HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-10 Supplementals Planning Commission
March 10 , 2021
DRC2018-00535
Project Overview
Project: A request for site plan and architectural review of a car wash facility
consisting of a two-story, 5,865 square automated "express" car wash, a separate
1 ,428 square foot detailing center along with shaded vacuum canopies on 1 .36
acres of land
Entitlements: General Plan Amendment DRC2018-00533
Zoning Map Amendment DRC2018-00534
Design Review DRC2018-00535
Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-00536
Tree Removal Permit DRC2019-00218
Zoning Designation: General Commercial (GC) District and
Low Medium (LM) Residential District
General Plan Designation: General Commercial and
Low Medium
Location
,t
1 K r
General P11 Zoning
Map
Amend entArea
Infrared Saun, ;
AW-
c � ftanchoiGu,Caf �c�ncla � - � ,.,.
q _ -
" Arraw:Route.`"'�'Arrow.Rout rra Rout r �w Rou
it a■a
C
j
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
r
� ��
MW
r
Street View
j 5
1
.'.i
Looking North from Arrow Route ;
� x
4
'`'�r x
�;:.,:�s
CITY
OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA
i
SIT 4p lop,
�rrr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
r
r
Design Overview
1 . The car wash and detail center will have a Tuscan architectural design theme
which will include the use of terra cotta tile roof, stone veneer accents and
recessed windows to replicate the design of the historic vineyards in the
area;
2. The covered vacuum canopies will consist of "alumawood" arbors, with bronze
framing and shade fabric with color accents;
3. The car wash will also include a monument sign and decorative grape arbor
with columns along the Arrow Route street right-of-way;
4. All equipment for the convenience store (A/C units, refrigeration units, and
venting) will be located on the roof of the building and will be screened from
view by the roof parapets.
Design Review Committee
• The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Oaxaca, Williams,
and Smith) on December 17, 2019.
• Staff presented the project to members of the Design Review Committee and
raised three design issues:
1 ) The use of stone veneer on the east elevation of the carwash building
2) The addition of stone veneer on the vacuum housing bases
3) The use of "alumawood" on the trellis structures
• The committee recommended that stone veneer be added to the east elevation of
the carwash building and that stone veneer not be added to the bases of the
vacuum housing bases. The committee was also accepting of the use of
"alumawood" on the trellis structures rather than real wood.
• The project was forwarded to the Planning Commission with the above design
recommendations. The plans before the Planning Commission have been updated
to reflect the recommendations by the Design Review Committee.
P4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
�•
West Elevation
x
fit., --
'a�
t.`��� � •y�. 1aa f�"ki _ wit - —- _y
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
r r�
North Elevation South •
1ru flaw
ffu
or
4
r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
� r�
OMICRETE 71LE R6af
2 P�F W 6Fd Fla W"C
�I COrr-nELE TILE R40F�.
LALTME I i kAr.ICE
OOVER —�
5 5 '
DECORATWE arumo sTtFQW
7251t8LUNhYs -- 'l ' ..
`.. oec0ax71tiE a x s2 srpE 1 —�� 1
..._f YIgG1D tiF{7E;'Rl1HER'Y D¢QR$ YEFIffR t L 1
PEODRATh+l a x!2
M/n70 JFMI WANff*r 000M
SOUTH ELEVATION � . WEST ELEVATION ceUL AREA
02 ftoaFHIGH W�wfr — ETETLKfK F0
{.ONCRfTE fR F ROOF
'4
FIN 6R
# 4
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
X.
� x
•jo
;� �- i .� ■
wc
F�
r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
� r�
General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment
• The project includes a request to change the General Plan land use and zoning
designations of one project specific parcel from Low Medium to General
Commercial (GC), and for two adjacent non-project specific parcels from Low
Medium (LM) to Medium (M) Residential;
• The land use changes on the two adjacent parcels are necessary to make up for
the loss of potential residential development on the project site;
• Recent California housing legislation states that a jurisdiction may not take any
action to reduce a parcel's residential density unless it makes findings that the
remaining sites identified in its Housing Element sites inventory can accommodate
the jurisdiction's remaining unmet RHNA by each income category;
• The subject 0.85-acre project-related parcel has a maximum potential residential
density of 6.8 units under the current Low Medium (LM) zoning designation;
• Rezoning the two adjacent non-project specific parcels of land (1 .21 acres) from
Low Medium (LM) to Medium (M) increases the potential number of dwelling units
by 7.26 units, which makes of for the potential loss on the project site.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
00•
Conditional Use Permit
• Carwashes are a conditionally permitted use within the General Commercial
District;
• The proposed carwash will employ approximately 25 full and part-time employees
with 7 persons on the largest shift for both the carwash and detail center;
• The facility will operate 7 days per week from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.;
• Customers will stay in their vehicle during the car washing and drying process.
Complimentary self-serve vacuums will be available upon exiting the carwash
tunnel.
Tree Removal Permit
• The project includes a request for the removal of 17 trees. The removed trees will
be replaced by 42 new trees as part of the proposed project.
Public Art
• The project is subject to the public art requirement and will be required to provide
public art on the project site with a minimum value of $6,374 or pay an in-lieu fee to
the City's public art fund, equal to the minimum value of art that would otherwise
be included in the development project.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Neighborhood Meeting
April 29, 2019
• No residents attended the meeting
Environmental Determination
• An initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared
by MIG, Inc and was peer-reviewed by Ascent Environmental, a consultant
contracted by the City to review the report;
• Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with
the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that
the project would have a significant effect on the environment;
• Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared;
• A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation
of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Approve Design Review DRC2018-00535, Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-
00536, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2019-00218 through the adoption of the
attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions.
• Recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2018-00533
and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2018-00534 through the adoption of the
attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions.
Alternatively, The Planning Commission may take the following Action:
• Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed General Plan land use and
Zoning Map amendments along with the related entitlements based on the
determination that redesignating a residential property to commercial at this
location is not consistent with the City's land use goals pursuant to the General
Plan.
Hillside Design Review (Appeal )
DRC2021 -00035
March 10 , 2021
Project Overview
Project: — An appeal of a Planning Director approval of a request to
construct a 3,300 square foot single-family residence with two separate
attached 2-car garages totaling 1 ,063 square feet on a vacant property of
15,601 square feet.
Entitlements: Appeal DRC2021 -00035
Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016
Zoning Designation: Low (L) Residential District
Overlay District: Hillside Overlay (HO) District
General Plan Designation: Low
8661
$559 � "-1a r°,C' } •' 7989 - e��c r f
i 5' ,8775 ' f
BSi7 �• f/.• .- t ti. r r - a007�7
iL
8034
r^— • - .• sot
8020
_ aazs
sss - �y�- i acz4 ri F
�T�VJ 1P
aox3
- w ►t f'ir. �`/�r 'l..e � a0z4 �5 � U�
8076
ae27. tir
Boz9 �F
.. 1 ,��.., 1 ^jy��y^ •8033 rr�T- l J 8032 ; 8031062
apse q A 8033 r `
8040
8042 4T '8066 1 ' 804t .: p�
� F 8044
604
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
r
Street View
Project Site Looking Southeast
CITY OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA
Background
• The Planning Director approved Hillside Design Review DRC2020-00016 on
January 25, 2021 . The approval was appealed by the appellant on February 3,
2021 , within the 10-day appeal period.
