Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-10 - Agenda Packet Supplemental - PC-HPCLazy Dog Restaurants, LLC Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2018-00471 Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 2018 Project Overview • Project Description: A request to modify Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00457 to lengthen weekend operational hours and expand the sale of sealed beer and wine to takeout orders at an existing restaurant located at 11560 4th Street • Applicant: Golden Property, LLC for Lazy Dog Restaurants, LLC • Zoning Designation: Industrial Park (IP) District, Industrial Commercial (IC) Overlay • General Plan Designation: Industrial Park `• �r� a �� ��:-. � � ", a •� ,:�,; �,�,�.e��i � ,��"_ - r ij yi. rBit ��, Site Plan -; ,- - pl as 11 '� 1 •/!l111 � �1fl11f�. awn 00 f!!Y! IOiifiiaf��e! iB ' VV �111f ` q f q O - a -- N 4 woaeo fA-0022 Floor Plan Site History • September 28, 2005 • Design Review shopping center DRC2004-01013: Approved existing • October 12, 2011 • Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00457: Approved on - site consumption of wine, beer and distilled spirits. • Design Review DRC2011-004560: Approved Construction of existing Lazy Dog restaurant Existing vs Proposed Existing Proposed Monday -Friday: 11:00am- 12:00pm Midnight Monday -Sunday: Saturday: 10:00am- Hours 11:00am- 12:00pm 12:00pm Midnight Midnight Sunday: 9:00am- 12:00pm Midnight Location of Alcohol Table & Existing Table, Existing Bar & Sale Bar Host Desk Location of Alcohol On -site Only On -site & Takeout Consumption ;;;;, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Analysis • Parking Impact: • Proposed project only changes operational hours & services offered • No modifications to the existing exterior or square footage of the site or the surrounding area • Alcohol Security: • Lazy Dog staff will continue to verify customer's age by requesting government issued identification • PD has no concerns with proposal but project is conditioned to provide outdoor security cameras, subject to PD inspection • ABC does not requirements have any additional licensing Public Correspondence • Project was advertised as a public hearing with a regular page legal advertisement the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. • Staff did not receive any correspondence from the public. Environmental Assessment • Exempt under CEQA Section 15301- Existing Facilities • Proposed only modifies the services hours of restaurant operation • No substantial evidence the project significant impact on the environment provided & the may have a Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission: • Approve Conditional Use Permit Modification DRC2018- 00471 Condition of Approval A minimU,-,-, of Q surveillance cameras shall be installed at the exterior of the business, with the intent to capture digital images of subjects entering, exiting, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic approaching the business. The placement and exact number of cameras shall be determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department (San Bernardino County Sheriff) prior to Of GertifiGate Of eGGGUPaRG�Y(. The applicant shall contact th Rancho Cucamonga Police Department for an inspection o the security cameras. commencement of proposed activity. Camino Predera Home Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672 Planning Commission October 10, 2018 Project Description • Applicant: Andresen Architecture • Entitlements: Hillside Design Review (DRC2016-00672) • Project Description: Proposed 6,175 square foot custom residential home and 674 square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on an existing residential lot. • Project Size: 12,044 square feet (0.28 acres) lot • General Plan Designation: Low Residential • Zoning: Low (L) Residential District Hillside Overlay District (HOD) �y �' k- a .� -i � •' 4 ' a� � ie_ -i 1Y�� Est �r. I�.�I - P�� 01 r. •`' b Project Site ,ry iY I � A _ •.. "° NORTH Project Overview (Main House) • Lot coverage: 34% proposed vs. 40% permitted • Setbacks: Proposed Min. Required Front 53 37 Rear 41 20 West (Left) 10 10 East (Right) 6.8 5 • Height: 30 feet proposed vs. 30 feet permitted (from adjacent finished grade) • Front yard: 52% proposed vs. 50% required landscaping Project Overview (Accessory Dwelling Unit) • Setbacks: Proposed Min. Required Front N/A N/A Rear 5 5 West (Left) 20 5 East (Right) 18 5 • Height: 15 feet proposed vs. 16 feet permitted • Size: 674 square feet vs. 1,200 square feet (maximum per AB2299) Accessory Dwelling Unit Existing Residence Existing Residence Existing Residence ,'- ----------- Project Design • Contemporary design theme, which includes smooth stucco finish, metal railings with glass panels, and copper roofing over entryway. • Design also incorporates stone veneer, decorative wood trims and fascia, and decorative garage doors. • Flat roof design with variation in wall plane and parapet heights. • Compatible with the neighborhood, which architectural styles. surrounding houses in the consist of a variety of Project Design (Cont.) • Partially subterranean garage requires adjacent grade to be lowered, significantly reducing the overall height of the house. • Construction of terraced, retaining walls to minimize alterations of hillside conditions at the perimeter of the site, while maintaining a useable rear yard. • Wall development heights and separation distances meet all Code standards. 