HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-12 - Agenda Packet
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
October 12, 2022
7:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Chair Dopp
Vice Chair Williams
Commissioner Morales
Commissioner Boling
Commissioner Daniels
B. Public Communications
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Preservation
Commission (“Planning Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the
agenda that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not
discuss any issue not included on the agenda but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent
meeting.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of September 14th, 2022. (No meeting
September 28th.)
D. Public Hearings
D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION—STOR'EM SELF STORAGE—A request
to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor recreational vehicle and
indoor personal storage at an existing 123,577 square foot recreational vehicle storage
facility located within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone at 8530 Hellman Avenue and 9292 9th
Street: APNs—0209-012-07 and 0209-012-06. This item is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301—Existing
Facilities.
D2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
DRC2022-00315 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – Consideration of a proposal to
amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to incorporate new development standards related
to, for example, structure height, modifications to existing topographical conditions, and the
City’s application processing requirements applicable to thirty-eight (38) properties that
are located on the north and south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have
street frontage along Predera Court, a residential neighborhood generally located north of
Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga
HPC/PC Agenda – October 12, 2022
Page 2 of 3
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.
Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone and amend the Zoning Map to establish an overlay
zoning district (“Camino Predera Overlay”) that identifies which properties are subject to
the new development standards; APNs: 0207-631-01 through -11 and -14 through -25, and
0207-641-01 through -15. These amendments are exempt from environmental review
pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. These items will be forwarded to City Council for final action.
E. Director Announcements
F. Commission Announcements
G. Adjournment
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson
may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the
audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning
Commission, please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the
microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located on the podium. It is important to list
your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to.
Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an
item, the Chair may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be heard.
Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for
distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to
be used for the official public record.
As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be
distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record.
All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for
scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
HPC/PC Agenda – October 12, 2022
Page 3 of 3
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the
Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the
City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,365 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes can be found at
www.CityofRC.us.
I, 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 6, 2022, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at
10500 Civic Center Drive.
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
September 14, 2022
DRAFT MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
7:00 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on
September 14, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Vice Chair Williams, Commissioner Morales and
Commissioner Daniels. Absent – Commissioner Boling (Due to Illness).
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of
Planning; Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development; David Eoff, Senior
Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
Chair Dopp announced that Item D1 will be removed from tonight’s agenda by the request of the
applicant and will be heard at a future date.
B. Public Communications
Chair Dopp opened public communications and hearing no one, closed public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2022.
Motion to adopt the minutes by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Morales;
carried 4-1. Absent: Commissioner Boling.
D. Public Hearings
D1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20440 – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS
OPERATING CORP.) – A request to subdivide 91 acres of vacant land into sixteen (16) parcels
within Planning Area 1B of the Resort Specific Plan located on the North side of 6th street bound
between Cleveland Avenue to the west and Milliken Avenue to the east and the rail line to
the north. This request is for a tentative tract map only and does not include any development
proposals or development applications. APN: 0209-272-20. An Environmental Impact Report was
certified in connection with the City’s adoption of the Resort Specific Plan (SCH# 2015041083). The
proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Resort Specific Plan and the Certified
Environmental Impact Report, therefore, pursuant to CEQA, no additional environmental review is
required in connection with the City’s consideration of the proposed Tentative Tract Map.
HPC/PC MINUTES – September 14, 2022
Page 2 of 2
Draft
E. Director Announcements
Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning, welcomed Matt Marquez, our new Director of Planning and
Economic Development.
She announced the City of Rancho Cucamonga Housing Element and has been certified by the State Dept
of Housing and Community Development.
F. Commission Announcements - None
G. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Daniels, second by Vice Chair Williams to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no
objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department
Approved:
1
5
0
0
DATE: October 12, 2022
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development
INITIATED BY:Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION—STOR'EM SELF
STORAGE—A request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to
allow outdoor recreational vehicle and indoor personal storage at an
existing 123,577 square foot recreational vehicle storage facility located
within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone at 8530 Hellman Avenue and 9292 9th
Street: APNs—0209-012-07 and 0209-012-06. This item is exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15301—Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
•Approve Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2021-00402 through the adoption of the attached
Resolution of Approval with Conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting to expand the range of storage uses permitted under an existing Conditional Use
Permit (DRC2005-00704) which would allow the inclusion of outdoor recreational vehicle storage and allowing
indoor personal storage in units originally approved for indoor RV storage at an existing storage facility, Stor’em
Self Storage. This request requires the review and approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the Rancho
Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.20 which states that any request for modification of an entitlement
be reviewed by the original decision-making body. In this case, the decision-making body for the original
entitlement was the Planning Commission, hence the subject modification requires Planning Commission review.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at 8530 Hellman Avenue, within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone and it’s located within
the Neo-Industrial Employment District. The site is developed with an existing recreational vehicle (RV) storage
facility (Stor’em Self Storage). An existing Conditional Use Permit (DRC2005-00704) was approved by the
Planning Commission on March 22, 2006 (Exhibit 2) for the storage of RV’s. Stor’em Self Storage is comprised
of six (6) buildings totaling a cumulative 123,577 square feet. Five of the buildings are dedicated to RV storage
and the remaining is dedicated for office use and a care taker’s residence.
The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as
follows:
1
5
0
0
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
A. Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00704: The existing Conditional Use Permit, approved by the Planning
Commission on March 22, 2005, permitted the construction and operation of a 123,577 square foot RV
storage facility. The approved hours of operation are Monday to Sunday from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm.
B. Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2021-00402: The applicant is requesting to add personal
storage to all existing units on site. The existing units are designed to store RV’s and are also designed
for general storage. No interior or exterior modifications are being proposed, nor changes to the approved
hours of operations. If approved, the types of materials that would be allowed to be stored would be as
follows: RV’s, personal items, and equipment. The business owner has secured a lease agreement with
the adjacent property located at 9292 9th Street to store RV’s and boats on approximately 273,500 square
feet of paved surface (Exhibit A). The property located at 9292 9th St. has an approved business license
with the City under the name S&K Storage. They were approved back in September of 2009 to operate
an indoor & outdoor recreation vehicle storage facility. Upon further review of the business license, Staff
noticed that the existing business license for S&K Storage was approved without the proper entitlement
applications. S&K Storage has been operating at this location for 13 years and staff has not received any
code enforcement complaints about the business use or tenants. Although the business license was
approved 13 years ago without the proper entitlement applications, staff finds S&K Storage has done
well in the City and has kept proper business management practices for the business to continue their
operations. S&K and Store’em are currently operated under one business name – Store’em Self Storage.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting to include the leased portion as part of this CUP modification
application to bring the use into compliance with the Development Code. No further modifications to the
9th street site are being requested at this time. No storage of hazardous materials would be allowed. The
tenants (lessees) of the units will not be allowed to store anything outside their storage unit pod except
when they load and unload their items into the units. As there will be no physical expansion of the facility
practical changes to the use and purpose of the facility, no additional parking is required nor is an analysis
of the existing parking necessary.
C. Findings: Development Code Section 17.20.060(E): Certain findings shall be made in the affirmative by
the Planning Commission in order to grant a Conditional Use Permit or a modification to a Conditional
Use Permit. Accordingly, staff has provided findings of fact in the attached Resolution of Approval which
establishes that the proposed modification is consistent with existing business operations such that the
addition of personal storage does not negate any of the findings established with the original entitlement.
The addition of non-vehicular, personal storage to the services provided to customers by the applicant
will not require any physical modifications to, for example, the storage units, internal drive aisles, or
regular/emergency access for the site. Modifications to the existing on-site office and/or the caretaker’s
residence are not necessary/proposed, and daily operational characteristics will remain the same. Further
all existing conditions of approval, along with any new conditions imposed as part of this request for
modification, will ensure an appropriate and safe operation of the use.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under
as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301—Existing Facilities, which consists of the
operation, leasing and permitting of existing uses. The proposed Conditional Use Permit Modification will permit
the use of personal storage in addition to RV storage within an approved RV storage facility.
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District Neo-Industrial (NI)
South Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District Neo-Industrial (NI)
1
5
0
0
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper on September 29, 2022, and notices were mailed to all property owners (355 addresses)
within a 1,500-foot radius of the project site on September 29, 2022. To date, no comments/correspondence has
been received in response to these notifications.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The project fulfills City Council Core Value # 1 “providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all”. The project
provides a high quality of life for all by expanding services provided by an existing neighborhood-serving
commercial use to the benefit of all residents.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Original Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00704 Staff Report
Exhibit C - Conditional Use Permit Modification Request Letter
Exhibit D - Resolution 22-27
Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Conditional Use Permit Modification Request for Stor -em Storage
Facility:
Store-em Self Storage would like to modify the underlying Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to allow general storage. The request is for the modified permit
to allow both types of storage in any unit. All units currently are designed to
store RVs, and that design also allows for general storage. No change in
footprint or structures is being requested, only modification to the language
of the permit to allow not only RVs but general storage as well within each of
the units. We are also requesting to include within that CUP the 273,500
leased portion of 9292 9 th Street to be used for RV and boat storage.