Appeal
The letter of appeal dated February 3, 2021 , outlines the following concerns related
to the approved project:
• That the project was not forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and
decision;
• That a neighborhood meeting was not conducted for the project;
• That precedent has been set by the approval of other recent projects with lower
building profiles (height) along Camino Predera;
• That the balcony/decks on the subject house potentially impact the privacy of the
adjacent residences;
• That the Conditions of Approval for the project require the planting of street trees,
potentially impacting views.
Analysis
Planning Commission Review: That the project was not forwarded to the
Planning Commission for review and decision.
• Development Code Section 17. 16. 140 (Hillside Development Review) states that
the Planning Director shall be the approving authority for Hillside Development
Review applications;
• The only exceptions to this requirement are 1 ) when excavation (cut) or fill of soil
that is proposed with the grading of the project site exceeds 5 feet in depth
and/or 2) if a related entitlement such as a Variance for a technical standard,
e.g. building setback or lot coverage, is necessary as part of the project scope;
• In this case, the subject project complies with each of the related Development
Code requirements for single-family residential development in the Low (L)
Residential District and the Hillside Overlay District.
Proposed Project Development Code25 Feet-3 Inches 30 Feet (maximum) Yes
Compliant?
Building Height (measure
Yes
Yes
10/15 Feet 5/10 Feet (minimum)
Yes
from finished grade)
Front Building Setback
(measured from the curb
at Camino Predera)
Side Building Setbacks
(measured from the side
property lines)
Rear Building Setback
(measured from the rea97 feet 20 Feet
property line)
Excavation (depth) Less than 5 feet - Yes
Retaining Wall Height3 Feet 4 Feet .
Yes
Lot Coverage (maximum) . : Percent Percent
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
� r�
Analysis
Neighborhood Meeting: That a neighborhood meeting was not conducted for the
project.
• The Development Code does not require neighborhood meetings to be
conducted as part of the development review process;
• It has been Planning Department policy to recommend that applicants hold a
neighborhood meeting for certain types of development review applications such
a residential subdivisions, shopping centers, and industrial buildings;
• The applicant determined that they did not wish to have a neighborhood meeting
for the project;
Analysis
Building Height: That precedence has been set by the approval of other recent
projects with lower building profiles (height) along Camino Predera.
• The maximum permitted height within the Hillside Overlay District is 30 feet
above finished grade;
• Development Code section 17.11 .020.D.2 states that the design of the structure should
give consideration to lot size and configuration to minimize the appearance of overbuilding
and the blocking of views;
• The approved project has a maximum height of 25 feet and 3 inches as
measured from finished grade and a maximum height of 13 feet as measured
above the top of curb on Camino Predera;
• The adjacent house to the east is approximately 9 feet taller than the approved
project. The most recent house to be completed along the south side of Camino
Predera is approximately 14 feet above top of curb;
• While the two most recent Hillside Design Review approvals along the south side
of Camino Predera have had a lower building height as measured above top of
curb, that height was based on topography, architectural style, and owner
preference.
Analysis
Balcony/Decks: That the balcony/decks on the subject house potentially impact
the privacy of the adjacent residences.
• The approved project includes a 406 square foot first-floor deck on the south
elevation, off of the living room; an 85 square foot second-floor deck on the east
elevation, off of a loft; and a 92 square foot second-floor deck on the south
elevation of the second floor, off of the master bedroom;
• The two smaller decks each include solid-walled railings and provide similar
views as a standard window;
• The Development Code does not include a restriction on the size or location of
balconies and decks provided that they comply with the maximum lot coverage
for the entire lot and building setbacks;
• There is also no City policy limiting second story balconies and decks related to
potential privacy concerns;
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
00•
Analysis
Street Tree Planting: That the Conditions of Approval for the project require the
planting of street trees, potentially impacting views.
• Tract Map 10035, includes a condition of approval requiring the installation of
street trees, i.e. trees along the public right-of-way;
• The Engineering Department's condition of approval included with the approved
project is a reiteration of the original street planting requirement;
• Staff notes to the Commission that the planting of street trees, when they are
absent along the street frontage, is a standard condition for all new development.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Design Review Committee Meeting (January 19, 2021 )
• The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 19,
2021 (Oaxaca, Williams, Smith);
• The Committee received staff's report and comments from the applicant and the
general public;
• Public comments received in support of the project focused on the projects
compliance with the requirements of the Development Code and the
appropriateness of the design within the context of the surrounding
neighborhood;
• Public comments received in opposition to the project focused on the height of
the structure in relation to the top of curb, potential loss of privacy, and the
potential impact on views from neighboring properties;
Design Review Committee Meeting (Continued)
• Committee member Oaxaca noted that the City does not have a view protection
ordinance. He also mentioned that the Development Code states that the
height of a building (house) shall not unduly block views and that the design of
the house shall minimize the blocking of views;
• Committee member Williams stated that a building height of 9 to 10 feet (above
the top of curb on Camino Predera) may be more appropriate;
• Both Committee members otherwise felt that the applicant had made significant
changes to the project during the design review process. They supported the
design and layout of the proposed residence;
• The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning
Director for review and action.
Site Plan
■
' f-'5I iurn STREW TRMS
4 E*Ta I_AL MWE:
LhG=K—RDEMN IRUrA
4 �r�
LFE# HT PSI P4 SAY EE IrFMiTWQCCE4
LE aAOEk�s.SSE "-0r
f�R��./ sEr:Pvte�E xTsaEcnolT o-o �
■ y �
C! .P CPoVEH
FROKSM FLOCK
77 EE��YfII��11 L. FErANh4W1LLL{7�HI} RI-'LL�,. ..�.
W PPIlCBIROfJT[1C,CK 'F DCSfgn'E
LENGTH OF WJLL4 S' iSFL
EEERKE0P1.1 EECTIOH {G}RITOPeRTV Lpe
*r FROPME6 E W LL NP
6 PTTlpyOH SLG,GK
[EI FRSSCEEFOoERN NLLLNL
R� TT(r!CL4Kx�e Od[ f to.ib LEN3T
%�LE1T1NHEF� CT10 o-0
LENGTH CF N}uL 91' ?'
9EE PAAE FI.5 EECTI7N Ql.
41'!�tr J2fr 6MfPER
Rmc'xT"I sc
's• f�J S
le
LET }#
PE
H6 EEVON THI LFE #r �,�* P�
tt]fd= ROfI F
RM
I LE W TM 47�
A LENSTM,7M M-B-4M
r
' o
+E}PRCPEATYL14E
FR9P'✓SEO Ef WJ1L t LVrA Eo9THB11 PEAIx9T.�2X.dM,B
V PFIEpEION EL€CIL —ME MD-SE-W -
N,u RlCGO
Le RCTN 1'6}LL m'
EEf xTa SEOTIO
77 55 FI
CITY OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA
4
a
:-
Li
0
II r■� Ils�ll■ I�l■l�� Do
PIP
7
o �
7- Z
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
r
r _
Ob�r
_ =;iiiir:lf'::. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111Ifflllllll,� r �
Il.. ``IN
�1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
r
r
r
LE
UNE 4F SIGHT W CAMN a ...�..l�..Y...�'.•�..,_,.,.
UFE OF SIGHT LOt+.iION A,S
--------------------------------------------- __ �.. ,.-
_- -� ----- -__ _--___ t..
i§
CITY
9ECilON 93 �
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Staff Recommendation
• Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the
applicant's appeal and direct staff to return to the Planning
Commission with the appropriate Resolution.
