[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.]

[0:02] Okay. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to a meeting of the City of Upland Planning Commission.
[0:09] It's August 26, 26, it's 630 p.m. And our first order of business tonight is
[0:27] to
[0:47] conduct a
[0:47] Next item is roll call, Ms. Davidson.
[0:53] Commissioner Satton.
[0:55] Commissioner Maritime, President.
[0:57] Commissioner Johnson.
[0:58] Vice Chair Cullwell, here, Chair Andrews.
[1:01] Commissioner Borger.
[1:03] Commissioner Cooper.
[1:04] Here.
[1:05] Okay.
[1:05] Thank you.
[1:07] Next item, approval of minutes.
[1:10] We have minutes from the regular meeting of May 27, 2026 and the minutes of the regular
[1:19] planning commission and special joint airport land use committee meeting of July 22nd,
[1:25] 2026. So we'll take these as two separate votes. Okay, very good. So let's take up the May 27th
[1:33] minutes first. Are there any comments or remotion? I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion
[1:40] to approve the minutes. Okay. All seconds. May 27th. We have a motion the second.
[1:48] Go ahead
[1:48] both then.
[2:05] I have noted that Commissioner Marquin was absent. That meeting?
[2:13] Do you want
[2:14] to take another one? Yeah, that's for it again. It was a while ago. It wasn't. Yeah.
[2:30] Commissioner
[2:30] Johnson. Yeah.
[2:36] All righty, and that's approved with four affirmative votes and two abstaining.
[2:40] Okay, very good. And then now the minutes of the July 22nd to 26th meeting. Any questions or is there a motion?
[2:53] Now I'll make a motion. Okay, I'll second. All right, very good motion in a second.
[2:58] Go ahead and vote on those.
[3:06] And this is a proof with five affirmative votes and one abstaining.
[3:10] Okay, very good. Thank you. All right.
[3:12] Item five on our agenda, Council actions, Mr. Galkwist.
[3:17] Thank you, Chairman, and Planock Commission.
[3:19] We had two council meetings this last time.
[3:22] We met as July 27th in August 10th.
[3:26] With respect to July 27th, there's no reportable items.
[3:30] August 10th, there are two items of note.
[3:33] The council did approve the ADU density bonus.
[3:37] Actually, the ADU bonus programs, sorry about that.
[3:40] They did approve that, and then also they did hold public hearing on the appeal of the
[3:47] Plan of Commission's denial of the Mr. Reduce permit for the quick-wack on Mountain, and they
[3:52] upheld the Plan of Commission's denial on a five-of-a-vote, and those are all the items.
[3:57] All right, very good. Thank you.
[4:00] Okay, next item item six, future agenda items, Ms. Lorelie Ferris.
[4:06] Thank you chair members of the commission.
[4:09] Future items that that we planned to bring before you include the Arrow Town Homes project,
[4:14] which is a 124 unit town home development located on West Arrow Highway.
[4:20] We also plan to bring forward a specific plan amendment to the Historic Downtown
[4:25] Upland specific plan. This is the change to the zoning designation of one parcel that's
[4:30] that's located at 177 D Street from the Civil Center to Old Town District in order to allow
[4:36] more flexibility with additional uses for the structures that are there.
[4:41] And then we also anticipate objective design standards returning to you in the future if you
[4:45] recall the workshop that was before the commission a few meetings back.
[4:50] We'll be bringing an ordinance forward to the commission for a recommendation to the city council.
[4:55] Our next regularly scheduled meetings on September 23rd and we will have items lined up for that.
[5:04] Okay, very good.
[5:05] Thank you.
[5:07] Okay.
[5:08] Our next agenda item is oral communications.
[5:10] This is the time for any citizen to comment on any items that are not listed on the agenda under public hearings,
[5:17] but within the Planning Commission's purview.
[5:19] Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission should submit a speaker card to the Planning Secretary,
[5:23] prior to speaking. The speakers are requested to keep their comments to five minutes. The use of visual aids will be included in the time limit.
[5:32] Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Planning Commission is prohibited from acting on items that are not listed on the agenda.
[5:40] Mr. Davidson, do we have any cards for oral communications?
[5:45] Okay, very good. Thank you. All right. Okay. All right. Our next agenda item is a public hearing item eight a consideration of a variance.
[6:10] Thank you, Chair and members.
[6:17] So this is the public hearing for variance number 26-001.
