HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/04/25 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY APRIL 25, 2001 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel Vice Chairman Macias
Com. Mannerino Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 28, 2001
April 11,2001
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-
controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concem over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00016 MODIFICATION
SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to modify a previously
approved Design Review of 12 single family homes for Tentative
Tract 15963 on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street on the
east side of Archibald Avenue and west side of London Avenue -
APN: 201-251-01.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such
opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. P/ease sign
in after speaking.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 BASELINE BARGAIN
CENTER - A request to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial
District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN 202-092-08.
(Continued from February 28, 2001).
C. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, EXTENDING THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ABILITY TO INCUR DEBT BY
10YEARS AND ADDING CAPITAL PROJECTS TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
D. APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101 - WOHL
INVESTMENT COMPANY - An appeal of a condition of approval
in connection with the City Planner approval of a Tree Removal
Permit on approximately 7.5 acres in the General Industrial District
(Subarea' 4), located at 9201-9299 Archibald Avenue
APN: 209-211-14 and 32.
VII.DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
E. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA - Review of conformity of
Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 2 with the General Plan.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
F. TRAIL PRIORITIES ANNUAL REVIEW
X. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjoumment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard
only with the consent of the Commission.
Page 2
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE ROOM
TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2001-00170
- LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on April 19, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Govemment Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 3
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission
April 25, 2001
Hillside
Banyan
19th/210
Baseline
B
%
Foothill
Arrow
I
I
D Cth
j~ ~ ,-~ LL
c- 'T' .-- LO
C and E are within the RDA Project Area
F and G are City-wide
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ClTY HALL
t Redevelopment Agency Boundary N
the city of
Rancho Cucamonga
S affReport
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: . Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Alan Warren, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00016 MODIFICATION-SOUTHWEST DESIGN
GROUP - A request to modify a previously approved Design Review of 12 single family
homes for Tentative Tract 15963 on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street on the east side of Archibald
Avenue and west side of London Avenue - APN: 201-251-01.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The 4.37 acre site has been rough graded. The site has a natural slope of
approximately 2-3 percent from north to south and is surrounded on the north, south, and east sides by
single-family homes.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: On February 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development Review
99-42, for the construction of 12 single-family homes. The approval of the house product included
two single-story house plans with three elevations per plan. Plan 101 included a 3,090 square foot
home and Plan 102 a 2,749 square foot home. Crestwood Corporation purchased the tract from
the previous owner (PKT properties). The applicant submitted an application requesting to modify
the previously approved Design Review to introduce a new house product.
B. General: The applicant is proposing to construct 12 single-family homes that will range in size
from 2,817 to 3,148 square feet. The lots range in from 8,301 square feet to 12,246 square feet,
with an average size lot of 10,900 square feet. The site will be developed under the Low
Residential standards of the Development Code. Four floor plans are proposed, each having three
elevations per plan. The homes will range in size from 2,817 to 3,148 square feet. Plan 1 is single
story and features a three-car garage. Plan 5x is two stories and features a three-car garage with
an option for a fifth bedroom in place of the third garage.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNeil, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project on
Mamh 20, 2001, and recommend approval with conditions which have been incorporated into the
attached Resolution of Approval. Design Review Committee Action comments have been
attached for your convenience (Exhibit "F").
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2001-00016- SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP
April -~!5, 2001
Page 2
D. Gradinq Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project March 20, 2001, and
determined it was consistent with the conceptual grading plans approved with the Tract Map. The
Committee recommended approval subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolution of
Approval.
E. Environmental Assessment: The original project, Development Review 99-42, was evaluated in an
Initial Study and the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on
February 9, 2000. The approved project included the construction of 12 single-family homes. The
proposed modification includes the construction of 12 single-family homes. A review of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study has concluded that the modified project
is similar in size and type and will be located on the same site as the approved project. No
substantial revisions were made to the project or to the Mitigated Negative Declaration as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (c). Therefore, no further CEQA review, nor recirculation of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is required.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review
DRC2001-00016 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:AW:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Elevations and Floor Plans
Exhibit "D" - Design Review Committee Comments dated March 20, 2001
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Location Map
DRC2001-00016
i I~ - ~ProjectSite
~ Parcels.shp
' ~ : ~ ~] :/ ~ · ,' . ¢ ·
' ' , ;~.~ = T ' ' I'1 · ~ ~ LII~ · ' -
PROBIT
FRONT - PLAN 'lB
RIQHT SIDE - PLAN 1
REAR - PLAN 1
SIDE -~ PLAN I
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Rudy Zeledon March 20, 2001
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DRC2001-00016) MODIFICATION -SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP
A request to modify a previously approved Design Review of 12 single-family homes for Tentative
Tract 15963 on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located south of Banyan Street on the east side of Archibald Avenue and west side of London
Avenue - APN: 201-251-01.