C'l3'yorA)ANCHO 4
DATE: March 08, 2021 PECK 21
TO: Tabe van der Zwaag,Associate Planner P1 7
FROM: Samiee-Camino Predera Vacant lot owner, (4 parcels,APN: 0207-641-06-0000 to 09),
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
SUBJECT: Response to Appeal for DRC2021-00035-RENEE MASSEY
We have reviewed the appeal letter dated 02/03/2021 and City recommendation letter for appeal items
and we are in support of the proposed development per approval 01/25/2021 for construction of a single-
family residence. It is our understanding that the design review committee reviews proposed project
architectures and site planning prior to provide recommendations to the Planning Director for
consideration.The above appeal serves only as interruption to the project process for permit and
construction.
We request the above appeal to be denied and we all move forward and welcoming a new development in
our neighborhood which will enhance the appearance of our community.
Sincerely Submitted,
Sa i,e,e,
nec dev@vahoo.com
909-374-0453
QlrkoF14
`a BAkD O S "°H
O"G4
January 21,2020 0 p�
v7�N)Nv
City of Rancho Cucamonga Via Email: Daniela.Rodrieuezaa.citvofrc.us
Attn: Planning Commissioners Certified Mail 7019 1640 00017256 7222
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I write this letter to provide the Commissioners with our objections to the proposed changes to
the Development Code authored by staff in DRC0004-2020 and that are recommended for
approval at the Planning Commission meeting on January 22,2020.
It has long been known that the views along Camino Predera from the lots in Tract 10035 are
amongst the best and most sought after in Rancho Cucamonga. It is no wonder that for 18 years
residents on the north side of Predera have repeatedly objected to construction on the south
side of the street to protect their views. Even a cursory review of the city's public records using
the search term"Camino Predera"at httos:iircdocs.cityofrc.us/WebLink/Welcome.asox?cr=i yields dozens
of resident's letters,staff reports,and records on appeals that over the period have
unquestionably illustrated and recorded the neighbors'concern over view obstruction. For
staff to omit this fact from its report and recommendations is none other than dereliction of its
duty to you,the Commissioners.
The recommendations of staff are also thinly veiled to circumvent California Public Policy and
case precedents to create a view easement over property owners on the south side of Camino
Predera for the benefit of owners on the north side of the street. Thereby staff wrongly
encourages you,the decision makers here,to enter into a private contract dispute for the
benefit of one party over another. The private contract was established through the CC&R's
recorded on the tract at its formation and to which all of the residents have agreed by their
property ownership.
Staffs recommendations that you intrude will also concurrently provide a public use of Camino
Predera as a view corridor without the requisite findings,notices,and hearings required to
create such things. Even if staff feigns ignorance or avoidance on their attempts at creation of a
view corridor or view preservation,their re-wording of the narrative and their selective
language describing the neighborhood issues does not alter the realities: their
recommendations are,in fact and at the very least,a taking without Just Compensation for the
depravation of property owners'rights for the trespass of another. Property ownership rights
are amongst the most cherished in our society and should never be abridged by government
without a substantive and overriding public need.
595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901
(909) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 962-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220
MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
In this case the public is not served because of the extraordinarily limited geography of the
proposed regulations and the extraordinarily few number of residents these proposed
standards seek to harm. Not only do these standards purport to regulate only one tract,but in
simple truth,as staff report clearly makes known,the standards will apply to only a subset of 14
parcels within that tract. Existing developed homes and entitled vacant properties remain
unaffected and rewarded for their development in time. This is also an ad hoc"application of
development standards that sets an unjustifiable precedent that should go hand in hand at the
very least with heightened scrutiny. Staffs recommended "solutions"are not proportional to
the impacts at issue and that they claim are in desperate and immediate need to be ameliorated.
Staff lobbies you now to approve of their recommendations because of a differing"topography"
and"development patterns"in the Red Hill community than exists in any other part of the city.
Yet this assertion is unfounded and unsupported by anything other than mere conjecture and
commentary. No study exists in support of the broad conclusion reached. Staffs only true
evidence is the strident cacophony of a select few neighbors.
Staff also implies that the Council is implicitly supporting their recommendations because of
their findings on the Galvan appeal,yet the Council's findings (that denied the Galvan appeal in
support of the Commissioner's approval) did not describe any such advisement to the Planning
Commissioners nor was any such determination by the Council described in its resolution of
denial of the appeal. We will never truly know what the full Council's position was because the
applicant and the appellants reached a settlement agreement encouraged by mediation
arranged by the City.
To further exacerbate the issues,staff is recommending that the Commission find that 9
property owners, and no others in the city,shall be discriminated against for choosing their
purchase of vacant land with a Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectation to develop their land
as neighbors on both sides of the street have already been allowed to do and thereby prosper
economically accordingly.
There is neither fairness nor justice in any application of regulations staff proposes that pits
neighbor against neighbor in close proximity to each other on the same street and indeed even
as close as one next door neighbor to another. This is the case with our property and uniquely
illustrated because we would be restricted even further from choosing which side of our home
shall have the 15'proposed setback as the existing home to our east has a 5'setback on their
west and the regulations propose that there be a minimum 20'setback between homes. Given
the topography of our lot,the preferred side for a 15'setback would be to our east. We would
lose the ability to choose and concurrently be burdened more so than any other property owner
should these amendments be adopted. These new standards leave neighbors doing little more
than vying for parity and inflamed over the application of standards with one neighbor
benefiting more than another just feet away from each other. "First come first serve"will be the
another new development standard on Predera -it's no longer going to be discretionary to the
designer if your neighbor builds first as the existing standards currently allow for in greater
fairness.
595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901
(909) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 982.3631 FAX LICENSE #505220
MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Fairness also dictates,and current zoning and housing regulations require,non-discriminatory
practices in land use. Staffs proposed changes discriminate against narrower lots in preference
of wider lots because increased setbacks disproportionately restrict development on the
narrower lot far more than is the case for the larger or wider parcels. Where the zoning
practice normally would allow for a variance for such an unfair imposition,here staff advocates
to promote a more discriminatory practice instead. These conditions again unfairly"leverage"
permit approval authority for excessive concessions from a single property owner that Staff
now requests be determined administratively by their Director instead of by you the
Commissioners as has been done in the past for decades.
Staffs proposals also do not take into consideration the unique topography of the remaining
lots,another commonly used factor to grant variances to Code requirements. Staffs
recommendations are more appropriate for Terra Vista style developments with flat and
regularly shaped lots where commonly applied standards work uniformly. Many of these lots,
however,like Danny Dera's and lots 14-16 on the east side, have an initial steep drop-off at the
sidewalk that levels out into a relatively flat building pad below. Other lots,such as lots 10-13
have their natural building pads at or near the street level. Lots 10& 11 have a large earthen
mound remnant from street grading and paving operations completed back in the late 80's.
These 4 lots are particularly impacted sites because of the natural building site contours occurr
at street level with increasingly steep slopes to their south. These conditions are the opposite
for the other lots 14-16 and lots 1-9. Staffs recommendations should take into consideration
topography by restricting the creation of artificial grades that would elevate the home to street
level rather than utilizing the naturally occurring building pads in the lower elevation areas of
the properties. Topography is something the existing Hillside Ordinance seeks to preserve and
is being overlooked in these recommendations by allowing 8'retaining walls to create man-
made elevations.