No change in operating hours is requested. Currently, the tenants have
access to the units through a computerized and motorized gate 24/7, using
their access code. The office is open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through
Sunday. No change from exis ting operations is requested regarding hours of
operation. Typically, one to two employees are on -site.
As a self-storage facility that offers storage for RVs, other types of vehicles,
goods, materials and equipment, tenants use the area in front of their unit to
load and unload items from the units. No unattended outside storage is
permitted – vehicles or other goods or items are outside the units only when
the vehicles or items are being moved in or out of the unit. No storage of
hazardous materials is p ermitted.
Exhibit C
RESOLUTION NO. 22-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2021-00402, A
REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND
INDOOR PERSONAL STORAGE AT AN EXISTING 123,577
SQUARE FOOT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY
WITH AN ADJACENT 273,500 SQUARE FEET OF LEASED
SPACE LOCATED WITHIN THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) ZONE AT
8530 HELLMAN AVENUE AND 9292 9TH STREET; APNS—0209-
012-07 AND 0209-012-06.
A.Recitals.
1.Stor’em Self Storage filed an application for the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit Modification DRC2022-00402 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit Modification request is
referred to as "the application."
2.On the 12th day of October 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 12, 2022, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. The total project site consists of approximately 11 acres of developed land
located north of Arrow Route and east of Hellman Avenue. The primary site (APN 0209-
012-07) is a rectangular shaped parcel developed with buildings designed for indoor RV
storage and has a linear dimension, from north to south, of approximately 759 feet and
approximately 291 feet from east to west. The project also includes a portion of the parcel
to the south (APN 0209-012-06) of approximately 273,500 square feet developed with
Exhibit D
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-27
DRC2021-00402– STOR-EM SELF STORAGE
October 12, 2022
Page 2
pavement, perimeter fencing and pavement striping for the purpose of outdoor RV
storage; and
b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the
project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
c. The site has an existing Conditional Use Permit (DRC2005-00704) that
was approved on March 22, 2006.
d. Stor’em Self Stroage is requesting to add personal storage to the
previously approved conditional use permit. The existing units are designed to store RV’s
and are designed for general storage. No interior or exterior modifications are being
proposed, as well as no changes to the approved hours of operations.
e. The Conditional Use Permit Modification will allow the business owner to
permit the enclosed RV storage spaces to be used for personal storage to expand the
type of storage they offer to the community.
f. The Conditional Use Permit Midification will also permit outdoor storage
of RV and Boats on approximately 273,500 square feet of paved surface on the adjacent
leased property located at 9292 9th Street that has been operating without a Conditional
Use Permit since 2009.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in
Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The general plan designation is Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District
which encourages low industrial uses with minimal impact. The site is developed with an
existing storage facility. Including personal storage as part of the business use will have
minimal impact on adjacent properties. The proposed used is consistent with the general
plan.
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI)
District
Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI)
District
Neo-Industrial (NI)
South Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI)
District
Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI)
District
Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI)
District
Neo-Industrial (NI)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-27
DRC2021-00402– STOR-EM SELF STORAGE
October 12, 2022
Page 3
b. Personal storage is allowed in the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone with a
Conditional Use Permit. The Neo-Industrial (NI) zone is a designated zone that
encourages the use of supportive amenities and services. The request to allow indoor
personal storage and outdoor RV storage in addition to the existing indoor RV storage is
consistent with the zoning designation and development code because it will provide
residents an amenity to storge their personal belongings.
c. The site is suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use.
The site has existing storage units that were designed to accommodate not only RV
storage but personal storage as well. There are no physical constraints that would make
the site undesirable.
d. The site is developed with existing storage buildings for the proposed
use is compatible with the surrounding uses and development as all the surrounding
properties are located within the same general plan and zoning designation.
e. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be injurious to
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare in the vicinity of
which the property is located. The site has an established RV storage business that has
been in operation since 2007, and the existing outdoor RV storage on 9th street has been
in use since 2009. Converting indoor RV storage to personal storage and securing
appropriate permits for the existing outdoor RV storage will not be detrimental to the
surrounding properties as they are largely the same use that has been in operation for
over 10 years.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
project qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301—Existing Facilities, which consists of the operation, leasing and permitting of
existing uses. The proposed Conditional Use Permit Modification will permit the use of
personal storage and outdoor RV & Boat storage on 9th street in addition to RV storage.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department determination of
exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s
determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every
condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by
this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-27
DRC2021-00402– STOR-EM SELF STORAGE
October 12, 2022
Page 4
BY:
Bryan Dopp, Chairman
ATTEST:
Matt Marquez, Secretary
I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of
October 2022, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2021-00402
Project Name: EDR - Stor'em Self Storage
Location: 8530 HELLMAN AVE - 020901207-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
APPROVAL FOR: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION—STOR'EM SELF STORAGE—A
request to modify an existing conditional use permit to allow non-vehicle, personal storage at an existing
123,577 square foot recreational vehicle storage facility located within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone at
8530 Hellman Avenue; APN—0209-012-07. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301—Existing Facilities. DRC2021-00402
1.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of
Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of
grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the
approved activity.
2.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such
approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs
and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such
action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. In the
event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall
deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they
become due.
3.
The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption
fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors
and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date
of project approval.
4.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other
applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at
the time of Building Permit issuance.
5.
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site
Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the
Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations.
6.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 8/18/2022
Exhibit E
Project #: DRC2021-00402
Project Name: EDR - Stor'em Self Storage
Location: 8530 HELLMAN AVE - 020901207-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit Modification
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the
business including changes to the operating days /hours; change in the location on -site or within the
building of the use /activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new
building construction; and /or other modifications /intensification beyond what is specifically approved by
this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to
submittal of documents for plan check /occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and /or
issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or
intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for
review by the City.
7.
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Storage of hazardous materials is not permitted.1.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 2Printed: 8/18/2022
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions through the adoption of
the attached Resolution recommending Approval to the City Council:
• Resolution No. 22-28 recommending to the City Council approval of Municipal Code
Amendment DRC2020-00004 to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to incorporate new
optional development standards and approval of Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315
to amend the Zoning Map to establish a new Overlay Zoning District.
BACKGROUND – OVERALL SITE CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject properties that would be affected by the proposed amendments are within a
residential area that is referred to by its residents and others outside of the area as “Red Hill.” Red
Hill is also identified in this manner by a variety of resources and documents authored by the City
including the General Plan. Red Hill is bound, and generally defined, by Foothill Boulevard/Pacific
Electric (PE) Trail, Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, Base Line Road, and the City’s western
boundary limits to the south, east, north, and west, respectively, as shown below.
DATE: October 12, 2022
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development
INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 AND ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT DRC2022-00315 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA –
Consideration of a proposal to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to
incorporate new development standards related to, for example, structure height,
modifications to existing topographical conditions, and the City’s application
processing requirements applicable to thirty-eight (38) properties that are located
on the north and south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have
street frontage along Predera Court, a residential neighborhood generally
located north of Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of
Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone and
amend the Zoning Map to establish an overlay zoning district (“Camino Predera
Overlay”) that identifies which properties are subject to the new development
standards; APNs: 0207-631-01 through -11 and -14 through -25, and 0207-641-
01 through -15. These amendments are exempt from environmental review
pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines. These items will be forwarded to City Council for final action.
Page 2
Figure 1 - Red Hill Neighborbood
Development within Red Hill mostly consists of single-family residences that were constructed
prior to the City’s incorporation in 1977. Characteristics of this include varying lot dimensions and
configurations, eclectic architecture, and mature landscaping. Red Hill also has a relatively rural
appearance as demonstrated by the limited number of streetlights and the absence of street
improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. These characteristics and existing
conditions inform how the City considers development proposals in Red Hill.
On the west side of Red Hill is Red Hill Country Club. This golf course and associated
buildings/amenities cover 178.55 acres or about 1/3 of the land area of Red Hill. There is also
a school, Valle Vista Elementary, near the center of Red Hill. There is no commercial
development within the interior of Red Hill. There is some commercial development fronting along
Foothill Boulevard along Red Hill’s southernmost perimeter. Aside from access from Red Hill
Country Club Drive, these commercial properties are not directly accessible from any of the
interior residential streets of Red Hill.
Except for the non-residential properties described above, the General Plan land use designation
and Zoning of the properties within Red Hill are Low Residential District and Low Residential (L)
Zone, respectively. Not including the area at the north side of Red Hill near Base Line Road all
properties are also within the Hillside Overlay.
Page 3
Figure 2 - General Plan Designations for Red Hill
SITE CHARACTERISTICS – CAMINO PREDERA:
The specific location of the subject properties is Tract 10035 located along the southeastern edge
of Red Hill as shown in the exhibits below. This tract consists of thirty-eight (38) lots located along
Camino Predera and Predera Court (Camino Predera).
