[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[3:33] City of Fontana's regular planning commission. On today's date August 18th, 2026, still workers auditorium.
[3:40] I would like to remind the audience that this meeting is a business meeting and as such, while the commission
[3:45] welcomes all members of the public to participate in open discussion regarding matters on the session's meeting agenda.
[3:51] Speakers must conduct themselves appropriately so that the commission has the ability to listen and consider all of the information and comments related to the agenda item.
[3:59] And to be able to have the opportunity to deliberate on the item in the context in which
[4:03] allows all viewpoints to be heard and respected.
[4:07] Please remember that disturbing a public meeting is a criminal offense and the city of
[4:11] Fontana is authorized by law to ensure the order of conduct of this meeting.
[4:15] Engaging in conduct that disrupts this meeting may result in your microphone being muted
[4:18] if your disruptions continue and a request to leave this meeting if the disruptive conduct
[4:25] persist after the warning.
[4:26] Disrupted behavior including verbal and non-verbal outbursts that prohibit this meeting from continuing in an orderly fashion
[4:42] All right, I would like to call this meeting to order for the Fontana planning commission
[4:48] With the city clerk, please call for attendance. Yes, Chair
[4:53] Commissioner rolled in here commissioner Keto present secretary Luzano
[5:00] Vice Chair Kinthana. Present. And chair, I have you here.
[5:04] All right. Thank you. Okay. Today's invocation and pledge.
[5:13] Invocation will be given by Chaplin Victor RS and the pledge. If if you agree to commissioner
[5:22] roll down, would you be willing to lead us in the pledge today? Absolutely. Okay. So we will have
[5:29] Chaplin Victor Eris, with the
[5:33] invocation and Commissioner Rodin,
[5:36] lead us in the pledge.
[5:38] Can we please stand for the
[5:39] invocation and pledge of allegiance?
[5:51] There we go.
[5:52] Let us pray.
[5:54] Heavenly Father, we thank you for the
[5:55] gift of this day and for the
[5:57] opportunity to gather together as a
[5:59] community.
[6:00] Lord, we are grateful for the city of
[6:02] Fontana, for the families who
[6:03] call this city home, for those who
[6:05] work and serve here.
[6:06] And for those who have been entrusted
[6:08] with leadership.
[6:09] Tonight, I pray especially for our planning commissioners, our city staff, give our commission
[6:15] clarity as he listen, discern, and consider each matter.
[6:18] And encourage them to make the decision that will serve not only for the needs for today,
[6:22] but the generation that will call this city home tomorrow.
[6:26] Laura continues to walk over Fontana, protect those who serve our community, strain our families,
[6:31] bless our businesses, and help us continue building a city where people can live, work,
[6:35] grow, and belong.
[6:36] And Jesus name we pray, amen.
[6:43] May you join me in the reflective allegiance to the highest of the United States of America.
[6:51] And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[6:58] Thank you.
[7:02] All right, thank you, everybody.
[7:08] This now leads us to our public communication.
[7:12] This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the planning commission on items that are not on the agenda.
[7:16] City Clerk, do we have any public communications?
[7:19] Chair, we have no public communication request.
[7:23] All right, thank you.
[7:25] Now, this brings us to our consent calendar.
[7:27] All matters listed under this consent calendar will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below.
[7:36] Approval the minutes for August 4th, 2026, and a planning commission determination that the
[7:43] an abandonment of certain real properties located along the west side of Loro Avenue and South
[7:47] of Arrow.
[7:48] Boulevard is conformant with the city of Fontana's General Plan, making Sequa finding
[7:53] pursuant CEQA exemption in accordance with Sequa Guidelines Section 51-061-Bravo-3.
[8:02] With that being said, are there any communications or request from the public to speak
[8:09] on this consent calendar item?
[8:12] I have none here.
[8:27] All right. Well, can I have a motion to approve the consent calendar item?
[8:30] Motion to approve.
[8:32] All right. Motion to approve by Commissioner Keto.
[8:35] Can I get a second?
[8:36] And a second by Commissioner Rolldann.
[8:40] Let's go ahead and play servoets.
[8:52] Five in favor. Motion passes.
[8:56] All right. The next item on this plan.
[9:00] I'll be opening this hearing for Mastercase number 25-0071,
[9:07] tentative track map number 26-005, and design review number 25-0031.
[9:14] A tentative track map requesting to establish eight condominiums,
[9:17] and a design review requested for sites and architectural approval
[9:20] for the construction of an eight unit multifamily development,
[9:23] and associated still improvements for the property located at 8202 Wheeler Avenue and identified as
[9:32] assessor of partial number 0192-021-07 pursuant to a categorical exemption in the
[9:41] accordance with SQA guideline section 50, I'm sorry, 15332 and this is a continuum from the July
[9:49] 21st, 2026 meeting.
[9:52] City Clerk, do we receive any written correspondence on this item?
[9:55] Chair, we have two written communications for this public hearing.
[10:00] Okay, and I just want to reassure that all my fellow commissioners did receive those to be an email correct.
[10:07] All right. All right. So with that being said, Moses Lamalley, the assistant planner, will provide the staff presentation.
[10:20] Good evening, chair, commissioner, and planning commissioners. My name is Moise Oslamelli, and today I'll be presenting Mastercase number 25 0071 for eight residential condominiums.
[10:32] Going over the project summary briefly, the applicant is Brian Abula with new bridge homes in the
[10:38] upper-pozing tentative track map number 26005, a request for approval of tentative track map to establish
[10:46] eight condominiums on a proximate point four acre site. In addition, the upper-pozing design interview
[10:53] Number 25, 0031, which is a request for the site improvements
[10:58] and architectural approval of the eight whole-time family units.