Moreover,nowhere has staff found a nuisance,risk to public safety,or interest in preserving
some underlying,long-standing public principle to support these amendments. Quite to the
contrary the background principles already created here by prior entitlements on the street and
throughout the city run contrary to staffs recommendations. Again, any consideration of
fairness is opposite to the standards being recommended.
Staff also fails to articulate its goals in promoting the change in the standards in any objective
fashion or with quantifiable measurements. There are references to excessive "size (floor
area), "massing and over building,"and"character of the neighborhood" in staffs report to be
modified,however no objective measurements are provided by staff to illustrate the
undesirable condition from the ideal one they seek to achieve.What floor area size, massing,or
character does staff seek to establish? Rather,staff continues to promote more subjective
characterizations as a resolution of what are already unfairly subjective oppositions. Here I
would refer Commissioners to definitions in the newly enacted legislation of SB330 -The
Emergency Housing Crisis Act of 2019 -that became effective on January 1, 2020 for guidance.
Therein the language of the law defines an "Objective design standard"as:
595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901
(909) 981-6797 OFFICE (909) 982-3831 FAX LICENSE #505220
MULTIPLE AWARD WINNING LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
"...a design standard that involve no personal or subjective judgmentby a public
official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant
or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application."
I would submit for the Commissioners consideration that SB330 is applicable in this instance
for numerous reasons not the least of which is because staff proposes standards on the whole
tract (modifying its conditions of approval ex postfacto) and SB330 bars the subjectivity staff
seeks to reintroduce into any further development with all the failings subjectivity will create.
Should these amendments be adopted they will only continue to yield further controversy on
the street. For instance,in our submittal recently denied by the Commission in December, our
floor area was considered too large and our retaining wall was found to be too high,yet staff
fails to define the maximum allowable floor area in their new standards (nor do they define it as
the Code currently allows at 40%lot coverage) and their objections to a 5'2"wall on our project
now gives rise to gratis approval of 8'high retaining walls. If we were to resubmit under the
new standards we would surely look for approvals on a narrower and taller structure to the
maximum height of 14',but with the same floor area elongated on the lot rather than the lower
and wider more beneficial profile we previously presented. These new standards therefore do
little to resolve the"massing and over building'or define the "character of the neighborhood"
staff seeks to address with any"Objective design standard"as the new law requires. A careful
reading of the new law would yield significant other legal impediments to staffs
recommendations.
In conclusion,the current language of the Development Code is and has been since creation of
the tract able to accommodate and promote diverse use. As some residents require smaller
housing space,those spaces exist within Tract 10035. Others, some of whom began
construction decades ago,have enjoyed larger living spaces in varied architectural styles. For
those who prefer smaller homes they already exist. For those who desire greater diversity in
larger homes those exist too. Red Hill is an eclectic community and that pattern is rightly being
repeated here in Tract 10035 in each of its uniquely designed homes. Staff provides no reason
to alter what has been lawfully approved property developments by Commissioners for the
past 18 years. 1 find it odd that development along the street progressed well with the guidance
of former directors and that now new regulations are required instead.
1 would like to thank the Commissioners in advance for taking the time to consider these
comments.
Sincerely,
BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Paul Bardos,
President
595 DALEY LANE, KALISPELL, MT 59901
(909) 9B 1 -6797 OFFICE (909) 962-312131 FAX LICENSE #505220
MULTIPLE AWARD WINNINS LICENSED AND INSURED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
COpy
From: �'�^//p/ L�0c To: Ann McIntosh(Anne.Mcintosh(d)citvofrcusl
Cc: "Van der Zwaaa.Tabe";Rob Patel(rob&socaltitle24.com1 /�/� ✓loll �q
Bcc: tj`M;iadamsrancho(a)amail.com ` 4�
Subject: DRC 2020-000016
Date: Thursday,January 21,20219:36:00 AM !!
fl�IZ/V
Anne,
I attended the DRC meeting for Rob Patel's project and spoke in support of it over the
objections of the same group of 4 that has consistently opposed any development on the south
side of the street for the more than 20 years that Mary and I have lived and been property
owners there. I am going to summarize my support for Rob's project and the reasons for it to
you and for entry into the record should the"4"appeal your approvals allowing the project to
proceed.
As I stated during the meeting we have all agreed to follow the laws of California,public policy,
and standards set by the City regarding development of private property. To do otherwise
would create nothing less than chaos and prejudice. The City is a co-equal partner to those it
governs through the standards it sets. Simply put,view preservation is not a protected right in
California. In the recent case of Posey v. Leavitt(1991)229 Cal.App.3d the Courts ruled that
without a provision in the CC&R's of a homeowner's association members have no right to air,
light or an unobstructed view. I use this more recent case as an example because the owners
along Camino Predera have agreed to a deed restriction in their CC&R's that clearly forecloses
their claim of view rights as is currently occurring along the street. The Camino Predera CC&
R's to which all of the residents have agreed only underscore the decision in Posey. The
California Supreme Court also set the first precedent around the turn of the century placing
California's need for economic development ahead of view rights of property owners. That
legal precedent has remained on the books unchallenged for the past 120 years. Finally,
Rancho Cucamonga has not enacted a view preservation ordinance thought it surely knows
how to do so. From Court decisions down to Rancho Cucamonga's governance,view
preservation has not been set apart as a protected right in public policy. The more than 20
year record of approved projects along Camino Predera and their support and oppositions
clearly demonstrates the overriding issue of the appellants and protagonists is view
preservation. Chuck Boquet's letter of opposition against the Patel project again
unapologetically restates the sole issue of the opposing neighbors as view preservation. The
City cannot continue to ignore or recouch that fact in policy rhetoric.
Equally important are Rob's concessions to address the concerns of the neighbors. Rob has
increased the setback on one side of his property to 15'. That's a concession I hope was to
provide the driveway to the lower level garage and not to meet a technical revision of the Code
that has been insisted upon and not yet been ratified by the Council. As he accurately
described he has lowered his profile to 56% of the allowable height set by the Code. His front
yard setback is also substantially increased and his wall planes are articulated. Although his
future neighbor to the east(the Webbers) objected,their home is a two-story structure that is
likely double the proposed height of Rob's profile and will surely dwarf him on completion.
The Webber's reasoning would seem to be that what's good for one neighbor is apparent not
good for the other as they will instead look down into his windows not the other way around as
they insisted during the meeting. The objecting Webbers,Boquet's,and Massey's also enjoy a 5
and 10 foot setback as do the other dwellings along Camino Predera that are built on 80'wide
average lot widths.
1 support Rob's project for these and the other reasons that 1 have already brought forth to you
and through correspondence to the City Manager,Planning Commission,and Council. The
City's attempts to resolve the controversy are laudable,but don't appear to be well placed
given that as currently articulated by staff they appear to run contrary to established policy
throughout the City and public policy throughout the State of California. These all also run
contrary to the protagonists along Camino Predera who continually object to a=development
as soon as it rises above the curb line.
Regards,
PaulBardos
PoulBardos
595 Daley Lane
Kalispell,MT 59901
Paul P BordosConstruction.com
www.bardosconstruction.com
(406)309-8080(Office) (406)300-3779(FAX)
(406)590-5538(Cell) Lic N 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.
