The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-01-22 Supplementals - PC-HPC (1) Northeast Corner of Sapphire Street and Brittany Lane D RC2019 -00502 January 22, 2020 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dz Project Background g • Who : Candyce Burnett (applicant), Guy Alexander with GCA Land ( property owner); • What : 6 new single-family residences; • Where : APN#'s 1061-691-22 through 27; • When : Neighborhood meeting held on November 211 2019, and the Design Review Committee reviewed the project on November 20, 2019 . Project Background Additional Background : • SUBTT18961 approved by Commission January 28, 2015 for 7 lot subdivision, including Lot 1 ( existing residence) and 6 vacant lots (subject of current application ); • SUBTT18961 was reviewed by the Trails Advisory Committee on October 8, 2014 at which point the TAC recommended approval ; • Final Map recorded on October 22, 2018 . 2%k* 40 ti f _ S } } A-� ' �ir ,tyxYtg`+«'C�R1�tC5 '-1 .. / 4, �• {•' j ..:- mfv OP 4Y i it • � - r.�.,.�. i r � _., '� .A � �� W - _ i 1. - r �i4 1; . .... _ -... .._�-.y.�•ire � .�. .� �t4Y. S _ _ - _ _ _ --`tea-� �� _ �� sa —_`. _ � i _. . . . ' �, + s� lA � n s w Y t 3 11 -4 - 4M- .V, ��ir v r w .t NOTICE OF FILING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF'4E TRAILS AT RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6 SING FAMILY HOMES Scare L Mwnes.inc. Z� - :ae Lq Y RrYu GisA,Msp 4Y9 GNe Lbw Ow.l�m3r5B Proposed Project • Development Review required to allow construction of more than 5 new single family residences; • New residences range in size from 3, 610 square feet to 4,058 plus garages, porches and California rooms; • Four residences proposed to be single-story ( Lots 2, 3, 5 and 7 ), and two two-story ( Lots 4 and 6) . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1s,k Development Standards Development Standard Height Lot Coverage Complies? Requirements Max. 35 feet Max. 25% Lot 1 Existing Home; Not a Part of Project Site Lot 2 17 feet 21% YES Lot 3 17 feet 21% YES Lot 4 29 feet 13% YES Lot 5 17 feet 17% YES Lot 6 29 feet 12% YES Lot 7 17 feet 19% YES Setbacks Required (Min.) Provided Complies? Front Yard Setback 42 feet 42 feet YES Street Side Yard 27 feet 27 feet YES Setback* Interior Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet YES Setback 2nd Interior Side Yard 15 feet 15 feet YES Setback— Rear Yard Setback 60 feet 60 feet YES CITY OF • CUCAMONGA Architectural Design • Project proposes each residence to include various design themes ( Farmhouse, Tuscan, Transitional, etc. ), and variety of materials, including stucco, brick, stacked-stone, board and batten, etc. ; • Residences carefully oriented on-site so as to provide varied elevations throughout development j I I , �_ — . • .. - - - - � : :f•• F�n ='�t . ' Lore � f `-- - - ' • - - - `��-�'•�••'1 ''• W�-- SF 2•STORY4 058 SF / 1 I •+� 1�"r ' 41.0 I-}•id a?n r 60•01 i 1pT5•�1 I i +h+,r , , 27.319 SF �— LOT IS F: ' J 'O 1-STORY:3621 SF 4� �/ LOT5 L__ — � I I Ir�•.I •E1 Iv T 3 22.430 SF •�'� I I( • � (■/ --� 1-STORY:3621 SF 1.• --- •••I 1'•118Y I r1 C I II I -- 60.0 r r ' .-------- --•--- Off'---W.�1 '*•' A /.~ ------ �__ - LOT6 '1,I'�7{'�, _____ ___ 21.357 SF rI 2.0 •I �� I r •—'—•---•—• -- 2-STORY:4056 SF 4.1 �W 22.676 SF \ I(• N.x •- I STORY.3621 SF `( o\ 4- Ir'. 60.0 • • • • • 1� - Fa- T 7 251071 SF 1-STORY 3621 SF —•-----------------•—•—•---•—._.—.—.—.--------- WTAY � \ I FETRA(k lf2 \ YTRACk IN M h 4'-0-CONC. QITTFA EASEMENT \ ° 1S'-WM EQ LTFAAN TRAILWOECok:&smT .r a c. ELEVATION NOTES MA FRONT 41 c. �i��il v v v v •:•�• REAR ci u�a ----------m RIGHT LEFT ELEVATIONS IA :� S SNOLLVAT13 Jam r• „ r, 1NOM! .rs xa;V ' 4 1 1 I ,rr} 3 : .p ST 'A~S w 1 sT 1- H WNNOIIVA3�31N0lii tetra s7isEi _a .�Y.Stfa JTC• � •'S9a tit' iaraz+meas ,p.;.e ra:-e i— _•_�isrma. SMON NOLLVA313 A 4 AAA A ELEVATION NOTES _.�_ i u�i ��i " :� �w� i� ll�I� ��y[' : �T�I� NrBO p• !y 1111 11 1 - - ��I v i vvFRONT ELEVATION o"r6---d� FARMHOUSE (7 4l A i ■� � A RIGHT A A A A REAR ELEVATIONS �® ELEVATION "�, f {:' is-.—_ v 13 v o dODERN TRADITIONAL _ _. ' isi■li ■ ■ ■■ ■ %■■ ■� i.■■ ■� _�� olio � � ■� .. . . . � � .� it ._ I --- ----------- RIGMiv .-r vREAR ELEVATIONS Interdepartmental Review • The Planning, Engineering and Building Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments which are included as conditions of approval . • Staff notes discrepancy between recorded Final Map and conditions of approval Final Map and Trail Discrepancy • During review of subject project, staff discovered a discrepancy between the recorded Final Map and conditions of approval for SUBTT18961; • Notably, condition # 10 of SUBTT18961 required community trail standards ( 20 feet wide), whereas the recorded Final Map can only accommodate Local Feeder Trail standards ( 15 feet wide); • New condition of approval supersedes condition #10 of SUBTT18961 requiring trail be built to Local Feeder Trail standards pursuant to Final Map . Environmental Review • A Rapid Environmental Constraints Analysis ( RECA) was prepared ( 2014) and determined that property has no value habitat for endangered species; • Categorical Exemption, Class 32 - Infill Noticing • Notices mailed to all property owners within 660 feet ( 111 property owners) and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin . • Staff received two inquiries : One neighbor is concerned over the removal of trees and construction of fencing, ( Exhibit Q; another neighbor is concerned about grading/drainage . All improvements associated with project are pursuant to Final Map which was approved in 2015 . Recommendation • Staff recommends approval of DRC2019-00502 through the adoption of the subject resolution and Conditions of Approval . Vineyard Avenue north of 81" St . DRC2018-00430 January 22 , 2020 Project Background • Who : Richard Collins (Applicant), with RC Store Maintenance, Serge Bonaldo ( Engineer); • What : 25, 399 square foot industrial warehouse; • Where : Three vacant lots on east side of Vineyard Avenue, north of 8t" Street; • When : Two neighborhood meetings were held on September 11 and December 17, 2019 and project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on November 20, 2019 . 4 01�nZ „ /. I On aD ' lFP R } • � y y 4 Y � ' ` ��yj,yy �. �1\ ♦� " i I!� � � .. .91M. n:.: ,Y Aug.., �-{t'Kr�'.• Y� __ 9 � )� �.y.� AA 71 L ram' A � _)di.Qb 'u _ �a3+ uy . :ar''. . "�R.'