[11:03] Again, the project was previously continued
[11:05] by the Planning Commission at the request
[11:07] of the applicant on July 21, 2026,
[11:10] and the project is located at 8202 Wheeler Avenue.
[11:17] As you can see on the map site,
[11:18] it is in the boundary of the yellow box,
[11:21] off of Wheeler Avenue on the west side, north of Uplen Avenue, and just east by one block from Sierra Avenue.
[11:34] Moving forward with the project site plan, we have the eight residential condominium units,
[11:38] number to one through eight, gaining access off the west side of Wheeler Avenue through a shared
[11:44] common access driveway, which leads into the property. At the south center site, we have an amenity
[11:51] area, which includes a built-in barbecue gas grill, built-in picnic table, and open with an
[11:58] overhead relis, with the Spanish tile black splash on the law.
[12:06] Moving forward, we have the
[12:08] presented architectural style of the condominium units, which is a Spanish architecture style,
[12:14] consisting of Spanish tile roofs, decorative shutters, ceramic cable accents, metal accents,
[12:20] and Spanish tile.
[12:26] Moving forward, we have the same view of the property and proposed project just in nighttime.
[12:37] So based on the information contained in the staff report, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 2026.
[12:45] 028.
[12:47] Two determined that the project is categorically exempt to approve teneted track map number 26005.
[12:54] and to approve design review project number 25-0031.
[13:00] Thank you for your time.
[13:02] The applicant and I are available for any questions.
[13:07] All right, thank you.
[13:10] See, he clerk did, I'm sorry.
[13:12] Does the commission have any questions that they would like to ask of staff?
[13:17] Chair, I have a couple of questions.
[13:20] Commissioner Keaton.
[13:22] When we're looking at the satellite view of the property,
[13:25] What is currently there looked like a single family residence is there?
[13:30] Yes, there's an existing single family residence on the property.
[13:32] Okay, and in regards to the letter that we the commission received today,
[13:38] what is the city providing as far, since there's already a single family residence there,
[13:44] is there any additional things that the city is providing to this eight units that wouldn't be there if it was to remain a single family?
[13:52] Would you be able to specify, maybe give an example?
[13:54] sewer lines,
[13:58] I guess SE would be overhead power, but sewer, water, sidewalks, and any changes
[14:06] to the streets, changes to stop lights, things like that.
[14:11] Yeah, so to kind of go on that, the existing site is already fully service by utilities.
[14:17] There is an existing site of walk as well, however, they are proposing landscape improvements
[14:21] along the sidewalk and surrounding area right there and they are also going to be putting up a street light.
[14:34] Any other questions from?
[14:35] I have a question chair.
[14:37] Okay.
[14:37] Vice chair.
[14:38] Kind of.
[14:40] There's more in line with the letter that we received.
[14:45] My question anyway.
[14:47] More so specifically around the requirement for the CFD.
[14:53] I know that, well, I don't know, and I think that's the question I'm going to be asked.
[15:00] Do we have a policy or what policy do we have currently that would mandate that CFD?
[15:15] The CFD is a common requirement for residential development and enables the city to pay for facilities and maintenance associated with the development.
[15:25] So we commonly impose it on development to make sure it pays for itself. The way the condition in this case is written it provides a flexibility.
[15:33] we certainly need the cost to be proportionate and that would be insured at the time it's
[15:38] implemented.
[15:39] Okay, because my understanding is like a special tax, right, it is pretty much what it
[15:45] kind of is.
[15:49] I still just want to be clear on if we have anything that's like objective, I guess, the word
[15:56] would be to like who gets the CFD and then like who does it.
[16:01] Right.
[16:02] So it is imposed on residential development in our case, or in the case of this, we generally do impose on single family, not every condition has to be straight from an ordinance, we have the ability to impose conditions.
[16:15] We just need to make sure that they're fair and proportionate.
[16:20] So there isn't really like, it's just by project by project.
[16:26] Yeah, I'm not aware of the exact ordinance.
[16:29] I don't want to say there isn't one I'm not positive but most projects are I'm not a family with any that I haven't had that condition in
[16:35] POS and just to ensure that they're paying their way that they're paying for the facilities and the maintenance
[16:41] Created by the development. Okay, so Patty have we had any
[16:45] Applicants within the last year that haven't had a pay see if I
[16:49] I'm pretty sure that they all have had it. I'd be surprised that there were any that didn't I can't swear to it
[16:55] I want to go back and look at them all, but I'm residential development
[16:58] And it's very, it's difficult.
[17:00] OK, and Ligo,
[17:03] do you know, do we have any written policy?
[17:05] Because what I'm reading here on this email was the applicant
[17:10] asked for a specific ordinance for resolution policy or objective
[17:13] development standard that adopted and in effect to the time
[17:17] of the project, SB 330 preliminary application that requires the
[17:22] eight unit project to annex into a formal COD.
[17:26] So do we have a policy that was approved by the City Council to mandate that?
[17:34] The policy is as described by the director of planning and that is it's a pattern and
[17:39] practice historically employed consistently by the city of imposing a condition of approval
[17:46] such as the one before you tonight on developing projects similar to the one before you tonight.
[17:53] I might add one thing that's very important.
[17:57] The applicant has cited the legislation known as AB 330, or SB 330.
[18:07] The interpretation of SB 330, in the opinion of the city attorney's office, as described
[18:16] by the applicant in the correspondence you've read, is misplaced.
[18:21] SB 330 does not require that there be a formal policy in place of any kind.
[18:30] Instead, the city is obligated to pursue the process and the standard that has been described
[18:39] by Ms. Nevin's.
[18:41] And that is to have a policy of application consistently for projects like this, and that
[18:48] is the policy of the city.
[18:50] And you need to have nothing more than that.
[18:53] Okay, so that's policy of the city, so where is that policy?
