Setback 20 Feet Varies Yes*
Lot Coverage 40% 25%-40% Yes
*With Minor Exception and Variance for certain lots, see discussion below Parking
Section 17.64.050 (Number of Parking Spaces Required) of the Development Code requires two off-street spaces per single-family detached dwelling, on in a garage or carport and one in the driveway. For 166 homes, the minimum requirement is 332 spaces. The proposed project provides at least two-car garages for every home with 150 of the homes including a third-car stall (tandem or compact). Each lot includes a standard driveway that accommodates at least one vehicle. The proposed project satisfies the code requirement for parking.
3 1
2 8
Minor Exception
The project is consistent with the development requirements for the Low Residential (L) Zone except for a few site-specific conditions requiring minor exceptions. These requests are limited in scope and are necessary to address topographic constraints, seismic setbacks, existing infrastructure and yard usability while maintaining functional lot layouts. The request address site- specific constraints without altering the approved subdivision layout or overall development pattern. The design approach prioritizes functional yards, continuous walls for maintenance efficiency and minimal grading impacts ensuring consistency with City standards and neighborhood character whenever possible.
Summary Of Minor Exceptions
Location Condition Request Deviation Purpose
TR16072-2, Lots
1 and 2 Side yard wall height 1.4 ft above
standard
Avoids terraced wall
configuration and allows
yard space for Lots 1 and 2.
TR16072, Lot 12 Topography and
seismic setback
1.6 ft above
standard
Avoids terraced wall
configuration and maintains
continuous wall and
maximizes usable yard area.
TR16072, Lot 50 Corner lot with storm
drain catch basin
1.7 feet above
standard
Avoids terraced wall
configuration to
accommodate drainage
infrastructure while keeping
yard area continuous.
TR16072, Lots
2,5,6 Site slope conditions 1.5ft above
standard
Provides level building pads
even with smallest floor
plans due to slope
constraints.
Variance
Similar to the request for minor exceptions, the project applicant is also requesting a variance to deviate from certain standards related to frontage coverage, seismic fault setback, and site topography. These requests are the minimum necessary to address physical constraints beyond the applicant’s control while maintaining functional lot layouts and consistency with City Standards.
Summary of Variance Request
Location Condition Request Deviation Constraint
TR16072-2: Lots
3,4,19,20,21
TR16072: Lots
18,19, 20, 34, 35,
58, 59, 60
Increased
driveway
frontage width
>40% driveway
frontage
Approved cul-de-sac lot
sizes prevents meeting 40%
max. width requirements
TR16072-2: Lot 90
and 91
Reduced side
yard setback
1.3 ft side yard
setback
encroachment
Fault line at rear of property
causes house to encroach
into side yard setback
TR16072: Lot 3 Site topography 6 ft front setback
encroachment
Slope constraints cause
house to encroach into front
yard
3 1
2 8
TR16072: Lot 4 Site topography 5.8 ft front setback
encroachment
Slope constraints cause
house to encroach into front
yard
TR16072: Lot 5 Site topography 8.55 ft rear setback
encroachment
Slope constraints cause
house to encroach into rear
yard setback
Open Space, Recreational Amenities, and Landscaping
Ultimately, the proposed project will provide five neighborhood parks that will serve both Lennar and Toll Brothers; Zinfandel, Syrah, Mission, Malaga and Sultana Cross. The parks will be maintained by an HOA but remain accessible to the public. The proposed joint improvements create one connected system with a multi-use trail, concrete pedestrian walkways, trail markers, lighting and three-rail vinyl fencing.
Figure 3: Preliminary Landscape Plan
Key amenities include open lawns, picnic nodes and concrete tables, shade structures, overhead vine trellises, Adirondack seating, barbecue areas, outdoor fitness equipment, a natural themed tot lot, two fenced pickleball courts a sand volleyball court small soccer goals, overlooks with bench seating, monument and concreate steps and pet waste stations. Landscape features vineyard rows with crushed stone mulch, grass-meadow and slope planting succulent demonstration gardens, cobble and crushed stone paving accent boulders vegetated swales with catch basins, and accessible path to basin bottoms.