�� , .Yh•,y.a�jA , _, •: .,-. -_ _._ I I �1 ' 1 'VOW Proposed Project • Development Review to allow new construction on vacant property over 10, 000 square feet in size; • Project proposes new 25, 399 square foot building to include 15 .430 square feet of warehousing space and 9, 969 square feet of office space . Development Standards Development Required Proposed Complies? Standard Max. 35 feet (at front setback) 37 feet (at 2 Building Height 75 feet (1 foot increment from feet from YES the setback line) setback line) Floor Area Ratio 50-60% 50 % YES (FAR) Front Setback Min. 35 feet 35 feet YES (Vineyard Avenue) Interior Side Yard Min. 5 feet 51 feet (north) YES Setback 58 feet (south) Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet 83 feet YES Parking Setback Min. 20 feet (Vineyard Avenue) 20 feet YES CITY OF • CUCAMONGA Architectural Design • The project provides articulation and a variety of materials including tilt-up concrete, metal, and glass; • Facade along Vineyard Avenue provides the appearance of an office building through the use of varied material . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 20#01 NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR RC STORE MAINTENANCE RAINYDAY ROOFING ZI Asa Vw-I _. ------s on IF — \w IL - r PROPOSED sre PUN ! �I■ � li ��rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r rr 3 Project Plans NORTH ELEVATION t Soum r��r� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r r� Interdepartmental Review • The Planning, Building and Engineering Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments which are included as conditions of approval . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Review • Various studies were conducted including a Phase CEQA Study, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Noise Impact Analysis, Water Quality Management Plan; • Traffic reviewed by City Traffic Engineer and determined not to be significant; • Categorical Exemption, Class 32 — Infill Development. Noticing • Notices mailed to all property owners within 660 feet ( 131 property owners) and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ; • To date, staff has received no inquiries in response to the notices . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA pi. Revised Condition of Approval • Engineering Services Condition #2 is recommended to be changed as follows : "A City 66" Master Plan Storm Drain facility ( Line 32-A) will later be installed along the southerly portion of the property, from the centerline of Vineyard to the Flood Control Channel. A 25' public drainage easement is required along with a temporary adjacent 25' temporary construction easement. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, in accordance with City policy. Line 32-A will be constructed with development to the west of this property." Recommendation • Staff recommends approval of DRC2018-00430 through the adoption of the subject resolution and Conditions of Approval . ADU Code Amendments 1/22/20 State Updates to ADU Legislation • AB881 & AB68 • Development Standards • Use Restrictions '' • Impact Fees • SB13 • Violation enforcement reliefGULATiONS • AB 587 • Permits sale of deed restricted affordable ADU's • AB 670 • Restricts HOA's from prohibiting ADU's/JADU's State Updates to ADU Legislation • Purpose • Make the construction of ADU's easier • Increase housing opportunities • Low- to Moderate-Income households • Benefits • Counts toward housing units n _ required under RHNA -1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA k*#*, Mj A D U 's and J A D U 's • ADU • Attached or detached units • Independent living • Provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation • Maximum 1,200 square feet • JADU • Attached unit, part of existing SF home • Provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking • Common sanitation is allowed • Maximum 500 square feet Typesof ADUs l Attached AOU r Me AddMon �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r � Current ADU Ordinance New ADU Ordinance Minimum Lot Size 5,000SF No Minimum Maximum ADU Size 50% attached, 1200 SF detached 50% attached, 1200 SF detached JADU Permitted No Yes #of ADU/JADU on lot only 1 (ADU) per lot 1 ADU and 1 JADU per lot Bedrooms Maximum 2 Maximum 2 Parking One off street space No Parking Required Permitted, off street parking Garage Conversion required Permitted, No replacement parking ADU exempt from lot coverage in Lot Coverage jAppliestoADU specifc circumstances Permitted if over 30 consecutive Permitted if over 30 consecutive Rental days days Owner/Occupant Currently suspended by State Law Requirement Yes until2025 Setbacks 5 feet in rear yard setback 4 feet in rear yard setback Approval Process Plan Check/120days Plan Check/60days Recommendation • Adopt Resolution 20-08 recommending to the City Council adopt Municipal Code Amendment ( DRC2020-00007 ) for the development of ADU's within the City, consistent with State Law CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA koot, j Homecoming at The Resort S U BTT20118; D RC2020-00004 Development of 867 Apartments and Commercial Space Located in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan January 22 , 2020 CITY n OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Scope • Who : • Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC ( Lewis Management Group) • What: • Subdivide 39 .68 acres into 8 numbered lots; • Construction of 867 apartments; • Construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial space • Where : • South of 6t" Street; West of The Resort Parkway • Former Empire Lakes Golf Course CITY�1 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA R- N Of +;: La T Aerial Image _ ., PROJECT S I t i r Homecomin g f �� Project SiteMOM : : Y Specific Plan Vision and Project Background • Walkable mixed-use community, • Incorporate combination of high-density homes, commercial services, recreation amenities; • Economic Development strategy, • Pre-Application workshop — August 14, 2019; • Design Review Committee — December 3, 2019 RANCHOCITY OF Project Proposal • 867 apartments -7 t-; • 10,000 square feet of , commercial • 17,600 square-foot clubhouse owl 0 leasing office ' er • Recreation areas, common _ space gathering areas CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA e. __ Project Proposal : Apartments i - .._ .... ... ... • One to three-bedrooms 0 L• 6 Residential building types ! L ti • 867 units, 22 DU/AC17 Units per f Building Type Stories Architectural Themes Building _ 4 �.• _ - Paired Homes 2 2 Contemporary, Spanish Linear Townhomes 7 3 Contemporary, Main Street 6-Plex Stacked Flats 6 2 Spanish,European Heritage 10-Flex Stacked Flats 30 3 Contemporary,Spanish �,, \, t 21-Plex Stacked Flatr4CLOwE 21 3 Contemporary, Industrial /Work, 1Live/Work Buildings 3 Contemporarymercial ; ' EM , v o �I• Paired Homes Spanish •�� , 'F a Contemporary j �� - E L� L r � � a L�1 lll"II _ Linear Townhomes Contemporary `— ' I ter- � - .