30' high maximum building "envelope" Existing house (west) East Elevation Accessory �.z dwelling unit 'o_.1 Neighbor property deck area -- West Elevation Existing house (east) Accessory dwelling unit Neighbor property deck area 30' high maximum building "envelope" wt CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON Public Noticing & Correspondence • Public notifications for all public meetings were conducted in accordance with the Code requirements. • The following public meetings were held in which members of the public attended and provided comments: • Neighborhood Meeting (May 22, 2018) • Design Review Meeting (June 19, 2018) • Staff received written correspondence from 3 residents in the neighborhood and a phone call from 1 resident. All correspondence and the phone call were in opposition to the project. Loss of View Concerns Residents are concerned that the size of the proposed house and ADU would block the neighbors' view overlooking the hillside. • The Development Code does not include a requirement to preserve views. However, the applicant has designed the residence to limit view obstructions as much as possible. • The project complies with the 30 foot height limit in the Hillside Overlay District. • The house is lower in height relative to the houses to the north and east. • The rear setback is rough 41 feet, exceeding the minimum 20 feet setback. • The design of house includes architectural elements (split pads, subterranean garage, etc.) that reduces any potential visual impact to surrounding properties. Story Poles • The applicant installed story poles at the project site. The story poles visually demonstrate the height of the proposed house. • The heights of the story poles were verified as accurate by the civil engineer for the project, Bonadiman & Associates, Inc. • The City's Engineering Department reviewed the methodology and equipment used for verifying the pole heights and deemed the process acceptable. 0 Lovi CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -` f a North ,:.,. -Tom West CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) Residents provided statements indicating that the design of the home was in violation of the CC&Rs for the neighborhood. • CC&Rs were recorded for the 38 lots along Camino Predera. • The CC&Rs prohibited the owners of a property within the tract from constructing any improvements that would unreasonably obstruct the view from any other lot in the neighborhood. • The City Attorney reviewed the CC&Rs and determined the City has no obligation or standing to enforce the CC&Rs. f Neighborhood Meeting Public Notification Residents raised issues with the Neighborhood Meeting notification radius and the square footage of the home listed in the public notice. • The applicant mailed out notifications for the neighborhood meeting in accordance with City policies. Notices were mailed out 12 days before meeting date. • Floor areas of the proposed house and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) were stated as 3,496 and 496 square feet, respectively. Floor area square footages were based on non -livable areas and not the total square footage. Design Review Meeting • In response to resident comments, the Design Review Committee requested that the applicant provide additional sections • The intent of the new sections was to further show the scale and massing of the residence compared to existing residences in the neighborhood. • The new sections show the heights of the house as well as the heights of adjacent homes for comparison. Line of sight from neighboring property Existing house (north) :.. Existing grade/ground level Existing house (west) . L__ Garage North -South Section `-- -MEMOj.NUMMOMI 11, un jai, East-West Section 30' high maximum building "envelope" Sidewalk at Street Environmental Determination This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section: • 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Public Art This project is exempt from providing public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. • The proposed project is a single-family residence. Residential projects with a density equal to or less than four (4) dwelling units per acre are exempt from the public art requirement. Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Approve Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Sage Alta Loma Assisted Living/Memory Care Planning Commission Meeting October 10. 2018 J 9-7 Project Summary • Applicant: Jeffrey DeMure + Associates, for Willis Development • Project Proposal: A request for site plan and architectural review: • Demolish three existing single-family residences and accessory structures • Develop a two-story, residential care facility • 88,896 square feet with 79 assisted living units and 26 memory care units (105 units total). • Project Size: 3.11 acres of Land • General Plan Designation: Low Residential • Zoning: Low Residential District I I I I aI I I I I I 1 I I i I I I I I I 1 `l 1 1 I —1- Project Site •E n H 79THSTREE7 m. ua ++ m vnwm•z.wa i - use[%:.y.xFp• I Y I I I I I I I w � �`YwT VY� Y4 6 nT�t Entitlement Applications Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-01024 Design Review DRC2017-01023 Tree Removal Permit — DRC2017-01022 Existing Site Conditions I - _ MlT 4mil. r I I L ITS, ' �r r 14. us M1 fur +A�f_L- � • 1 l " l 61 .. I s.[ I• t �l 1 � i ».. ,. Ir - rt_ �II 1 4 nl �= s - • u l r c � •"rt Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-01024 Assisted Living Facilities require a CUP to ensure adjacent land use compatibility • Facility is designed to provide full care • Services: Laundry, housekeeping, medication management, dining, dressing, special diets • Amenities: Bistro, fitness center, theater, card room, and family and group dining rooms • Memory care is located on the lower, walk -out level for safety purposes Design Review DRC2017-01023 Site Plan M un•como—� xavwnutem SRE F1 AN KEY NOTES O. -- . - 1-1.sIE LL tlBGOVlgE] liB1EM1IX1 MIM01FTE ©EVeR({ENLY aOOf 901iO WN188TULCD At6ln pa.P MCP Y EL pF FLIPC41A406R)IOEA p,FA9 %p•, EDLtB] put4lpfL`gWB19UflF1LE rTYF[;ALi Oapcf]N(:pE*F PDFVLl1t pSttCOMCRETE 9OFVu]L% pt.'T'6S SL11MHUC%veal Q>a araL�%•swcE :lY %LTC'T94'.LL Wg1[1q ]p.LF ® �6%N'Q TYPU.I NIPNf89M(f HH:IPICV%1ECl1MCN1Ii ®cIT 5L%lDl®It I~Mj t115I1NGCPNDH 9LUIifYOGC Nu.. ®YY OfiBRII[AFIE RAMI9I BO% 'Mr i WII IiIIW( Q4Q11W!I M D3I1%XYJ PFRY:: YxLL W/]tDFE GP Ground/Walk-Out Floor 3 Main Floor LYZ s 2W7 �m 4 T T n, IF Y � �y I ri1 �d.d � i F IS i I Upper Floor 2W _ --- �— �►---� --- _-- ,w r i a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Roof Plan First Generation Elevations T EAST E_EVATi0P; IMINE11A FI•PIP'.