3 1
2 8
Design Review Committee
The project was heard by the Design Review Committee (Boling, Dopp, McPherson) on September 23, 2025. While the committee members were supportive of the project, in particular complimenting the design of the open space and recreation areas, the committee members did request that the developer consider additional architectural enhancements to portions of the second story wall plane above the garage on the Contemporary Coastal (Plan 10B) and Contemporary Prairie (Plan 10D). The applicant responded affirmatively that their designer will be looking into that issue. The applicant has provided enhanced renderings which exhibit these two architectural styles which the applicant feels better represents the true character of these styles. These enhanced renderings have been included with the project plans and can be found in Exhibit B.
Public Art
Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124.020(B)(1), residential projects with a density equal to or less than four dwelling units per acre are exempt from meeting public art requirements.
The proposed project has a density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, thus it is not subject to the public art requirement.
Environmental Review
The City previously certified an Environmental Impact Report on June 16, 2004, in connection with the City’s approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts.
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the construction of housing product and associated features such as walls within the boundaries of a previously approved and previously graded subdivision, staff has determined that: i) no substantial changes are proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, iii) no new important information has been presented as part of this application which shows that project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Accordingly, the project is exempt from further review under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed project supports the City Council core values of “intentionally embracing and anticipating the future” and “building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere” by completing construction within a long-vacant and approved subdivision with for-sale units, which will inherently be conducive to families.
3 1
2 8
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph
Exhibit B – Project Plans
Exhibit C – Design Review Committee Report and Minutes
Exhibit D – Draft Resolution 2025-036 with Conditions of Approval
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
October 22, 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 October 22, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner; Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – ROBERT TOBIN ON BEHALF OF ADRIAN BUIGUES – A request to subdivide an existing 19,252-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Low (L) Residential Zone, located at 9817 Base Line Road; APN: 1077-011-02. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20935).
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Robert Tobin, along with Architect Doug Andresen were present and available to answer questions.
They stated that they did not receive the Conditions of Approval.
Planning Director Nakamura stated that the Conditions of Approval, along with the Staff Report, was sent to the applicant via email, and was posted on the website on Thursday, October 16th.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that the applicant had been given the opportunity to review the Conditions of Approval provided by staff and therefore had ample time to do so.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Commissioner Daniels suggested to allow the applicant a few minutes to look over a hard copy of the Conditions of Approval while the Commission deliberates.
Applicant Tobin, along with Architect Andresen reviewed the documents.
Commissioner Daniels stated that he had spoken with the City Engineer regarding the ingress and egress easement on Parcel 2. He noted that he had not realized the easement was intended for Parcel 1, ensuring that any future development on that parcel would access London Avenue rather than Base Line Road. He commented that this was an excellent addition to the map.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that in the Conditions of Approval, number 7, Subsection 1, the Engineering Services Department requires the applicant to provide fiber optic conduit along Base Line Road. He further stated that Subsection 2 requires the same along London Avenue and inquired about the rationale for this requirement, given that London Avenue is a small residential cul-de-sac. He asked to explain how this aligns with the City’s Master Plan for fiber optics.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that it is the City’s requirement for developers to install fiber optic conduit along project frontages to support future connectivity. He added that the City’s long-term goal is to have fiber installed citywide.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed appreciation to the applicant for preparing the proposed parcel map noting that it aligns the subject site with the General Plan and zoning for future use. He added that while it may not reflect the current use, it appropriately prepares the site for future development while respecting the long-term operation of Parcel 1 as a valued community asset, the Child Care Center. He asked staff to confirm that the Child Care Center would be permitted to continue operating as legal nonconforming use, provided that operations are not discontinued for an extended period of time.
Assistant Planner Lee confirmed.
Chairman Morales re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond after reviewing the Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Tobin stated that they had reviewed the Conditions of Approval, found them to be standard, and had no objections. He apologized for the earlier confusion.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-038 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20935. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – JACLYN MCDOWELL ON BEHALF OF MARK REYNOSO – A request to subdivide an existing 76,782-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone Avenue; APN:
1061-251-32. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20985).