Back.qround: On February 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development
Review 99-42, for the construction of 12 single-family homes. The approval of the house product
included 2 single-story house plans with three elevations per plan. Plan 101 included 3,090 square
fool: homes and Plan 102 a 2,749 square foot homes. The applicant, Crestwood Corporation, has
purchased the tract from the previous owner (PKT properties). The applicant has submitted an
application requesting to modify the previously approved Design Review to introduce a' new house
product.
De..~n Parameters: The 4.37 acre site has been rough graded. The site has a natural slope of
approximately 2-3 percent from north to south and is surrounded on all sides by single-family
hornes. The lots range in size from 8,301 square feet to 12,246 square feet, with an average size lot
of 10,900 square feet. The project will be developed under the Low Residential Standards of the
Development Code.
Four floor plans are proposed, each having three elevations per plan. The homes will range in size
from 2,817 to 3,148 square feet. Plan 1 is single-story and features a three-car garage. Plan 5X is
two stories and features a three-car garage with an option for a fifth bedroom in place of the third
garage.
Staff Comments.: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. Clarify on Site Plan, each elevation proposed for each lot. For example, Plan lA, lB, 1C,
5XA, 5XB and 5XC. In addition, indicate which pads propose a reverse footprint for each
floor plan.
2. in order to balance the roof line along the front elevations of Plan 1, the gable pitch along the
left elevation should be clipped and replaced with a hip design.
3. Provide an additional elevation or detail for Plan 5X, that shows the elevation design for the
optional bedroom in place of a third garage.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The side corner side yard elevations for Lots 3, 4 and 13 should be enhanced and
incorporate the use of wood shutters and window mullions on key windows.
2. Correctly label the rear and side elevations for house Plan 1on plans.
"P"
DRC COMMENTS
DR (DRC2001-00016) MOD. - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP
March 20, 2001
Page 2
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. The existing wood fence, located on the south side of Liberty Street (as shown on
Section E-E of Grading Plan) shall be replaced with a decorative block wall (Exhibit "A").
The existing wood fence is par~ of the tract boundary and therefore is required to be
replaced by a block wall. In addition, Liberty Street is the main entry into the neighborhood
and therefore should be enhanced.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned to the Design
Review Committee for review.
Attachments
Desi.qn Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
!CONC:
X 1613.8,
J
1609.8
· 1608.9 PAD 1609.,.3 PAD
58.71'
TREE TO BE: RE~OVE:O
E
CONSTRUCT 1.2' CONC. SI~OUGH
WALL pE"~ S~:PARATE. PERMIT
CONSTRUCT 1.2' CONC. C ac ID
BL(X~ .WALL PER
D[TAIL' HEt~£ON,
TYPICAL SECTION
C (LIBERTY STREET)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW (DRC2001-00016) FOR MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42, FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW
OF 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 4.37 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED
SOUTH OF BANYAN STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD
AVENUE AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONDON AVENUE, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-251-01.
A. Recitals.
1. On February 9, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-21, thereby
approving, subject to specified conditions, Development Review 99-42, which provides for the
construction of 12 single family homes on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District and
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. On the 1st day of February 2001, a request was filed by Southwest Design Group to
modify the design review for Development Review 99-42, for the construction of 12 single-family
homes; hereinafter referred to as "the Application."
3. On Apdl 25, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public headng on Apdl 25, 2001 including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located south of Banyan Street on the east side
of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue with a street frontage of 212.68 feet
and lot depth of 585.16 feet and is presently rough graded and unimproved; and
b. The property to the north is vacant, the properties to the south, east, and west
contain single family homes; and
c. The proposed modification has been reviewed by the Technical and Grading
Committees and approved subject to the conditions contained within this resolution; and
d. The proposed design of the homes will range from 2,817 square feet to
3,148 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRC2001-00016-SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP
Apd125,2001
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1) All conditions, and mitigation measures, of Tentative Tract 15963, as
noted in the Planning Commission Resolution 00-20, shall apply.