/Yo
Clj4WIO
REC18440 January 11, 2021
Anne: 1014AIVIN
This Is as a follow up to our telephone conversa on last Wednesday morning and e-mail
communication that afternoon. In the interest of being part of the solution and offering
constructive feedback following review of the Applicant's proposed plans, I reached out to a
Design Build Contractor who I have known and worked with on a number of projects where
his services were needed by local and national clients.
I believe it important to know that our concerns with the proposed design are primarily the
street profile and the planting of trees that will only serve to diminish otherwise view share
opportunity for us and others on the uphill side of Camino Predera. As has consistently
been offered with the Semler, Bardos and Galvan designs, shifting the pad further away
from the street effectively serves to reduce the street profile and mass otherwise blocking
out the entire valley and horizon from across the street.
The Contractor performed a review of the exhibits that we were provided with my only
input being seeking constructive reduction of the street profile that would impede view
sharing from a value engineering perspective. He got back to me and shared and offered
the following profile reduction considerations:
• He offered that the 14' height suggested by staff In the proposed
standards is the height of a single family residence and didn't seem '
prudent or appropriate on a downhill slope adjacent a view shed
street. He indicated that our split level home was pushed down by
design in order to provide view opportunity for the houses behind ours
and pointed out that the residence behind ours looks over the top of
our home as is the case with many constructed on the upslope side of
the street In relation to the lots above them throughout Red Hill.
• He noted that the roof has a 3:12 roof pitch, which is flatter than
standard. He suggested that a flat roof could leave the slope position
in place with no modification (FYI only) to the existing design. He
indicated that a roof design that had ridge lines running from front to
rear would serve to reduce view share impact, but would still result in
some profile impacts, but less than side to side as designed.
• He suggested that slightly shifting the pad from 1296 to 1291 would
serve to reduce the profile of the house from the street could reduce
the profile by approximately 5' from what is proposed and could serve
to have a positive Impact on the overall cut/fill needed for the design.
(This has been a constant request by the neighboring residents and
when employed by the developers, has effected the desired profile
reduction). This simple change worked for the Semler, Galvan and
Bardos design applications, all of which are under a 9' foot profile and
the Danny Dera lot proposes a new home built near the bottom of the
natural hillside slope.
• He noted that the large concrete pad at the rear of the structure is
likely to be a future covered patio and suggested that the shift
suggested could also create back yard areas on both sides of the slab.
• He noted a large 406 square foot (40'x10') balcony across the rear of
the structure that should not be compromised as a view balcony with
the suggested slight shift of the pad location on the existing
slope. This is one of two large decks on the rear of the structure in
addition to the large concrete pad and yard area. There is also an 85
square foot (15'x5.5') view deck on the downhill side of the structure
Exhibit C
next to Loft #200 that could present some privacy concerns with the
adjacent residential neighbor.
In addition to the foregoing, I have taken the time to go through the proposed plan exhibits
and provided review comments on each of several of them to underscore the points of our
items of concern following the review. The same issues with respect to reducing the profile
to 9' or less to be consistent with those other lots on the downhill slope remain the same, as
well as the elimination of any tree planting that serves to negatively impact uphill slope
view share on this view shed corridor. While I appreciate that the Applicant provided
exhibits that support his project, he has continued to refuse to communicate with us or any
of the other residents concerning this proposed spec house located on the Patel Family
Development Project. Just so we are very clear on this application, the neighborhood is
prepared to appeal the proposed design to Planning Commission and City Council in the
event this property owner continues to ignore the concerns of those of us who will be living
here.
We can have no more Adams single story profile houses approved on this side of the street
and this needs to be made very clear to those development Interests who continue to want
to destroy our mountain and horizon view shed that is Camino Predera. View shed and
preservation of same came up on the recent City GPA stakeholder feedback and should be
applied to this view corridor. In the event it becomes necessary for the neighbors to file
appeals with the City, we will insist on in person public hearings for both Planning
Commission and City Council, and similar to what has been extended to Appellant Bardos
with his appeal to City Council concerning his application. I would suggest that it may be
more prudent to get the applicant to reduce the profile to less than 9' like the others so he
can obtain approval and move to the next step with the site development process.
Also, Irrespective of the desired new Red Hill development standards proposed by staff In
January, that should remain a work in progress until such time as we and our neighbors can
provide input that was not completed due to the pandemic. This has been compounded by
a lack of consistency in handling these hillside applications up and including this one where
the required DRC was not held prior to the approval that was erroneously granted by
Planning. The process has been very clear when property followed. Application that has to
be deemed complete for formal processing, followed by a neighborhood meeting and
followed by a Design Review Committee meeting and followed by a Planning Commission
public hearing. This process worked well for the Dera, Semler, Galvan and Bardos
applications and should be equitably applied to what will be the first of three Patel
applications as well as the rest of the street. Also, the neighbors have made it very clear to
me that they want to see the story poles up before DRC Is held for this application as was
done with Galvan and will need to be done with Bardos when he files a new
application. Thanks in advance for your help with this.
Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or
need of additional information or assistance with this matter.
Thanks,
Chuck Buquet, President
Charles Joseph Associates
8816 W. Foothill Blvd. #103-376
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Office (909) 481-1822
It I 1 S "l would like to see the view
: sheds to the mountains
k
preserved and embraced with
pedestrian friendly mixed use
artist lofts, maker-spaces and
Of much prefer parks, village type shopping public art corridors that
and unique restaurants with plenty of greenery connect each community
and trees. I would like to see smaller outdoorsy planning area in innovative
areas to walk and get dinner." ways... "
Thornhill, Elizabeth
From: Van der Zwaag, Tabe
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:45 AM
To: Thornhill, Elizabeth COJ�
Subject: FW: Public Hearing - DRC2018-00533 0i-
ti0,
Below is an email in support of the carwash.
q
Tabe
From: Dan and Cheree Griffith <danandcheree@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:04 AM l
To:Van der Zwaag,Tabe <Tabe.VanderZwaag@cityofrc.us>
Subject: Public Hearing- DRC2018-00533
CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning!
We may not be able to attend the hearing this evening so we
wanted to make sure we provided our opinion on this development.
We are proud to be residents of Rancho Cucamonga and we are
excited about new developments which improve life in the
neighborhoods here. This corner area has been a blight in the
community for many years. The prospect of having attention paid
to these parcels AND having new services available to nearby
residents is a win-win in our opinion.
We have reviewed the plans & drawings and we couldn't be more
pleased with the quality inherent in the design as well as the
attention to detail in the project. We can only hope that you be
able to attract a buyer for the adjacent parcel to the west who will
mirror such effort. In our opinion, the Arbor Express Car Wash
warrants your positive review and endorsement. How soon can it
move forward?
Thanks again for your consideration.
Dan & Cheree Griffith
z
O
AL
iicl
N
N
L
1
s u
� d
O
a
a.3
d
Kirit and Gita Patel
Vacant lot owner on Camino Predera
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730
909-948-5908
3/3/2021
Re: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated February 3, 2021
We are writing this letter in support of Saurabh Patel's project. Saurabh Patel has met all the
requirements of the development code based on the Planning Directors Approval letter. The
applicant has already provided a lower street profile as compared to the current Hillside
Development Code. The request to further lower the building height is unreasonable. The
applicant has provided a 17 feet reduction of top of curb height. Saurabh Patel's home is
considerably designed which alleviates view sharing concerns. The design will add value to the
community and has great curb appeal. We believe the planning commission should endorse the
Approval of the Planning Director and deny the appeal made on February 3, 2021. The proposal
of the single family home complies with the applicable provision of the Development Code.
