Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-15 DRC Agenda OCTOBER 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE A. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Ray Wimberly Tony M. Guglielmo David Eoff Alternates: Lou Munoz Francisco Oaxaca B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205—PHELAN DEVELOPMENT-A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236.534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 9tt, Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 9tn Street—APN: 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41, and 0207-262-42 . Related File: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205.A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. Page 1 of 2 OCTOBER 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS Room CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE C2. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 — PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low(L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. Related Records: Minor Exception DRC2018-00473. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 —New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. 'D. ADJOURNMENT The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 1, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at(909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Page 2 of 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Kirt A. Coury October 15, 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205—PHELAN DEVELOPMENT-A request to develop an 11.73 acre site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet within the General Industrial (GI) District, located on the north side of 91h Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, at 8768 911 Street — APN: 0207-262-28, 0207-262-35, 0207-262-36, 0207-262-41, and 0207-262-42 . Related File: Minor Exception DRC2019-00205. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. Site Characteristics and Background: The project site is developed with a number of residential and non-residential structures along with related landscape and hardscape improvements. The area is fenced, separating the project site from the residential land uses to the north and west. The residential and nonresidential structures on the project site are all vacant. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Residential and General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Non-Residential Buildings District North Single Family Residential Medium Density Medium Residential (M) Residential South Industrial/Manufacturing General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Building District East Industrial/Manufacturing General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Facility District West Multifamily Buildings Medium Density Medium Residential (M) Residential Project Overview- The applicant proposes developing the project site with three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236.564 square feet. Building A is proposed to be 50,771 square feet, building B is 85,209 square feet, and building C is 100,554 square feet, for a total of 236,534 square feet for the project site. Tenants for the buildings have not been identified at this time_ Since the buildings exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area, activities within this building would be classified as "Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — Medium" (Section 17.32,020(G)19). The proposed project has a layout and building floor plans that are typical for the proposed land use. Office areas for the buildings will face V Street. Dock loading/storage areas will be screened by the proposed buildings, with the exception of Building C. which faces 91h Street and will be screened by an 8-foot-tall concrete tilt-up wall. The wall will extend along the 91h Street frontage between the two-vehicle access driveways. The project includes an alternative site plan in the case that the applicant is unable to acquire the most southeastern parcel along the 9"1 Street frontage, immediately adjacent to the flood control channel (see attached Alternative Site Plan, Scheme 11)_ Should the parcel not be acquired, the Cl— Pg1 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 — PHELAN DEVELOPMENT October 15, 2019 Page 2 applicant will be conditioned to provide a perimeter wall and screen wall along the eastern boundary including pilasters to match the screen wall proposed in front of building C. There will be two points of vehicular access via two driveways located on 91h Street. The buildings, based on the anticipated warehousing/distribution use, are required to have 168 passenger vehicle parking stalls, with 176 parking stalls provided. Additionally, 23 trailer parking spaces are provided for the 23 dock doors, as required by the Development Code. The distribution of landscaping will generally be along the 9th Street frontage, as well as the parking lots near the office areas, and along the projects eastern boundary. Landscape coverage is 10.6 percent, in compliance with the minimum landscape requirement of 10 percent for the General Industrial (GI) zoning district. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of five colors. The building will include prominent horizontal and vertical reveals/scoring on all elevations. The office areas will include generous use of glass along with metal canopies. Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Building Height Max. 75' 42'-6" Yes Floor Area Ratio 60% 46% Yes Front Yard Setback Min. 25' 95' Yes Setback Abutting a Residential Property Min. 45' 41' Yes, with Minor Line Exce tion Landscape Percentage I Min. 10% 28.6% 1 Yes The proposed project meets or exceeds all setback requirements with the exception of the north property lines (abutting adjacent residential).. The required side and rear yard setbacks in the General Industrial (GI) District is five and zero feet. respectively, except when abutting a residential property line, which requires a 45' setback. The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Exception (DRC2019-00205) to reduce the required 45-foot setback for industrial projects abutting a residential property line. The building setback from A and B is approximately 41 feet from the adjacent residential property lines. The closest residential structure from the adjacent property lines is at minimum 100 feet for the onsite structures_ Additionally, there will be no dock doors facing the existing residences. Overall,the site has been designed to encourage trucks to use the eastern drive aisle by providing a wider drive aisle ranging in width from 30 to 47 feet as opposed to 26 feet for the western drive aisle. Additionally, in an effort to mitigate noise, all buildings have been designed with dock doors facing south and east. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues; The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding the project'. C1— Pg2 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 — PHELAN DEVELOPMENT October 15, 2019 Page 3 1. The proposed 41' setback from adjacent residential does not meet the required 45' setback (per Section 17.36.040(C) and Table 17.36.040-1(5)). The project will require review and approval of a Minor Exception application in order to accommodate the site plan as proposed. Per section 17.16.110 and Table 17.16.110-1 allows for up to a 10% reduction in setback requirements. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. None Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or fine-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured-in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. 2. All ground-mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back-flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center. All ground-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 3. The employee lunch areas shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finishes/trim used on the building.The trellis shall be painted to match the building, and tables, chairstbenches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. 4. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 5. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be powder coated black or similarly dark color. 6. All doors (roll-up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the proposed project as submitted to the Planning Commission. C1— pg3 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00912 — PHELAN DEVELOPMENT October 15, 2019 Page 4 Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Kirt A. Coury Staff Coordinator: David Eoff, Senior Planner C1— Pg4 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag October 15, 2019 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 — PAUL BARDOS - Site plan and architectural review of a 4,118 square foot two-story, single-family residence with an attached 771 square foot garage on a 15,430 square foot lot within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District at 8035 Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-03. Related Records: Minor Exception DRC2018-00473. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. which permits the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. Site Characteristics: The 15,430 square foot vacant project site is located on the south side of Camino Predera, within the Low (L) Residential District and within the Hillside Overlay District. The property dimensions are approximately 80 feet along the north property line, 195 feet along the east property line, 189 feet along the west property line, and 80 feet along the south property line. The downslope lot has an elevation of approximately 1,301 feet as measured at the curb face along the north property line and an elevation of approximately 1,260 feet as measured along the south property line, for a maximum grade change of approximately 41 feet. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Low (L) Residential District Site Vacant Land Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low Residential Low (L) Residential District North Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District South Pacific Electric Trail Public Mixed-Use (MU) District Vacant Land Low (L) Residential District East Low Residential Hillside Overlay District Low (L) Residential District Low Residential West Existing Single-Family Residence Hillside Overlay District Project Overview_ The applicant is requesting to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story, single- family residence along with an attached 771 square foot garage on the 15,430 square foot project site. The proposed grading includes up to 8 feet of cut, which necessitates that the project be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (5400t max cut or fill for Planning Director approval). Architecture: The proposed residence has a craftsman design theme, which includes a pitched concrete tile roof, horizontal wood siding, shake siding and a river rock wainscot. The proposed 4,118 square foot residence consists of a 2,352 square foot upper level, which includes the main living area and master bedroom, and a 1,766 square lower level, which includes 3 bedrooms and a bonus room. The upper and lower levels each include decks along the south elevations_ The 771 square foot three-car garage is located on the upper level of the residence, with the garage door facing Camino Predera, The driveway has a maximum grade of 15 percent. Hillside