The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-11-13 Supplementals - PC-HPCPlanning Commission November 13, 2019 Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 Project:A request to construct a 4,118 square foot two-story,single-family residence along with an attached 771 square foot garage and 374 square feet of patios and porches on the 15,430 square foot project site Entitlements:Hillside Design Review DRC2017-00244 Minor Exception DRC2018-00473 Zoning Designation:Low (L)Residential District Overlay District:Hillside Overlay (HO)District General Plan Designation:Low Project Overview Background Information The project site is Lot 13 of Tract Map 10035 Tract Map 10035 was approved in March 1985 and comprises 33 lots As of 2019, 21 lots within the tract have been developed with 3 more lots having been approved for development 14 lots remain undeveloped, each of which is along the south side of Camino Predera The size of house along Camino Predera have generally increased in size over time from approximately 3,128 square feet in the 1980’s, to and average 4,237 square feet in 2010’s (this cumulative square footage includes house, garage, patios and porches) The current average cumulative building square footage along Camino Predera is 3,912 square feet The proposed cumulative building square footage of the proposed project is 5,263 square feet Location Site Plan 5’ 57’ 10’ 85’ Development Requirements Development Criteria Requirement Proposed Compliant? Front Yard Setback 37 feet 57 feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5 and 10 feet 5 and 10 feet Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 85 feet Yes Lot Coverage 40 percent 32 percent Yes Building Height Overall 30 feet 30 feet Yes Building Height at Curb Face 9’ Retaining Wall Height 4 feet max 5 feet Yes Cut/Fill 5 feet 11.5* Feet Yes *Grading in Excess of 5 feet Requires Planning Commission Approval 9’6’-5”6’-5” Approximately 20 residents in attendance Concerns Raised: 1.Building height as seen from Camino Predera 2.Built to minimum setbacks 3.Size of residence compared to older homes on the street Applicant’s Responses: 1.Lowering the residence would steepen the driveway to the point that it would be difficult to navigate 2.Reducing the width of the residence would make it difficult to construct a 3 -car garage Neighborhood Meeting June 10, 2019 Staff Comments Over the years the neighbors have raised numerous concerns regarding the development of the vacant lots along Camino Predera The concerns raised by the residents are related to the compatibility of the proposed homes with the existing neighborhood The major concerns raised by the neighbors are building height, building setbacks and building size Staff believes that while the project complies with the minimum development requirement of the project site,the building massing is out of keeping with the other residences along Camino Predera (Tract 10035)and it does not comply with the intent of the Hillside Overlay The proposed residence is constructed to the minimum 5 and 10 foot setbacks.Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a explicitly discourages this and recommends increased side yard setbacks to avoid the appearance of overbuilding of lots,among other design guidelines. (Continued) The project also does not fully conform with the General Plan Policy LU-2.4,which states that infill development should to “promote complementary infill development that contribute positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas.” The General Plan states that land use controls should include “development standards that will ensure that infill development is compatible with neighboring uses” While the project meets the current development standards,the proposed development requires discretionary review by the Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 17.16.140.B..1 and Section 17.122.020.G.i of the Development Code Staff must make findings as part of the project review,including a finding that a proposed project must be consistent with the general plan (Section 17.16.140.F.1) Staff Recommendation That the Planning Commission direct staff to return to the Planning Commission with a Resolutions of Denial for Design Review for DRC2017-00244 and Minor Exception DRC2018- 00473 for the following reasons: Project Conflicts with Intent of Hillside Design Guidelines:The project is proposed at the minimum side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet,which conflicts with the intent of Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.2.a,which explicitly encourages increased setbacks to avoid overbuilding and crowding of structures Project Is Incompatible with Existing Neighborhood:At 5,263 square feet,the cumulative square footage of proposed residence is significantly larger than the current average cumulative square footage of 3,912 along Camino Predera Project is Inconsistent with General Plan:General Plan Policy LU-2.4 promotes “complementary infill development…that contributes positively to the surrounding neighborhood.”As evidenced by comments received at the