[6:27] So the applicant and in coordination with the property owner is requesting approval of a variance.
[6:34] for the property that's located at 710 Validest Street.
[6:39] So that would be known as parcel 1.
[6:43] And in the neighboring parcel, which is 720 Validest Street,
[6:48] and that would be known for parcel 2.
[6:51] They are both requesting the variance,
[6:55] in which affiliates with a lot line adjustment between parcel 1 and 2.
[7:01] Both properties are in the residential single family medium district zone, which is RS 7.5, and they both have single family dwellings.
[7:19] So a little bit of background on these properties is that in the early 1900s, it was known as Validus Camps.
[7:28] The properties were subdivided.
[7:31] And when there were a deed off, they were measured at 50 feet with a hundred and thirty-two in depth, which measured at approximately 6,600 square feet.
[7:48] the buildings were built in 1920 and in 1958 the properties were zoned a multi-family residential
[8:00] which the Zones minimum development standards at the time was 60 feet in with
[8:09] 130 in depth and the minimum lot size was 7,500 so that made these properties
[8:18] legal non-conforming.
[8:22] In 1994, parcel 1 had dedicated approximately 842 square feet to the city
[8:32] to widen in campus avenue. So that reduced a lot from 50 feet to 45 feet at the midpoint.
[8:42] Now, the city code's measure the width of a lot at the midpoint of a parcel.
[8:52] Then later, between 1998 and 2004, the properties were re-owned to single family,
[9:02] which had the same minimum development standards.
[9:05] Now,
[9:09] the property historically was separated by the change length sense.
[9:15] So it was assumed that that was the property line.
[9:19] So in 1921, the property owner is agreed to rebuild the fence with a block wall.
[9:27] And parcel 1, poured concrete to their driveway.
[9:34] But then later in 2023, a land survey was conducted and it was determined at the wall in the dry way in crotch 8.8 feet into parcel 2, which did create a boundary dispute.
[9:58] So if you look at the image, the blue line
[10:02] is where the changing fence was located.
[10:07] And the red line is what shows where the boundary should be.
[10:19] So with that, the property owners agreed
[10:22] on a lot line adjustment.
[10:25] It would result in an equal exchange of the land
[10:30] Parcel 2 will transfer 496 square feet of the front part of the property to parcel 1 and
[10:39] parcel 1 will transfer approximately the same
[10:44] 496 square feet of the rear of the property to parcel 2
[10:52] But with that it does cause
[10:56] the line the line adjustment does
[10:59] Create, sorry, the line adjustment does reduce the property line for parts, sorry, I'm sorry.
[11:07] Reduce the, the lot width of parcel two to 38.2 feet at the midpoint.
[11:19] For this reason, invariance is required since it does not meet the minimum requirement of 60 feet.
[11:31] So, there are five findings for variants in this proposal, it was analyzed in the staff report.
[11:44] But the findings is that there are unique circumstances as detailed in the property background.
[11:52] that is unique to parcel one, that does not apply to other parcels, and then the next
[12:03] is that without the variance, it will deprive the property to not have access to a driveway,
[12:11] which will result the property losing, it's existing driveway, staff did look at other alternatives
[12:23] One of the alternatives was to create a new driveway in front of the property, but Validus
[12:32] is narrow and it is close to
[12:47] the intersection and also to do a new driveway along campus
[12:56] would be dangerous in a sense that there's high volumes of traffic there.
[13:03] The variants will preserve the properties ability to continue the residential use and
[13:09] have access. The variants will not be detrimental to the public health safety and
[13:16] the welfare of the surrounding properties and it would not grant any special
[13:23] privileges.
[13:28] This project is category categorically exempt from
[13:33] sequa based on section 15305.
[13:44] Staff recommends that the planning
[13:46] commission approve the resolution and the conditions of approval for
[13:51] this project and then this concur's representation and the following motions
[13:57] Right there.
[13:58] Okay.
[13:58] Thank you very much.
[14:00] Do any commissioners have any questions of staff at this point?
[14:06] Yeah.
[14:07] And I would just offer in kind of a rated rate your point, Miss Naya, that the back of the
[14:13] map that that angle at the Northwest corner of the parcel, you know, kind of further create
[14:19] a unique circumstances speak, and I presume that was for street improvements that were
[14:23] made at some point to campus in their section.
[14:27] So, I create a real tight condition, I shall we say at that intersection, so.
[14:33] Okay, very good. Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing then.