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) and noted that a few typographical errors had been identified in the Staff Report and draft Resolution; corrections were made, and red-lined copies were provided on the dais. Corrections in the Proposed Lots; changed Parcel 1 from 21,926 sq. ft. to 54,855 sq. ft., and Parcel 2 from 54,855 sq. ft. to 21,926 sq. ft.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Commissioner Dopp inquired about Parcel 2 on the east end of the lot, nothing that the staff report lists the minimum lot width as 142 feet and 383 feet, though it appears to be approximately 9-10 feet. He asked how the measurement was calculated and how it complies with applicable standards.
Assistant Planner Lee responded that staff had expressed similar concerns. However, she noted that there are no objective findings to recommend denial, as the subdivision meets the development standards required for the underlying zone. She added that the measurements are based on definitions of lot depth and lot width as outlined in the Development Code.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the Government Code allows denial of subdivisions based on issues of public health or safety, referencing Section 66474, which provides legal grounds for denial if a project poses serious health problems. He noted that while the subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning, be believes the proposed layout of the two parcels is poor. He expressed concern that the flag portion of the lot may not be properly maintained and could become an eyesore to the community. He then sought assistance from legal counsel.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she is not sure we can correlate a bad design to a health problem.
She said we would need a bit more facts, such as studies to back up a denial based on a health issue.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the proposed design creates an untenable situation with the long, narrow flag portion of the lot and the adjoining areas to the west. He commented that the configuration appears to serve no purpose other than to meet the minimum lot size requirements.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
The applicant explained that the lot’s angled design is due to the existing contours of the site. He noted that an existing driveway and a grove of mature trees along that driveway influenced the layout, as they wished to preserve the trees.
He stated that one of the requirements is that the lot must extend completely through the site and connect to both sides. He explained that, although that portion of the lot is not necessary, it was included to meet site requirements. He added that the intent is to divide the property, so the back house and pool remain, with plans to rebuild the house and resurface the pool.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Larry Weidinger, Gary Drejdan, Maureen Malady-Myers.
The comments included the following concerns:
Privacy
Health hazard
Mountain view
Wall height
Habitat area
Septic
Bridle trail around property
The applicant provided an explanation on the following:
Trees – The grove of mature pine trees will be left alone. Septic – Septic will be done by professional engineers. Height and placement of the building – They are abiding by all code standards. Bridle Trail – Will be addressed during planning.
Commissioner Dopp stated that there is a gate at the rear of Parcel 2 and inquired whether the future property owner would be responsible for maintaining the area. He expressed concern that, while there is an intent to preserve the existing trees, lack of proper maintenance could pose a public health and safety risk, particularly related to wildfires.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Applicant confirmed and indicated maintaining the area it is something that can be added to the Conditions of Approval.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp asked staff to clarify the requirement for property lines to extend from the front to the back of the site. He referenced the applicant’s statement that the lot was designed to reach the east end of the parcel to satisfy a city code requirement and requested confirmation as to whether such a provision exists in the regulations.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that staff would review the subdivision ordinance during deliberations, noting that the cited requirement is not one she is familiar with. She clarified that the current application pertains solely to the lot split and is unrelated to any future approval of the house design, which would be addressed separately through the entitlement process. She emphasized that today’s focus is on the subdivision of the two lots.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he finds it difficult to support a parcel with such an irregular shape due to potential management and liability concerns. He commended that a large portion of the parcel appears unviable as a standalone property. While acknowledging that this is not sufficient grounds for denial, he expressed discomfort with the configuration.
Commissioner Daniels concurred with Commissioner Dopp. He also stated he would like to see the rear flag portion combined with Parcel 1. He explained that as a Commission, part of their responsibility is to try to make good planning and have parcels that makes sense. With that in mind, he is uncomfortable approving this because he believes it is a terrible design, especially after seeing the amount of land available in Parcel 1.