Neighborhood Meeting on June 10,2019,and considering long-standing concerns regarding the scale of other development proposed along the south side of Camino Predera,the proposed project does not meet the qualitative intent of General Plan Policy LU-2.4 Planning Commission November 13, 2019 Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20034 Design Review DRC2017-01011 Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-01003 Minor Exception DRC2019-00465 Project:–A request to subdivide a 3.59 acre project site into two (2)parcels in order to construct and operate a 72-bed residential care facility totaling 43,375 square feet,and to request an increase in height for walls/fences up to 8 feet total for security purposes Entitlements: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20034 Design Review DRC2017-01011 Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-01003 Minor Exception DRC2019-00465 Zoning Designation:Low (L)Residential District General Plan Designation:Low Project Overview Location Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20034 Development Requirements Required/Maximum Provided Complies? Building Setback (Haven Avenue)45 Feet 120 Feet Yes Building Setback (Banyan Street)35 Feet 121 Feet Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 22 Feet Yes Side Yard Setback 5 Feet 53 Feet Yes Building Height 35 Feet 20 Feet Yes Lot Coverage 40 Percent 25 Percent Yes Wall/Fence Height 6 Feet 8 Feet Yes, with Minor Exception Parking Requirements Artis Residential Care Facility Parking Number of Beds Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking 72 1 Per 4 Beds 18 42 Conditional Use Permit •Per Development Code Table 17.30.030-1,residential care facilities require approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate in the Low (L)Residential District •The proposed 72-bed residential care facility will be entirely dedicated to the care of persons with memory-related disorders •The facility will operate 24 hours per day,7 days per week •A total of 45 employees will be employed by the facility in 3 shifts •Based on the other senior care facilities operated by the applicant,they estimate that there will be approximately 3.6 calls-for-service per month from the proposed senior care facility Minor Exception •The project includes a request to construct up to 8-foot tall security fencing around the facility along with an 8-foot security wall around a backup generator. •The maximum wall/fence height permitted within the Low (L)Residential district is 6 feet. •The maximum wall/fence height permitted within the Low (L)Residential district is 6 feet.A total of 45 employees will be employed by the facility in 3 shifts. •Development Code Section 17.16.110 allows for an up to 2-foot increase in wall height subject to the approval of a Minor Exception. Approximately 15 residents in attendance •Questions Raised: 1.Security of Parking Lot 2.Security Fencing 3.Traffic (Chaffey College) •Applicant’s Responses: 1.Staff would be on-site 24 hours per day and would monitor any issues that arise on the project site. 2.The security fencing was necessary to secure the residents for leaving the facility 3.Traffic from Chaffey College was out of their control. Neighborhood Meeting September 5, 2019 CEQA Determination •The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 -In-Fill Development •The applicant submitted studies demonstrating that the project would not have a negative impact on Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, Water Quality and Biological Resources. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20034,Design Review DRC2017-01011,Conditional Use Permit DRC2017-01003,and Minor Exception DRC2019-00465 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions and Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission November 13, 2019 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW (MODIFICATION) DRC2019-00228 Project:–A request to modify Engineering Condition of Approval #2 related to utility underground for an approved 26-lot subdivision on 18.2 acres of land located on the east side of Carnelian Street and north of Hillside Road Entitlements: Hillside Design Review (Modification) DRC2019-00228 Zoning Designation:Low (L)Residential District General Plan Designation:Low Project Overview “Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Carnelian Street shall be undergrounded from the first relocated pole off-site of the north project boundary to the first pole off-site south of the project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first.” Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Hillside Design Review (Modification)DRC2019-00228 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval Planning Commission November 13, 2019 Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20006 Design Review DRC2018-00526 RedRock Development Scheu Management Company •Applications duly advertised for this public hearing •Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for review and comment on October 9, 2019 •City was informed that the CDs containing the IS/MND were missing information •New CDs prepared and circulated Project Review Background •The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a 30-minimum circulation period; •Staff requests a Continuance of the public hearing to December 11, 2019 Staff Request and Recommendation NEW CUSTOM HOME 8035 CAMINO PREDERA 4118 Sq Ft Living Area DRC2017-00244 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 DISCUSSION POINTS 1.HAS STAFF MISSED THE MARK IN ITS REPORT? 