Deve$opment Standard 17.122.020.C.1,d. states that driveways with grades up C2—Pg 1 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 — PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 2 to 20 percent are permitted when they are aligned with the natural contours of the lot and are necessary to achieve site design goals_ Low Residential District Code Compliance: The project complies with the current development requirements of the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District as shown in the following table (it should be noted that the City is in the process of developing new development criteria for Camino Predera): Development Criteria Requirement Proposed Front Yard Setback 37 feet 60 feet Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Building Height Overall 30 feet 30 feet Building Height at Curb Face 10.5 feet Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max 5 feet Cut/Fill 5 feet 11.5* Feet *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval Retaining Walls' The maximum permitted retaining wall height is 4 feet within the Hillside Overlay District, with stepped retaining walls permitted to have a maximum height of 3-feet with a minimum 3-foot separation between the stepped walls. The project includes retaining walls up to 5 feet-2 inches. The additional retaining wall height is necessary to lower the foundation of the residence to reduce the height of the structure as seen from Camino Predera. The applicant has filed a Minor Exception request for the additional wall height. A Minor Exception permits an additional 2 feet in building height above the maximum permitted wall height. Perimeter Walls and Fencing; There is an existing combination wall and wrought iron fence along the west elevation that was constructed with the development of the single-family residence to the west. The applicant proposes an up to 4-foot retaining wall topped by a 5-foot wrought-iron fence along the east property line. A 6-foot-high wrought fence is proposed along the south elevation. The proposed perimeter walls are in keeping with Hillside Design Guideline Sections 17.122.020.E,, which encourages the use of open-view fencing and having walls that integrate the materials and colors used of the residence. Grading, The proposed grading design includes 784 cubic yards of import, which is necessary to construct the foundation of the residence, The foundation of the residence is stepped with the existing grade, with the upper pad at an elevation of 1,296 feet and the lower garage pad at an elevation of 1,285, in conformance with Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.a., to terrace the building to follow the slope. C2—Pg2 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244— PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 3 Building Envelope Analysis: Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.C. requires that residences in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30-foot high building envelope. The applicant has provided two north-south and two east-west cross-sections with building envelopes demonstrating compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. The height of the residence ranges from approximately 10-feet and 6-inches, along the east side of the residence, to 6-feet and 11-inches, along the west side of the residence, as measured above curb face on Camino Predera. Landscape: The proposed landscaping is designed to comply with Hillside Development Section 17.122.020.F., including the installation of a permanent irrigation system landscaping to protect slopes from erosion and planting shrubs to soften the views of the downslope elevations. The project is not within the High Fire Hazard Zone or within a wildland-urban interface area. The proposed landscaping also complies with the front yard landscape requirements, including reducing hardscape to less than 50 percent of the front yard area. The rear yard includes slope planting to prevent erosion. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in the Rains Room at City Hall on June 10, 2019, with approximate 20 residents in attendance. The applicant provided an overview of the project and fielded questions. The residents raised concerns related to the building height as seen from Camino Predera, the width of the residence (built to the minimum 5- and 10-foot setbacks), and the size of the residence as compared to older homes along Camino Predera. The applicant responded that lowering the residence would steepen the driveway to the point that it would be difficult to navigate, that reducing the width of the residence would make it difficult to construct a 3-car garage and that the size of the residence is in keeping with the existing residences most recently constructed along Camino Predera. The neighbors stated that the size of the recently constructed residences along Camino Predera is not in keeping with the intent of Hillside Design regulations and is too large compared to the older residences constructed along the street. Staff Comments Over the years, the City has received numerous concerns and complaints from neighborhood residents in response to projects along the south side of Camino Pradera. Generally, neighborhood residents have expressed concern that these projects are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Specifically, as it relates to this development application, concerns as expressed at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, involve the height, width, and size of the proposed residence. As expressed by residents at the Neighborhood Meeting, a primary concern is that recently constructed and/or proposed residences, including the subject application, which have typically ranged