Page 4
Figure 3 - Camino Predera Neighborhood
Camino Predera is generally characterized by sloped topography that decreases from a
approximately 1,345 feet above sea level (ASL) on the north side to approximately 1,280 feet ASL
on the south side. Exact existing and finished grade elevations vary depending on the lot. It is
not unusual for adjacent lots to have relatively significant elevation differences between them as
demonstrated below via the set of image captures from Google Maps.
Page 5
Figure 4 - North-South Elevation Change
The approval of Tract 10035 did not include the construction of any houses. All residential
development, except for a set of three (3) houses, was proposed and one house at a time.
Twenty-one (21) of the thirty-eight (38) lots are developed with single-family residences that were
constructed prior to 2010. Sixteen (16) of these houses are located on the north side. There is
only one vacant lot remaining on the north side. The other five (5) houses are on the south side.
Of the remaining seventeen (17) undeveloped lots, there are two houses under construction and
another currently in plan check pending construction. In addition, the Planning department is
currently reviewing applications for the development of two (2) lots.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS:
All proposals to develop a property within the Hillside Overlay require the review of a Hillside
Design Review (HDR) application for review and approval by the City. As Camino Predera is
within this overlay, all development there is subject to this requirement. These applications are
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Economic Development Director per Section
17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review) of the Municipal Code. The exceptions to this are 1)
when there is excavation or import of soil to the project site (thus modifying the existing grade)
which would result in a change in the existing grade of 5 feet (or more) in depth or 2) when there
is a Variance associated with the HDR application. For such circumstances, review and approval
by the Planning Commission is required per Section 17.122.020(G)(1)(i) (Hillside Development)
and Section 17.20.030 (Variance) of the Code. In comparison, residential development that is not
in this overlay requires a Minor Design Review (MDR) and the development limitations are not as
restrictive.
Although it is not required by the Code, historically all HDR applications in the Overlay have been
forwarded to the Design Review Committee for their review and recommendation to the Planning
and Economic Development Director. The Director, as per the Code, would then review the
application and take final action, e.g. approve/deny/modify the project. Note that an HDR
application in Camino Predera has, until recently, been automatically forwarded to the Planning
Page 6
Commission by staff regardless of whether it had 5 feet (or more) of excavation/fill and/or needed
a Variance as described above. The decision-making body that would review and take final action
on the project would be the Planning Commission and not the Planning and Economic
Development Director. In addition, all applicants for HDR applications in Camino Predera are
asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting as a courtesy to the other property owners in Camino
Predera. Note that this is not typical for HDR applications that are submitted for proposed
development in other areas within the Overlay.
ANALYSIS
The residents in Camino Predera have in prior years raised concerns about the applications
submitted to the City to construct new houses on the remaining vacant properties in their
neighborhood. They have expressed these concerns during various steps of the City’s review
process of these applications including the Design Review Committee meetings and the Planning
Commission public hearings. Many of these concerns have centered around the overall size (floor
area) of the proposed houses, their form or visual “massing”, overbuilding on the site in general,
and crowding between structures. The overall theme of these concerns was that these proposals
were not compatible nor consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. These
concerns are rarely expressed by the owners of properties elsewhere in Red Hill, or the Overlay
in general, when a HDR application is proposed in their vicinity.
In late 2018, owners in Camino Predera submitted to the City Council an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s approval of a development application proposed on the north side of Camino
Predera. The City Council considered this appeal during two public hearings. After considering
the concerns of the Camino Predera owners, the Councilmembers asked the applicant’s architect
to revise the proposal. The architect subsequently made significant modifications to the technical
and design details of the proposed house. At the third and final public hearing for the application,
the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval with the proposed modifications.
During this last public hearing the City Council requested that staff review the current hillside
development standards, and if necessary, establish new standards. The intent of this request was
to alleviate the concerns noted above and to ensure that any house proposed in the future would
be compatible and consistent in character with existing houses along Camino Predera. Similarly,
it was to facilitate the development process by providing future developers/homeowners clear
objective standards.
As staff began this effort, the scope of the City’s review initially included all areas within the Hillside
Overlay (the “Overlay”) of the City. The Overlay is identified in the General Plan and Zoning Map
as shown below.
Page 7
Figure 5 - Hillside Overlay Map
However, staff determined the concerns that were assumed to be shared commonly in the
Overlay by staff City were not frequently expressed by all property owners in the Overlay. For
example, staff is not aware of similar concerns/issues in other neighborhoods in the northern part
of the City such as Haven View Estates and Deer Creek (both of which are located east of Haven
Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue). Staff concluded that the topography and development
pattern of Red Hill was unlike other areas in the Overlay and, therefore, the scope of the review
was revised to only apply to Red Hill.
Staff initiated a workshop to obtain input from the Red Hill community. This would more accurately
inform staff of the development-related issues, if any, in Red Hill. That information, in turn, would
be used to create the proposed standards. The first workshop was conducted on August 8, 2019
at Lions Center West, a community center located at 9161 Base Line Road. To assist with this
workshop, the City contracted with a meeting facilitator and a contract planner who specialized
in Code development to join City staff during the conversation with the community. All property
owners in the Red Hill community were invited to attend. At this workshop, staff explained the
purpose of the Code amendment, process, and an overview of the expectations of the
Page 8
amendment. The residents were later encouraged to separate into groups to discuss their
concerns and highlight the things they appreciate most about their neighborhood.
This workshop was informative for staff. The majority of those in attendance identified several
positive attributes of Red Hill. They indicated that they had no desire for more regulations.
However, the property owners in Camino Predera expressed mixed comments about
development in their neighborhood. After the first workshop, staff further narrowed the focus of
the evaluation of the standards so that they would only apply to Camino Predera.
Staff began forming draft changes to the standards for discussion and feedback at the second
workshop which was conducted on September 9, 2019, at Valle Vista Elementary located in Red
Hill at 7727 Valle Vista Road. The meeting facilitator and contract planner who were present at
the first workshop also joined City staff for this second workshop to help property owners reach
consensus and model various development standards. Some of the most notable changes to the
standards requested by the residents included a maximum building height on the south side of
Camino Predera, increased side yard setbacks, standards for roof designs, increased height for
retaining walls, among others.
At the second workshop attendance was slightly less than the first. Attendees were primarily
those who reside or owned property in Camino Predera. The attendees were encouraged to break
into groups again to discuss their likes and/or dislikes with the proposed changes. The feedback
was divided between the owners on the north side of Camino Predera, who were supportive of
the changes, and property owners of vacant properties on the south side of Camino Predera, who
were not. Staff continued to refine the draft standards so they would reflect the comments received
during the second workshop.
On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code (DRC2020-00004) that would, if approved, amend the City’s
development standards for the properties in Camino Predera. After receiving staff’s report and
comments from the public, the Commission continued the hearing to an unspecified date to allow
more time for discussion of the potential changes to the hillside standards and collaboration
between the property owners in Camino Predera. The Commission also directed staff to continue
working with the Camino Predera community and conduct additional workshops prior to bringing
the item back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff organized a follow-up third workshop on January
30, 2020 in the Tri-Communities Room at City Hall. With this effort, the scope of the City’s
review/analysis was “condensed” to address only the properties within Camino Predera and only
include the applicable owners.
As before, all owners in Camino Predera were invited to attend. This meeting allowed staff to
obtain further, focused, input from the Camino Predera owners and what was important to them.
Everyone was provided the opportunity to provide their thoughts on the standards proposed by
staff and propose their own standards. During this workshop it became apparent that there were
disagreements between the owners and their counterparts on the north side and the south side
of Camino Predera, respectively, regarding details of the proposed development standards.
Generally, the standards proposed by the owners on the north side of Camino Predera were more
restrictive than those currently in the Code. In the meantime, the owners on the south side of
Camino Predera proposed new development standards that were relatively minimal or “no
change” compared to the standards proposed by staff. In some instances, some of the new
Page 9
development standards generally related to design requirements, i.e. architecture proposed
considered unnecessary or ineffective by the majority owners. These standards were related to
the type of roof design, e.g. hip, gable, and flat; garage door orientation; and the setback of the
garage relative to the house.
Several months later staff conducted a fourth workshop on July 29, 2021. Note that the fourth
workshop was scheduled for an earlier date in March 2020 but was postponed due to State-
mandated restrictions on in-person meetings in response to the COVID pandemic. A facilitator
was contracted by the City to assist in the discussion. As before, all owners in Camino Predera
were invited to attend. This workshop allowed staff to share with them a refined set of proposed
standards based on the collective discussion during the third workshop. The revised set of
proposed standards included adjustments to the proposed standards that staff believed was a
“balance” between what the owners on both sides of Camino Predera wanted. And, in general,
staff considered them to be fair and respectful of the property and development rights of all owners
on Camino Predera. Also, staff deleted proposed standards that were unnecessary.
