Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-15 DRC Agenda - Correspondence Jane and John Adams 8045 Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)605-3312 September 26, 2019 Via Certified Mai!#70171070 0000 34061225 Mr.John R.Gillison City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Dear Mr.Gillison: RE., THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CAMINO PREDERA IN THE RED HILL AREA I am appalled, bewildered and disheartened. My husband and I are owners of Lot 12 of Tract 10035 otherwise known as 8045 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730,along with two(2) adjoining vacant lots(Lot 11 and Lot 10),all which we purchased 12 years ago. The land is governed by the Hillside Development Ordinance and located in the Red Hill area. 8045 was purchased with approved plans and we built the house pursuant to those plans,over a decade ago. Our intent was to build two more houses, in the future,for family members. Our expectation was that we could build similarly in accordance with the plans approved for Lot 12. As I am sure you may already be aware that since 2004---and before--Lots 1-21 of Tract 10035 have been the subject of much discussion at the "Neighborhood Meetings" (which often turned venomous), the Planning Department, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. Applicants desiring to building on those lots have been denied,discouraged and derailed with obstructive and irrational objections. Notwithstanding the fact that an applicant may have met all the technical requirements,they have been forced to attend meeting after meeting,multiple resubmissions of their plans and delays of, not just months, but years! ---all in an effort to appease a handful of vocal opposition,who is willing to mount an onslaught of objections and appeals. What I have witnessed over all this time is that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,appearing to "take sides", has provided the same few individuals(hereinafter referred to as"dissenters")a platform from which they have created dissension among the residents of Red Hill and lashed out with ad hominem attacks at applicants during many meetings. 1 have recorded a litany of statements made during some of these meeting just as an example: "You might reconsider building a two-story house,as you're getting older and climbing stairs will become more difficult." WHAT!!??? This is a valid objection to an applicant's otherwise complete plans???? Who is running these departments? From our vantage point, it looks like the dissenters are in control! So, here we are, 12 years later, and are ready to begin building on the other two lots. However,what we have encountered within the planning department has left us shocked and dismayed. Mr.John R.Gillison -2- September 26,2019 There is a movement afoot(and consultants,Civic Solutions, hired) to begin work on amending the Hillside Development Ordinance found in Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. We strongly obiectl NOTHING has changed in the past 12 years that would require amending the hillside standards— NOTHING has changed since the July 7, 2004 appeal to City Council where these dissenters lost their appeal on every level. Nonetheless,they are once again expressing their disagreement with the decisions against them made by the local authorities, notwithstanding the fact that there were NUMEROUS thorough and de novo reviews by each department. Instead of taking their issues up for a judicial review,they continue objecting to most projects. In my opinion, it is a blatant attempt to discourage anyone from building on the southside of Camino Predera. We are not discouraged. I apologize for the length of this letter but 1 feel it necessary to explain our personal dilemma with any proposed changes to the Hillside Ordinance. I quote from a letter written by dissenters Chuck and Suzanne Buquet,dated April 5,2004 and presented as an exhibit in the July 7,2004 City Council agenda, involving our lot#12.The appeal was denied. The Buquet's wrote,and I quote,"We believe that a master plan approach should be undertaken to determine what would be reasonable and prudent residential product along the entire hillside slope area,and not just on a case by case basis as currently being provided under the individual lot development strategy..." The Buquet's"master plan approach" is inconceivable. All one need do is visually inspect Camino Predera to see that each and every southside lot is unique. It only makes sense that each lot should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the topography. Our three lots are above curb and, therefore,we paid a premium for those lots. To reduce our ability to build out our remaining two lots in the same manner we built the first lot would create an unjust and unreasonable result. First and foremost,the houses directly across the street from us are two and three-story. As is the situation with our current house,the height is 14'above curb level; at that height, the houses on the north side are so high that they look directly over our property. As for requiring us to push the house further below the curb not only makes it much more difficult and costly to accomplish because of the steepness but