[18:57] As I said before, it's historical practice, consistently applied, but it's not in writing.
[19:04] And I'm asking you the question.
[19:06] Is it in writing?
[19:08] The practice itself is in writing.
[19:10] It's been imposed in writing as a condition of approval,
[19:14] consistently for projects like this by the city.
[19:19] Chair, Chair, I have a question.
[19:22] So.
[19:22] Commissioner Keto?
[19:23] Sorry.
[19:23] On this topic, my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong.
[19:30] Mr. Evans.
[19:33] I was under the impression and this is just this very well could just be my misunderstanding.
[19:37] That typically CFDs are for new developments where there hasn't already been something.
[19:42] In this case, there is already a property here.
[19:45] The streets already there.
[19:46] streetlights already there, all of the things that the city would typically provide are already in place.
[19:52] So now I understand the site will be utilizing, you know, police department, fire department, things like that.
[19:58] But this isn't necessarily...
[20:00] A new, it is a new development in the terms of we're tearing down the existing structure, but when I think of a CFD, in my brain, I typically think of a brand new development on vacant land.
[20:12] So how does this CFD differ from something that would be like a, maybe, you know, item B that we're looking at, right, where it's like a brand new development on vacant land?
[20:22] Well, I would say first, I'm not aware that it can be applied to a piece of property with an existing home on it or whatever the case may be.
[20:32] It's applied in order to provide a mechanism for payment of infrastructure and maintenance.
[20:38] So we historically and typically apply it to projects.
[20:43] We're looking for infrastructure facilities to be developed and for maintenance of those facilities.
[20:52] So when the property was originally developed, we can assume there was a CFD imposed on the property.
[21:00] The standard of the city, right?
[21:04] So has the property not already paid their weight into that maintenance?
[21:08] Is that not already in the normal tax bill of the structure that's already there?
[21:12] I don't assume that.
[21:14] I don't assume that there was an existing CFD that the property paid into when the home was built.
[21:20] Okay, I guess what I'm trying to understand is what is the city providing that a CFD in this case is necessary?
[21:31] I believe in this case it's the landscaping the Parkway Maintenance and lighting if I'm not mistaken and there could be other items I don't want to speak to it.
[21:40] Are those items already there without this development there?
[21:43] No, there will be new landscaping installed in the Parkway, and I believe new lighting as well.
[21:50] Who's providing the lighting?
[21:51] Because when I read this letter here, it says that the applicant is providing the lighting.
[22:01] I'm not sure what the letter states exactly.
[22:04] I don't have it in front of me.
[22:06] However, the applicant is required an effect to provide lighting in the form of condition number 13.
[22:14] That's what makes the applicant provide lighting or landscaping.
[22:21] So, one other question from me, with that follow-up.
[22:26] So, you're telling me that we are going to install all new grass
[22:36] and on the right way there.
[22:38] We're changing the whole curve area and redoing all of that.
[22:40] Landscaping, and maybe I should be more clear.
[22:43] The way the condition is written, it does indicate as determined by the city.
[22:47] So, the items that are appropriate to be financed will be determined.
[22:51] And then they have to be proportionate to the cost, the cost being required.
[22:57] So there's not,
[23:01] sorry about that.
[23:03] They will clearly be proportionate to the cost of what's installed and what needs to be maintained.
[23:11] There are two things.
[23:12] Excuse me, Chair and Commissioners, there are two things that are required before imposing
[23:17] a condition like this.
[23:19] They both apply here and they are within condition 13 as a matter of law.
[23:26] There must be an excess between the improvements that are to be installed.
[23:34] The nexus is these improvements relate directly to the property that is the subject of this application for approval.
[23:42] And then the costs have to be proportionate to the benefit received by this property.
[23:50] In other words, this property should not pay for lighting or landscaping beyond what it itself is imposing on the city or on the public.
[24:03] And that's what this condition simply calls for.
[24:07] the proportionate cost of landscaping, relating solely to this property will be paid for, and
[24:16] this contemplates the formation of a community facility's district to do it.
[24:26] Vice Chair, Kintana, go ahead.
[24:27] Thank you.
[24:29] So Commissioner Kittle brought up something that further confuses me.
[24:34] So I'm hoping for some clarification here.
[24:39] We're talking about these taxes, right, or funding back to the city.
[24:47] What Commissioner Kudel said is that there's an existing home there.
[24:52] So aren't they already paying taxes on landscape maintenance, things like that?
[25:00] They're not too my knowledge in the CFD and maybe to help you feel more comfortable with it. The intent is not to overly burden new developments, particularly small developments, so I understand the concern with having a small development and putting the requirements on them. It sounds like it may be a large burden. It won't be. It has to be proportionate. So I don't assume that there's a CFD that they're already paying taxes into that's defined from the maintenance of the site.
[25:30] And I would just offer you that when it's finalized when the appropriate mechanism and the costs are finalized,
[25:40] they must be proportionate to the costs as Mr. Dites noted.
[25:45] So it's not, I wouldn't be concerned about overly burning small developments.
[25:49] We're sensitive to that. But what we do want is for the development to pay its appropriate share,
[25:55] and that's what the conditional will do.
[25:57] Yeah, I just think that on for me, it's a little, I was hoping when I'd ask like if it was there was a mandate or something there that you know, we would be able to say yes, you know, this is, you know, what we do.
[26:13] I do understand that it's past practice and I think that was, that was a verbalized here today, but I'm still, I'm still a little concerned with that answer,
[26:24] But I appreciate the response.
[26:26] Thank you.
[26:28] Chair.
[26:30] I think where I'm struggling on this as well is that I'm not
[26:35] understanding what the city, what exactly were providing as far
[26:41] as what the CFD my understanding is the developers
[26:46] inputting the lighting, the developer is taking care of the landscape.