Please feel free to contact us for any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
d�"dawd 16da Jul
Kirit and Gita Patel
Saurabh Patel
8659 Red Oak St Suite I
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909)257-7547
Email: robkspdrafting com
3/3/2021
Re: Response to appeal of DRC2020-00016 dated February 3, 2021
This letter is in response to the appeal of the Planning Director's approval for DRC2020-00016.
On January 19, 2021 the Design Review Committee (Williams, Oaxaca, and Smith) all agreed
and recommended the Planning Director approve my project. On January 25, 2021, Anne
McIntosh, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved my project. The
proposed home is a 3,300 square foot single family residence at 8005 Camino Predera, Rancho
Cucamonga CA 91730.
The appellants' first request is to lower the street profile to maintain "consistency" of Camino
Predera. The appellants are requesting to reduce the top of curb height to 10 feet. This request is
not only unreasonable, but it is contradictory to maintaining "consistency" of the
neighborhood. The top of curb heights for the existing residences on the south side of Camino
Predera of Tract 10035 are as follows:
• 7957 Camino Predera 28.2 feet from top of curb
• 7967 Camino Predera 30.5 feet from top of curb
• 7979 Camino Predera 29.5 feet from top of curb
• 7997 Camino Predera 22.0 feet from top of curb (The house east of my proposed project.)
• 8045 Camino Predera 14.0 feet from top of curb
My proposed project is 13 feet from top of the curb. The average existing top of curb height on
the south side of Camino Predera is 24.84 feet. The allowable top of curb height per code is 30
feet from finish grade. I have provided a 56.67% reduction of the top of curb height. My
proposed house is 9 feet lower than 7997 Camino Predera which is directly east of my proposed
residence. In addition, the existing tree line along the south side of Camino Predera will be
obstructing the line of sight view from North to South regardless of the request to lower my
building height. Based on the existing top of curb heights along the south side of Camino
Predera, it is evident I have notably reduced my street profile to be sensitive to the
community's view concerns. I have attached the Exhibit 1. "Top of Curb Analysis" for Tract
10035 which illustrates all existing top of curb heights are significantly higher than my
proposed project. The City and I have worked together to address the building height, side
setback, front setbacks and massing. My proposed project is designed to be thoughtful to view
sharing by greatly increasing both side setbacks and reducing the street profile. There are no
"view preservation"requirements in the Hillside Development code mentioned by Mr. Oaxaca
on January 19, 2021 in the Design Review Committee Zoom meeting.
The street profile for each project should be addressed based on each property's existing
topography. The drawing on page DP1.0 (Exhibit 2) shows the project is consistent with the
current Hillside Development code to minimize the amount of grading. In addition, my projects
front setbacks have been markedly increased to an additional 17 feet to lower the building profile
to be considerate to the appellants concerns. The massing of my residence blends with the
existing grade per Section 17.22.020(D)(1)(a) of the Development Code.
The appellants' second request states the decks on my property are not compatible. The
properties on both sides of my proposed project (8045 Camino Predera and 7997 Camino
Predera)have rear facing decks and windows facing my property/backyard as well,which poses
the same privacy concerns. The Hillside Development Code does not have any regulations or
requirements which prevents deck or window placement. My proposed project is compatible
with the current residences along Camino Predera. Many of the homes along Camino Predera
either have large windows or decks facing both North and South.
The appellants final claim states, the Planning Department is not consistent in the approval
process regarding the city street trees. When Tract 10035 was originally approved, the conditions
were set forth to provide street tree landscaping along Camino Predera(see Exhibit 3 attached).
The street trees provide a uniform look to adhere to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Municipal
code 17.56.050 General landscape development standards.
The Planning Department and Planning Director have done an excellent job in ensuring the plans
are approved to the Hillside Development code. My project is consistent with the City's General
Plan and significantly exceeds the minimum code requirements of the Hillside Development
Code. The City and I have made a tremendous amount of progress since the initial application
for my project, which led to the approval of my project on January 25, 2021.
In good faith, I strongly encourage the commissioners to uphold the Planning Directors approval
for my single family residence and deny the appeal. The information and exhibits provided
clearly demonstrate how my project surpasses the minimum code requirements and addresses the
community's concerns regarding view,building design and landscape requirements. My
proposed development is consistent and compatible with the existing home along Tract 10035.
My proposed project will create further merit and worth to the Camino Predera neighborhood. I
have put forth a great and considerate amount of time and effort in designing a beautiful
Mediterranean home for my family and I to reside which meets the requirements per the Hillside
Development Code. My family and I look forward to building our dream home in this unique
location.
Please feel free to contact me for any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
Saurabh Patel
2' 1 2' R
FLp /� � nA
PROPOSED DRIVEW Y SPPKAFTINCi.C,0M
2' BENCH TOP OF SLOPE IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY: R�GHirEGru�AL DMA5-7. ENEP.C7Y GoNSULrRNr
/1312.75 I PROPOSED 36" 2 3 1 909.257.7547
+ LOPE RETAINING BLOCK WALL
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED 36"
2' BENCH BLOCK WALL SITE AREA: 153601 .5 SQ. FT. SP Drafting
1310.75 /1310.00 I TOP OF SL E
{ 2:1 SLOPE 8659 Red Oak St.
PROPOSED 12" RETAINING 2
EXISTING DRIVEWAY BLOCK WALL TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY: Suite 1
1307.25 EXISTING DRIVEWAY Rancho Cucamonga Ca.
1308.50 1307.25
/ 1308.25 FL 91730
( P ) HOUSE FOOTPRINT ( ROOF AREA) - 3263. 16 SQ. FT.
( P ) DRIVEWAY AND FRONY YARD HARDSCAPE - 29974.42 SQ. FT.13.11 A ( 909) 257-7547
SECTION E-E C ( P ) REAR HARDSCAPE - 426.39 SQ. FT. email:rob@spdrafting.com
� "
/. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 63663.55 SQ. FT.
SP DRAFTING
13.24 TC
13.73 AC 12.57 FL o+ SECTION C-C LOT COVERAGE:
� /o
3496w
OB` PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE - 17.4
G PROPOSED RETAINING WALL R o
14.28 RIM 13.80 TC ,��� HEIGHT 6"TALL TO 36"TALL
SEWER MH-' 13.14 0 SECTION F-F PAGE DP 1.1
4.03 B EXISTING RETIANING WALL NOTES:
Saurabh Patel
f
131 �, 3 PROPOSED T BLOCK WALL - PER HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT: CUT AND/OR FILL DEPTHS SHALL BE LESS THAN 5 FEET.