-FM L C LE P- Main Street I ALE: . C O&W AT-11 • ♦ • 6-Plex Stacked M 2 EuropeanSpanish - _g - R " T/r a � • ��r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r � 10-Plex Stacked Flats Q 0 17 Al 7 ry^query\(\ Spanish Contemporary d _ — E 74 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (� �I• 21 -Plex Stacked Flats Industrial -- - r. 1 L Contemporary a�L aaaa a aaaa a—a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Proposal : 111410 - WO Commercial , Live Work _ { Sw ... .. . . .... . . .... .... .. .. .... Future I MIME Commercial Building 10,000 square feet Live Work � ` -� Fir• Contemporary architecture w, • Four structures, centrally-located , • Five commercial spaces per structure - _ --- • 10,000 square feet total EE .� - _ - Project Proposal Open Space, Recreation -, • 386,381 square feet of private and common open space 's • 17,600 square-foot clubhouse, ylift recreation building ; j ► Y; ' • "Bistro Garden" area; lei A _ • Swimming pool with lounge areas, + , W shade structures; f + • "Public Activity" area; L J • Dog park area; • "Urban Plaza" area; f • Variety of paseos and green areas ba f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Clubhouse & t . i Leasing Office ' , i id ' AK _'�'�' ' ► ,' ilk . Clubhouse and Leasing office • Contemporary architecture • Variety of amenities for residents - r_ • 17,600 square feet " av ..w srntFr Parking & Circulation r N , JJ� J • Two driveways from Resort Parkwayy J J • Two driveways from 6t" Street Y J ;. J� � �J i j .-J • T • Pedestrian paseo connections to IEHP (west of project site) 3y3' i 11q•r s � .. s,y 'y • Parking requirements met T Number of Parking Parking Spaces - T Unit Type Units; Square Requirement Required Footage 1 Bedroom 438 units 1.5 s aces/unit* 657 438 covered 2 Bedroom 374 units 2 s aces/unit* 748 374 covered r J __ y 3 Bedroom 55 units 2 s aces/unit** 110 110 covered . ° J !.. Guest N/ ti 1 per 3 units 289 r s ' Commercial 5,000 . ft. 4per 1000 s . ft. 20 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 1824 922 covered r y' TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 1824 1056 covered SURPLUS 0 , ' With 1 in garage or carport � A r "With 2 in garage or carport CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ketwi Overall Project Analysis • Street and Network Connections • Building Plotting • Architecture and Floor Plans • Parking • Healthy Development Checklist • Conditions of Approval Recommendation • Adopt Resolution 20-06 for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 • Allowing 39.68 acres of vacant land to be subdivided into 8 numbered lots • Adopt Resolution 20-05 for Design Review DRC2019-00674 • Allowing the construction of 867 apartments and 10,000 square feet of commercial space within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1 Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 Modification to Hillside Development Standards for Portions of the Red Hill Community January 22 , 2020 Project Scope • Who : City of Rancho Cucamonga • What : A city-initiated request to modify the development standards applicable to single-family residential development within the Red Hill community • Where : Tract 10035, generally located along the north and south side of Camino Predera ry .� A . �' �- �• Q �i P y PIN Ah r ion.�>'r'' ' & 'yam r1" >. ��♦ ,s' . :• Red 1 �s :Rty�"�- 1!' L `.f ♦ ;1 ,. untry Club - , ;�- S to p.: .t ^r. P .1 .tR M... / 77 l 1 , / • ` . AW Sp le SdLa 14 411E =3' a. 3033 d031 Sao .2046 yr r, `�d� 4800 Subject Area aw Tract 10035 1j b �r�rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r �r- r � r rr Project Background • Concerns with development of vacant properties from Red Hill residents • City Council direction to review Hillside Development Standards • Focus of review limited to Red Hill, excluded other communities within Hillside Overlay • Two community workshops held - August 8, 2019; September 9, 2019 • Attendance from Red Hill residents and property owners of vacant lots • Focus of review further defined, applicable to Camino Predera only • Feedback from residents, property owners received — draft standards refined. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Current Development Standards Red Hill Community regulated by Low (L) Residential Zone and Hillside Overlay Development Standard Minimum Requirement Front Yard Setback 37 feet Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Lot Coverage 40 percent Building Height Overall 30 feet Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max Cut/Fill* 5 feet *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA kst' i Proposed Development Standards Technical Standards for Camino Predera Special Technical Standards for Development on Camino Predera Technical Standard Maximum Minimum i How the Dimension is Measured Building Height South side of Camino Predera 14 feet 6 feet Measured vertically from the top of curb at the street, in front of the midpoint of the front property line of the subject lot,to the highest point on the roof(or other feature such as a deck) North side of Camino Predera 25 feet n/a Measured vertically from the finished grade surface of the lot to the highest point on the roof or other feature such as a deck Building Setbacks •.oc.- None 37 feet Measured from the face of curb at the street to the closest building wall plane on the front elevation (+/-5 feet) Rear None 20feet Measured from the rear property line to the closest building wall plane on the rear elevation sde None 10/15 feet Side property lines from the side elevations Measured from the closest building wall plane of any structure to the closest buiding Building Separation None 20 all plane on an adjacent lot Excavation 8 feet I n/a Measured from the existing grade of the lot(Planning Commission review is not required) Wall Height Screen(Freestanding) 6 feet F None Measured from finished grade;maximum height within the front setback is 3 feet Retaining(exposed) 8 feet None Measured from finished grade(a Minor Exception is not required); maximum height for new fill is 4 feet Proposed Development Standards Design Standards for Camino Predera Special Design Standards for Development on Camino Predera Design/Architectural Element Standard Roof Roof Line Orientation he horizontal ridgeline(s)of the roof(on any structure)shall be aligned perpendicular to the street. Where this is not possible,the maximum length of any horizontal ridgeline that is parallel to the street shall be limited to 20 feet in length. Roof Design Flat roof designs are permitted Garage Garage Doors Garage doors on the front(street-facing elevation)of a proposed house shall be restricted to one 2-car garage door or two 1-car garage doors. Garage Dimensions Garages with doors on the front elevation(street-facing elevation)shall have a maximum width of 20feet(interior dimension) Tandem parking spaces are permitted Garage Plotting The front elevation(street-facing side)of the garage shall