doing so would eliminate ANY view our"view lot"could have because of the protected silk oak trees at the bottom of the lot,along with the row of townhouses,blocking ANY view. We would literally be in the gully. }will repeat Councilmember Howdyshell's sentiments at the July 7,2004 Council Meeting,that he could not imagine somebody wanting to build on a hill and then accepting a requirement to set their house down in a hole. I agree, and I add: Talk about diminution in value??11?? Another dissenter and appellant, Renee Massey, already acknowledged at the July 7,2004 City Council Meeting,where one of her appeals was heard,that the"crux of the matter"was if this project were approved ( DRC2003-00961--referring to our house, lot#12) it would set the standard for the rest of the lot-by-lot development. This project was approved. I believe the standard has been set. I am aware that the Hillside Development Ordinance requires a four-pronged approach to analysis for approval of a project. However, I do have some questions as to how,why and who initiated action for amendment of this code. But I will refrain from expounding on that at this juncture. Suffice it to say that Mr.John R.Gillison -3- September 26,2019 ay,development will change and/or impede the view prior to the development. Our city's development code is replete with discretion provided to the decision-makers(and I don't mean the dissenters)to further the General Plan and allow for reasonable development of land. However, our city's Development Code also boldly asserts that applicants should attempt to minimize view obstruction--understanding that it is generally impossible to eliminate view obstruction. Title 17 expressly provides for specific procedures in order to initiate action for amendments to the Code. The city's website states that citizens rely on the city manager to"provide complete and objective information, pros and cons of alternatives,on long-term consequences." There are other lot owners on Camino Predera who are similarly situated and express utter frustration,as it appears that no one from the city is listening to the remaining vacant lot owners of Tract 10035. In fact,the DRC is supposed to "...provide direction to applicants regarding their development application." My experience and observations have shown that not to be the case. Obstructing and ignoring concerns that are not aligned with the dissenters seems prejudicial. Therefore, we ask that you look more deeply into the appropriateness of this movement by a handful of dissenters to amend the Code. My husband and I ask: For what purpose does the Code require amending? As this movement is steamrolling over others' rights, i ask that you keep in mind the Mission Statement for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to "make decisions,and be perceived as making decisions,for the general welfare of the community." And not for a few favored dissenters. I thank you for your time and my husband,John Adams,who has been a general contractor for over 47 years,wishes to address each proposed amendment as provided at the September 9, 2019"Community Workshop#2". His comments are attached along with the proposed amendments. I hope you can understand and appreciate OUR concerns. We welcome your comments. Sincerely, ane Adams Cc: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Anne McIntosh, Planning director✓ Mike Smith, Principal Planner Jean Ward,AICP(Civic Solutions) I have heard a lot of comments about Red Hill's character and how special Camino Predera is and I feel most of it has been mischaracterized. I have lived in Rancho Cucamonga since 1985 and have lived on Camino Predera for the past ten years. While the view is wonderful, it is also a great burden. People stop in front of the empty lots to see the view(even though it is posted "no stopping"at anytime, people somehow feel it is their right to eat their food, drink their beers and do their drugs.Then they feel they have the right to get out of their cars and trespass on my land(which I had posted no trespassing until they tore the signs down)and then throw all their trash on my property and/or in the street. Much more goes on than I can put in this letter. The street also has a very steep incline often used by skaters and bike riders as a racetrack. Lots of cars also use this downhill as a raceway;so many cars in fact, that we would not allow our granddaughter to play in the front yard with all the people coming to this "view"and the homeless living at the bottom of each property. The neighborhood has also experienced a lot of break-ins, drug use,vandalism, littering and trespassing that we never witnessed living in other Rancho neighborhoods. My point is this is not the paradise some are proclaiming it to be. It could be a great street to live on, but it needs houses and neighbors. There are dissenters who do not want any development—or so it seems. I fear that adding more restrictions to the standards will keep development from happening. I also fear that that these same individuals would welcome the new restrictions but,nonetheless,continue rejecting designs. There are a lot of changes being proposed for a couple of unhappy homeowners, with talk of overbuilding, massing and mansionization.There