Commissioner Diaz and Vice Chairman Boling concurred.
Planning Director Nakamura suggested re-opening the public hearing to allow the applicant to return and clarify which concerns they are willing or unwilling to address. She said that she was unable to identify any provision in the subdivision ordinance requiring the east-west lot configuration but stated that staff would further review and examine the matter. Regarding variances, she explained that they may be granted for development standards outlined in Title 17. Therefore, if a variance related to lot standards were necessary, it could be considered. In response to concerns about the existing trees, she explained that all departments will review the site once a development application is submitted. If the property is located within a high fire hazard zone, there may be requirements for the removal of certain trees and the replanting of fire-adaptive trees as part of the new development.
Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing.
Applicant stated if there is nothing in the code that indicates they have to extend all the way across the subdivision, he would be open to revising that and going with the quickest approval process possible to avoid further delays for his client. He said he would be okay with going perhaps a little bit under 20,000 sq. ft. in Parcel 2 and could easily remove 1,200 sq. ft. right away.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Nakamura stated the Commissioners have the following choices to make:
Accept staff’s recommendation for approval,
If they feel they have the findings to make a denial, they can do so, or Continue the item to a date uncertain and allow staff to work with the applicant to finalize any revisions and to determine what the best path forward would be.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to continue this item to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Commissioner Daniels noted that the Commission is not reviewing the development of the parcels at this time and stated he was unclear whether the existing structure would be refurbished. He requested that a small reference map be provided showing the locations of structures on the parcels.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that it would not be appropriate if only considering a lot split. The potential proposal on a lot split could change over time because it is in preliminary review right now.
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on whether the house will remain.
Planning Director Nakamura replied that as staff mentioned in the report, the house is to be demolished but the idea is to rebuild in the same place.
Commissioner Daniels stated that it was not clear as the applicant indicated something different.
D3. DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION, VARIANCE – VINOVA (LENNAR) - A request for site plan and architectural review of 166 single-family residences within an approved tract map on approximately 70- acres located near the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue; (Tracts 16072 and 16072- 2). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162. (Design Review DRC2024-00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, Variance DRC2025-00169).
Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant was present and available to answer questions.
For the record, correspondence from Lozeau Drury, LLP was received following the preparation of the agenda packet, expressing opposition to the project. The correspondence should be referred to for further details.
Resident Edward Aldaz had the following concerns:
Wall placement
Health risk – vermin
Digging close to home
Applicant responded to the wall concerns and said there will be permitted walls built around the homes.
They will be developing everything within property line and the track boundaries.
Principal Planner McPherson clarified that the walls referenced were primarily interior walls to the approved lots. He said this project will also include walls along the perimeter as is standard in a subdivision like this.
Relative to the comment about any additional grading, it has already commenced. There is no expectation that grading beyond the boundaries which have already been graded will occur. The application before the commission tonight is relative to the construction of the homes on those, previously graded lots.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the two different roofing materials being proposed and that several of the units feature standard seam walls. He commented that typically only one type of roofing material is used and asked for the reason behind the use of two.
Applicant explained that it is an architectural feature intended to create diversity.
Commissioner Daniels commented on the gable roof extending over the entrance appears awkward with the flat wall positioned in front of it. He also inquired how the two subdivisions will be phased.
Applicant responded that they are trying to revisit the traditional style in a contemporary way. In terms of the phasing, there are essentially two different product lines. The one-story and two-story homes will be built simultaneously.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Commissioner Daniels stated that the Fire Department will likely require two access points prior to the storing of lumber for construction and asked if the developer will construct the street network.
Applicant confirmed that approximately 90% of the street network has been constructed.
Commissioner Daniels asked if Lennar designed the parks.
Applicant answered that it is a mutual effort and want to do the best they can for the community.
Commissioner Daniels complimented the project. He said it is very nice and will be a good asset to the development of the community. He asked if Wilson Avenue will be open soon.
