Upland council adopts rezoning changes to pursue state housing certification, narrows density for one contentious site

The Upland City Council on Monday approved a suite of rezoning and Municipal Code changes intended to secure final state certification of the city’s sixth‑cycle housing element and add zoning capacity for nearly 5,700 state-assigned units. Council members voted unanimously to adopt the zone change and specific-plan amendments after making a targeted change to lower the maximum density on one parcel that prompted extensive public opposition.

The package before the council implements zoning actions the city had previously included in its 2024 housing element and that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) required to obtain full certification. “Tonight’s action does not result in any construction or any project approvals. It’s only for the underlying zones,” Joshua Winter, the city’s senior planner and project planner, told the council during the presentation.

City staff and consultants said the rezoning program combines several strategies: creation of a new RM-40 multifamily zoning district (40 dwelling units per acre), a transit overlay zone near the Montclair Transit Station that allows higher densities on assembled parcels, raising allowed densities in the Business‑Residential Mixed Use (BRMU) zone from 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre in selected areas, targeted upzones from RM‑20 to RM‑30 at specific sites, and an ADU bonus program that lets lots larger than 15,000 square feet add a second detached accessory dwelling unit to help meet the moderate‑income allocation.

Why it matters: final HCD certification protects Upland from certain legal and funding penalties and preserves the city’s eligibility for state grants. Winter said the city’s Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional allocation for this cycle was 5,686 units; staff told the council they identified zoning changes across roughly 261 parcels and used the transit overlay and an ADU bonus to avoid rezoning many more properties.

Residents who live near several proposed rezoning sites urged the council to reduce the proposed densities. Dozens of speakers addressed the public hearing, citing concerns about privacy, parking, fire risk, infrastructure capacity and property values for single‑family neighborhoods abutting proposed higher‑density parcels. “If you put up the three‑story condos, they’re literally going to be looking into our backyard,” said Paulette Feeney, an Arrow Highway resident. Several speakers asked the council to preserve lot sizes and neighborhood character on the parcels closest to single‑family homes.

Council and staff adjustments: The planning commission had recommended several changes that staff included in the packet before council. During council discussion the body agreed to a last‑minute modification for one parcel along Arrow Highway (referred to in the hearing as the 20 First / Campus property) — reducing the proposed zoning to RM‑20 (multifamily residential, 20 du/ac) and changing the general plan designation accordingly rather than the higher RM‑30 originally recommended in staff materials. Council also directed that a parcel on Ninth Street be assigned a BRMU general plan and zoning designation. City staff told the council those targeted changes reduce the city’s planned buffer for RHNA accounting (the project buffer built into the sites inventory) from about 15% to roughly 12.7%.

Process and limits: Winter, Planning Manager Worley Ferris and consultants from Michael Baker International said the council action creates development opportunity only; every future project on rezoned parcels must go through entitlement review, public notice, and applicable environmental review and development standards. Winter and a consultant also told the council the state recently enacted Senate Bill 131 and related rules that provide a CEQA exemption or streamlined path for housing‑element‑implementing rezones in many cases — the staff report relies on an addendum to the prior EIR and the state exemption for the related environmental determination.

Council members emphasized outreach and next steps for impacted neighborhoods. Council member Shannon Miles asked staff to clarify that the parcels north of the 210 Freeway were included to meet moderate‑ and above‑moderate‑income site needs required by HCD and by the AFFH (affirmatively furthering fair housing) analysis for the sixth cycle. Council members said they would require developers to meet design compatibility expectations — including perimeter walls and landscape buffers — during project review.

What the council voted on and outcome: The council adopted two ordinances and a specific‑plan amendment by unanimous vote to implement the changes in the zoning code and the downtown specific plan, with the Arrow Highway parcel set to RM‑20 and the Ninth Street parcel changed to Business‑Residential Mixed Use as described during the hearing. The motion included adoption of CEQA findings (an addendum to the city’s 2015 EIR and reliance on the state’s housing‑element exemption) and direction to transmit the adopted rezoning package to HCD for final certification.

Next steps and risk: Staff noted that HCD reviews adopted rezonings and could request changes; lowering the density on a contested parcel reduces the city’s buffer (the margin above the RHNA requirement) but staff said the city would still retain a positive buffer. Council members warned residents that, if the city fails to maintain a certified housing element, developers could seek ‘builder’s remedy’ approvals that would remove more local control.

Speakers quoted in this story spoke during the public hearing or in staff presentations as recorded in the city council transcript. The council’s action does not authorize any physical work; it only changes underlying land‑use and zoning rules that will govern future development proposals.