are no mansions that have been built on this street, but with the high cost of building on a hillside lot,one needs to build a house with enough square footage to recoup one's investment upon resale. None of the houses built in the last twenty years are tiny houses. Does this not set a precedent? Therefore, I would like to address each proposed change to the current Hillside Design Standards,as it relates to our two vacant lots, adjoining 8045 Camino Predera,our current residence. (1) SIDE YARD SETBACKS- WE ARE 100%AGAINST INCREASING SIDE YARD SETBACKS. OUR LOT IS 76'ACROSS THE FRONT, WHICH IS NOT WIDE TO START WITH.A REDUCTION OF 25'Taking 25' LEAVES A TOTAL OF 51'CREATING EXTREME DIFFICULTY IN DESIGN. MOREOVER,THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET ARE SO HIGH THEY WILL LOOK RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF OUR PROPOSED HOUSE BASED UPON OUR LOT LOCATION. I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS I HAVE BEEN INSIDE EVERY HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR LOTS. LARGER SETBACKS ALSO CREATES A PRIVACY ISSUE FOR US.AS FAR AS REDUCING VISUAL MASSING FROM THE STREET THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET(LOCAL ROAD)AND,TO MY KNOWEDGE,WE HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE VIEWS TO THE PUBLIC.THERE ARE MORE THAN 60+HOUSE ON CAMINO PREDERA AND ADJACENT CUL-DE-SACS WITH A WAND 5'SETBACKS. IT IS UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY TO 5O ADVERSELY IMPACT THE FEW REMAINING LOTS. Page 1 of 3 (2) REDUCE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT- THE HOUSE WE LIVE IN NOW HAS A HEIGHT OF I4'ABOVE CURB.THE HOUSE WAS LOWERED THREE TO FOUR FEET TO ACHIEVE THIS.OUR TWO REMAINING LOTS ARE ABOVE CURB HEIGHT.THE LOWER THE ROOF,THE LOWER THE HOUSE HAS TO BE PUSHED DOWN 1N THE LOT AND THE DRIVEWAY BECOMES STEEPER. OUR HOUSE NOW HAS A SINGLE-STORY APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET AND ALL THE HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE HAVE MORE VISUAL MASS THAN OURS. (3) ROOF DESIGN- A HIP ROOF WOULD ALSO CREATE TRIANGLE EFFECTS. (4) VARIABLE FRONT YARD SETBACKS- ALL THE LOTS THAT ARE LEFT ARE GOING TO BE CUSTOM HOUSES. IF IT'S A GREAT DESIGN I CANNOT LINDESTAND HOW A CONTINUOUS WALL PLANE TAKES ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. (5) ARTICULATION AND VARIABLE WALL PLANES-SIDE YARD THIS WOULD PUT MASSIVE RESTRICTIONS ON NEW HOMES AND MAKE DESIGNING EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. (6) FLOOR PLANS- THIS IS BASICALLY THE DESIGN I AM PROPOSING WITH THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NOW IN EFFECT. HOWEVER, IF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS PRODUCE A ROW OF NARROW HOUSES,WHAT AN UNFLATTERING LOOK FOR THE STREET THIS WOULD CREATE. (7) RAISE THE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS- IN MY OPINION,THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A STANDARD ALL ALONG. EVEN THE CITY'S OWN ENGINEER SAID THAT MOST LOTS WILL NOT WORK WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS. (8) GRADING-FLEXIBILITY TO BUILD LOWER ON THE LOT I HAVE A LEVEL LOT. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME TO BUILD LOWER ON THE LOT. Page 2 of 3 (9) STEP BACK SECOND STORY WALL PLANE- ALL BUT ONE LOT ARE DOWN-HILL SLOPES. NO ONE CAN SEE MASSING GOING DOWN HILL. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THREE LOTS,ONE CANNOT SEE THE PROPERTIES FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DUE TO THE THREE-STORY CONDOS AND EXISTING TREES. I AM CONFUSED AS TO WHY THIS IS EVEN A CONSIDERATION. MY FINAL REMARKS- As we can build on our two lots using the current Hillside Design standards and not eliminate anyone's view, we feel that if these new standards are implemented,they would greatly take away from what we should be able to build, make the house less desirable and devalue our property. If these proposed changes were guidelines to be considered on a lot-by-lot evaluation based upon the topography rather than as standards to be strictly applied,it seems more plausible and just. The current vacant lot owners should be afforded the same considerations as the current homeowners. It does NOT feel like that. Reasonable expectation is a legal term that I believe applies to our property.We live in a house on the south side that was approved by staff, DRC, Planning and ultimately by city council. When we bought these two lots over ten years ago,we had a reasonable expectation that we would be able to build houses on these lots in the same manner as the one we live in now. Should the proposed changes be implemented, our future projects will be greatly diminished and so,too,will our ability to fully utilize our lots to their fullest capacity. In my opinion,such a taking of a property-owner's rights without a legitimate reason is unconscionable. Thank you for your patience in reading the detailed description of my concerns over changes to the Hillside Design standards. I hope you can appreciate my concerns. I am open for further discussion on any of these issues as they relate to my property. SIM ely, J n I.A H omeowner 0Camino Predera Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909-322-3850 Page 3 of 3