2.WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE APPLIED TO APPROVE THE SUBMITTAL? 3.WHAT ARE THE NEIGHBORS SAYING ABOUT THE PROJECT? 4.WHAT ARE THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROJECT AND HOW (TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE) HAVE THEY BEEN ADDRESSED? 1.SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.DESIGN FEATURES 3.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 5.CONCLUSION STAFF REPORT IS IT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION? SIZE LIMITATIONS BY SQUARE FOOT? SETBACKS? RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS? WILL OF THE COMMUNITY? CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS STAFF MISCHARACTERIZING THE PROJECT AND THEREBY MISAPPLYING THE CODE IN ITS REPORT? ZONING CODE?` DEVELOPMENT CODE? DISCRETION ? HOW IS DISCRETION TYPICALLY APPLIED? AN APPLICANT’S TOOLS FOR SUCCESS 1)PUBLIC POLICY 2)ZONING CODE 3)DEVELOPMENT CODE 4)DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES –USUAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES 5)ARE THERE NEIGHBORHOOD PRECEDENTS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR COMPARISON? WHAT IS IT AND HOW DOES AN APPLICANT APPLY IT? DEFINITION? STANDARDS? MEASUREMENTS? INTERPRETATION? SHOULD IT BE THE OVERRIDING FACTOR TO STOP DEVELOPMENTS? WHAT ABOUT SB330 –THE EMERGENCY HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019? WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? WHY SHOULD SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO ONE HALF OF ONE STREET BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION?? ANOTHER OVERLAY? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE FOR THE REST OF THE CITY? NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS •LOITERING, DRUG SALES, GROW HOUSES, BREAK-INS •INCREASED DEMAND ON POLICE AND FIRE RESOURCES •FIRES IN CONDO COMPLEX BY HOMELESS AND FIRE IN HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS IN TREES INCREASE DEMAND ON FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES •VANDALISM OF DERA CONSTRUCTION SITE •TRASH AND DEBRIS •DRUG PARAPHERNALIA DESIGN ELEMENTS 62’24’ •PUBLIC POLICY •STATUTES •LEGAL PRECEDENT In Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (April 26, 2016, B258459)a group of property owners filed an inverse condemnation action against the City based on the City’s planting of redwood trees on adjacent City-owned property, which trees obstructed the owners’ views of Beverly Hills, the Hollywood Hills, the Hollywood sign, the Griffith Observatory, downtown Los Angeles, and – on a clear day –Mount Baldy 50 miles away.The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that the allegations of impairment of view did not establish a taking under inverse condemnation law. Supreme Court of California Decided April 01 1898 --Kennedy v. Burnap, 120 Cal. 488, 488-89 (Cal. 1898). “The simplest rule and that best suited to a country like ours, in which changes are taking place in the ownership and the use of lands, is that no right [to views ] can be acquired without express grant of an interest in, or covenant relating to, the lands over which the right is claimed.” “A landowner does not have any right of access to air, light, or view over adjacent property” California Courts have uniformly held that a structure cannot be complained of as a nuisance merely because it obstructs the view from neighboring property. The matter is succinctly stated in Neil M. Levy, et. al.California Torts §17.05 (d) (Esthetic Preferences Not Protected): “Accordingly, a property owner may erect a structure on his or her land, and the law will not pronounce it a nuisance merely because it obstructs the passage of light or air to the adjoining owner’s building or obstructs the view.” VICTORIA GARDENS SECTION 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT A.Aesthetics 1.Scenic Vista Impacts: An analysis of scenic vistas is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR. The Project will result in the development of mid-rise structures that will partially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains that have been identified by the City as a scenic resource. This is a significant impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would be available to reduce the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains caused by the implementation of the proposed project. Since there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts related to the loss of this viewshed, impacts associated with this issue would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p.4.1-21). Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures available that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga can adopt or incorporate to reduce project related impacts associated with the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains which are a City-identified scenic resource. Therefore the impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Supporting Explanation: Currently,there are unobstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains available to passing motorists along 1-15 north and Victoria Gardens Lane.Existing views while travelling along Victoria Gardens Lane (south of the Main Street Area)include the roadway and parkway landscaping in the foreground,existing surface parking areas and existing commercial retail structures in the midground,and views of the San Gabriel Mountains in the background.With development that would occur under the Project,mid-rise buildings,associated parking structures/lots,and landscaping would be built and placed on the Project site.This would change existing views in the northern direction of the passing motorists heading east or west along Victoria Gardens Lane,south of the Main Street Area .(Draft SEIR p .4.1-13 ).The placement of a mid-rise structure would substantially block views (up to approximately 80%of that previously visible )of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north .Because previous views of the San Gabriel Mountains from this vantage point were unobstructed,and a loss of the majority of this existing scenic vista would occur (i.e .,approximately 75%of the ridgeline is fully blocked). Tract 10035 Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Section 2.04 reads in part: “…For purposes of this Section 2.04, an Owner’s “view” shall be deemed to exclude any line of sight from such Owner’s Lot which intersects or traverses any neighboring Lot which is of equal or greater elevation at the time the grading and initial construction of improvements of the Project is completed by Declarant. Each Owner, by accepting a deed to the Lot, hereby acknowledges that the line of sight from Lots in the Project at the time such Lots were originally offered for sale to the public by Declarant may be subject to subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings by Declarant or by other Owners pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Committee in accordance with this Section 2.04 and Article V of this Declaration.”[Emphasis added] Conclusion: 1.THE SUBMITTAL MEETS ALL THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE CODES 2.THE SUBMITTAL INCORPORATES NUMEROUS AND SIGNIFICANT MITIGATING FEATURES IN CONSIDERATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND THE SENSITIVITIES OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT 3.VIEW OBSTRUCTION CANNOT BE USED AS A FACTOR FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL ALTHOUGH THE SUBMITTAL IS SENSITIVE TO VIEW OBSTRUCTION. 4.CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY THROUGHOUT THE STATE STRONGLY ENCOURAGES NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF A CRITICAL HOUSING SHORTAGE (SB330 –THE EMERGENCY HOUSING ACT OF 2019) 5.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS HAVE BEEN OVERALL COMPLIMENTARY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND DESIGNS AND ALL OF THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS (EXCEPT ONE) SUPPORT THE PROJECT 6.NEIGHBORHOOD TRENDS AND PAST APPROVALS SUPPORT THE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT 7.DESIGN CONCEPTS USED HERE FOLLOW NUMEROUS PRECEDENTS ALREADY SET IN OTHER APPROVED HOMES BUILT ON PREDERA 8.THE SUBMITTAL ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT CONTINUING EAST WITH LOWERED PROFILES TO COMPLIMENT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY 9.EACH SITE IS UNIQUE AND NO ONE “COOKIE CUTTER” DESIGN CAN SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE REST. 10.APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE PROJECT BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION November 4, 2019 Mr. John R. Gillison City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Gillison, We are writing today in regarding to the street Camino Pradera in the Red Hill area of Rancho Cucamonga. We purchased a lot at 8089 Camino Pradera for the simple purpose of building our family’s dream home. Little did we know what was ahead of us. We are pretty realistic people and knew there would be hurdles to climb during this process, however it ended up being an almost unreal process that unless you lived it you would not believe it. We sold our home in Rancho Cucamonga, rented a home near the lot we would be building on and started the process. It became apparent pretty early on that there was a very small group of residents that “ruled” the process and the neighborhood. We met with the city numerous times and started work on our project. Each and every time we went to the city the planners would mention something about the “neighbors” referring to this group as if they pulled the strings. In the beginning we paid very little attention to it. We