be a minimum of 5 feet behind the primary building elevation,with a 30-foot setback Garage Layout Tandem parking spaces are permitted Project Intention • Focus on minimizing massing • More flexibility, consideration of site conditions (topography, slopes) • Accommodate a reasonable development pattern • Facilitate good design principles • Streamline review process Conceptual Streetscape Design CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r �- Conceptual Streetscape Design 6 •,� y:iView looking west on Camino Predera rrr�� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r f � r� Conceptual Streetscape • N \ View looking west on Camino Predera, I along south side of street „ Z �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r � i �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r f { �►"a; S / L • r�rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr �r r Typical Section along Camino Predera 0 i Goss Buildn9 Errvela Pii�n�or wa, (eyYlel of Trees :�_. _ Y`;Ia•rurMrp tl1tl lot wwrapa) - 1I �-et fax of hd190e eWdq frad.l __ CITY OF RANCHO Noticing and Correspondence • Advertised as a public hearing with a large 1/8th page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. • Notices mailed to residents of Red Hill Community • Written correspondence received • Phone call inquiries received Recommendation Adopt Resolution 20-07 recommending the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 amending the Hillside Development standards outlined in Section 17. 122 .020 of the Municipal Code with the addition of standards and guidelines for parcels located on Camino Predera in the Red Hill neighborhood in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Tract 10035 ) . January 22, 2020 Good Evening Commissioners and City Staff, My name is Renee Massey. My husband Lynn and I have lived on Camino Predera since 1996 and bought our home of 23 years because the area was so unique, and beautiful. The view was amazing...and still is! IVs actually breathtaking...so says everyone that visits our home. Camino Predera is special that way. Historically, we have been actively involved in the many proposed projects on this street since the Concordia Homes Project in the year 2000. I'm sure our names and faces look familiar to you. Lynn and I received the PLANNING COMMISSION; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for tonight's meeting about ten days ago. Needless to say, we were VERY surprised that the Staff had a recommendation for approval to the Commissioners. Why? Because, when the City Council initially requested Staff to conduct a review of the Hillside Standards for parcels on Camino Predera, it included input from the neighborhood. We were thrilled, and subsequently two neighborhood "workshops" were held, in August and then September of 2019. When we left the second workshop, we were under the impression that changes were going to be made, based on the input from those participating and that there would be an opportunity for further discussion. Over the next few months, I often wanted to check with staff on the progress they would be making, but thought because of Thanksgiving and Christmas...and because I did not want to feel like I was bothering them...I thought I'd wait till January. So, imagine my surprise when we received the notice for this evenings meeting. Lynn and I went to the planning desk last Wednesday to review the information...as it was not yet available on line. We were told it was not complete yet and would not be finished till late the next day, Thursday. Needless to say, we were a little numb as this time line left us very little time for us to read and react to the information. Because the city is closed on Friday's and this past Monday was a holiday, it gave us a very small window to respond. The time-frame leads us to believe the report was rushed. We consider these changes "a good first start" and a rough early version of what the final recommendations can and should look like. Honestly, we were expecting another opportunity to meet with staff to review the recommendations they came up with, that were based on our input to begin with. There are some good changes, some that need clarity and some that are just not acceptable. For example: during both workshops, view sharing was discussed often...and there is nothing to address view sharing in this document. View or story poles were also discussed...again....nothing in this report. Tonight, we ask the Commissioners to table the approval of the Amendment that staff is recommending.The last thing we think anyone wants is to revisit this issue again. We request that the Commissioners direct staff to continue to work with the neighbors, in small meetings or workshops, in order to create a model standard that the neighbors, staff, Commission and Council will be proud of, and will be eager to approve...one that deals with all the issues. After twenty years...now that we have this opportunity...let's do it right! Thank You, 9 ! � 3c� My name is Lynn Massey my wife Renee and I have lived on Camino Predera since September 1996 This talk may explain the 14 foot height recommended by staff. As the overhead shows this is the ownership of Lot 12, 8045 Camino Predera, Mr. & Ms. Adams home. On March 31 , 2000 the lot was owned by Concordia Homes of Southern California. This developer purchased 21 lots on the south side of Camino Predera. On June 6, 2000 the lot was sold to Concordia of Rancho Cucamonga-20 LLC. This was same company just under a different name. Their plan was to build lots 1 -5 at street level. Two story cookie cutter homes with a 30 foot building envelope. The other lots were going to be built below street level with a new access road through lot 18. We appealed the project. After a lengthy process the appeal was up held and Concordia was instructed by the City Counsel of Rancho Cucamonga to adjust their plans for lots 1 -5 to follow the neighborhood with a cascading design. Concordia started selling the lots one by one because they said the cascading designs would not "pencil out". On July 29, 2003 Lot 12 was purchased by Schneider Enterprises, LLC. Years later we found that Mr. Schneider was an executive of Concordia Homes. Less than one month later he sold the lot 12. On August 22, 2003 Michael & Wendy Stachowiak purchased lot 12. On April 6, 2004 the Stachowiak's summited their plans to the Design Review Committee but they did not want to make any changes to the pervious plans submitted by Schneider Enterprises. We later found out that the Stachowiak's were related to Mr. Schneider. We appealed the project on June 7, 2004. The Stachowiak's and ourselves were encouraged to meet with the staff to try and work out a compromise. We met in one of the conference rooms by the