Staff observed continuing disagreements regarding specifics of the proposed development
standards and that establishing new standards that would be mutually agreed upon by the owners
was unlikely. The most notable standard that was the subject of significant disagreement was
related to structure/building height relative to the finished surface of Camino Predera (the street).
The fifth, and final, workshop was conducted on March 17, 2022. This workshop served as a
check-in with the owners in Camino Predera before staff moved forward to having the standards
reviewed for recommendation by the Planning Commission and subsequently reviewed and acted
upon by the City Council. Staff shared with them a draft of the proposed standards based on the
collective discussion during the third and fourth workshops. As before, these revisions to the
proposed standards were relatively minor and incorporated a balanced approach to the
standards.
Staff observed continuing disagreements regarding specifics of the proposed development
standards. Determining new standards that would be acceptable by all owners was seemingly
not possible. During the final workshop, staff received comments from some of the attendees
that concluded that consensus was high unlikely and that the City needed to make a final
determination on the proposed standards.
After receiving the feedback and analyzing the potential impacts of the changes, staff proposes
standards as shown in the table below. However, note that the owners in Camino Predera
continue to have disagreement with three of the proposed standards. The owners on the north
side provided their proposed standards and additional requirements. As noted above, some
wanted them to be more restrictive while others wanted them to remain the same as they are in
the Code now. Those specific standards are identified in the table below in bold.
Page 10
Table 1 - Comparison of Hillside Development Standards
Current
Standards
New Standards
(proposed by Staff)
New Standards
proposed
by Owners (North)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Building Height
-South side of
Camino Predera 30 feet None 14 feet None 7-10 feet None
-North side of
Camino Predera 30 feet None 25 feet None 25 feet None
Building
Setbacks
-Front None 37 feet
+/- 5 feet None
37 feet
+/- 5
feet
None 37 feet
-Rear None 20 feet None 20 feet None 20 feet
-Side None 5/10 feet None 5/10 feet None 10-15 feet
Building
Separation None None None None None 10-20 feet
Excavation/Fill 5 feet None 8 feet None 8 feet None
Wall Height
-Screen
(Freestanding) 6 feet None 6 feet None 6 feet None
-Retaining 4 feet None 8 feet None 8 feet None
Many of the proposed changes are focused on minimizing, but not eliminating, the height and
visual massing of the houses on the south side of Camino Predera as measured from the surface
of the street. The maximum building height above the level of the street of 14 feet (north side)
and 25 feet (south side) was selected by staff because:
• It allows for Camino Predera to have an inviting character where the houses on both sides
“frame” the street along the north and south elevation. It is the City’s goal that all
residential streets function and have the aesthetic as neighborhood;
• It allows houses on the south side to be continue to readily visible with a similar curb
appeal, as seen from the street, as the neighboring houses across the street thus ensuring
a degree of enjoyment of their property;
Staff notes that the height limit doesn’t prohibit a building height of up to 30 feet (above finished
grade) throughout the property – it only is limited to that height as measured from Camino
Predera. Provided that the grade allows for it, a house can continue to be up to 30 feet in height
if it does not exceed 14 feet in height above street level.
The increase from 5 feet to 8 feet would allow a greater depth of “cut”. Similarly, the increase
from 5 feet to 8 feet would allow a higher retaining wall height. In both cases, this would allow for
a pad (foundation) to have a lower elevation relative, and a lower roofline as seen from, the street.
This in turn will help accommodate the proposed building height standard of 14 feet. Additionally,
the increased retaining wall height to 8 feet will no longer require the submittal and approval of a
Minor Exception or Variance to exceed the current maximum height of 4 feet.
Page 11
Under SB330, that was approved on October 19, 2019, “affected cities...may not change their
General Plan or Specific Plan(s) land use designation or Zoning Map for any parcel to a less
intensive use below that which was allowed on January 1, 2018, per Government Code
Subsection 66300(b)(1)(A). For these purposes, “less intensive use” explicitly includes
“reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size
requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements,
or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of
housing” [emphasis added]. In addition, affected cities...may not revise the allowed intensity of
use in any existing General Plan or Specific Plan(s) land use designation, or Zoning Map district
below that which was allowed on January 1, 2018. This section effectively prohibits affected
cities...from making changes to development standards for zoning districts that allow housing.
The caveat is that an affected city...will not be limited by these provisions if it “concurrently
changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within
the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity” per Government Code
Subsection 66300(i)(1).
In our analysis of SB330 and how it applies to the proposed Code amendment, it was determined
that the City cannot adopt any new development standards as requirements that would be
specifically applicable to residential structures such as height and setbacks. These can only be
provided as optional standards. To do so otherwise would be inconsistent with SB330, as
changes to building height or setback can reduce the intensity, or size of the future dwelling unit.
Therefore, the proposed optional standards are as shown in the table below. If an owner prefers
to follow the Optional Standards, then they will not be required to submit a HDR application (as
typically would be required for development in the Hillside Overlay). Instead, they would be
allowed to submit construction plans for the proposal directly to the Building & Safety Department
for ministerial plan check. Similarly, a review by the Design Review Committee would not be
required nor would the applicant be asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting. This will save
applicants time and money in the development review process while utilizing the optional
standards to address expressed by the neighborhood.
Table 2 - Proposed Optional Development Standards for Camino Predera
Standards Optional Standards
Maximum Minimum
Building Height
-South side of Camino Predera 14 feet1 None
-North side of Camino Predera 25 feet None
Building Setbacks
-Front None 37±5 feet
-Rear None 20 feet
-Side None 5/10 feet
Excavation/Fill 8 feet None
Wall Height
-Screen (Freestanding) 6 feet None
Page 12
-Retaining 8 feet None
1 - As measured from the curb at the street;
To apply the optional development standards, staff is proposing to establish a new Overlay Zoning
District called the “Camino Predera Overlay”. This new Overlay will identify the 38 specific parcels
in Camino Predera subject to the new optional development standards. The new Overlay is
shown below.
Figure 6 - Proposed Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District
Coordinated with the establishment of the new Overlay is Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-
00004 which will amend Chapter 17.38 (“Overlay Zoning Districts and other Special Planning
Areas”) to add the purpose, applicability, and optional development standards of the Camino
Predera Overlay; Chapter 17.114.010 (“Special Area Map”) to add the Camino Predera Overlay
to Figure 17.114.010-1; and Chapter 17.114.050 (“Overlay Zoning District Descriptions) to add
the description of the Camino Predera Overlay.
General Plan and Municipal Code Consistency: The City is proposing to amend its current
Municipal Code and Zoning Map to incorporate optional development standards and apply them
to a specific location in the City consisting of 38 single-family residential parcels on Camino
Predera and Predera Court. The City prepared the amendments, which are included as Exhibits
A and B, to the attached draft Planning Commission Resolution. Municipal Code Amendment
DRC2020-00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315 conform to and do not conflict
with the General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element and Housing Element
thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Staff has determined that the amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map are statutorily
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
amendments qualify under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the
potential for causing significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
Page 13
in question may have significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
The amendments do not propose any physical change to the environment itself. The new optional
standards do not include an associated development project. The standards will serve to simplify
the process that a property owner needs to follow to construct a single-family residence on their
property on Camino Predera and Predera Court. Any environmental analysis that may be required
for each single-family residence will be conducted when a proposal is received. Staff notes that
the construction of one single-family residence is typically exempt from CEQA per Section 15303
of the CEQA guidelines. Based on this evidence and all of the evidence in the record, the
Planning Commission concurs with staff’s determination that the amendments will not have a
significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from further environmental review
under CEQA.
FACTS FOR FINDING:
Per Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning
Map “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent
with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” These include the following
Land Use and Housing goals:
• Land Use LC-1.2 Quality of Place. “Ensure that new infill development is compatible with the
existing, historic, and envisioned future character and scale of each neighborhood.”
• Land Use LC-1.9: Infill Development. “Enable and encourage infill development within vacant
and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and potential incentives.”
• Land Use LC-1.11: Compatible Development. “Allow flexibility in density and intensity to
address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new development with adjacent
context.”
• Housing H-5.1: Development Review Processes. “Consider new polices, codes, and
procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in
the development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees
necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements.”
• Housing H-5.4: Development Standards. “Evaluate and adjust as appropriate residential
development standards, regulations, and processing procedures that are determined to
constrain housing development, particularly housing.”
Overall, the standards proposed are designed to minimize impacts to surrounding, existing
residential properties in Camino Predera and ensure that new development is compatible with the
Camino Predera neighborhood and that the character of the neighborhood is preserved. Also,
they represent a balance of the property owners concerns with future development and property
rights.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendment itself will not create a fiscal impact, however significant staff and
consultant time has been expended by the city to achieve the proposed amendments. If
applicants choose to exercise the proposed standards, they can reduce application costs and
save time by utilizing a ministerial process, rather than a discretionary process.