[14:42] We have an opportunity for the applicant, Mr. Janet Rodriguez, to please address the commission
[14:49] if they'd like. Is the applicant here?
[14:57] Welcome.
[15:05] Chair, Andrews, Vice Chair, public will officials. I've been adjacent to faculty on the attorney actually down in San Diego, I drove up for today's hearing.
[15:14] I was initially hired to represent Ms. Rodriguez in connection with a boundary dispute.
[15:21] But I'm happy to say that we were actually able to resolve that boundary dispute.
[15:26] This has been a long time coming.
[15:28] It took us about two years to get lender approval.
[15:31] We've had a court that's been kind of monitoring our process along the way.
[15:35] Staff, particularly, Ms. Naya has done a phenomenal job of helping us.
[15:40] This is Janet Rodriguez.
[15:42] She's identified as the applicant, but we kind of always thought all along.
[15:45] We were all just applying.
[15:47] And so this is Ms. Lasso, 17, 720 Valides.
[15:51] We've got some family members here too.
[15:53] And all the parties are represented.
[15:55] Yeah, unless you guys have any questions of us, we're just really pleased with the staff report and what it appears to be happening here today, and it's been a long time ago.
[16:05] Okay, very good. Thank you. All right. So, thank you for all for being here. Do any of any commissioners have any questions of the applicant or any of the representatives here at this point.
[16:15] Yeah, but I'm so folks the two of you that are neighbors you guys like what is going on with this change right here
[16:24] It's good both for both of your families and you agree out on what's been proposed
[16:30] Okay, that's all I need. Thank you very much. Okay, all right. Well, thank you. All right. Well, thank you
[16:35] I go ahead and have a see
[16:36] We're gonna
[16:37] Ask if anybody in the audience
[16:39] If there are any members of any other attendees here that have put a speaker card in that wish to provide any testimony, do we have any other cards for you?
[16:49] I haven't received any cards.
[16:51] Okay.
[16:51] Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this item that hasn't already addressed the commission?
[16:59] Just checking?
[17:00] All right.
[17:00] We'll go ahead and proceed then.
[17:03] All right.
[17:04] I'll presume that you don't have any, I'm behalf of the applicant, no further closing statements to make.
[17:09] anything. It sounds like we've got a resolution that's before us that meets the objectives
[17:16] of both parties involved.
[17:18] We appreciate your time. Absolutely. That's great.
[17:20] Okay, very good. All right. Staff, any closing remarks on this or anything?
[17:27] No, not from staff.
[17:28] Okay, very good. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then.
[17:33] Do any commissioners have any questions or looking around here?
[17:38] is anybody want to offer a motion?
[17:48] I move to determine the project is categorically exempt
[17:51] from the California Environmental Quality Act
[17:53] Sequoia, pursuant to Article 19 section 15305,
[17:58] minor alterations in land use limitations,
[18:01] class 5 subsection A of the Sequoia guidelines.
[18:05] I further move to adopt a resolution
[18:07] approving variance number 26-001 to reduce the minimum parcel
[18:14] with requirement from 60 feet to approximately 38 feet at the midpoint of the parcel for
[18:21] 710 Valades Street, subject to the required findings contained in the resolution.
[18:27] Okay. Thank you.
[18:29] All second that.
[18:30] Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and vote.
[18:42] And this is approved with six affirmative votes.
[18:45] Okay. Very good. All right.
[18:47] Thank you very much. Thank you for attending tonight.
[18:49] All right,
[18:55] next time in the agenda, we're going to open the special joint airport land use committee meeting here. Welcome, Mr. Campbell.
[19:04] Got a seat right there for you, sir. Right, yes sir, straight ahead. All right, so we'll go ahead and open the meeting.
[19:15] Jamie, we'll go ahead and do a roll call for the
[19:18] Lange's Committee meeting.
[19:21] Committee Member Campbell.
[19:24] Here.
[19:25] Committee Member Staten.
[19:28] Committee Member Marquins.
[19:29] Committee Member Johnson.
[19:31] Vice Chair Caldwell.
[19:33] Chair Andrews.
[19:34] Committee Member Borger.
[19:36] Committee Member Cooper.
[19:39] Okay.
[19:40] Very good.
[19:40] Thank you.
[19:41] All right.
[19:42] So we have a public hearing item.