/ EXISTING CONC. DRIVEWAY
14. Q. ,' ' 1 (E)1307.25 CONC.SURFACE
" 13.92 O
15. C E 7.25 1 331100 TpP_QFF ALL EXISTING FINISH GRADE
14.6 ,' /�^3r r , ' ROPOSED BLOCK WALL ADJACENT LOT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY (o
I
-L /r
BOTTOM OF SL0
LEGEND
FG
O\� �O `, ' / �P•13 5 1 BOTT M OF SLOPE 2 -
- - - EXISTING SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL
0 ati^ 14.60 �; i 309 .1
6 �,, (E) BLOCK RETAINING WAL
�OQ- fir' p5 (� ( E) GRADE FOR DRAINAGE (SLOPE)
15. BW . �;' ,' ,' 1308 ` REGRADE FOR DRAINAGE (SLOPE)
16.04 AC GP GO ���,! � r % , , � � � RG
O �'`� , ; ;� DP1.0 RAISE FOUNDATION U
/ + T 0 - -
+ � �, r, / , ,' � ANGLE HATCH AREA SECTION D D�O�J � .� %, �° `♦♦ REPRESENTA - - PROPOSED FLOW LINE ■►s� Q L
GtG� ��0� ,��r , r %,'ri 1305� ; ^♦ �30s p.p RAISED FOUNDATION
16.13 TC Gj Q� �`'/ , FF ♦ + p1.
" Q' �` �`' / ' / ' - C.PA �' ♦ ' (� WIRE WOOD FENCE TO BE y
P 2 : 1 SLOPE PROPOSED
15.44 FL OG ��,� � , ;� LL '� -!♦13 �-__ REPL E ITH U BLOCK WALL
16.74 A �`/ / , // P 1 .0 TTOM OF�JAL o/ ��� 2 O 2 % SLOPE., �� 2 % SLOPEUJ
�` G° /' r ,' i ' r ' ,' 1 ,' -' ♦ _ P• �p� �PQ-� FG FINISH GRADE1303
05
Q
/' r� r ' /' ' f '� F.F.1ST FLOOR-♦��- �� PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CENTER LINE < UJ O
F 1"IP LS 69 ' /�*�f' ' / E 1 s.�' _t3 .5 _-- - r\O!' 7
/ r /? i ovo r AL .GARAGE �' 1299
16.73 TC R CR 289 78 ^y a' �� , TT OF ALL __ -- `0" T.O.C. TOP OF CURB
16.07 FL _ oa qq
^' �� ^�ti ' , ' , 130 3 FCC __,��'-
. � ^3°� 1303�1 ,' ,�• Q,,' , SECTION F-F �
16.84 BW ,','r/',',' '°^°^°�°6/ i °� '��. 12ga' ` - -- PROPOSED BLOCK
RETAINING WALL L
_ EARTHWORK QUANTITIES : CUT & FILL v �
,'/' '', i^ __ -- - - 1301.7 ,' ,' - g ;O ---- , //,_12! ---- ` LENGTH 15'
-'' F.F.STQKAGE ''12 --- 1295.5 ` = O
\- N`�°^ / +130k ' 298.2 - --- - _ _ ---
13 1 (�1.0FG , E 28.2 .GARAG _- -_ 129s ,
PROPOSED BLOCK Q y'°' 94.5' ,12g ___ FILL - 27.8 YDS 0RETAINING WALL _ E1 2 .OFG�' -----__.1 a -- U_
(3'-0" MAX HT) 1301_ 2g9 9l \ _- 1294 - , Z
97 5 _ O
-' 93 '' . CUT - 21 . 0 YDS 0 O
\CONC.PAD - /, •,�
o ,
12 - us ` 129� P 1294.5\ -' _1292 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON U
' U�= °� - '� 800-655-4555 g '', 1 ' " CVWD EASTMENT PER INST. #2005-072591 Owner/Builder: Saurabh Patel (n
12 � �g �'' ♦ � 3 r �'
♦ �'129 , EAN OU SO CAL GAS
Nlor - i „\ ,' �' ,- '�� VARIABLE WIDTH SEWER EASEMENT 800_427-2200 8659 Red Oak St. zo z
12g5 o2g� - 3 S\E W E R, , - ��
a ti ti �, Suite I
;O Q Gov ^tig - 12g�/x tig9�,% 12 y,,- ` (E) GATE CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 0
FD 1"IP LS 6932 \h 12g3' _----" ,� ,' - 1 `' ��• 909-944-6000 g
PER CR 289/078 p�'k� 1292 _ -_-- 12g1 --- ^28�18� ,- 1�` �'� CABLE TV: ( 909 ) 257-7547 email:rob@spdrafting.com w 00
z
PROPOSED CONCR \ \. a - '��� �1.57 FL Designer: SP Drafting : Saurabh Patel
BLOCK WALL (6'-0" HT) 1291'/ 1290 ----- ay I 1.30' It SPECTRUM
__ ,,1283 ,__ 12G �� 888-892-4357 8659 Red Oak St.
_1259' � \ '
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS Suite I Revisions Date
BENCHMARK DRAINAGE SWALE 12Sg 855-386-1691 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
LOCATION PROPOSED FLOW LINE \ °3�' �' ° ^��� FD 1 IP LS 6932 DIRECT TV
210 210 12s8 - ,'•,; - , ��, ,1 „�1' �� ,' , ti`� PER CR 289/078 ( 909 ) 257-7547 email:rob@spdrafting.com
DRC2020-00016 2/13/2020
g1 * __¢ ,� , ��g 844-872-8154 Surveyor: Jim Cole PLS 5613 2nd Review 5/28/2020
co
�q� HUGH 4- NET JD COLE @ ASSOCIATES INC,
Q 12 1280 -' -- ' ''I;3" S5, ER '� ,'a -'' -''�'' 877-464-9363 LAND SURVEYING 3rd Review 8/27/2020
w Project -'' 12g5'' _ 12a3 --- ♦3" %'�`'� '' '' '' TRASH 4th Review 11/05/2020
z Site and CLEAN OUT ,K� JDCLANDSURVERYING@AOL.COM
Q Location ,,-- 1252' , ���, BURRTEC DISPOSAL 909 797 2074 OFFICE
EXISTING GRADING TO REMAIN - J' 12 r��e ti.^�,� 909-987-3717 951 660 8440 CELL
�� 12 80.22 rC
r '
RED ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN '
CLUB R DIVTRY Date:
11/17/2020
RD ''�►;' ^���,' 2 x P.T.D.F. SILL ( E) EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
' ' EXISTING SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL ELEVATIO 1264'
CAMINO '�., 22 �, tip' ,� ( STUCCO) Job No:
PREDERA ( E) BLDG.
w FOOTHILL BLVD i�
> ti, ,' ',', CVWD EASTMENT PER INST. #2005-0725910 Drawn:
J > . ' '%',' VARIABLE WIDTH SEWER EASEMENT ( E) G.I. STUCCO WEEP SCREED ( CONT)
( CRC R703.6.2.1, CBC 2512.1.2) Checked:
v a �FD 1"IP LS 6932
Z) 78.72 TC ,
w Q ,�,� PER CR 289/078 2 % SLOPE AWAY FROM STRUCTURE
m ,'°' NOTE: GUTTER IS COVERED WITH
10 78.54 TC / ti` DIRT FOR THE MOST PART A NOTED
Q 77.55 FL ��'�� w Scale:
0 Q ,' ' TO BE CLEANED UP UPON CONSTRUCTION Z� VARIES FLOW LINE
>_ 77.73 TOP OF GRATE z
LU
Sheet Title:
z BENCH MARK: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DROP INLET OivQ
> NO. 10048 ELEV.= 1302.317 74.70 FL 18" PVC PIPE - FINISH CONCEPTUAL
�
GRADE GRADING AND
NON-PRIORITY WQMP OF IMPERIOVIOUS AREA OF UNDER 9999 S. F. DRAINAGE PLAN
10 a D The excavation outside the foundation shall be backfilled with soil that is free of organic material,construction debris.cobbles and boulders or with a controlled low-slrengM material
(CLS".The backf ll shall be placed in AS and compacted in a manner that does not damage the foundation or the waterproofing or dampprooling material.CB
C 181Z
R401.3 Drainage:Surface drainage shall be divertetl to a storm seuver w�veyan�e or other approved point of collection Ihal does not create a hazard.Lots shall be graded to drain surface water a D
away from foundation walls.The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches(152 min) wilnin the first 10 feet(3048 min)
Exception:Where lot Ilnes,walls,slopes or oMer physbal barriers prohibit 6 inches(152 mm) of fall w0hln 10 feet(3048 min),drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure Sheet N O■
dmnage away from the struclum Impervious surtaces uvilhin 101ee1(3048 min) of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from[he building.