realized that there was something not quite right going on with “the neighbors” and the city. We had our required meetings where “the neighbors” were in attendance and spoke against us building. They did so in a manner that we felt attacked and bullied. Their points were unmerited to say the least and felt the city gave them way too much power and control. We have since attend other prospective land owners meeting and watch the bullying time and time again. During one of our meetings we had friends and family come to be a part of our process and for moral support. They still to this day talk about how bazar and mean these neighbors were. We had anticipated the process to take approximately 18,months to get through, needless to say it took 3 1/2 years. This by any city planning department standards to build a single family home is ridiculous. When the frustration from delay after delay became too much and it was apparent we were dealing with the city who was being inﬂuenced and “run” by these few neighbors we started contacting upper management. We did have a meeting with upper management and all of a sudden things started moving and getting handled. It appeared that whoever was louder was going to be heard so we decided to start getting loud and not taking a back seat to the bullies. The entire time during this process we felt our job was to adhere to the city planning guidelines so we could obtain the permit to build, it was not the case. We would meet city guidelines and then for some strange reason still have to go back and forth. The process caused a lot of ﬁnancial and emotional burdens on our family. We were living in a temporary residence where things were in storage and day after day, month after month, year after year we got no further. The small group of opposers were way out of line on many occasions. I met Renee and Lynn Massey at a meeting for the condo development at the Sycamore Inn. On this meeting they seemed very kind and we exchanged numbers. Shortly there after I received a very disturbing call from Renee. She tried to recruit me. In her words, “I seemed like a ﬁghter and they needed me on their side.” She went on to tell me in a detailed list how and what I needed to do to build my house. One of her requirements was to move my house down the slope. When I explained to her I did not want to live in subterranean home she became very defensive. She was very clear that she ruled this neighborhood and has been running people out of it for 20 years. I no longer wanted to engage in the conversation and was very upset. I told her I would have my husband contact her. My husband called her back and the just of the conversation was her telling my husband how to build our home. She even went so far to tell him she had contacted “OUR” architect and set up a meeting with him to discuss our plans and home. At this point my husband told her she had gone too far and she would no longer be discussing our home with people we had hired. She screamed at him and my husband hung up the phone. I wish I could say these were isolated events but they are not. We had considered going to authorities and attempting to get a restraining order or to ﬁle a nuisance lawsuit, because of their actions they were keeping us from enjoying our property. The neighborhood meetings were far from neighborly. The applicant was always bullied by the Masseys and Buquet’s. From what we witnessed they were running the planning department. When we or others met the requirements of the city the Massey’s and Buquet’s were provided a form to “state their opinion”. In talking to others and doing a bit of research it appears this type of platform given is isolated to this area of the city and is by far not common place in most cities. We have questioned numerous times why? Do these two opposing households “know where the bodies are buried?” The way things have been done in this area need to be stopped. Please let us know, the majority how we can live in peace and build our homes. We appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you as to how we can create a better process that is covered by the planning department and not a few neighbors. Regards, Aaron and Karlyn Semler Bardos Construction, Inc 595 Daley Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 City of Rancho Cucamonga Mayor Dennis Michael 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 595 Daley Lane, Kalispell, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 Office (909) 982-3831FAX License #505220 Multiple Award Winning Licensed and Insured General Contractor October 21, 2019 City of Rancho Cucamonga Mayor Dennis Michael 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor Michael, In my recent conversations with senior planning staff to include its new director and through staff’s release of their reports relating to DRC2017-000244 1 it appears that perhaps you or your office gave direction recently regarding a review of the Development Code as it may be applied to vacant lots or other submittals in the Red Hill community and more particularly along Camino Predera. That an instruction