� 4gA"lI.1' Proposed Elevations MOMAX _--�ROf10 NET ■ not m Q EAST ELEVATION nor Q SOUTH ELEVATION Proposed Elevations r O NORTH ELEVATION 1 19TH STREET © WEST ELEVATION Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-01022 • Total of 9 heritage trees on -site • Arborist determined that 7 trees are not good candidates for preservation • 2 remaining Mexican Fan Palms in the parkway • Condition: Good health • Location: Located in the parkway and not an approved street tree • Outcome: COA that requires the Mexican Fan Palms be evaluated and possibly relocated on -site rW - pppp- Q 7. Ir <_. n ZX CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Perspectives CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Meetings • Goal: Present the project and opportunity for questions and input • Meeting: August 28, 2018 at Sports Center • Key issues raised: • Adequate parking • Ambulance service calls/noise • Exterior lighting levels • Two-story building and impacts to views Fiscal Impact Analysis • Existing Land Use (Residential): • Approximately $850 annually in annual City General Fund revenues • Proposed Land Use (Assisted Livina): • $28,000 in annual City General Fund revenues Recommended Actions Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Determine the project is exempt from CEQA under Categorical Exemption 15332 (in -Fill Development Projects) • Approve three requested entitlements: • Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-01024 • Design Review DRC2017-01023 • Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-01022 ;' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING At its regular meeting held on October 10, 2018, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission continued the following item(s) to its meeting to be held on October 24, 2018. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2018-00459 —JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES —A request to establish and operate a personal and recreational vehicle storage facility on 3.81 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District, on the south side of 8th Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, located at 10013 8th Street—APN: 0209- 201-20. Related file: Design Review DRC2017-00448. Staff has prepared an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2017-00448 — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES — A request to construct a personal and recreational vehicle storage facility on 3.81 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District, on the south side of 8th Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, located at 10013 8th Street — APN: 0209-201-20. Related file: Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-00459. Staff has prepared an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said continuance was passed by the following vote Ayes: GUGLIELMO, MACIAS, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY Noes: NONE Absent: NONE Abstain: NONE Date: October 11. 2018 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Susan Shaker, declare as follows I am the Acting Executive Assistant II of the Cityof Rancho Cucamonga; that at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on October 10, 2018, said public hearing was opened and continued to the time and place specified in the NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE shown above; and that on October 11, 2018, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., a copy of said notice was posted in a conspicuous place near the door in which said meeting was held. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on October 11, 2018, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Lx�—� Susan Shaker Acting Executive Assistant 11 P-e (ey d cn October 10, 2018 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Re: Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672-Andresen Architecture - Proposed 6,175 square foot residential home and 674 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit on a 12,044 square foot lot in the Hillside Overlay District. MO-C,&w Chairman Ociweaa and Members of the Planning Commission, My husband Lynn and I have lived on Camino Predera now for 22 years and have been deeply involved in the process of the development of this area. On June 19th, a DRC meeting was held regarding this project. At that meeting we learned that the actual size of the project had been misrepresented to us at the neighborhood meeting the previous May. That was very disappointing. And even though we, and other neighbors continually repeat the same areas of concern, projects continue to be approved and our concerns ignored. In 2000, the Concordia project of the development of 21 homes was approved by the Planning Commission, against strong objections by the Red Hill neighbors. Lynn and I appealed based on the Hillside Ordinance and the CC&R's... and the City Council granted our appeal. In 2004, the Stachoviak project was also approved by the Planning Commission, we appealed... and the City Council granted our appeal again based again on the city ordinance and CC&R's. The City Council based its decision on