Applicant answered that they will open it as soon as they can.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he got to see this at the Design Review Committee meeting. He remembers comments being made about the front wall, possibly making it a balcony. Aside from that, it was decided that most of the designs were appropriate for the neighborhood. He indicated he is a big fan of some of the amenities. For example, the Central Paseo he originally was pushing for with the developer when there was a lack of one on a map that was before them a few years ago. It is nice to see it carried out because it was not a requirement at the time. He said that the design helps create a stronger sense of community within a subdivision, noting that traditional urban studies show such connectivity is often missing in developments characterized by long roads. He added that incorporating amenities and green spaces at a central nexus point will provide an excellent gathering area and be a valuable enhancement to the project.
Commissioner Daniels stated he went through all the minor exceptions and the variances and did not have any problems with the waivers that are being requested which are very minor.
Commissioner Diaz stated that we have 166 new single-family homes coming to an area of the city where people want them, and it is very exciting. She said the issues presented are minor exceptions and expressed no concerns. She supports staffs’ determination that the CEQA report on file remains relevant and applicable, and stated that she looks forward to seeing the project move forward.
Vice Chairman Boling stated, as mentioned previously, there were some issues and concerns addressed at the Design Review Committee meeting related to a couple of the models and elevations. The applicant’s submission and provision of the 3D rendering helped give them a better perspective of what those products are intended to look like. As it pertains to the minor exceptions and variances, they are nominal.
Regarding the letter that was received by the city late in the process challenging the previously certified EIR, there have been no substantial changes nor new uses planned for this project, so he sees no issues or problems. As it pertains to the comment made by the public, he strongly encouraged the resident to speak directly to the applicants representative pertaining to the issues and questions that he has that are beyond the scope of the commission’s actions being taken tonight.
Chairman Morales addressed the public comment regarding rodents, stating that those issues should subside as the site is developed. He thanked the applicant for working collaboratively with staff to ensure the project is completed properly.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025- 036 approving Design Review DRC2024-00395, Variance DRC2025-00169 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00168. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
D4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in compliance with State ADU Law. This item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15282(h). A public hearing will be held by the City Council for final action at a future date to be determined. (DRC2025-00072).
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification regarding the ADU pre-approved plans and whether any member of the public may request access to those plans.
Planning Director Nakamura described the pre-approval process. Any licensed contractor, engineer or architect may submit a plan for an ADU. The City conducts an initial review, and once approved, the plans are filed and posted on the City’s website. She noted that anyone may use the City’s pre-approved plans to apply for an ADU, which is the basis of the City’s ADU Pre-Approved Program.
Commissioner Daniels asked Assistant City Attorney Young why penalties cannot be imposed for an unpermitted ADU built two to five years ago and later discovered by the City.
Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she had not reviewed the legislative intent behind the provision but suggested that the state may have recognized the large number of unpermitted additions constructed by property owners for various reasons. She explained that if those additions were built to code and can be legalized, this process provides a pathway for doing so without penalty, thereby creating additional housing units that the City can count toward its housing requirements.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there is a timeframe for compliance, if an ADU is discovered.
Staff responded that they do not believe there is a timeframe.
Planning Director Nakamura mentioned if work is done without building permits there is a 50% penalty.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that the amendment will make it somewhat easier to meet the City’s housing goals. He noted that while the overall impact may be limited due to the small number of lots over 20,000 square feet, it still represents a move in the right direction.
Vice Chairman Boling said he is encouraged at the number of ADU’s that have been developed in the city over the past few years. He expressed appreciation for staff’s diligence in bringing forward Municipal Code Amendments such as this one.
Chairman Morales thanked staff for their hard work in updating the regulations to ensure consistency with state ADU law.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-035 recommending that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00072. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D5. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to amend Section 12.20.080 of Chapter 12.20 of Title 12 and Sections 17.20.020 and 17.20.040 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(B)(5) and 15061(B)(3).
This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. (DRC2025-00254).
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief summary and report on the item. She requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Municipal Code Amendment in order to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee.