staff's offices. We explained that their proposed project would set a standard for the rest of the lots and ask them to reduce the profile so we could share the view with future projects. They started to plead with us. They told us that her mother needed care and was going to live with them. During that time she started to cry, and asked us to please reconsider our appeal. They then said they would lower the overall profile to fourteen feet (14'). We felt compassion for them because my Father needed fulltime care in his home. We made our point to the staff attending the meeting that this compromise will not set the standard for the rest of the lots. The house was eventually built but they never lived in the home, it was eventually sold to the current owners. Please reconsider this fourteen foot height allowance so the neighbors on the north side of the street can share the view with the south side of the street. U From: chuck@charlesjoserh.biz <chuck@charlesjoseph.biz> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 2:22 PM To: Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us> Cc: Renee Massey <reneemass1952@yahoo.com>; Lynn & Renee Massey <lr)fsmass@msn.com>; Suzanne Buquet <suzanne@chasjoseph.com> Subject: MCA DRC2020-00004 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open ttachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mike: This is as a follow up to review of the subject staff report and communication with neighbors concerning the staff report and draft exhibits attached to same this weekend. While we greatly appreciate the City efforts to finally deal with what has been an ongoing issue of concern for us over the past 20 years, we are a bit disappointed with how this is being presented at Planning Commission this week as a first look for the residents and accompanied with a recommendation for approval by the Commission at this same meeting. Over the past several months, we and quite a number of our neighboring residents attended the workshops referenced in the staff report and we were under the belief that there would be a subsequent presentation of a compilation of a draft set of recommendations for review by the resident participants. Neighbors made inquiry as to where this process and follow up was with the City and were informed that the matter was going to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. When inquiry was then made concerning what was to be presented, we were told that the staff report was being put together and there was nothing available for review prior to the transmittal of the agenda and staff report late Thursday, January 16, 2020, after City Hall was closed. While the staff report and Exhibit A lists what appear to be some potentially constructive approaches to deal with the problem, we have a number of questions and need some clarification concerning the analysis listed in the staff report and the Technical and Design Standards included in the agenda item. The Correspondence section of the staff report is a bit confusing and could be a bit misleading, as the item staff report and exhibits were not available for review until after close of business on Thursday. I am unclear how anyone could have called the City on something that they had not yet had the opportunity to review or have the opportunity to discuss the materials with Staff and then residents had no further comments nor concerns during the period of time that City Hall was closed for the weekend and the holiday today. I am concerned that Commission might read this as written and presented and think that there are no remaining questions or issues that could be presented, which I would like to believe is not the intent of Staff. We would like an opportunity to meet with you on Wednesday prior to the Planning Commission meeting so we can ask questions and obtain clarification concerning the staff report and exhibits. Thanks for your help with this. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information or assistance with this. Thanks, 3 Chuck Buquet, President Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Office (909) 481-1822 Fax (909) 320-2296 *******************PLEASE NOTE****************** This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are the only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your help. a IN BA I�DO S C0N 'v January 21, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga Via Email: Daniela.Rodriguez@citvofrc.us Attn: Planning Commissioners Certified Mail 70191640 0001 7256 7222 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: 1 write this letter to provide the Commissioners with our objections to the proposed changes to the Development Code authored by staff in DRC0004-2020 and that are recommended for approval at the Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 2020. It has long been known that the views along Camino Predera from the lots in Tract 10035 are amongst the best and most sought after in Rancho Cucamonga. It is no wonder that for 18 years residents on the north side of Predera have repeatedly objected to construction on the south side of the street to protect their views. Even a cursory review of the city's public records using the search term"Camino Predera"at https://rcdocs.cityofrc.us/Webi.inl: \Velcome.aspOcr--1 yields dozens of resident's letters,staff reports,and records on appeals that over the period have unquestionably illustrated and recorded the neighbors'concern over view obstruction. For staff to omit this fact from its report and recommendations is none other than dereliction of its duty to you,the Commissioners. The recommendations of staff are also thinly veiled to circumvent California Public Policy and case precedents to create a view easement over property owners on the south side of Camino Predera for the benefit of owners on the north side of the street. Thereby staff wrongly encourages you,the decision makers here,to enter into a private contract dispute for the benefit of one party over another. The private contract was established through the CC&R's recorded on the tract at its formation and to which all of the residents have agreed by their property ownership. Staffs recommendations that you intrude will also concurrently provide a public use of Camino Predera as a view corridor without the requisite findings,notices,and hearings required to create such things. Even if staff feigns ignorance or avoidance on their attempts at creation of a view corridor or view preservation, their re-wording of the narrative and their selective language describing the neighborhood issues does not alter the realities: their recommendations are, in fact and at the very least,a taking without Just Compensation for the depravation of property owners'rights for the trespass of another. Property ownership rights are amongst the most cherished in our society and should never be abridged by government without a substantive and overriding gublic need. 