[26:50] All the utility lines and everything in the streets and everything
[26:53] is already there, right?
[26:55] So I think where the concern is, at least for me,
[26:59] and potentially what sounds like my fellow commissioners,
[27:01] is what does that fair share look like, especially considering
[27:07] it doesn't seem to me outside of the normal services
[27:10] that the city provides to a property that's already there
[27:12] that there's much improvement, if I'm understanding my concerns
[27:17] and the concerns of my fellow commissioners.
[27:20] Well, if there's no other questions I'd love to hear from the applicant, is there any other questions?
[27:27] All right.
[27:28] Well, if there's no other questions, is the applicant here and if the applicant's here, we please
[27:32] state your name and whether you accept the conditions of approval, which,
[27:36] believe there's a letter here that you do have some questions on the approval.
[27:43] So please state your name.
[27:44] As my name is Brian Evelo with Newbridge Homes, the applicant for the project known as Wheeler Avenue.
[27:51] I got to say that you go a little closer to the mic. It's a little harder to hear.
[27:53] No problem.
[27:54] My name is Brian Evelo with Newbridge Homes, representing the applicant.
[27:58] The project is located at Wheeler Avenue.
[28:01] I got to say that is my letter that's before you this evening,
[28:05] and I really appreciate staff and planning commissions,
[28:08] this deliberation discussion about CFDs and how they apply to small locked development.
[28:14] We are a developer in the city that's done multiple projects, and I think Patty has mentioned.
[28:21] It is very concerning when you do small locked development, the cost that are incurred.
[28:26] That's part of the reason why we're bringing this discussion forward.
[28:29] Just because if you look at the financial obligations to form a CFD, they're pretty sizable.
[28:34] it's not something small that an eight unit subdivision is going to typically pay.
[28:40] I will say that after further discussion with staff and reviewing the condition of approval as it's written now,
[28:50] we're going to rely on the condition where it says we're leaving that discretion to city staff as determined by the city
[28:59] and it's application of the COD, so we are going to accept the conditions of approval as they sit before you today.
[29:16] Do you have any further questions regarding the project?
[29:19] Actually I'll let my fellow commissioners, anybody have a question?
[29:24] So I guess my first question is, I noticed you had four questions at the bottom of your letter.
[29:31] Were all those questions answered to you in a timely manner?
[29:36] Unfortunately, we were having discussion with staff over the last month.
[29:41] We've had some discussion, but unfortunately not all the items were resolved entirely
[29:47] within the last month, and some of those discussions took place today.
[29:52] So from that standpoint, I think we have them resolved now, however, it's kind of at the
[29:59] last minute.
[30:00] Okay, and then so I'm assuming before this between sending the letter out and now, you guys have been able to figure this out together?
[30:11] Yes, I think between us and staff, I think we have a mutual understanding of how we can proceed for with the beneficial project to the city.
[30:19] Okay, and I guess the last question I have is, I think it's more for staff than.
[30:25] I was a little confused on the CFD versus HOAs when I was looking at both of them, they almost sound like they do the exact same thing.
[30:34] So can you give me a little, just a little, like what is the difference on when we require HOA versus a CFD?
[30:42] HOA typically takes care of on-site common areas, so your dry ways, your parks, your amenity areas are handled by the HOA.
[30:53] So nothing else I like we are talking about earlier like the the right away and stuff like that each ways usually don't cover that.
[31:00] That's my understanding. I can't swear that they never do that.
[31:04] There may be cases that I'm not familiar with but generally now.
[31:08] Okay, I was just trying to get clarification on different because when I got this I started looking at the different.
[31:17] I was leaning more toward and I'll just speak this right now, I was leaning more of myself toward the way Commissioner Keto was seeing it, just to me, I'm like a CFD doesn't sound like his required versus more, you know, if anything, sounds more of like an HOA issue versus a CFD because I don't know how I understood a CFD is what you were thinking is what services are what additional amenities are offering as a city to require
[31:44] that extra tax to be implemented.
[31:45] Yeah, to be clear, I don't know that they can't.
[31:48] So I may well be that they could.
[31:50] I'm not familiar with it, but that doesn't mean it's never happened nor that it couldn't
[31:53] in the future.
[31:56] I need a clarification on that.
[31:59] I had a question.
[32:01] Is there a way for us to get feedback on if we were to approve this project today as is to
[32:10] receive that feedback on what that CFD is going to look like before it's implemented.
[32:14] It sounds like it would be helpful to just bring back information on CFDs in general,
[32:18] but yes, we could have for me later, how that finalizes.
[32:22] Thank you.
[32:23] Sure, I have a question for that.
[32:24] Go ahead.
[32:26] I mean, I'm sorry.
[32:29] Vice-chair King Tyler.
[32:31] So you mentioned, and there's just for me, right, but you mentioned that the cost, you know,
[32:38] for ACFD would be substantial, for project like this one, what is that look like, what is
[32:49] substantial?
[32:51] So, on a prior application and another project within the city, we recorded a 15,000
[32:57] r fee just for the application, and then the ongoing burden of each homeowner, approximately
[33:04] having about a $500 a year tax increase. So it's $15,000 and then $500 be ongoing
[33:13] into perpetuity, yes. Okay.
[33:17] That's helpful information. Thank you.
[33:19] All right, is there any other questions for our, from our,
[33:47] so right now we do have
[33:55] a agreement
[33:56] from the applicant here, he agreed to the conditions of approval,
[34:06] so we went to the questions
[34:08] for the applicant, are there any other questions for the applicant from our?
[34:13] Okay, and city clerk, are there any other requests to speak on this item?
[34:17] We have no other requests to speak here.
[34:19] All right, so I will now call this public hearing closed.
[34:22] Is there any other further discussion by the commission or may I have a motion?