[19:43] item 11A, continuation of the Buffalo Grove, specific plan project,
[19:51] this item is a consideration
[19:53] of a recommendation to the City Council of the City of Upland for the Buffalo Grove's
[19:57] specific plan, which is a proposal to redevelop approximately 4.42 acres with 72 detached
[20:03] residential condominium units and associated private streets, common open space landscaping,
[20:08] parking and utility improvements located at 1-8-1-2 through 1-8-1-6 West
[20:14] Fidil Boulevard in the city of Ophlyn. So, my understanding is we do have a
[20:21] speaker card so we will reopen the public hearing at this point. Okay, do we need
[20:26] a motion for that or do we just go and proceed? Okay. All right, so, all right, we'll
[20:31] go ahead and then take testimony from the person which is to speak and Jamie, I
[20:38] I do have a speaker card for Gil Coffman. He also provided some documents for the record that we just got at the
[20:46] meeting. I'll just pass this down for you.
[20:57] Mr. Coffman.
[21:02] Hello, Gil Coffman. 1272 and Marshall you have.
[21:07] So this is for public comment and formal objection to the environmental documentation.
[21:13] specifically, the Historical and Archaeological Resource Survey Report dated August 25, 2025,
[21:23] prepared by CRM Tech. Location of the project, 1814, was available at Uplink, California.
[21:32] This submission provides formal comments challenging the adequacy of the historical and archaeological research,
[21:40] resources survey reported by, prepared by CRM Tech,
[21:46] pretended to the Met Track Map, number 20820.
[21:50] This document fails to provide a fair accurate and complete representation
[21:55] of the historical and archaeological and cultural significance of the Buffalo
[22:00] in 1814, Westfield Hill Boulevard.
[22:05] More specifically, item number one, procedure
[22:08] Interact in advocacy and failure to consult local preservation list, report methodology is
[22:18] fundamentally incomplete, directing quarry with representatives from upland heritage confirms
[22:25] that the city, breaking nice local historic preservation reasons.
[22:30] Sources were never consulted during the preparation of the survey. Number two, official rebuttal, and support from the California Historic Route 66 Association.
[22:43] Any assertion in the applications, applicants, environmental materials, applying that the regional Route 66 advocates do not support or value the preservation
[22:55] of 1814 West Foothill Boulevard is Dermotch Relief Paltz.
[23:01] On record, Beth Mary, President of California Historic Route 66 Association has issued
[23:08] official statement to the City of Uplains, explicitly clarifying the Board of Directors
[23:15] position, quote, the California Historic Route 66 Association, Strogly, supports preserving
[23:22] the Buffalo Inn. If our previous correspondence suggested anything different, that was not
[23:29] the position of our board and was not consistent with our mission. Buffalo Inn represents
[23:35] an important opportunity for Upline. It is more than a historic building. It's a destination
[23:42] that can track visitors. Tell the story of Route 66, support local businesses and strengthen
[23:50] the community pride on quote, the state's primary resource Route 66 preservation organization
[23:59] has formally called on the city to pursue preservation, highlighting the heritage, terrorism,
[24:06] tourism, and upcoming Route 66 and 10-year-old makes this site an air-replace replaceable economic
[24:15] in cultural asset for Uplink.
[24:19] Number three,
[24:23] inaccurate characterization
[24:24] of root 66 eligibility and regulatory registry lists.
[24:30] The CRM technical survey relies on flawed premise
[24:35] by suggesting that the lack of prior formal registry
[24:39] listing automatically equates the lack of historical value
[24:44] Under SQL guidelines, the city of Uplen has a lead organization legally obligated to evaluate the resources,
[24:54] actual physical and historical significance rather than replying on absence of third party administrative listings.
[25:05] Number four, unfounded conclusion regarding site integrity,
[25:09] The report relies on opinion and erroneous characterizations to include the modifications
[25:17] have erased its historic, feel while ignoring the core architectural layout, roadside
[25:24] character and subterranean archaeological sensitivity of the foothill boulevard root 664.
[25:32] Conclusion, because of this, because this project's survey relies on
[25:38] this responsible, factual gaps failed to consult local heritage groups and
[25:44] directly contradicts the official expert position of the California Historic
[25:50] Route 66 Association City of Oakland cannot legally certify this document under
[25:56] I respectfully urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny and pause the
[26:03] approvals order and independent third party peer review and require to develop or work
[26:09] out with regional preservation entities.
[26:13] Thank you, Mr. Coffman. That's our five minute time. We appreciate your testimony.