2304.11.2 2 Wood supported lb exterior foundation walls.Wood framing members,including wood sheathing,[hat rest on exterior foundation walls and are less than 8 inches ,(
(203 min) from exposed earth shall be of naWrolly durable or preservative-Ireared wood.
CRC R317.1 (2) Protection of vc.d and wood-based products from decay shall be provided in the following locations by the use of naturally durable wood or wood that is preservative-healed in
accordance with AWPA Ul for the species,product,preservative and end use.Preservatives shall be listed in Section 4 of AWPA U1.Wood frammg members that rest on concrete or masonry
O exterior foundation walls and are less than 8 inches(203 mm) from the exposed ground.
2512.1.2 Weep Screeds
CNA minimum 0.019 inch(0.48 mm) (No.26 galvanized sheet gage),corrosion-resistant weep screed with a minimum vertical attachment flange of 31/2 inches(89 min) shall be provided at or
below the foundation plate line on exterior stud walls in accordance w6 ASTM C926.The weep screed shall be placed a minimum of 4 inches(102 min) above the earth or 2 inches(51 min)
N VICINITY MAP above paved areas and be of pe that will allow Trapped water to drain Io the exterior of the building The water esislme banner shall lap the attachment flange.The exterior lath shall cover
and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed.
We
ep Screed.A weep screed must be p ovided for all weather-exposed exterior stud walls finished on the exterior with slucco at the foundation plate line.The Screed shall be a minimum
4"above grade or 2"above pavement.pR703.6.2.1 CRC]
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 2 DRAINAGE DETAIL 1 CONCEPTUALG G G
p� Min
�� — REowu.
lit = --
_
OTF�1 .-1 b a Q p G
March 1 , 2021
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
March 10, 2021 at 7 : 00 P . M .
RE : Appeal of Hillside Design Review DRC2020- 00016 -Saurabh Patel
Dear Commissioners :
We are in support of the project, DRC2020- 00016 — Saurabh Patel and request
that the Commission deny the appeal filed on February 3 , 2021 by appellants ,
Lynn and Rene Massey . Appellants advance three ( 3 ) major contentions in their
appeal .
The first is the necessity of this Commission to recognize and agree that it is
important to LOWER THE PROFILE. We do believe that Mr . Patel has done that
already . As a matter of fact, he has done more than lowered the profile ; he is
strictly compliant with the code , and in some instances exceeded compliance .
17 . 16 . 140 of the Development Code states that the purpose of the Hillside
Development Review process is to provide " . . . a mechanism to review
development proposals in sensitive hillside areas with the intent to minimize the
adverse effects of grading and to provide for the safety and benefit the welfare of
the citizens of the city while allowing for reasonable development of the land. "
The " precedent" cited by appellants is no precedent at all . Each of the four ( 4 )
projects cited — and not yet built — have unique topography, which by its very
nature requires a unique approach to the design .
However, appellants seem to desire that all houses on the southside of Camino
Predera - be subterranean . . . below curb , and all look alike from the street- -
meaning all you could see from the street would be roofs . Not only would this
appearance reduce the value of each of these properties and impede any view
they might have but it would surely produce an unattractive visual of a row of
rooflines and solar panels . Such a lower profile is clearly undesirable and most
importantly not " reasonable development of the land . "
To require applicants who have purchased a hillside lot at a premium price , to
build a subterranean home is highly unreasonable. In fact its unreasonableness is
i
Planning Commission ( Appeal ) - 2 - March 1 , 2021
DRC2020 - 0001 &Saurabh Patel
apparent by the fact that no one has built on the southside of Camino Predera in
over 13 years -- - - our house , 8045 Camino Predera , was the last of five ( 5 )
constructed on the southside of Camino Predera - - - all 14' or more above curb .
That' s REASONABLEI
Additionally, the General Plan ( Policy LU - 2 . 4 ) makes clear that it " . . . encourages
the development of vacant residential lots where they are largely surrounded by
other residential development to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure
and to meet housing demands . " Unfortunately, there are a few residents of
Camino Predera who evidently do not believe in that policy, as they have done
more to discourage development of the south side of Camino Predera than one
can imagine through intimidation , harassment and objections to reasonable
development . Again , one only need look at the result : no houses built in 13 plus
years .
Appellants ' second point requests that this body recognize and agree to the
importance of COMPATIBILITY. The argument set forth in support claims that a
" reasonable expectation " of privacy is implicated because a proposed view deck
on Mr . Patel ' s house COULD , as the argument goes , PRESENT NUISANCE AND
PRIVACY CONCERNS with the adjacent neighbor" and therefore is " incompatible
with a reasonable expectation of privacy . "This argument is fallacious .
Moreover, the general rule in California provides no automatic right to preserve
the status quo with respect to LIGHT, AIR , VIEWS AND PRIVACY . If a property
owner has a neighbor on any side of his/ her property, there is ALWAYS the
potential for impinging on another neighbor' s light, air, views and /or privacy .
The appellants ' third contention is asking the Planning Commission Members to
recognize and agree to the importance of CONSISTENCY. Under this heading, the
appellants want you to believe that since a Neighborhood Meeting ( not required )
was NOT HELD AND THE DRC meeting ( required ) was held out of sequence , this
invalidates the current position of the staff and planning director . This is absurd .
We have , for the past three 3 years , vociferously voiced our objection to the
neighborhood meetings . After attending many, in our view, there is nothing
Planning Commission ( Appeal ) - 3 - March 1 , 2021
DRC2020 - 00016 - Saurabh Patel
positive that has come from these meetings . We have observed , and been the
subject of, ridicule , ad hominem attacks, threats and increased acrimony among
neighbors . The probability of violence has also increased when one only need
listen to the tone in some of the neighbors ' comments . These meetings are
neither neighborly nor productive .
The public, and the neighbors , have an opportunity to view any applicant' s plans
by going into the planning department, attend the DRC meetings and /or attend
the Planning Commission Meetings . Neighbors should not be pitted against each
other ; but that is precisely what happens at these neighborhood meetings - -- - - -
and that has been CONSISTENT.
Mr . Patel has complied with all the rules , regulations and codes applicable to
build his house on his lot . Mr . Patel ' s plans have been subjected to much scrutiny l
and reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, Hillside Design Review
Committee and Planning Director . It is now, and has always been , in the
province of the members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ' s departments ,
committees , commissions and council — who - - should be the ones making the
decisions regarding the desired and appropriate infill development of land in our
city--- - not the neighborhood . This is what we truly hope , Commissioners, you
i
recognize and agree . i
Sincerely,
IV
John and Jane Adams
8045 Camino Predera
Rancho Cucamonga , CA 91730 k"
( 909 ) 605 - 3312
jadamsrancho@gmail . com
r-
G
i