Page 14
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The subject amendments fulfill the City Council goals for providing and nurturing a high quality of
life for all; building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere; intentionally embracing and
anticipating the future; equitable prosperity for all; working together cooperatively and respectfully
with each other, staff, and all stakeholders; and actively seeking and respectfully considering all
public input. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and
the objectives of the Development Code. These City-initiated amendments to the Municipal Code
and Zoning Map will facilitate development while retaining compatibility and character of the
existing Camino Predera neighborhood.
CORRESPONDENCE:
The subject amendments were advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspaper, vacant properties in Camino Predera were posted, and all owners of property in Tract
10035 and within 660 feet were mailed notifications. During the preparation of this report, staff
received correspondence regarding these amendments. Staff has also received correspondence
during this overall process, e.g., following one of the workshops. The correspondence is attached.
Correspondence received after the report is prepared will be provided accordingly.
Exhibit A – Correspondence
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution No. 22-28 Recommending Approval of Municipal Code Amendment
DRC2020-00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315
Exhibit C - Draft Ordinance No. 2022-xxxx Approving Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-
00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315
Exhibit A
10/5/22, 9:21 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/1
Camino Predera update
Renee Massey <reneemass1952@yahoo.com>
Wed 09/08/21 09:29
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
Cc:Suzanne Buquet <suzanne@chasjoseph.com>;Chuck Buquet <chuck@chasjoseph.com>;Catherine Weber
<ccourserweber@hotmail.com>;Lynn Massey <pfsmass@yahoo.com>;Eric Weber
<ericweber@earthlink.net>;Danny Dera <danny.dera@gmail.com>;Thomas Reyes
<thomas.reyes@dxc.com>;Susan McNinch <mcninch10@gmail.com>;Christopher Nosrat
<christopher.nosrat@gmail.com>;Jim Scott <jimbo6641@hotmail.com>;porschefixer@roadrunner.com
<porschefixer@roadrunner.com>;Renee Scott <reneescott1@me.com>;Maria Alamat
<maria.alamat@gmail.com>;Rakan Alamat <rakanealamat@gmail.com>;Robert Waddell
<robert@waddellpainting.net>;Tom Snedeker <tbsnedeker0930@yahoo.com>;McIntosh, Anne
<Anne.McIntosh@cityofrc.us>;Burris, Matt <Matt.Burris@cityofrc.us>;Gillison, John
<John.Gillison@cityofrc.us>;H. Lynn Massey <pfsmass@gmail.com>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hey Mike,
Hope all is well. Just want to say again that your efforts at the 4th Workshop were appreciated
and we are looking forward to the progress regarding the new standards. We realize it's time
consuming and not easy.
So, we are just checking in to see how things are progressing. We also are prepared to
preview the standards before the last (5th) workshop as was agreed as necessary at the 4th
workshop. Reviewing the revised new standards in advance, prior to Anne's approval will make
the process agreeable and final. The final workshop (#5) will allow all the other stakeholders to
view the changes and be satisfied. We are all looking forward to when this will finally be
resolved.
In the meantime, stay well.
Renee and Lynn
10/5/22, 9:12 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20220923004.19&Print 1/1
Re: Camino Predera addendum - Height of homes.
Catherine Weber <ccourserweber@hotmail.com>
Fri 03/18/22 09:43
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mike,
I want to make sure that my comments about the height of the homes on Camino Predera were
captured. I believe that the 10 feet is the maximum that this street can tolerate to s ll allow for view
sharing with those on the North side and above.
Again, thanks for listening.
Sincerely
Catherine and Robert Eric Weber
7997 Camino Preder
310-916-1134
From: Catherine Weber
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>; Van der Zwaag, Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>
Subject: Camino Predera
Mike,
I would like my comments added to the Public Record concerning Camino Predera Hillside Development
Standards.
We (my husband Robert Eric Weber and I, Catherine M. Weber) are very concerned about the proposed
side setbacks of 5/10 feet. We believe that these lots are large enough to have 10/15 - the size the
Patel's proposed in their plans that were approved by the Planning Commission. This will greatly affect
our home if the lot to the east of us is developed. The plans that were submi ed by the lot owner had a
3-car garage directly to the east of us with only 5 feet from our front yard. The development of these
mansions on both sides of us dwarf our home. The homes should be in line with the size of the homes
that exist today.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
ques ons.
310-916-1134 is my cell.
Sincerely
Catherine and Robert Eric Weber
7997 Camino Predera
March 18, 2022
Dear Michael Smith,
First and foremost, I want to thank you for your time and professionalism at Thursday night workshop.
My name is Sofia Vega, my husband and I purchased Tract #10035, Lot 13 on the South Side of Camino
Predera. I am writing to respectfully request consideration of the building height (currently 30’ max)
Issues of high concern are the following:
Conceding to a 30-foot height down to a 14-foot height has already been excessive. I strongly
disagree in reducing the height any further, adding unnecessary building construction cost to
people in the south side.
Soil Disturbance / Higher Cost
Minimizing soil disturbance should be kept to a minimum to minimize risks and preserve native top soil.
Working with the natural contours of the site. If we are required to drop the site even more, we will
need a deeper foundation (excessive excavation/grading) and larger retaining walls, resulting in
incurring a higher cost. This will lead to a financial hardship for many of us on the south side.
Flat Roof
Due to the possible height restrictions, some of us will have no alternative but to build a flat roof. A flat
roof has an average lifespan of only 10 years and is susceptible to water damage, resulting in higher cost
for all.
Water Damage and Drainage
Building on a lower spot means that water is more likely to drain toward a home. This will lead to a
lifetime problem for the homeowners. Our most crucial and concerning issue is water damage and
drainage. Water is often the most difficult site issue to understand and predict. Surface water,
including runoff from rain can cause flood and water damage to the property.
Side Setbacks to remain at 5/10
Allowing to maximize the square footage in width, helps keep cost down by minimizing building further
back and down the slope.
It will be shameful to force the south side to incur all the added cost. If these new demands are
enforced, my family and I will unfortunately need to reconsider our building plans or selling the lot due
to the greater cost we will incur. I ask you to please carefully consider our concerns as your decision will
determine critical outcomes for many people on the south side.
Respectfully,
Sophia Vega
10/5/22, 9:11 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20220923004.19&Print 1/1
Camino Predera
Catherine Weber <ccourserweber@hotmail.com>
Fri 03/18/22 09:39
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mike,
I would like my comments added to the Public Record concerning Camino Predera Hillside Development
Standards.
We (my husband Robert Eric Weber and I, Catherine M. Weber) are very concerned about the proposed
side setbacks of 5/10 feet. We believe that these lots are large enough to have 10/15 - the size the
Patel's proposed in their plans that were approved by the Planning Commission. This will greatly affect
our home if the lot to the east of us is developed. The plans that were submi ed by the lot owner had a
3-car garage directly to the east of us with only 5 feet from our front yard. The development of these
mansions on both sides of us dwarf our home. The homes should be in line with the size of the homes
that exist today.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
ques ons.
310-916-1134 is my cell.
Sincerely
Catherine and Robert Eric Weber
7997 Camino Predera
10/5/22, 9:13 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20220923004.19&Print 1/1
PDF Pictures
H. Lynn Massey <pfsmass@gmail.com>
Sun 03/20/22 17:11
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
2 attachments (11 MB)
2021 View 8, 10, 14 feet.pdf; Staff renderings 14 feet.pdf;
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mike,
Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Attached are 2 pdf's
One is 15 pictures of the really affected lots on our street.
And 2 are of the city's renderings of the views and height of 14 feet.
I am so sorry about my loud "stop interrupting" during the session.
But the lack of respect really gets to me.
God Bless - H. Lynn Massey
Patel's Lot (#16) 8 feet, 10 feet, 14 feet. View from the corner of Predera Ct. & Camino Predera
Met with City Council Members: 4/20/21 @ 8am = Spagolo. 4/29/21 @ 1pm Hutchison.
5/4/21 @ 2pm Kennedy. 514/21 @ 5pm Scott. All of them saw the view pole and verified measurements.
Across the street from Weber's (#24) Lot [Similar to the Cities rendition]
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet'
Buquet's Lot (# 30) view at
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Buquet's Lot (#30) view at
81, 10', 14' (Patel's Lot)
View from the Scott's Lot (#33) The Hill
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
View from the Nos rat's Lot (#34)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
View from the Reyes' Lot (#36)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
-
View from the Reyes' front door (#36)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Street View from Snedeker's Lot (#37)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Front Door View of Snedeker's Lot (#37)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Street View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #4
8 feet, 10 feet, 14 feet
Street View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #4
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Street View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #3
8 feet, 10 feet, 14 feet
mW --
• •k )
Front Door View of Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #3
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Front Door View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot 2
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
Sta4 rendr-r*i ngs aF komes onrini Pr e-Aera
He.- L1'bOV e i u rb 6-t I L~ N P-~
i+ Pt2.