[34:31] Sure, I'd like to make a motion to approve Mastercase 25-0071.
[34:37] All right, so we have a motion to approve.
[34:39] Can I have a second or?
[34:43] Motion to second.
[34:45] All right, so we have a second.
[34:46] So I have a motion by Vice Chair Kintana and a second by Commissioner.
[34:51] I'm sorry, Secretary Rosano, let's go ahead and place our votes.
[35:06] 5 in favour of the motion passes?
[35:12] All right. Next, does the commission have, I'm sorry?
[35:18] I'm back here.
[35:28] The next item on this hearing is item B. I'll be opening up public hearing.
[35:32] Mastercase number 25-0051.
[35:38] Senate of TechMap, number 25-003, and design review, number 25-002, a request to subdivide
[35:48] approximately 3.5 acres into 46 parcels for residential development, including two affordable
[35:54] residences, and a request for site and architectural approval for construction of 46 residential
[36:00] units within 23 duplex buildings, and associated site improvements along with affordable housing
[36:05] density bonus agreement together with related
[36:07] covenant conditions and restrictions provided for a minimum
[36:11] of two affordable units in accordance with a state density
[36:15] bonus law on approximately 3.5 acres located at 14907 South
[36:22] Highland Avenue identified as a sister parcel number 0228-021-07
[36:28] pursuant to categorical exemption in accordance with California
[36:32] environmental quality act, guideline section 15332, and this is a
[36:38] continence from August 4th, 2026. City Clerk, do we receive any written
[36:43] correspondence on this item? Cherry, we received, we received, can't talk this
[36:49] evening. We have two written communications on this public hearing and they
[36:53] have been distributed to you and to the other commissioners.
[37:01] I have my
[37:01] So with that being said,
[37:05] Session Goons,
[37:07] Senior Planner will provide the staff presentation.
[37:11] Good evening,
[37:13] Chair and fellow commissioners,
[37:15] my name is Session Goons,
[37:18] and the project before you this evening
[37:20] as indicated in the description is a request for a tentative chat map
[37:25] for a subdivision of 46 parcels
[37:29] and two letter lots from an original parcel of 3.5 acres as well as a design review for the 46
[37:38] associated homes as well as the on-site improvements which we'll get into in just a moment
[37:47] associated with this project and also a request for a recommendation to the city council
[37:54] for approval of the affordable housing density bonus agreement.
[37:59] This project does include two affordable units of the 46 that are being proposed.
[38:07] And so with that an associated agreement would be required.
[38:13] So we'll take that to the city council.
[38:15] Should we receive your recommendation this evening?
[38:20] This is the project site at the Northeast corner of the San Savane Road and South Pylind
[38:25] Avenue. It's approximately 3.5 acres. As you can see on the right, the project site is vacant
[38:35] and undeveloped at this time and we'll get into the site plan in just a moment but as you can see
[38:44] it fronts on two different streets, South Highland Avenue and San Savine Road. It is located in the
[38:55] The same zoning as the property adjacent to it, to the east,
[39:01] to the west of this site is the Westgate specific plan,
[39:07] and then to the south, I believe, is California landing.
[39:12] So it kind of is wedged in there with some existing residential
[39:16] to the south and to the east, as well as to the west
[39:21] on the other side of San Savine, there is an entitled medical campus project that has yet
[39:27] to be constructed, but was entitled just a bit ago that could be coming to this area, and
[39:35] then to the north you'll see the 210 freeway.
[39:40] Here is our site plan, so it is not oriented
[39:43] true north, as you can see with the north arrow, we wanted to make it big enough to show
[39:47] on the slide. So north is pointing towards the right on the slide. This is our site plan showing
[39:54] access on sand-saving road for vehicles and also for pedestrians with...
[40:00] Circulation around the site using private streets or dry vials. These buildings are due-plex buildings,
[40:08] so two units per actual building. So there's 23 buildings. You'll also see near the corner of
[40:16] Highland and San Savane Road, a small amenity area, which includes an open lawn area, a
[40:23] top lot, and then also a covered seating area for residents of the development to enjoy.
[40:36] There is parking provided throughout the site by way of two car garages, driveway and
[40:45] parking, driveway parking, excuse me for guess as well as surface parking, to be used again by
[40:52] members of the residents of the development.
[40:57] There also is, there will be improvements for offside
[41:03] improvements provided by this project, which includes curb gutter and sidewalk and sheet paving
[41:10] for South Highland Avenue, and then the same thing for
[41:15] San Savine Road as well, so the applicant will be doing
[41:22] that construction as well as all of the onsite construction
[41:25] and improvements. For this project, like I said, these are
[41:29] duplex buildings, so the applicant is proposing Spanish as well
[41:34] as like a farmhouse style, with the Spanish you'll see
[41:38] metal accents, the decorative clay pipes, kind of near the eaves, the red Spanish style tile
[41:46] that also include a white color scheme to really accentuate the style, as well as arched accents
[41:58] over windows and also kind of entry doors and
[42:03] portures and the smooth stucco will also accentuate the style.
[42:10] Here we have the farmhouse style so you'll see both the horizontal
[42:15] siding and then the vertical more boarding batten types of siding they're using
[42:22] Stucco as well with kind of a lighter color palette with darker accents to really kind
[42:30] of accentuate the farmhouse style. And then this is another kind of version of this
[42:37] Spanish so just another building configuration. Here we have our rendering so this is the front,
[42:45] showing kind of the interior street scene with the landscaping as well as the buildings in the way in which they'll kind of be configured on the site.
[42:59] Here's another kind of similar view.
[43:02] The inclusion of the landscape strip between the garages will kind of give the units their own identity and not really privacy as much as kind of identity of the actual unit.
[43:15] And then it will also kind of soften the elevations as well.