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 982-3931 FAX LICENSE #SO522O MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR In this case the public is not served because of the extraordinarily limited geography of the proposed regulations and the extraordinarily few number of residents these proposed standards seek to harm. Not only do these standards purport to regulate only one tract,but in simple truth,as staff report clearly makes known,the standards will apply to only a subset of 14 parcels within that tract. Existing developed homes and entitled vacant properties remain unaffected and rewarded for their development in time. This is also an "ad hoc"application of development standards that sets an unjustifiable precedent that should go hand in hand at the very least with heightened scrutiny. Staffs recommended"solutions"are not proportional to the impacts at issue and that they claim are in desperate and immediate need to be ameliorated. Staff lobbies you now to approve of their recommendations because of a differing"topography" and"development patterns"in the Red Hill community than exists in any other part of the city. Yet this assertion is unfounded and unsupported by anything other than mere conjecture and commentary. No study exists in support of the broad conclusion reached. Staffs only true evidence is the strident cacophony of a select few neighbors. Staff also implies that the Council is implicitly supporting their recommendations because of their findings on the Galvan appeal,yet the Council's findings (that denied the Galvan appeal in support of the Commissioner's approval) did not describe any such advisement to the Planning Commissioners nor was any such determination by the Council described in its resolution of denial of the appeal. We will never truly know what the full Council's position was because the applicant and the appellants reached a settlement agreement encouraged by mediation arranged by the City. To further exacerbate the issues,staff is recommending that the Commission find that 9 property owners,and no others in the city,shall be discriminated against for choosing their purchase of vacant land with a Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectation to develop their land as neighbors on both sides of the street have already been allowed to do and thereby prosper economically accordingly. There is neither fairness nor justice in any application of regulations staff proposes that pits neighbor against neighbor in close proximity to each other on the same street and indeed even as close as one next door neighbor to another. This is the case with our property and uniquely illustrated because we would be restricted even further from choosing which side of our home shall have the 15'proposed setback as the existing home to our east has a 5'setback on their west and the regulations propose that there be a minimum 20'setback between homes. Given the topography of our lot,the preferred side for a 15'setback would be to our east. We would lose the ability to choose and concurrently be burdened more so than any other property owner should these amendments be adopted. These new standards leave neighbors doing little more than vying for parity and inflamed over the application of standards with one neighbor benefiting more than another just feet away from each other. "First come first serve"will be the another new development standard on Predera -it's no longer going to be discretionary to the designer if your neighbor builds first as the existing standards currently allow for in greater fairness. 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 OrncE (909) 982-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Fairness also dictates,and current zoning and housing regulations require,non-discriminatory practices in land use. Staffs proposed changes discriminate against narrower lots in preference of wider lots because increased setbacks disproportionately restrict development on the narrower lot far more than is the case for the larger or wider parcels. Where the zoning practice normally would allow for a variance for such an unfair imposition,here staff advocates to promote a more discriminatory practice instead. These conditions again unfairly"leverage" permit approval authority for excessive concessions from a single property owner that Staff now requests be determined administratively by their Director instead of by you the Commissioners as has been done in the past for decades. Staffs proposals also do not take into consideration the unique topography of the remaining lots,another commonly used factor to grant variances to Code requirements. Staffs recommendations are more appropriate for Terra Vista style developments with flat and regularly shaped lots where commonly applied standards work uniformly. Many of these lots, however, like Danny Dera's and lots 14-16 on the east side,have an initial steep drop-off at the sidewalk that levels out into a relatively flat building pad below. Other lots,such as lots 10-13 have their natural building pads at or near the street level. Lots 10 &11 have a large earthen mound remnant from street grading and paving operations completed back in the late 80's. These 4lots are particularly impacted sites because of the natural building site contours occurr at street level with increasingly steep slopes to their south. These conditions are the opposite for the other lots 14-16 and lots 1-9. Staffs recommendations should take into consideration topography by restricting the creation of artificial grades that would elevate the home to street level rather than utilizing the naturally occurring building pads in the lower elevation areas of the properties. Topography is something the existing Hillside Ordinance seeks to preserve and is being overlooked in these recommendations by allowing 8' retaining walls to create man- made elevations. Moreover, nowhere has staff found a nuisance, risk to public safety,or interest in preserving some underlying,long-standing public principle to support these amendments. Quite to the contrary the background principles already created here by prior entitlements on the street and throughout the city run contrary to staffs recommendations. Again,any consideration of fairness is opposite to the standards being recommended. Staff also fails to articulate its goals in promoting the change in the standards in any objective fashion or with quantifiable measurements. There are references to excessive"size (floor area)," "massing and over building,' and "character of the neighborhood" in staffs report to be modified,however no objective measurements are provided by staff to illustrate the undesirable condition from the ideal one they seek to achieve.What floor area size, massing, or character does staff seek to establish? Rather,staff continues to promote more subjective characterizations as a resolution of what are already unfairly subjective oppositions. Here I would refer Commissioners to definitions in the newly enacted legislation of SB330-The Emergency Housing Crisis Act of 2019- that became effective on January 1, 2020 for guidance. Therein the language of the law defines an "Objective design standard"as: 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 99 1-6797 OFFICE (909) 9BZ-3631 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNIND LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR "...a design standard that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application." 