substantial evidence and specific four points of conclusion which is documented in the Staff Report dated July 21, 2004, referenced and read in the letter from Chuck and Suzanne Buquet, which I will include in this letter but not repeat. a) That the Red Hill area exhibits the distinctive residential character of the early development of the community b) That the proposed design does not enhance, nor continue, the existing residential character of the Red Hill area c)That the proposed design does not fully address the hillside setting of the neighborhood, nor the standards and guidelines nor the hillside development ordinance, and d) That the future development of Red Hill should present design features and scale that are in keeping with the historic character of the surrounding area. Now it might be argued tonight, that this project fulfills many of the requirements. We argue .... it does not. It is part of the record that during the discussion that evening in 2004, the council members were in agreement that the Hillside Ordinance guidelines, which they said were not met, also argued that the "line of sight" be clarified... actually, as Councilman Gutierrez stated, he thinks we need to set a "line of sight" ordinance. According to page 288 of the Staff Report..."The Development Code does not include a requirement to preserve views." So, fourteen years later, we still have no ordinance and no clarification. We bring this up also because the argument that staff, including staff attorney, is making ... is that the city has no obligation to enforce the CC&R's. We don't disagree... but, the city does recognize the CC&R's as a recorded document (page 288 of Staff Report) that establishes restrictions... and the city should also recognize the obligation to include such restrictions in the planning process. We should also note that CC&Rs is a contract. With any contract, violations to the covenants are enforceable in court. We have consistently, over the years brought these concerns to the planning process, experiencing a fight all the way. The CC&R's clearly state in Section 2.04 Under View Obstructions. "no vegetation, improvement, or other obstructions shall be planted, CONSTRUCTED, or maintained on any Lot in such location or of such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other Lot in the Project. Based on those two points, "of such height" and "unreasonably obstruct", we again implore the members of the Commission to recognize that even though the city has maximum height limits and no ordinance to preserve views, it does not mean that this project (or future projects) should ignore the CC&R's, but could work together to achieve the character of the Red Hill area. Another area of concern is the "Second Dwelling" as was advertised on the Neighborhood Meeting notice. The CC&R's Section 2.02 (Buildings) specifically state, " No Dwelling Unit shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain in any lot other than one detached Dwelling Unit designed to accommodate no more than a single family ...... Therefore, the "Second Dwelling" proposed for the project should not be approved. We are aware of the State of California Assembly Bill 2299, however, the language for 65852.2. (a) (1) states, "A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones." May is not Must. The State has legally permitted them, but not required them. Also, the city's development standards (17.100.020) regarding second dwelling units specifically states that "the unit shall provide one enclosed parking space per unit. The enclosed parking space shall not be located in the required front or side yard setback for the primary unit". (see Figure 17.100.029-1) According to page 295 of the Staff Report tonight, I do not see a driveway directly to the secondary unit, so the plan has not been amended to comply with that standard. We are somewhat perplexed, to find out that what was presented to us on May 14`h at the Neighborhood Meeting .... a 3,498 SF residence and 496 SF Second Dwelling was really a 6,175 SF house with a 674 SF dwelling... which, by the way exceeds the city's maximum of 640 SF (just saying). This fact is noted in Staff's report, page 289... the fact that staff determined a different floor area than presented by Andresen Architecture. Why the huge discrepancy? In closing, the CC&R's is a recorded document, a recorded code in San Bernardino County. The City of RC has acknowledged its existence by referencing the CC&R's in past projects. And since this project violates some of the provisions of said document, as well as some of the development code provisions, and the Commissioners have the Authority to Enforce ( Code 17.08.020), we respectfully request the Commissioners to not approve this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Renee and Lynn Massey rewd October 7, 2018 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Re: Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672 — Andresen Architecture — Proposed 6,175 square foot residential home and 674 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit on a 12,044 square foot lot in the Hillside Overlay District Dear Chairman Macias: This correspondence is to share our continuing disappointment with what seems a most unfortunate loss of the original spirit and intent of the Hillside Overlay and Hillside Grading Ordinance. In our case, what was originally designed and contemplated to be a custom lot subdivision of split level homes designed to fit the natural contours of this unique hillside area has devolved into an array of oversize, large mass and profile structures that are representative of the "Not This" exhibits contained in the early Hillside Grading Ordinance. If the lot coverage is not enough of an issue, there apparently