Vice Chairman Boling recommended that staff send a letter of appreciation to the committee members, formally thanking them for their service and notifying them that their duties have concluded.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-034 recommending that the City Council approve the Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00254 to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D6. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating First Floor Non-Residential Dimensions and Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Non-Residential Dimensions for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 12 TH, 2025
MEETING)
Planning Director Nakamura requested that this item be continued to November 12 th, 2025, meeting to allow additional time to finalize remaining details.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Chairman Morales announced that this item will remain open to the November 12th HPC/PC meeting.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to continue this item to November 12th Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
E. General Business
E1. Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting bylaws for the Design Review Committee Management Analyst Estrada provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that several Commissioners previously requested clarification regarding absences, so he appreciates the effort.
Commissioner Daniels thanked staff for doing a great job.
Vice Chairman Boling thanked staff for helping to address concerns that come up which have the potential to delay developer and resident applications. He said these steps moving forward, reflect the City’s pro- business and pro-resident position.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
2 8
3 1
Commissioner Diaz expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts on this item and that it responds to the needs raised by the Commissioners.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-033 repealing Resolution 79-61 and approving the bylaws for the Design Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
F. Director Announcements
Planner Director Nakamura announced that one meeting is scheduled for both November and December.
She noted there will be no second meeting in November due to the Thanksgiving holiday and no second meeting in December, as it falls on Christmas Eve and City Hall will be closed until after the new year.
She provided an update on the Planning Commissions memo which was presented to City Council last week. City Council expressed their appreciation for the work the Commissioners do and know that density bonus projects are very difficult and complicated. They are considering the following actions:
1) Sharing the memo with the City’s lobbyists, who can communicate the real-world impacts of certain housing laws during meetings with state representatives. 2) Having Council Member Kristine Scott, who serves on the Board for the Inland Empire Division of the League of California Cities, raise the issue at their next meeting to explore whether other cities may wish to collaborate on a unified message regarding density bonus law projects and their impacts.
G. Commission Announcements - None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
VIA EMAIL & FEDEX
October 29, 2025
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Sean McPherson, Principal Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of the October 22, 2025 Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve the Vinova Project (Design Review DRC2024-00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, Variance DRC2025-00169)
Dear City Clerk Sevy and Planner McPherson:
I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision of October 22, 2025, to approve the Vinova Project (Design Review DRC2024-00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, Variance DRC2025-00169), which proposes the construction of 166 single family residences on approximately 70-acres, located near the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”), and to approve the Project based on the 2004 Environmental Impact Report prepared for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072.
SAFER objects to the City’s decision to rely on the 2004 EIR because there have been changed circumstances, new feasible mitigation measures, and new impacts in the intervening 21 years, and therefore a supplemental EIR is required to analyze the Project.
This appeal is timely filed within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission’s decision and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $4,902.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 1 of 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-096
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF DESIGN REVIEW (DRC2024-00395), MINOR EXCEPTION
(DRC2025-00168) AND VARIANCE (DRC2025-00169) - A
REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 166 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES WITHIN AN APPROVED TRACT MAP ON
APPROXIAMTELY 70-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND WILSON
AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
A.Recitals.
1.Lennar Homes filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2024- 00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, and Variance DRC2025-00169, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request is referred to as "the application."
2.On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 2025-036 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.
3.On November 3, 2025, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.
4.On December 3, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.