1 would submit for the Commissioners consideration that SB330 is applicable in this instance for numerous reasons not the least of which is because staff proposes standards on the whole tract (modifying its conditions of approval ex post facto) and S13330 bars the subjectivity staff seeks to reintroduce into any further development with all the failings subjectivity will create. Should these amendments be adapted they will only continue to yield further controversy on the street. For instance,in our submittal recently denied by the Commission in December,our floor area was considered too large and our retaining wall was found to be too high,yet staff fails to define the maximum allowable floor area in their new standards (nor do they define it as the Code currently allows at 40%lot coverage) and their objections to a 57'wall on our project now gives rise to gratis approval of 8'high retaining walls. If we were to resubmit under the new standards we would surely look for approvals on a narrower and taller structure to the maximum height of 14',but with the same floor area elongated on the lot rather than the lower and wider more beneficial profile we previously presented. These new standards therefore do little to resolve the"massing and over building' or define the "character of the neighborhood" staff seeks to address with any"Objective design standard" as the new law requires. A careful reading of the new law would yield significant other legal impediments to staffs recommendations. In conclusion,the current language of the Development Code is and has been since creation of the tract able to accommodate and promote diverse use. As some residents require smaller housing space,those spaces exist within Tract 10035. Others,some of whom began construction decades ago,have enjoyed larger living spaces in varied architectural styles. For those who prefer smaller homes they already exist. For those who desire greater diversity in larger homes those exist too. Red Hill is an eclectic community and that pattern is rightly being repeated here in Tract 10035 in each of its uniquely designed homes. Staff provides no reason to alter what has been lawfully approved property developments by Commissioners for the past 18 years. I find it odd that development along the street progressed well with the guidance of former directors and that now new regulations are required instead. 1 would like to thank the Commissioners in advance for taking the time to consider these comments. Sincerely, BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. Paul Bardos, President 595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 982-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220 MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Rodriguez, Daniela Sent: Tuesday,January 21, 2020 11:13 AM To: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia;Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: Solorio, Kimberly Subject: FW: Proposed Development Code Amendments Attachments: Staff Recommended DC Amendments.pdf Good morning, Please see email below! Thank you, 1lI/Im;�& � Administrative Assistant City Clerk's Office I Records Management City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)77a-2012 From: Paul<paul@bardosconstruction.com> Sent:Tuesday,January 21, 2020 10:54 AM To: Rodriguez, Daniela<Daniela.Rodriguez@cityofrc.us> Cc: Gillison,John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us>;jmarkman@rwglaw.com; McIntosh, Anne <Anne.Mclntosh@cityofrc.us>; Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us> Subject: Proposed Development Code Amendments CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see the attached letter for inclusion into the record for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2020. The original will follow through regular mail. %,,BAIZDOS Paul Bordos 595 Daley Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Paul@BardosConstruction.com www.bardosconstruction.com (406)309-8080(Office) 909 982-3831(FAX) 1 (909)241-7627(Cell) Lic#505220 B, C39, C20 Multiple Award Winning Builder This e-mail message and any attachments to this e-mail message contain confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are NOT the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hardcopy, download, copy, print or otherwise disseminate or retain this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact my office at the number above and notify me of the error by return e-mail. Please then delete the message erroneously received. Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: FW: MCA DRC2020-00004 -City of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report From:chuck@chariesioseph.biz<chuck@charlesioser)h.biz> Sent:Wednesday,January 22,2020 9:38 AM To:Smith, Michael<Michael.Smith@citvofrc.us>;Suzanne Buquet<suzanne@chasioseph.com> Cc: Renee Massey<reneemass1952 Ova hoo.com>; Lynn &amp, Renee Massey<lofsmass@msn.com> Subject: RE: MCA DRC2020-00004-City of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report Mike: Thanks for your e-mail. Additional FYI, I got a message last night from my neighbor who bought the house next to me from Paul Bardos, and he is not at all happy about the potential row of houses sitting at street grade if the draft standards are adopted by the City. I invited him to join us this morning so he could be involved with the discussion and Lynn and Renee are enroute back from Las Vegas this morning in an attempt to be at this morning's meeting as well. Regrettably, what I believe are well intended proposed changes in the Analysis section will actually serve to exacerbate the issues that the residents have been dealing with over the past 20 plus years. The staff report makes absolutely no reference to view share anywhere in the document, despite the fact that this has been the prime issue presented by the current