from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet, are much larger and inconsistent with older residences which dominate the character of the established neighborhood and which typically range in size from 2,400 to 3,000 square feet. In addition, staff feels that the proposed project does not meet the intent of the existing Hillside Development regulations. For example, the applicant proposes to build to the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet whereas Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a explicitly discourages this and recommends increased side yard setbacks to avoid the appearance of overbuilding of lots, among other design guidelines. Regarding concerns of "compatibility," the General Plan provides qualitative language which may be applied to the subject development application. For example, Policy LU-2.4 could be C2—pg3 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244—PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 4 interpreted to apply to this project. This General Plan policy aims to "promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contribute positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas." Further, the discussion section of this policy states that "The General Plan encourages the development of vacant residential lots where they are largely surrounded by other residential development to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and to meet housing demand. Land use controls that include development standards will ensure that infill development is compatible with neighboring uses." While the proposed project meets the current development standards, and while the Development Code does not provide an objective definition of the term "compatibility," the proposed development requires discretionary review by the Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 17.16.140.B..1 and Section 17.122.020.G.i of the Development Code. As such, certain findings are required to be made, including a finding that a proposed project must be consistent with the General Plan (Section 17.16.140.F.1). In summary, staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission deny the subject application for the following reasons: • Project Conflicts with Intent of Hillside Design Guidelines: The project proposes to build to the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, which conflicts with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures. • Project Is Incompatible with Existing Neighborhood: At 4,118 square feet, the proposed residence is significantly larger than older existing residences within the established neighborhood which range on average from approximately 2,400 to 3,000 square feet. • Project is Inconsistent with General Plan: General Plan Policy LU-2.4 promotes "complementary infill development...that contributes positively to the surrounding neighborhood." As evidenced by comments received at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2019, and considering long-standing concerns regarding the scale of other development proposed along the south side of Camino Predera, the proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4. Notably, and in order to address long-standing concerns of neighborhood compatibility, Planning Department staff, at the request of the City Council, have initiated a separate process to reevaluate certain hillside development standards, namely building height, setbacks and grading standards. This process is ongoing as of the writing of this report. Regarding architectural concerns, and in the event that the applicant were to revise the project into a development which would be acceptable to staff, staff recommends that the applicant increase side yard setbacks and step the upper level of the residence from the lower level. Staff also recommends that additional design enhancements are needed to the side elevations of the residence to better characterize the craftsman architectural design theme. Staff recommends that wood siding used on the front and rear elevations be continued to the side elevations of the second (upper) story. Major Issues: Staff does not support the proposed project for the reasons explained above. Discuss whether the committee should recommend approval or denial of the project design to the Planning Commission. C2—Pg4 DRC COMMENTS HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00244 — PAUL BARDOS October 15, 2019 Page 5 Secondary Issues; Whether the side elevations of the 2nd (upper) story should be upgraded to include wood siding to match the front and rear elevations to provide 360-degree architecture. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission deny the subject application. Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Staff Coordinator: David Eoff, Senior Planner Attachment; Letters of project opposition C2--PgS October 6, 2019 To: City Staff, Planning Commission Members, Mayor and Members of the City Council; I very much appreciate that our long time concerns are being taken seriously, with the recent Hillside Development Standards meetings. As you know, we have been dealing with the same issues again and again since 2000. These are the very last remaining hillside view lots in Red Hill and once they are gone that's it, no do over's. And' gust a quick bit of history dating back to 2004 and in response to Renee and Lynn Massey's Appeal 2nd appeal, the City Council was very clear as to their concern with the size and scale of new homes going in, hillside grading concerns, and keeping the distinctive residential character of the area, as well as consideration of view sharing. Yet sadly here we are again, neighbors who are put right back in the middle of this. Mr. Bardos, who purchased this vacant