[43:22] And then this is from one of the interior private streets.
[43:25] Just kind of showing that street scene and some of the landscape in that will be incorporated
[43:30] in the parkway as well as Jason to the walls again to soften the elevations and kind of accentuate the style.
[43:42] So, a couple of things, as we wrap up the presentation, there is a memo that was placed before you.
[43:49] Staff is recommending the modification of condition number 20 on design review number 25 to 0020, which the modification is just to remove the requirement for windows on the garage doors.
[44:06] So there will still be the metal sectional roll-up doors that are shown on the elevations
[44:13] and on all of the plans.
[44:15] It was just staff's mistake to include the portion about Windows.
[44:21] So we would like to modify that just to ensure that the conditions are consistent with
[44:25] what is included in the plans before you.
[44:28] I also wanted, sorry, so, and with that, based on the information contained in the
[44:38] staff report in subject to the attach findings and conditions of approval, staff does
[44:43] recommend that the Planning Commission adopt resolution, number PC-2026-029, and determine that
[44:52] This project is categorically exempt from sequela, pursuant to section 1.
[45:00] 1, 5, 3, 2, which is for infill. And just to kind of illustrate how this qualifies for that exemption, kind of
[45:11] in connection with one of the public communications on the project. This project is consistent with the
[45:19] general plan designation. The site is less than five acres, and it's also not within any known
[45:26] sensitive or threatened habitat area.
[45:30] The applicant has completed a biocity
[45:33] that shows that there is not any critical habitat
[45:36] or any habitat at all on the site.
[45:39] And then additionally, there's no significant effects
[45:43] related to traffic noise, air quality, or water quality.
[45:49] The applicant did also was required to do a VMT,
[45:54] sorry, a traffic screening study.
[45:56] So we did see that there won't be any impact on traffic in the area.
[46:02] And then also there are adequate public services for the development and for the proposed,
[46:08] sorry, for the development of the proposed residential project.
[46:13] So just kind of illustrating how this does qualify for the exemption.
[46:17] Staffs also recommending that you approve the tentative tract map number 25,
[46:22] after 003 as well as design review project number 25 to 0020 and staff is requesting that you
[46:33] recommend approval to the City Council for the associated affordable housing density bonus
[46:38] agreement and declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions. With that said, that
[46:44] does conclude my presentation staff and the applicant are available for any questions you may have.
[46:49] All right, thank you, Sussly.
[46:53] Just a commission have any questions they would like to ask staff.
[46:56] Chair, I have a question.
[46:57] Commissioner Keto.
[46:59] Is there going to be a stoplight included between
[47:01] San Savin and Highland as part of this development or part of the Westgate medical services
[47:05] as those two projects combined is obviously going to, I'm assuming,
[47:08] create quite a bit of traffic in that area?
[47:11] So the stop light, this like the signal,
[47:15] would be associated with the Westgate medical project.
[47:18] For this project, our engineering staff worked with the applicant to ensure that their
[47:27] improvements will kind of complement or correspond with the improvements that will be done
[47:32] on the other side of San Savine, as associated with the medical project, so we wanted to
[47:37] ensure that these improvements for this project wouldn't conflict with, what will come
[47:43] with the Westgate Medical Project.
[47:46] With this, we'll come the curb gutter inside
[47:48] walk on San Savine, as well as the street paving.
[47:54] You guys were with two steps ahead.
[47:56] I really appreciate it.
[47:56] You guys are great.
[47:59] Sure.
[48:01] Vice Chair, can you talk about that?
[48:03] Thank you.
[48:04] I think you're looking at my notes earlier,
[48:07] because you answered all of my questions,
[48:09] regarding the habitat, traffic, and everything else.
[48:12] So I appreciate that, thank you so much, you're making it easy.
[48:16] My only question to you though is on the memo that was given to us, you said we remove
[48:23] the windows to stay consistent with the standards that we have, is that right?
[48:31] So the reason for removing that wording from the condition is to be consistent with what
[48:37] on the plans that the applicant submitted.
[48:42] This condition is purely that a condition that we kind
[48:45] of use on other residential development.
[48:49] It is in a standard that says that you have to have the windows,
[48:52] but it's pretty common.
[48:54] But because the applicant was proposing something
[48:58] that was a little more simple for these without the actual windows,
[49:03] while still using the metal and the role of doors,
[49:05] We wanted to ensure that they could meet the condition as written, and that what they were proposing on their plans wasn't in conflict up front with the conditions of approval.
[49:16] Okay.
[49:18] Thank you for that clarification.
[49:20] That's it for me.
[49:24] Secretary Lizata.
[49:25] Hi, I just had a question in regards to the taught lot.
[49:28] I see that it's on the corner of Santa Bane in Highland.
[49:31] Is there a wall or high wall or something since there's children that could possibly be using that?
[49:36] Absolutely, yes, there will be a wall that will kind of round the corner that will be a combination with some tubular steel for view purposes, but it will definitely
[49:50] and close the area both from the street side to ensure that children aren't running out into traffic.
[50:00] And, you know, to keep everyone safe.
[50:06] Any other questions for staff?
[50:13] I guess I do have one question, so, because we're going back to the, you know, standards and stuff like that. So the, the garage windows.
[50:24] So do we, is that like a policy like we're talking about earlier or is that just standard we usually require every builder to put windows in?
[50:34] So, it is more so a policy or a guideline as opposed to a standard.
[50:40] So, it is pretty typical that it's provided.
[50:45] However, sometimes with design, trying to be consistent with the kind of sort of design,
[50:51] sometimes it's not provided.
[50:56] If I could add, I think there was once upon a time a requirement for those when those in the code
[51:01] And it was changed so that they could provide our decorative features instead.
[51:06] All right.