5.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 3, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The project site consists of approximately 70 acres, generally located northeast of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue in the northeastern portion of Rancho Cucamonga, bounded by Etiwanda Avenue to the west and Wilson Avenue; and ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 2 of 7
6 3
8 7
b.The Tract Map (SUBTT16072) was approved by the City Council on June 16, 2004, the Final Map was approved and recorded in 2023, and associated grading permits were issued in January 2024;
c.The applicant proposes the construction of 166 single-family residences on the aforementioned subdivided and graded lots;
d.The existing land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Low Residential (L) North Vacant General Open Space and
Facilities
Flood Control/Utility Corridor
(FU/UC)
South CVWD Facility/
Residential
General Open Space and
Facilities Very Low (VL)/Parks (P)
East Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2)
West Single-Family
Residence Suburban Neighborhood Low Residential (L)
e.In addition to the Design Review application which permits the construction of the proposed single-family residences, the Project also includes a request for a Variance to permit deviations from the following requirements on specific lots within the proposed development: permitted driveway frontage, deficient side yard setbacks, and front yard setbacks the encroachment of structures into required setback areas, and the construction of walls which in certain cases will exceed allowable height limitations. These deviations are necessary due to the design of existing cul-de-sacs, topographical constraints caused by the configuration of the proposed lots, steep terrain, and proximity to seismic fault zones. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 90 and 91, and TR16072 Lots 18, 19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, and 60; and
f.The addition to the Design Review and Variance, the application also proposes a Minor Exception to permit deviations from permitted wall heights on certain lots within the proposed development due to topography and proximity to seismic fault zones. The specific lots to which the requested Minor Exception will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 1 and TR16072 Lots 2, 5, 6,12 and 50; and
3.Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby makes the following findings for Design Review (DRC2024-00395) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.040: finds and concludes as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 3 of 7
6 3
8 7
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project site is designated as Traditional Neighborhood. The proposed project aligns with the land use goals and policies identified in the general plan, including the construction of traditional neighborhoods including single-family residences not to exceed 8 dwelling units to the acre; and
b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of this Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Low Residential (L) zone which is intended to accommodate the development of single-family residential neighborhoods. The underlying subdivision map is consistent with subdivision standards which were in place at the time that the subdivision was approved. The subject Low Residential (L) zone anticipates the development of single-family neighborhoods as proposed by the application; and
c. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project meets the required standards for site design, circulation, landscaping and parking upon approval of the related request for a variance and minor exception; and
d. The City Council has considered all issues raised in the appeal and determines that the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by on June 16, 2004 relative to SUBTT16072 and related grading activities. The proposed project proposing to construct residences on the previously subdivided and graded lots will not result in any additional significant environmental impacts which had not already been considered by the previously approved EIR.
Further, the proposed project to construct the residences will be required to comply with all mitigation measures associated with previous approvals.
4.The City Council also hereby makes the following findings in support of Variance (DRC2025-00169) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.030:
a.Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this code. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows:
TR16072-2 Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 90 and 91 and TR16072 Lots 18, 19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, and 60.
The Variance is requested to accommodate a greater driveway frontage width on certain lots, and side yard and front setback encroachments on other lots. These deviations are requested due to the existing lot size of the previously approved lots, some of which are located on cul-de-sacs, and others which are complicated by topography and proximity to seismic fault zones. A strict of literal interpretation of the specified regulations would result in the developer not being able to construct housing product of a compatible size when compared to other similarly situated properties throughout the project area which would be inconsistent with the objectives of the code; and
b.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The subject project area comprises approximately 70 acres located within the northeast portion of the City. This area is characterized by steep terrain
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 4 of 7
6 3
8 7
and proximity to seismic fault zones. Further, the underlying subdivision map upon which the project proposes to construct 166 single-family residences was approved in 2004 at such a time that development standards in place today did not exists. As such, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; and c.Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. The granting of the requested variance is necessary in order for the subject lots to accommodate single-family residences of the size which are enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Specifically, topographical constraints, including steep slopes and proximity to seismic fault zones deprive the subject lots identified in (a) above the ability to develop to the size of other similarly situated lots in the vicinity. Granting the variance permits these property owners to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone; and d.The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Due to topographical constraints, such as steep slope areas and proximity to seismic fault zones, require that multiple properties within the project area will require variances to develop to a size consistent and compatible with other properties in the same zone. Thus, the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties as other properties within the zone which are similarly encumbered have also requested a variance; and e.The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variance is intended to allow for housing on the select lots identified in (a) above to enjoy the same privileges as other properties in the zone. It is not anticipated that the granting of the variance will be determinantal to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor is it anticipated that the granting of the variance will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as all properties which obtain the granting of a variance are still required to comply with all necessary building and safety codes and regulations.