[26:20] We've got this and you've got the attached.
[26:22] uh... yes it's reciter from uh...
[26:24] this door
[26:25] thank you very much
[26:27] uh...
[26:28] mister when i i apologize i i we should have had you uh... make remarks first
[26:32] there so
[26:33] we'll catch you now if that's okay
[26:36] yeah that's fine
[26:37] uh... you pretty much captured the staff report in your opening comments so
[26:42] uh... but yet the the planning commission at the last meeting
[26:46] uh...
[26:47] granted gave a continuous for the project
[26:50] So that way we could make the sewer connection happen in a particular way that sewer connection is not yet been resolved, so we need a little bit more time to work with the applicant on resolving that, so hopefully we'll be back with a final project in September.
[27:09] Okay.
[27:10] Very good. Thank you.
[27:13] Okay, so I think we're going to need a motion and a vote to continue the hearing.
[27:20] So you can do the public hearing, the public hearing to the next meeting of September 23rd.
[27:25] So would anybody wish to make a motion?
[27:27] No, no motion.
[27:28] Okay.
[27:29] Is there a second?
[27:31] I'll second.
[27:33] All right.
[27:33] So let's go ahead and vote on that.
[27:34] So again, this is to continue the public hearing for the Buffalo Gross Pacific Plan to the next regular scheduled planning commission meeting on September 23rd, 2026.
[27:52] And with six affirmative votes, this has been continued to September 23rd.
[28:00] Sorry, that's that.
[28:02] Okay, all right, very good.
[28:04] Okay, item 12 then is to close the special joint land use committee meeting and reconvene the regular planning commission meeting.
[28:17] Do we need a motion and a second of the vote on that or roll kit a proceed with that?
[28:22] All right.
[28:25] All right.
[28:25] Item 13, A is a business side.
[28:28] It's reaffirm the rules and procedures for the Upland Planning Commission.
[28:34] Ms. Davidson, I believe you're going to present that information to us.
[28:37] That is correct.
[28:48] There we go.
[28:51] Good evening, Chair.
[28:52] Members of the Commission.
[28:52] This is an annual review of the Planning Commission rules and procedures.
[28:56] So this is something the Commission does annually in August last August. There were some minor changes to the order of the election.
[29:05] It was determined that the election should occur at the end of the meeting to kind of allow a more smoother transition for the newly elected chair and vice chair.
[29:14] Since then, Planning City Council has adopted a new resolution, so really the changes before
[29:21] you tonight are just updating resolution numbers to match the City Council resolution.
[29:28] So there's no proposed changes, but if the commission does feel like there's something
[29:33] to be changed or want to discuss, now it would be the time to do that.
[29:37] Okay, all right.
[29:38] Thank you.
[29:39] I'm looking around to my colleagues here or were there any comments or questions about the rules and procedures.
[29:50] All right.
[29:51] Okay.
[29:52] Within.
[29:54] Then if there aren't any questions of Mr. Davidson, would anybody wish to.
[30:00] Uh, make a motion on the set. Okay, we have a motion. You have a second.
[30:08] All second. We have a motion to second. So go ahead and vote on this item.
[30:27] All righty, and this is approved with six affirmative votes. Okay. All right, thanks very much. Okay.
[30:34] Um, I didn't commission comments. I'll start to to my left here.
[30:39] Mr. Cooper.
[30:41] I know comments for me. Okay.
[30:44] Mr. Boarder.
[30:46] Nothing.
[30:47] Okay.
[30:48] I sure call.
[30:49] I have nothing from my end, but I do want to. Oh, no, I do. I want to welcome our new commissioner.
[30:55] Commissioner Cooper.
[30:57] My first meeting. So with you. Thanks.
[31:00] Mr.
[31:03] Jones,
[31:05] Mr. Merkel.
[31:06] Just quickly given my background, I was really happy to see that the staff was able to help
[31:11] with settlement in that litigation, so I was very much appreciate it and look like all
[31:17] parties were happy with that.
[31:21] Okay, thank you.
[31:22] You have very good.
[31:23] Okay.
[31:24] I don't want to be comments tonight, so I think our next action is to consider adjournment.
[31:31] Anybody wish to make a motion on that?
[31:34] Okay.
[31:34] And
[31:46] with six affirmative votes, we are adjourned.
[31:49] Okay, very good.
[31:49] Thank you.
[31:50] Thanks everyone for attending.