[51:06] Thank you.
[51:08] All right.
[51:08] So next is the applicant here and will the applicant state his name,
[51:12] step to the podium, state your name, and whether you accept the conditions of approval or not?
[51:23] Sorry.
[51:24] So yeah, I had a chance to review the conditions.
[51:28] There we just want to make sure that just like the previous project, our project on the
[51:33] regarding the CFD will also be as determined by the city at a later date.
[51:39] We had the same contentions as the previous developer and same concerns.
[51:44] So, as far as the conditions of approval go, we approve the conditions as modified by
[51:51] Sessley and by the planning commission.
[51:58] All right. Well, thank you very much. You want to tell us a little bit about your project.
[52:01] I missed that with the other applicant.
[52:04] Absolutely, so first I want to thank again staff and Patty and her team and as well as
[52:11] engineering and working through this I, there is a lot of challenges with this particular
[52:15] site because Westgate was also getting their project approved as we were going through
[52:21] our design and so there's a lot of coordination that had happened between their team, their
[52:32] So we did work very hard diligently with all parties to come up with the plan that we have
[52:39] in order to address all parties and concerns on the project.
[52:45] So we are designing Highland to ultimate condition.
[52:49] We are still working through some things with San Savine, but the city would be relinquishing
[52:56] the easement along San Savine is part of this project and I don't think that was clearly
[53:05] addressed in the conditions but that is something that is a critical component of the project
[53:11] as far as that vacation and then as far as the dueplexes we've tried to make the dueplex
[53:24] homes as large as we could for the future residents, you know, for their families, kids, the
[53:31] taught lot we tried to incorporate as much as we could for a passivity, passivity throughout
[53:35] the community for walking. We also have a trialist unit in addition to the taught lot. We have
[53:43] the, we do have a rot iron fence that's along the perimeter fence so that we have security
[53:50] for the children that they'll be playing in that taught lot.
[53:54] And so we are excited to bring this to the city.
[53:58] We feel like it really integrates nicely
[54:00] with the adjacent community that was just built by Richmond,
[54:04] America, not too long ago.
[54:06] And is a nice compliment to the area.
[54:09] And with the off-site improvements we'll be helping to provide the
[54:14] ultimate capital improvements that the city is looking to do at the
[54:20] as part of the project. So, definitely excited to build this one and provide another community
[54:28] for future residents of Fontana.
[54:31] All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the Commission for the
[54:35] Opticint?
[54:36] I have a question, Chair.
[54:37] Commissioner Keto.
[54:38] You said something about an easement that's not, you guys have not discussed in the conditions
[54:43] of approval that needs to be addressed or did I understand that?
[54:48] Patty, you want to go ahead?
[54:51] Is that the vacation that you're talking about?
[54:53] It is.
[54:53] We will have to bring back a separate general planning consistency
[54:57] Determination.
[54:58] We try to catch it with the project.
[55:00] And we just did not end time on this case. So you'll see occasionally on the consent agenda. There is a general plan consistency finding.
[55:08] So any time the city acquires or disposes of property, the planning commission needs to make a general plan consistency determination.
[55:16] It's a consent agenda item and we'll bring it back shortly.
[55:19] Okay. Does that work?
[55:20] Yes. Thank you.
[55:22] Sure.
[55:23] Are there any other questions for the applicant from the commission?
[55:26] I'm sure I have a question.
[55:29] Vice Chair, can you tell them?
[55:31] Are these dueplexes going to be for sale or rental properties?
[55:38] These are for sale.
[55:40] Okay, perfect.
[55:41] Thank you.
[55:42] And then one other question more for legal applicant,
[55:46] used to keyword that perked my ears a little bit,
[55:49] he said, you know, this regarding the CFD,
[55:51] that it was a modified condition,
[55:54] or it was modified before this meeting, so before us, the CFD is in there.
[56:05] So are we, if we are to, it's worth it, sorry.
[56:10] Go ahead.
[56:10] It's worth it slightly differently, but it also provides a flexibility.
[56:14] Okay, so we don't have to, if the CFD is required.
[56:18] Okay, so, but if we make a motion, we don't have to add any additional language
[56:23] because it's already set.
[56:25] I don't think so.
[56:26] I think it provides what they're looking for.
[56:28] Thank you.
[56:31] And legal reasons for you.
[56:33] We look at it.
[56:35] I'm unaware of the discussion that Ms. Nevin
[56:38] has had with the developer before the meeting.
[56:41] So I'll have to rely on what Ms. Nevin has indicated.
[56:45] Is that your question, does legal concur?
[56:49] In short, I have to.
[56:50] Sorry, to be clear.
[56:52] To be clear, I did not have a separate conversation.
[56:54] I just see the condition as it's written, and I think it provides what they're looking for.
[57:01] And the condition itself is written as fine.
[57:06] All right, so with that being said, City Clerk,
[57:07] are there any other requests to speak on this item?
[57:10] Chair, there are no other requests to speak.
[57:14] All right, so with that being said, this public hearing is now closed.
[57:20] Are there any further discussion from the Commission?
[57:22] Or may I have a motion?
[57:23] Motion to approve.
[57:24] Mastercase number 25-0051.
[57:29] Second.
[57:31] With the memo.
[57:34] Set.
[57:35] And that includes the staff's recommended
[57:37] modification as presented, correct?
[57:40] That's correct.
[57:43] All right, so I got a motion by Commissioner Keto.
[57:48] Commissioner rolled in second.
[57:49] And I have a second by Commissioner rolled in.
[57:52] Let's go ahead and please our votes.
[57:58] Five in favor, the motion passes.
[58:07] All right.
[58:09] It's a little longer than usual, but hey, all great things are come to those who wait.
[58:16] My favorite time of the day is here.
[58:18] Director communications, take it away.