lot back in 2008, only purchased it to "protect his view" which he told us while he was our next store neighbor. He was also the one who built the first McMansion on our street. And while he is very proud of that fact, it has forever changed the character of our neighborhood and not for the better in my humble option. He f irst f iled the residential application with the City in early 2017, and has not once come to us to discuss his plans. Yet our home is the one most impacted by this new McMansion version of C2—Pg6 some plans he found apparently found somewhere. Instead he has tried to work everyone else he thought he could on our street, and now is doing his continuing best bullying practices to move this forward, and will say and do anything to get his way. This is and always has been about what is best for his personal profits and he personally has no care or concern about the neighborhood. At the Community meeting he suggested the neighbors offer comments, but he was not open to anything that was suggested as to lowering the profile of the house or dropping it down, or f even changing the roof profile. He kept saying it was "physics" and suggesting our simple minds could not understand that, and any of our "oh so silly".-i•deas could not be done. Threw up hiss1- hands and said he had done all he could do. All I see is yet another huge house that covers the entire front of the lot, blocks out the sun from our house looking to the east, lacks 364 degree architecture or anything of interest on the sides and is totally view focused on the back of the house. (Profit NOT Community/Neighborhood driven) One of my major questions and concerns is, since he personally seems to have prepared all of the plans, where is any official verification as to his grading analysis, slopes or even ability to build this huge house on this lot? He makes a lot of claims as to why he can't lower the house or driveway or do this or that, but there is no Engineering Professional or Reports to validate anything that he has drawn on the plans. And after all these C2--Pg7 years of this spin and nonsense, I am simply not very trusting any longer. I am shocked that someone can get this far down the road on a hillside, with a dif f icult lot to build on with no legal verification by an Engineering Professional willing to put his stamp on plans at a minimum. And I honestly think the City, Planning Commission and City Council should be concerned too. Respectfully, Suzanne Buquet 8725 Predera Court Rancho Cucamonga C2--Pg8 Re: Amendments to 17.122.020 Hillside Development Standards A very special thank you to the city of Rancho Cucamonga for taking the time and expending the effort to listen to the residents of the beautiful Red Hill Community. The workshops held by the Planning Department give me hope that the integrity and heritage of our neighborhood will be maintained and that the great"view grab"will cease to occur. Unfortunately, yet again we, the Red Hill Residents find ourselves very concerned with the prospective builds on Camino Pedrera,especially with the latest "Mc Mansion" home project designed by builder Paul Bardo. This project is on the south side of Camino Pedrera. This builder has shown a complete lack of respect and is remarkably hostile to the residents of both Red Hill and especially to those of Camino Pedrera. This builder doesn't choose to work with the residents instead at meetings he prefers to bully and insult the residents and the city for that matter. Mr. Bardo is so arrogant that he stated last year, in a city board meeting, that his design/build in Red Hill was the first one-million-dollar home, unfortunately, money and his aggression towards the residents is driving his motives, not common courtesy. The residents of Camino Pedrera will lose their view and see their property values decline. There are other vacant lots and if this build is allowed versus working with the residents to push it lower, that only the roof is seen from the street, as has been repeatedly discussed, it will be a fre for all with the remaining vacant lots on Camino Pedrera. More importantly we will be faced with the same battle that we have been faced with repeatedly over the years. This builder repeatedly states we are too ignorant to knew enough about the physics of building and he absolutely cannot drop this home that only a rooftop is seen from the street. The residents do not trust his motives and we do not trust that he will listen to a word the city says. The city has been to my house, has admired my beautiful views, and clearly can see that in order to protect the residents on the North side of Red Hill CC Drive, back in 1978 the houses were dropped very low. When did this common courtesy and the notion of view sharing ever stop? The "Mc Mansions" built circa 2004/2005 stand out like a sore thumb and look awful too large for the lot they are on. The envelope has been pushed way too far and residents are at their breaking point. Kudos to the latest project underway, owner Danny Dera, he appears to be building a beautiful property and instinctively is not obstructing anyone's view. He has proved it can be done so for Mr. Bardo to bully his way with the city officials and the residents and claim we are too stupid to understand the physics of building is disgraceful. If allowed it will set the stage for the demise of historic Red Hill.The cascading views that have attracted so many will be robbed by this builder and others on the vacant lots, and potential tear downs and the integrity of this beautiful community gone forever. Don't let this be your legacy for Rancho Cucamonga's most historical community. Sincerely, Rakan and Maria Alamat 8551 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga C2—Pg9