is no requirement to provide for greater side yard setbacks as stated and contained in the original Hillside Overlay criteria. This has resulted in new homes being approved on view lots having only 5' and 10' side yard setbacks that are then filled with landscape that blocks out any opportunity for view through these areas. In each case, these large structures were presented as being their dream home, yet not a single one of them lives in any of these residences. The last resident to do so rented out rooms to a wide array of interesting individuals over the course of a few years. Some of them remained vacant and were subject to being broken into and converted into grow houses until discovered by law enforcement. This is what we have been dealing with for the better part of the past 20 years, and for the most part likely due to people not being able to sustain the expense necessary to maintain these large edifices. The process involved with this particular house has been complicated by virtue of an architect that didn't properly notice existing property owners, misrepresented the actual size of the structure to the neighborhood and has been somewhat disingenuous in his dealings with the neighborhood concerning the design, size and grading involved with this contemplated residence. The granny flat is of additional concern to the neighbors as it is prohibited by the CC&Rs and has the potential to become a nuisance if rented out by the property owner as was the case with the other residence that became a neighborhood boarding house. The City Council sustained an appeal of a residential design many years ago that was for a residence that was not as impacting as the contemplated design, mass, and profile of this structure. Their basis and findings at that time were the following: 1. That the Red Hill area exhibits the distinctive residential character of the early development of the community, and 2. That the proposed design does not enhance, nor continue the existing residential character of the Red Hill area, and 3. That the proposed design does not fully address the hillside setting of the neighborhood, not the standards and guidelines nor the hillside development or ordinance, 4. That the future development of Red Hill should present design features and scale that are keeping with the historic character of the surrounding area. One of the key quality of life attributes with living in the Red Hill area is the opportunity for view enjoyment along the slope areas that afford for hillside design that respects this unique character element with contemplated residential design for this hillside community. Regrettably, the staff report seems to dismiss Loss of View associated with development of the newer houses along Camino Predera and as contemplated with this structure design and lot placement. Staff attempts to counter the view loss with comments about the structure being in compliance with the Maximum building height limit allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. They further state that that the height limit and design features of the project reduce any potential visual impact to surrounding properties. The report goes on to state that changes made to the structure "reduced the height of the overall structure by 6 inches", which I would submit was insufficient for this unique hillside area. The staff report states elsewhere that the proposed height of the structure is lower in height than the existing houses north and east of the residence, yet fails to disclose that the house to the north was built substantially higher than approved plans provided for and substantially impairing the view of the house behind it. The builder was not required to correct the additional roof height, and the resident behind has had to live with the result, and will be impacted by the contemplated structure as well. The report makes reference to requirements that are intended to be supportive of view preservation, such as with encouraging the use of open view fencing to reduce view obstruction, yet the experience has been that landscape planted in the side yard setback areas curtails the view. With all due respect, very substantial view obstruction could have been avoided if the pad elevation had been shifted a few feet further down the slope as was suggested at the Neighborhood Meeting back on May 22, 2018. The architect's response was to show where he could shave off a few inches here and there on the rolled up set of plans that weren't shared for review until after the meeting. 2 This shift would allow for the desired view share sought by the neighbor behind this lot and would reduce the size of the driveway planned for this structure. It is most unfortunate that these hillside design projects place the existing residents in the unenviable position of having to present issues associated with view impact, and as has been the case in order to seek view share in this very unique hillside area. It is not the neighborhood's fault that an application for a single family residence apparently filed in 2016 wasn't revealed to the neighboring property owners until a May 2018 neighborhood meeting. As there are approximately 15 undeveloped lots that have the potential to impact the views of the uphill properties across the street, the City really needs to rethink its process and develop a review strategy that allows for a win -win view share result with any contemplated residential design in this unique hillside area. We are not opposed to development of the vacant lots. We are opposed to the potential loss of view sharing opportunity that was premium purchase price consideration for those who live on this hillside area. Thank you for your consideration and for your help with this. Chuck & Suzanne Buquet Lot 30