5.The City Council also hereby makes the following findings in support of Minor Exception (DRC2025-00168) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.110:
a. The minor exception is consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The project site has a general plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood, and the zoning is Low Residential (L). The request for a Minor Exception is limited to specific lots and specifically related to wall height on said lots due to topography and proximity of these lots to seismic fault zones. These specific lots include TR16072-2 Lots 1 and 2, and TR16072 Lots 2, 5, 6,12 and 50. The Minor Exception on these specific lots does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and
b.The proposed minor exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The surrounding area to the project site includes areas which are similarly steep in slope. Requests for such increases in wall height are not uncommon in steep slope areas. The Minor Exception for increased wall height on the lots identified in (a) above is consistent with other similar requests in similarly sloped areas. Thus, the proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area; and
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 5 of 7
6 3
8 7
c.The proposed exception to the specific development standards is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The increased wall height is necessary to accommodate steep slope conditions and unique proximity to seismic fault zones. Permitting the increased wall height allows the subject lots for which the Minor Exception is being requested to be developed similar to other lots in the area which do not have these same unique constraints; and d.The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct pads and building footprints on the parcels identified in (a) above such that these lots and house sizes will be similar to other lots in the area which do not face the same topographical constraints. Thus, the height increase is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the City. Further, the increased wall height is unlikely to impact public health, safety and/or welfare
6.The Planning Department Staff has 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 for a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as it involves the construction of eight single-family residences on a 4.78-acre site.
The Class 32 exemption applies to infill developments on sites less than five acres in size that are consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning, and which would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
To support this determination, a CEQA Section 15332 exemption report was prepared by CSG Consultants, Inc. in April 2025, an environmental consulting firm retained by the City. Staff reviewed the exemption documentation and concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts, including those related to biological resources, traffic, noise, and air quality. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.
7.Both Planning staff and the Planning Commission have determined that the project complies with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004 as part of the original approvals of the underlying subdivision for the project site, SUBTT16072. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the construction of housing product and associated features such as walls within the boundaries of a previously approved and previously graded subdivision, staff has determined that: i) no substantial changes
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 6 of 7
6 3
8 7
are proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, iii) no new important information has been presented as part of this application which shows that project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts.
8.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2025. __________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of December 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Executed this 3rd day of December 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX - Page 7 of 7
6 3
8 7
__________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Allison Town, Management Analyst I
SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve the Appointment of One Member and Re- appointments of Two Members to the Public Art Committee. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the appointment of Tara Bryan and re-appointments of Board Members Ebony McGee and Ilianna Salas to the Public Art Committee.
BACKGROUND:
At its regular meeting on June 21, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 912, amending the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding creative placemaking through public art.
Pertinent to implementation of the ordinance was the formation of the Public Art Committee which is composed of five (5) members appointed by the City Council as follows: (i) one member of the Planning Commission; (ii) one member of the Rancho Cucamonga Community and Art Foundation; and (iii) three members of the public appointed based on relevant work experience, trade, industry, or expertise. Committee members serve a term of two (2) years. Duties include advising the City Council regarding the selection, purchase, placement, and maintenance of art installed by the City or on City property, and expenditures from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Art Trust Fund.
ANALYSIS:
The terms of three Public Art Committee members will expire on December 31, 2025; Ebony J.
McGee Anderson, Ilianna Salas, and Leslie Matamoros. The Community Services Subcommittee (Subcommittee) met on November 19, 2025, to interview candidates and recommended incumbents Ebony McGee and Ilianna Salas for re-appointment. Leslie Matamoros’ term completed and did not reapply for continued service. The Subcommittee also recommended the new appointment of Tara Bryan. If approved, their terms will be through December 2027, and will join the following existing Public Art Committee members:
• Bryan Dopp, Planning Commissioner (Term 3/2025-2/2027) • Tina Gilfry, RC Community and Arts Foundation Member (Term 3/2025-2/2027) FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
3 1
2 1
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses City Council's Core Values by providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all through placemaking and public art initiatives. In addition, public art enhances livability and is a means for promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.