[58:22] I feel like you've already heard from me tonight, so I'm going to pass.
[58:26] Thank you very much for the offer.
[58:29] All right, so we're going to be a little disheartened.
[58:32] That's able to hear the director comments today, but moving forward with commission comments.
[58:38] We'll start off with Commissioner Keto.
[58:43] As always, I just want to thank the City staff, Dork and Evan, thank you so much for taking
[58:47] my call earlier and walking me through some of that and as we talk more about it, just the
[58:51] questions keep coming.
[58:52] I appreciate you and your staff.
[58:53] You guys do such an amazing job of helping us up here, understand what we're doing and what
[58:58] we're approving and the presentations are great.
[59:01] So very much looking forward to the continued developments in the City of Montana and watching
[59:05] our City grow.
[59:06] I think the planning department just does an amazing job of encouraging developers to come here and
[59:14] view the fire city.
[59:15] So thank you so much for you and your team and everybody who helps move Fontana forward.
[59:21] I hope everybody has a blessed night.
[59:23] Thank you.
[59:24] Thank you Commissioner Keto.
[59:27] Commissioner Rodan.
[59:32] Yes, I echo with Commissioner Keto as to say.
[59:35] Also, as I drive through the city of Fontana,
[59:40] I had noticed that there are quite a bit of notice of filings,
[59:46] some empty lots and to me that really shows growth within the community,
[59:53] especially on the residential portion.
[59:56] And thank you, staff, for making...
[1:00:00] In this happen, and also with the presentations, make it neat easy for us to look at and be able to make our determinations.
[1:00:10] Thank you very much.
[1:00:17] All right, with that being said, Secretary Lizato.
[1:00:21] Thank you, Chair. I just want to say thank you to the planning department.
[1:00:25] Also, the presentations today by Mr. Lumeli and his session goings.
[1:00:29] these projects look really awesome, can't wait to see them, and appreciate the time and the
[1:00:36] clarification of the policies,
[1:00:40] and yeah, just so everyone has a great evening and stay
[1:00:42] hydrated.
[1:00:45] All right, Vice Chair Quintana.
[1:00:48] Yep, thank you, staff, always for everything you do, great presentations tonight.
[1:00:53] I want to echo what Commissioner Roldan stated that I also drive around and see the notice
[1:01:02] of filings out there and it is great to see the growth in the city and it's balanced
[1:01:08] growth.
[1:01:10] So we heard tonight there's some duplexes going up which is going to be a cross from medical
[1:01:16] office so there's a lot of balance there I'm excited that the curves and gutters
[1:01:23] for that second project, or going in, I live close to that area, very much needed, so always
[1:01:32] excited for a growth, especially excited when it's happening near my residence and proving
[1:01:38] the area with great homes and businesses.
[1:01:45] That is it for me, thank you.
[1:01:50] So myself again, I want to thank echo the words of my fellow commissioners in thanking
[1:01:56] our planning team on the great work, especially the, what I call the game time decisions,
[1:02:05] to be able to allow the movement of a development in our city.
[1:02:09] Our mayor states that our city is open for business, and I want to make sure that if every opportunity
[1:02:15] we get as a commission to literally support that and ensure that, you know, we're bringing
[1:02:20] great projects to Fontana with with the opportunity for growth, but we want to also echo
[1:02:24] to, especially the development community that we don't want to work against you, we want
[1:02:28] to work with you.
[1:02:30] So, thank you guys so much for making that effort to bridge that gap with whatever the issue
[1:02:35] was and being able to come together and fix that so that everybody was happy with the decision
[1:02:41] at the end.
[1:02:42] So thank you so much Patty and your team for being able to navigate that even when it's
[1:02:47] a game time decision and you guys are able to get it done so appreciate that.
[1:02:50] Makes it a lot easier I think for us commissioners to feel comfortable with what we're
[1:02:54] voting on when we know you guys have, because I think that's the last thing any of us want
[1:02:58] to do is create Brad Pessidence and make people think that we don't want to see the growth
[1:03:03] here in our city.
[1:03:04] So I think that's why we're all here.
[1:03:06] But with that being said, I did notice a lot of, maybe a little confusion on what a CFD is.
[1:03:17] And how it works.
[1:03:19] And really, I mean, how would we implement those costs?
[1:03:21] How do we come up with generating those costs?
[1:03:25] So I would love to see if we have the opportunity to test staff with maybe that being our next workshop on CFD implementation.
[1:03:34] see if the cost analysis and how we get there with not only our big projects, but how do we get there with our small projects?
[1:03:41] That's the big thing is because, you know, we have all these small pockets in our city that we want to fill, right?
[1:03:45] But I want to make sure that like you said, we want to be consistent with everything.
[1:03:50] So I'd love to see what that looks like and how you guys come up with those types of answers.
[1:03:54] And I know my fellow commissioner Keto asked, like, I'd love the follow-up, so I think that's would be a great opportunity for us to get some follow-up
[1:04:01] and understand the practice a little more, understand what it is, and then really understand what
[1:04:07] what it is on how we navigate that. So, would appreciate a workshop on that.
[1:04:12] So, with that being said, I just want to thank everybody for coming out today. The hundreds of
[1:04:17] people that sit here in the stands and watch us every day. Thank you all for, you know, being here,
[1:04:23] and with that being said, I hope everybody has a blessed weekend and
[1:04:27] and look forward to seeing everybody at our next meeting.
[1:04:32] So I will now move to our adjournment
[1:04:34] to our next planning commission meeting
[1:04:36] on Tuesday, September 1st,
[1:04:39] 26 at 6 p.m. here in the Steel Workers Auditorium,
[1:04:42] located at 84th, 37 Sierra Avenue, Montana, California.
[1:04:47] And this meeting is now adjourned.