homeowners, and purchase and pricing of our homes was based on view potential. Despite the assurances that the one house sitting up at street grade would not be used as a precedent for future development back when it was approved, we are now presented with what would replicate this same profile and height along the entire Camino Predera downhill side of the street, which would be tragedy. Why would the City allow housing to be built on that side of the street that would serve to eliminate any view or horizon for the uphill side houses along the entire street? This would result in a tract home effect, where the view of the houses on the uphill side of the street would be the front door and garages of the houses on the downhill side of the street. Also, we are now presented with a Planning Management team that has no actual background involvement or context with the issues presented and dealt with over the past 20 years concerning this hillside, which serves to complicate what we thought was finally a breakthrough on what had been a struggle, and I am disappointed with the materials presented being impacted by an apparent lack of continuity. Following are concerns and issues that we believe need to be discussed and more thought out than currently presented. • Any thought that the proposed modifications will eliminate the need for a discretionary review and approval process is quite ambitious, and I do not believe realistic. • Building Height Overall minimum requirement is 30 feet per the Analysis section. Will that be eliminated for single family homes on this hillside area? • Special Technical Standards lists Maximum of 14 feet and Minimum of 6 feet, from the midpoint of the lot at top of curb. There appears to be no maximum building height, which doesn't seem appropriate for a hillside lot under the current City Hillside Standards. This is very problematic for view sharing and how in the world did someone come up with 14 feet as being an acceptable height along this vista corridor? • Side Yard setbacks are listed at 10/15 feet, which is appropriate for this hillside vista corridor. Will all lots be required to provide the required setback so as to allow for a 25' side yard setback between residences? i • Building Separation is listed as 20 feet and per the notes, how is that possible when the side yard setbacks that would be applicable would preclude any building being located within the 25' side yard setbacks? • The Special Design Standards appear to be a good start as currently presented. • The City should require that engineering certification be made for any design contemplated for these view corridor lots and view poles should be erected and verified by an independent source as part of the approval process. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information or assistance with this matter. Thanks, Chuck Buquet, President Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Office (909) 481-1822 Fax (909) 320-2296 *******************PLEASE NOTE****************** This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only For the named person(s), who is/are the only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your help. From: chuck@charlesjosegh.biz <chuck@charlesjoseph.biz> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 2:22 PM To: Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith @cityofrc.us> Cc: Renee Massey <reneemass19520yahoo.com>; Lynn & Renee Massey <lpfsmass@msn.com>; Suzanne Buquet <suzanne@chasjoseph.com> Subject: MCA DRC2020-00004 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report CAUTION. This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or o en attachments unless y7 recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mike: This is as a follow up to review of the subject staff report and communication with neighbors concerning the staff report and draft exhibits attached to same this weekend. While we greatly appreciate the City efforts to finally deal with what has been an ongoing issue of concern for us over the past 20 years, we are a bit disappointed with how this is being presented at Planning Commission this week as a first look for the residents and accompanied with a recommendation for approval by the Commission at this same meeting. Over the past several months, we and quite a number of our neighboring residents attended the workshops referenced in the staff report and we were under the belief that there would be a subsequent presentation of a compilation of a draft set of recommendations for review by the resident participants. Neighbors made inquiry as to where this process and follow up was with the City and were informed that the matter was going to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. When inquiry was then made concerning what was to be presented, we were told that the staff report was being put together and there was nothing available for review prior to the 2 transmittal of the agenda and staff report late Thursday, January 16, 2020, after City Hall was closed. While the staff report and Exhibit A lists what appear to be some potentially constructive approaches to deal with the problem, we have a number of questions and need some clarification concerning the analysis listed in the staff report and the Technical and Design Standards included in the agenda item. The Correspondence section of the staff report is a bit confusing and could be a bit misleading, as the item staff report and exhibits were not available for review until after close of business on Thursday. I am unclear how anyone could have called the City on something that they had not yet had the opportunity to review or have the opportunity to discuss the materials with Staff and then residents had no further comments nor concerns during the period of time that City Hall iwas closed for the weekend and the holiday today. I am concerned that Commission might read this as written and presented and think that there are no remaining questions or issues that could be presented, which I would like to believe is not the intent of Staff. We would like an opportunity to meet with you on Wednesday prior to the Planning Commission meeting so we can ask questions and obtain clarification concerning the staff report and exhibits. Thanks for your help with this. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need i of additional information or assistance with this. Thanks, Chuck Buquet, President Charles Joseph Associates 9581 Business Center Drive, Suite D i Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 I Office (909) 481-1822 Fax (909) 320-2296 *******************PLEASE NOTE****************** This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are the only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your help. 3