ScXff cxdenn35 OY h6 me-C-) on COLMIiA lo Py'(Atf c~-
cx~S6ve- L urb at
Pt. -
2132.6
10/5/22, 8:27 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/1
Camino Predera proposed developments
Lisa Agraso <l_agraso@hotmail.com>
Mon 03/21/22 18:24
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Mike Smith and Mr. Tabe VanderZwagg,
We are wri ng to you concerning the street we live on, Camino Predera. We are specifically concerned about the
proposed Hillside Standards and would like to express our thoughts on the standards that are being proposed.
We believe that the height of these homes is concerning for those on the south side and the north side. The
homes have always been ered so that view sharing was available as evidenced by the homes on Red Hill Country
Club Drive above Camino Predera. As an owner on the south side I love walking up the street to see the
view. With these developers building mansions and 3 story homes it is impossible to enjoy the view. That is why
we believe that the homes should be limited to 10 feet. There are many other lots available throughout Rancho
Cucamonga where these types of homes should be built and fit in be er, ul mately this is not the appropriate
neighborhood.
Addi onally, there are homes that are being proposed that have only 5 feet side setbacks. This is outrageous. This
does not emulate the current community. This community is not your typical track housing development where
you can reach out and touch your neighbor. It appears that these developers are a emp ng to build on every
square inch of the lots with such small side setbacks as to be negligible. There is a house proposed to the west of
our home that proposes exactly that. Which is why we believe that the side setbacks should be at 10/15 feet,
and echo the current trend.
Without some protec on from the standards, the developers will make Camino Predera just another
neighborhood with windows that must be kept closed because the neighbors are so close. We are asking that
you please stand with the homeowners and help preserve and maintain our community. To many of us that live
on neighborhoods where hills make it difficult to maintain maximum privacy due to the geography, we are
desperately asking that you don’t take away even more of our privacy by allowing these builders to have these
absurd setbacks.
Sincerely,
Lisa and Chris an Agraso
7979 Camino Predera
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
10/5/22, 8:30 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/3
Re: New Standards (DRAFT) for Development on Camino Predera
Chuck Buquet <chuck@chasjoseph.com>
Mon 03/21/22 11:37
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
Cc:dannv.dera@gmail.com <dannv.dera@gmail.com>;Lynn Massey <pfsmass@yahoo.com>;Renee Massey
<reneemass1952@yahoo.com>;Suzanne Buquet <suzanne@chasjoseph.com>;Christopher Nosrat
<christopher.nosrat@gmail.com>;bill.mcninch@worleyparsons.com
<bill.mcninch@worleyparsons.com>;Susan McNinch <mcninch10@gmail.com>;bsnedeker@greatdane.com
<bsnedeker@greatdane.com>;Tom Snedecker <bestvehiclereg@yahoo.com>;Thomas Reyes
<thomas.reyes@dxc.com>;judum4@gmail.com <judum4@gmail.com>;lsturbo@gmail.com
<lsturbo@gmail.com>
WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mike:
Thanks again to you and Tabe for your time with the neighborhood Thursday evening for discussion of
various draft Camino Predera Development Standards. As an initial follow up to this latest workshop, I
have attached the draft Technical Standards for Development on Camino Predera document that I
shared with you and attendees at the meeting and as per your request.
As discussed at this most recent workshop, the handout you provided was not consistent with the
prior exhibits and understanding of the neighborhood representatives for a number of items as listed
on your handout. Regrettably, we spent the vast majority of the allotted one hour meeting time
discussing the 14' height limit listed on your handout, which is the key concern as relates to view
sharing for this neighborhood as it has been a consistent design for the majority of the Red Hill
viewshed hillside areas. I will follow up with providing comments addressing the various draft Special
Technical and Special Design criteria listed on your handout and prior iterations to help with
clarification as may be needed concerning these draft development standards. I believe it very
important to identify those draft Special Technical and Design criteria items listed where there is
general consensus, versus those items simply opposed by those who want to develop and sell the lots.
I also found it most interesting to hear our newest property owner who purchased the former Bardos
lot using the term "share" several times during comments offering her objection to any limitation on
the height of her future home built on the lot. The "not building in a hole" comment has likely been
shared by one of the development proponents, and as I stated, the roadway was cut across the side of
an existing natural hillside, and no "holes" were created during the roadway grading and construction.
Red Hill has a view share precedent that has been established over the many years of government
control of the viewshed hillside areas, and any indication that the City does not have a view protection
ordinance appears disingenuous in recognizing what has been an established pattern of view sharing
development well predating the City's Hillside Ordinance which requires development that respects
the natural terrain and use of reduced building profiles that follow the contours of the natural hillside
areas. Thanks for your help with this.
10/5/22, 8:30 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…2/3
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:53 AM Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us> wrote:
Hello, all
Attached are the DRAFT standards that will apply to development on Camino Predera that we will
be discussing during the meeting this Thursday, 03/17. The draft standards are the derived from the
previous workshops. The items in the green boxes are the new or revised standards. The red text in
brackets identifies the current standard for reference.
If you have any questions, let me know.
Thanks.
Mike Smith
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4317 (direct)
(909) 477-2750 ext. 4317
michael.smith@cityofrc.us
--
10/5/22, 8:30 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…3/3
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
8816 W. Foothill Blvd #103-376
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-481-1822
www.chasjoseph.com
Our Office Hours are Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM. Closed on Fridays.
***********************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.
Special Technical Standards for Development on Camino Predera
Items needing to be incorporated into Exhibit A:
Grading Planning Commission review will be required under any of the following
circumstances:
Natural slopes are 15 percent or greater on all or part of the property, or
Cut and fill depth is 8 feet or greater, or
Combined cut and fill is 1,500 cubic yards or greater, or
Cut or fill encroaches onto or alters a natural drainage channel or watercourse, or
When a Minor Exception is filed concerning Hillside Development Ordinance
requirements applicable to the project, or
As deemed necessary by the Grading Committee or Planning Director.
A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required where
improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined
cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet
signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading
or building permit.
Story Pole A Story Pole, independently verified as to correct height shall be installed on-
site and protected by the contractor during the entirety of construction on the lot. The
City will require an independent height survey be conducted prior to the framing
inspection to ensure compliance with the approved height and prior to final permit
inspection.
10/5/22, 8:25 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/2
Camino Predera
Renee Massey <reneemass1952@yahoo.com>
Mon 03/21/22 13:05
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>
1 attachments (26 KB)
img20220321_12591342.pdf;
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hey Mike,
Thanks again for organizing and leading the discussion at last weeks workshop (3/17/22). It
would be unusual to have consensus on ALL the items on the proposed standards, but I think
it's pretty good that there are only a few points where we cannot agree. I do believe we all
agreed though to include the previous Garage Doors and Garage Dimensions sections that
did not appear on the most current DRAFT.
So, for the record, Lynn and I believe:
1. The building height on the South side of Camino Predera should be <10 feet. This would be
consistent with the Danny Dera project (Lot 3) and with the Semler/Adams project (Lot 4,
currently under construction). This would also be consistent with the Bardo's project (Lot 13)
which was just under 10 feet but was not recommended for approval by the planning staff due
to other reasons including side setback recommendations, and subsequently not approved by
the Planning Commission.
Due to the nature of the hillside and the history of this particular area, the <10 feet maximum
would allow for view sharing with those on the North side of Camino Predera and the homes
above on Red Hill CC Drive.
2. The Side Setbacks should be a minimum of 10/15 feet. This would be consistent with the
Danny Dera project (Lot 3), the Patel project (Lot 16), and the Semler/Adams project (Lot 4,
currently under construction). This would also be consistent with the Bardo's project (Lot 13)
which was not recommended for approval by the planning staff who recommended the side
setbacks be increased to 10/15 feet. The recommendations were not applied and the Planning
Commission subsequently denied the project.
3. The Front Setbacks should be a minimum of 37 feet. Currently, it states 37 plus/minus 5
feet. I understand the plus/minus is "in the code" however, code items are changed and
adjusted often. Thirty-two feet from curb is essentially twenty feet from sidewalk to the closest
building wall plane on the front elevation. We don't believe that is appropriate for single family
residences. It's too close.
As a matter of record, it is also important to note that over the years, Planning Commissioners
and Councilmembers alike have recognized this area to be one of Rancho Cucamonga's
special gems and have expressed that the code be adjusted for this specific area.
10/5/22, 8:25 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…2/2
Also, please include in the Standards, the document provided by Chuck Buquet regarding
Grading and Story Poles. (see attachment)
Sincerely,
Renee and Lynn Massey
10/5/22, 8:29 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/2
Re: New Standards (DRAFT) for Development on Camino Predera
Saurabh Patel <lsturbo@gmail.com>
Mon 03/21/22 12:02
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Michael, I am okay with these changes except for the top of curb height of 14' on the south side of
camino predera. This height is far too low for a standard home. This is a custom area where the
typically top plate height should be a min. of 10' which would not allow for a standard roof pitch. The
maximum top of curb height should be 22' which is a 8' decrease from the existing standards which is
more than reasonable. Having too low of a building height will make the rest of the block look very
awkward and will diminish the value of the community. Please include this as a comment for public
records.