was given by your office was also confirmed separately by the consultant retained to assist in proposed changes to the Development Code. The instructions to planning staff have not been clearly stated in writing and made public and as a result of the lack of a clear public statement it is creating controversy amongst local residents. For instance, it appears some of the residents believe the city has already taken a position on future developments along Camino Predera that is arm in arm with them and advocates for their views prior to hearing from the many opposing stakeholders involved. A copy of a recent email between Lynn and Renee Massey and I is attached for your consideration in this regard. On October 6, 2019 a records request was submitted to the city for copies of any verbal or written communications that may have been made that would describe the communications to staff. Although summaries of verbal records are not provided in a record request, a response that no records exist was returned in reply to the inquiry.2 It is my understanding that staff intends to propose changes to the Development Code that will apply to the Red Hill community (or solely to Camino Predera alone) at the November 13, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Because that meeting date will quickly be upon us, I would ask that your office provide a written statement defining the instructions it gave on an urgent basis. I believe a clear statement will assist in limiting and reducing further controversy. Finally, and as a longtime resident of Camino Predera, I and other stakeholders involved in this process have come to believe the events occurring along the street both past and present are 1 A copy of staff’s report on DRC2017-244 referencing the instruction is attached to this correspondence. 2 A copy of the record request and the response is also included with this correspondence. 595 Daley Lane, Kalispell, MT 59901 (909) 981-6797 Office (909) 982-3831FAX License #505220 Multiple Award Winning Licensed and Insured General Contractor becoming more and more incredible and I believe increasingly newsworthy to the general city community as each day passes. I would like to thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss any of the items described in this letter in greater detail, I would welcome your call. Sincerely, BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. Paul Bardos, President Enc. Staff Report DRC2017-00244 Email Correspondence Massey Record Request R002083-100619 From:Paul To:H. Lynn Massey Cc:tabe.vanderZwaag@cityofrc.us; Mary Bcc:jadamsrancho@gmail.com Subject:RE: Plans Date:Monday, August 26, 2019 11:54:00 AMLynn and Renee, Mary and I hope your daughter will recover fully and there will be no further complications forher in the future. I read your suggestions below and found them not very helpful primarily because they arebased on subjective impressions of what you think can be done and because we have alreadydone all of those things you have suggested. For instance, we nearly doubled the distance ofthe house from the street than is required and have modified the 1st (upper) floor to narrow it. Those were done quite some time ago in one or more of the 5 submittals after we showed youthe initial plan. As for your thought about reducing the roof pitch, we’re at the minimum themanufacturer allows (4:12) before their warranty is void and a tile roof will leak. Theretaining wall heights of the design are at the maximum height allowed by the Code and thedriveway slope is at the maximum too. I have tried my best to encourage you to seek theadvice of a PE without success to make any contribution constructive and relevant to thetechnical requirements of the California Building and City’s Development Codes and tailored tothe unique topography of the lot. There are simply limitations on each of these lots individually that need to be taken intoaccount. There is no “cookie cutter” approach that will work on every lot. What was done onDanny’s lot can’t be done on ours and any comparison of our lot to his or the Galvan submittalis gravely misplaced. Unless you’re unwilling to consult with a PE to advise you I don’t see howwe can progress in this discussion past this point. As for the thought that we should reach out to others on the street, we did that with nearlyeveryone including you and Lynn and we heard no objections so we proceeded with another 5submittals over 2 ½ years that also went without comment. As for the thought that the city isin de facto agreement with you or that all of the neighbors agree with you, that would beanother mistaken assumption. There were many at the neighborhood meeting and at therecent development meeting that do not support your views. All of the neighbors immediatelyaffected by our submittal (except Chuck and Suzanne) are in support of our designs and inpoint of fact the Council denied your appeal of the Galvan residence as it did similarly with thepreceding three others filed in the past. As for a beta score, the answer would be less than 1. If I know something about your industry,I think it