Thank you for your time.
Saurabh Patel
Kirit Patel
and Sneha Ice
Lots 14, 15 and 16
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:53 AM Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us> wrote:
Hello, all
Attached are the DRAFT standards that will apply to development on Camino Predera that we will
be discussing during the meeting this Thursday, 03/17. The draft standards are the derived from the
previous workshops. The items in the green boxes are the new or revised standards. The red text in
brackets identifies the current standard for reference.
If you have any questions, let me know.
Thanks.
Mike Smith
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10/5/22, 8:29 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…2/2
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4317 (direct)
(909) 477-2750 ext. 4317
michael.smith@cityofrc.us
--
Saurabh Patel
10/5/22, 8:34 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/2
Camino Predera Hillside Development Code Recommendations
Reyes, Thomas <thomas.reyes@dxc.com>
Mon 03/21/22 09:36
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
Cc:Tom Snedecker <bestvehiclereg@yahoo.com>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning, Michael.
Thank you for allowing us to par cipate in the discussion related to development codes for the Camino Predera
lots. We have owned our property at 8072 Camino Predera since 1996 and all of us in this neighborhood
purchased our property because of the view and beau ful hillside landscape. Please consider our concerns below
and add it as part of your recommenda ons to the Planning Commi ee for approval.
Everyone should be aware that building a house in a flat, deserted area is much different than building a house on
a hillside. Our community is figh ng to preserve the natural contour and environmental landforms that makes
our loca on a highly desirable place to live. Everyone who’s planning to develop new housing projects within our
community should be sensi ve to preserving the local views of our environment. The designs for all new projects
should conform with the landform rather than adjus ng the landform to fit the house, such as filling the lots with
dirt to raise their eleva on to increase their views. Also, please observe that all the plans being presented to the
city are just empty shells. A er the building is completed, these owners will start plan ng trees which will further
diminish our views.
Our mee ng on 3/17/22 is a clear indica on that there’s a great divide on ideas between the exis ng
homeowners and those who wish to build their new homes. In all our mee ngs, it is clear that the conten ons
are about the building height and setbacks for lots 10 through 16. I’m now wondering if we should allow different
codes for these lots as opposed to the steep hillside lots on lots 1 through 9. I don’t believe there are any exis ng
conten ons on these lots right now and therefore proposing we finalize those codes for those lots separate from
the exis ng highly contested lots. I’m proposing that we follow the design codes implemented south of Red Hill
Country Club Drive and north of Camino Predera as it is a great precedent for the steep hillside proper es. The
loca on I’m referring to are 8535 to 8559 Red Hill Country Club Drive wherein the building height was set at no
more than approximately 8 . I have a ached pictures of the proper es for your reference.
I’m also a aching pictures of our sideyard and the vacant lot next to us. You will note that the builder of our
property excavated several feet of dirt to insure my neighbors in the back do not lose their views. I’m also
a aching addi onal photos of our backyard to show the result of this design in rela on to insuring our neighbor ’s
view is not obstructed. If the new owners are willing to work with us, I’m sure there’s a way to make this a win-
win for everyone. Unfortunately, what I o en hear from the new lot owners is “I can’t” live with the building
height as opposed to finding a way to ensure that all our concerns are understood and respected.
Thank you for taking the me to insure our concerns are noted and please help us preserve our re rement homes
for us to enjoy the view and landscape.
Sincerely,
Tom and Alona Reyes
8072 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga
(909) 208-8411
10/5/22, 8:27 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/1
Camino Predera Standards
Suzanne Buquet <suzanne@chasjoseph.com>
Mon 03/21/22 16:25
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon Mike;
As I tried to briefly recap on Thursday for our new Neighbor Sophia, so that she would have a bit of context other
than what she has heard from the development side of the street, we have been standing up for 20 + years to try
and stop more McMansions from going in.
It simply makes no sense to have anything higher than 8 or 9 feet as that just wipes everything out for most of the
original older homes that were here first. That said, I would be willing to compromise on the under 10 feet just to be
able to move on from Adams and Patel's nastiness and bullying. In spite of Mrs. Adams spin, facts do matter.
As it is 10' would essentially wipe out our view. Anything higher is simply going to wipe out what is left of view
sharing for any of us who have been here since the beginning and are not in it for profit, unlike the folks who want no
rules.
As these are going to be custom homes and in consideration of our unique neighborhood, and all the walkers and
people who live in this area and enjoy the views, 10 and 15 minimum side yard setbacks are the only common sense
thing that will also offer any hope of a view share for us and the existing neighbors. We don't need more rooftops and
blue skies.
We love our City and would at least like to see a bit of it here and there in our own neighborhood.
Thanks for your help as always,
Best,
Suzanne Buquet
NOTE: The information transmitted in this message is intended to be confidential and for the sole use
of the individual (s) or entity designated as the intended recipient. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or
duplication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
advise the sender immediately and delete it from your computer immediately. Thank you.
10/5/22, 8:28 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/1
view from 8080 Camino
Thomas Snedeker (GD) <tsnedeker@vvgtruck.com>
Mon 03/21/22 14:22
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
Cc:reneemass1952@yahoo.com <reneemass1952@yahoo.com>;Suzanne Buquet
<suzanne@chasjoseph.com>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mike, I appreciate you and Tabe taking the me and interest in our concerns of the future developments on
Camino Predera. At last Thursdays mee ng, most of the me was taken up over the view height standards. I, like
most all of the residents on the north side, proposed a height limit much less than the 14' specified on the
proposal sheet. We ranged from 8'to below 10' from curb to top of the project. I have a ached a photo of the
Adams home in progress of being built from the UPPER level of our home at 8080 Camino Predera. It is not
completed yet and Mr. Adams tells us that the roof construc on will be a flat roof and could add about 2'more in
height to the overall height from the curb. The plan calls for, I believe, about 9' although we would like to have
seen an even lower height . As you can see by the picture, that if the 14'rule was adopted it would eliminate all
but the sky. I say this also, because there are more lots to be built adjacent to this one to the east. I hope this
gives you all a be er perspec ve as to why we are so concerned. Thank you for your considera on.
'
10/5/22, 8:26 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z…1/1
Camino Predera Workshop
Robert Waddell <robert@waddellpainting.net>
Mon 03/21/22 21:54
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Mike-
Thank you for all of your time and organization at the workshop on Thursday night.
There are a few key points that I would like added to the record.
I really hope that there is a way to get a set of standards that will keep everyone content.
1- The Building Height Maximum should be LESS THAN 10 feet. For the south side
2-The Side Setbacks should be set at 10/15 feet.
Another thing that I feel could help avoid the conflict and the appeals would be a case case by case or lot by
lot collaboration. After a few standards are modified. This would be helpful to the neighbors. The New Build
and the City Council could possibly help reduce the delays...
I would also like to see if I could view the plan in review for the Last Empty Lot on the Northside of Camino
Predera.
"Tave" mentioned that he would email it over to me.
Thanks again for your valued time in these matters
--
WADDELL WEBSITE
10/5/22, 10:24 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?Print 1/1
8081 Camino Predera
United Harbour Logistics || Jay La <uhlsys@gmail.com>
Thu 09/29/22 14:23
To:Smith, Michael <Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open a achments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Michael,
Just got your notice on my property. I hope this meeting is good
news, as I have been waiting about 2 years to start building. My
Neighbor, next to me, bought is 6 months prior to my purchase was
able to build with finish date end of 2022..but his process also
dragged on and on.
I hope to be a resident of Rancho within 2023. If I can offer anything
to get the plan approve, let me know.
--
Best,
Jay La
UNITED HARBOUR LOGISTICS LLC - FMC NO.024776N
12403 CENTRAL AVE # 368, CHINO, CA 91710
TEL:626-507-8042 Cell:626-652-5170
uhl@shipuhl.net * uhlsys@gmail.com * shipuhl.com
RESOLUTION NO. 22-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 TO AMEND
TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE NEW
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADOPTING ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT DRC2022-000315 THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL
PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG CAMINO PREDERA AND PREDERA
COURT, A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/PACIFIC ELECTRIC (PE) TRAIL
AND WEST OF CARNELIAN AVENUE/CUCAMONGA CREEK, IN THE
LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE; APNS: 0207-631-01 THROUGH -11 AND
-14 THROUGH -25, AND 0207-641-01 THROUGH -15. THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15161(B)(3) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A.Recitals.
1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared a set of amendments, as described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code
Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are referred to as “the Amendments”.
2. On October 12, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on October 12, 2022, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The Chapters of the Municipal Code subject to Municipal Code Amendment
DRC2020-00004 are as follows: Chapter 17.38 (“Overlay Zoning Districts and other Special
Planning Areas”) to add the purpose, applicability, and optional development standards of the
Camino Predera Overlay; Chapter 17.114.010 (“Special Area Map”) to add the Camino Predera
Overlay to Figure 17.114.010-1; and Chapter 17.114.050 (“Overlay Zoning District Descriptions)
to add the description of the Camino Predera Overlay as shown in Exhibit “A”.
b.The parcels that are subject to Zoning Amendment DRC2022-00315 are
identified by APNs: 0207-631-01 through -11 and -14 through -25, and 0207-641-01 through -15.
Exhibit B
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-28
MCA DRC2020-00004 AND ZMA DRC2022-00315 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
October 12, 2022
Page 2
For reference purposes, a list of the parcels affected by Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-
00315 is also included in Exhibit “B”.
c. The City prepared the Amendments, which are included as Exhibits “A” and “B”
to this Resolution and are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full;
d. Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 and Zoning Map Amendment
DRC2022-00315 conform to and do not conflict with the General Plan, including without limitation,
the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof (as amended), and will provide for development in
a manner consistent with the General Plan;
e. The Planning Commission finds that the Amendments provide options for
facilitate the development of new, and modifications to existing, single-family residences, and
similar related structures, on thirty-eight (38) vacant or improved properties located along Camino
Predera and Camino Court (collectively, Tract 10035); and
f. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s
local CEQA Guidelines, these Amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The
proposed Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the
environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR for the City’s General Plan, nor would the
project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the
evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with Planning Department staff’s
determination that the Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and that
the Amendments are exempt from environmental review. The Planning Commission has
considered the proposed exemption as described in the related staff report and oral reports
related to the Amendments provided to the Planning Commission by staff.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment
DRC2020-00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315 as indicated in the Draft
Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Bryan Dopp, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-28
MCA DRC2020-00004 AND ZMA DRC2022-00315 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
October 12, 2022
Page 3
ATTEST:
Matt Marquez, Secretary
I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of October 2022, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 TO AMEND
TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE NEW
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADOPTING ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT DRC2022-000315 THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL
PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG CAMINO PREDERA AND
PREDERA COURT, A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD/PACIFIC ELECTRIC (PE) TRAIL AND WEST OF
CARNELIAN AVENUE/CUCAMONGA CREEK, IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE; APNS: 0207-631-01 THROUGH -11
AND -14 THROUGH -25, AND 0207-641-01 THROUGH -15.
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15161(B)(3) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
GUIDELINES.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to amend existing development
standards by creating optional standards that would apply to the development of new, and
modifications to existing, single-family residences, and similar related structures, on thirty-eight
(38) vacant or improved properties located along Camino Predera and Camino Court (collectively,
Tract 10035). In addition, the City proposes to create an overlay that identifies these properties
along Camino Predera and Camino Court subject to the new optional development standards.
2. The City is proposing to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code and Zoning Map for
these properties that will be subject to these amendments. The City has prepared two
amendments for this purpose consisting of Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 and
Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315 as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereafter
referred to as “Amendments”).
3. As shown in Attachments “A” and “B”, the Amendments propose to amend Title 17
of the Municipal Code to establish new optional development standards and the Zoning Map to
incorporate them into a new Zoning Overlay (hereafter “Camino Predera Overlay”), respectively.
4. On October 12, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date.
5. On November 16, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on the Amendments, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and
written evidence regarding the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date.
6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council
during the above-referenced public hearing on November 16, 2022, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Per Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the
Municipal Code and Zoning Map “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the
amendment[s] are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation
programs.” These include the following Land Use and Housing goals:
• Land Use LC-1.2 Quality of Place. “Ensure that new infill development is
compatible with the existing, historic, and envisioned future character and
scale of each neighborhood.”
• Land Use LC-1.9: Infill Development. “Enable and encourage infill
development within vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design
requirements and potential incentives.”
• Land Use LC-1.11: Compatible Development. “Allow flexibility in density and
intensity to address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new
development with adjacent context.”
• Housing H-5.1: Development Review Processes. “Consider new polices,
codes, and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays,
provide information early in the development process regarding development
costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed
public services and improvements.”
• Housing H-5.4: Development Standards. “Evaluate and adjust as appropriate
residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures
that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing.”
b. The Amendments identified herein have been processed, including, but not
limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
c. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the
City’s local CEQA Guidelines, these Amendments are exempt from environmental review
pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
The proposed Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the
environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR for the City’s General Plan, nor would the
project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the
evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning
Department staff’s determination that the Amendments will not have a significant effect on the
environment and that the Amendments are exempt from environmental review. The City Council
has considered the proposed exemption as described in the related staff report and oral reports
related to the Amendments provided to the City Council by staff.
d. The Amendments are consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and
implementation programs of the General Plan, including without limitation, the Housing and Land
Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General
Plan.
e. The Amendments do not conflict with the policies and provisions of the
current General Plan or the Hillside Overlay. The subject properties are not within any Planned
Community, Specific Plan, and/or Master Plan.
f. The City Council finds that the Amendments serve the important purpose
of providing sufficient development standards that will apply to single-family residential
development on thirty-eight (38) vacant and developed properties located along Camino Predera
and Predera Court (Tract 10035). The City Council further finds that establishing new optional
development standards and the Camino Predera Overlay protects the public health, safety, and
welfare.
g. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of
the City Council.
3. Determination on Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004. Based on the
findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City
Council hereby approves Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 set forth in Attachment
“A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The City Council hereby amends the Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 17.38
(“Overlay Zoning Districts and other Special Planning Areas”) to add the purpose, applicability,
and optional development standards of the Camino Predera Overlay; Chapter 17.114.010
(“Special Area Map”) to add the Camino Predera Overlay to Figure 17.114.010-1; and Chapter
17.114.050 (“Overlay Zoning District Descriptions) to add the description of the Camino Predera
Overlay as shown in Attachment “A”.
5. Determination on Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315. Based on the
findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City
Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC202-00315 as set forth in Attachment “B”,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
6. The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map. The parcels that are subject to
the amendment are parcels identified by APNs: 0207-631-01 through -11 and -14 through -25,
and 0207-641-01 through -15. For reference purposes, a list of the parcels affected by Zoning
Map Amendment DRC2022-00315 is also included in Attachment “B”.
7. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published within in the manner required by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day
of November 2022, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
ATTACHMENT “A”
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004
17.38.090 Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District is to identify the
geographical area of developed and undeveloped properties that are located on the north and
south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have street frontage along Predera Court
that is subject to the City’s optional development standards.
B. Applicability. The Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District is generally located north of
Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in
the Low Residential (L) Zone as depicted on the zoning map. The Camino Predera Overlay Zoning
District applies to areas of the City indicated on the zoning map by the reference letter “CP” after
the reference letter(s) identifying the base zoning district.
C. Development standards. Properties designated Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District
shall comply with the City’s hillside development regulations outlined in chapter 17.52 (Hillside
Development) except as noted in this chapter.
Standards Optional Standards
Maximum Minimum
Building Height
-South side of Camino Predera 14 feet1 None
-North side of Camino Predera 25 feet None
Building Setbacks
-Front None 37±5 feet
-Rear None 20 feet
-Side None 5/10 feet
Excavation/Fill 8 feet None
Wall Height
-Screen (Freestanding) 6 feet None
-Retaining 8 feet None
1 - As measured from the curb at the street;
D. Plan Check/Zoning Clearance. Applications for new residential construction for properties
within the Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District utilizing the optional development standards
are exempt from the Hillside Design Review process and shall only be subject to ministerial
review per Section 17.16.030 (Plan Check/Zoning Clearance)
Chapter 17.114.050 Overlay Zoning District Descriptions
The Camino Predera (CP) Overlay Zoning District establishes optional development standards
for 38 (thirty-eight) developed and undeveloped properties that are located on the north and south
sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have street frontage along Predera Court, a
residential neighborhood generally located north of Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail
and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone. Optional
development standards that will apply to these properties are identified in Chapter 17.38. A
complete listing of additional development regulations for Camino Predera is included in
Chapter 17.52 (Hillside Development).
[[addition of Camino Predera Overlay Zoning to]] Figure 17.114.010-1
SEE ATACHMENT “B”
ATTACHMENT B
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2020-00315
The Camino Predera Overlay applies to the following 38 parcels (identified by APN):
0207-631-01 0207-631-14 0207-641-01
0207-631-02 0207-631-15 0207-641-02
0207-631-03 0207-631-16 0207-641-03
0207-631-04 0207-631-17 0207-641-04
0207-631-05 0207-631-18 0207-641-05
0207-631-06 0207-631-19 0207-641-06
0207-631-07 0207-631-20 0207-641-07
0207-631-08 0207-631-21 0207-641-08
0207-631-09 0207-631-22 0207-641-09
0207-631-10 0207-631-23 0207-641-10
0207-631-11 0207-631-24 0207-641-11
0207-631-12 0207-631-25 0207-641-14
0207-631-13 0207-641-15