only fair that I ask you to learn something about mine if it is in fact your intention toparticipate constructively. Best, Paul and Mary Paul Bardos 595 Daley Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Paul@BardosConstruction.com www.bardosconstruction.com (406) 309-8080 (Office) 909 982-3831(FAX) (909) 241-7627 (Cell) Lic # 505220 B, C39, C20 Multiple Award Winning Builder This e-mail message and any attachments to this e-mail message contain confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are NOT the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hardcopy, download, copy, print or otherwise disseminate or retain this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact my office at the number above and notify me of the error by return e-mail. Please then delete the message erroneously received. From: H. Lynn Massey [mailto:pfsmass@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:38 AM To: Paul Cc: tabe.vanderZwaag@cityofrc.us; Mary Subject: Plans Paul, Thank you for understanding about my daughter’s cancer surgery. She is out ofICU… The Doctors removed a 9.5 pound mass and one kidney. We still don’t havethe lab results on the mass. It’s truly been a hectic 7-10 days. I admit I don’t know your business… just like you may not know what a suitable betascore on a balanced mutual fund should be for optimal growth with reduced downsidevolatility. I assume you agree… we are all experts in our chosen field. Here is what we know: ● Please be aware that the Galvan’s project appeal was upheld by the City Council.They required them to reduce the overall height of the home by six feet. ● Danny Dera’s (Lot 3) house design that is currently under construction gotneighborhood support and approval and the City Council were pleased with theneighbors support and his design. ● Also the development code workshops and the pending amendment could bestrong indicators that reduced profile is an issue supported by the City on CaminoPredera. Here are some suggestions: ● Please modify the design and placement of the home in order to reduce theproposed street profile. I’m not as schooled in design as you but I believe this can bedone easily by reducing or redesigning the roof to a lower profile design. NOT a flatroof, that doesn’t keep with the style. You could move the pad further down the hill and away from the street. You should be able to use reasonable cuts and retainingwalls to get this accomplished. ● We would like you to provide a profile design that allows for “view sharing” with theneighbors across the street; your home as is could be a standard for future homeconstruction. If you were building across the street from my home, I would lose a lotof my view. The “view sharing” I’m talking about should include City lights not justblue sky. I believe you can accomplish this by reducing the size of the structure,increasing side yard setbacks and lowering the roof profile as suggested above. Paul, I know you’re trying, but all of the nearby home owners who will be affectedmost by your design should be included in these emails. You took the time to come tous and I believe you need to take the time to go to them as a good faith gesture. As talented as you are and with your years of experience with design, I know with alittle more “view sharing effort” you could get almost close to an undisputed supportfrom the residents on Camino Predera. God Bless – Lynn & Renee Massey From:RANCHOCUCAMONGACA Support To:Paul Subject:[Records Center] Public Records Request :: R002083-100619 Date:Thursday, October 17, 2019 5:38:04 PM --- Please respond above this line --- RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of October 06, 2019, Reference # R002083-100619 Dear Paul Bardos, The City of Rancho Cucamonga, City Clerk’s Office received the below records request from you on October 06, 2019. "Any communication in any form to include written or verbal means between the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga as a governing body (or any of its members individually acting in their official capacity) and any Planning Department Staff member directing them in any matter regarding land use or developments along Camino Predera. This request is meant to include any direction given to Planning Staff to review the development code regulations as they may be applied to the properties located in Red Hill or on Camino Predera specifically." The City has determined there are no responsive documents to your request. However, for your convenience, you can view City Council Agendas, Staff Reports and Minutes for meetings addressing a Camino Pradera Project in 2018: November 2nd, November 7th, and December 5th, available through the link below to “RC Docs”: https://rcdocs.cityofrc.us/WebLink/?dbid=0&repo=RanchoCucamonga Videos of City Council meetings are also accessible online via this link: https://ranchocucamonga.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=4 Sincerely, City Clerk’s Office/Records Management Department records@cityofrc.us T. (909)-774-2023 Fax (909) 919-2952 To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center