2) All pertinent conditions, and mitigation measures, of Development
Review 99-42, as noted in the Planning Commission Resolution 00-21,
shall apply.
3) On elevations 5x, wrap the wood siding around to the left elevation to a
logical end or proposed return wall.
4) The corner side yard elevation for Lot 3 shall be enhanced by wrapping
the wood siding proposed on the front elevation around to the upper
building plane of the second story along the left elevation.
5) The existing wood fence, located on the south side of Liberty Street (as
shown on Section E~E of Grading Plan) shall be replaced with a
decorative block wall consistent with the design and material of the
Tract perimeter wall (slump stone block).
6) Ddveway slopes shall not exceed 10 percent grade on all lots.
En.qineedn,q Division
1) All conditions of Tentative Tract 15963, as noted in the Planning
Commission Resolution 00-20, shall apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certity to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRC2001-O0016-SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP
Apd125,2001
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATrEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bythe
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 25th day of Apd12001, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DRC2001-00016
SUBJECT: Design Review for Tract 15963
APPLICANT: Southwest Design Group
South of Banyan Street, east side of Archibald Avenue, west side of
LOCATION: London Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
General Requirements completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / /
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard /___/__
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if / /
building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date
of approval. No extensions are allowed.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include /~
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations
SC-12-00 I
Project No, DRC2001-00016
Completion Date
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions __/__/__
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / /
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All .,lite, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, ___/ /
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be __/ /
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, __/ /
including proper illumination.
9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property ~/
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
10. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all / /
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
11. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / /
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's
perimeter.
12. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each / /
support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y2-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds.
Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at
least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade.
13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / /
14. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. / /
15. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / /
16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / /
products.
SC-12-00 2
Project No. DRC2001-00016
Completion Date
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. /_.~/
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in /. /
the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 __/ /
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater /__/
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously __/ /
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development /
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included __/ /
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering ._._/ /
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Archibald
Avenue.
8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the ._._/ /
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the ____/ /
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
F. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location ~/ /
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Project No. DRC2001-00016
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. General Requirements
1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: /-----/
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of
service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste
diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air
conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number (i.el, TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the
outside of all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. / /
Amhitect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / /---
4. Contractom must show proof of State and City licenses and workers' Compensation coverage to
the City prior to permit issuance.
H. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / /
marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and
regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety
Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to / /
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a
copy of the schooJ fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition / /
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees
receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance.
4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/pamel map recordation and / /
prior to issuance of building permits.
Project No. DRC2001-00016
Completion Date
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including a I /_~/
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank
Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
I, New Structures
1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. /_ /
J, Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /
pedorm such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / /
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / /
5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for / /
existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California
Registered Civil Engineer.
~PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT,
(909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Melto Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer /_._/
shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or
consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the
development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be: /----/
1,500 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table).
-OR
A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants
shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, / /
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
sc.,2.oo 5
Project No. DRC2001-00016
Completion Date
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, /__/__
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a
4-inch and a 2-1~2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shalt be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final .__/ /
inspection.
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: ~ __
x All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32.
7. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee wil be due to the Rancho Cucamonga /
Fire Protection District as follows:
x $132 FOR ccwd water Plan review/underground water supply.
x $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase).
8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, / /
UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. /
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors, if windows are within ___/
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. _._/ /
M. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted /
from frame or track Jn any manner.
N. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime / /
visibility.
sc. 2.o0 6
T H E C I T Y OF
i~ANCHO CIICAHONGA
Staff Report
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: Chairman and Membem of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER - A request to
revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the
General Commercial District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN: 202-092-08.
BACKGROUND: .
On January 10, and February 14, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed Conditional Use Permit
98-08. The Commission continued the review on January 10, 2001, and directed staff to set a public
hearing to consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. On February 14 the Commission reviewed
the progress that the applicant had made since the January 10 meeting and extended the time frame to
February 28. Because of the weather delay, only a porlion of the project had been completed. In order to
re-pave the parking area, three days without rain were needed. The applicant finished the parking area
on Mamh 27.
Since the last hearing, the applicant submitted plans for the newly acquired parcel off of Amethyst Street.
The submittal included plans for parking lot expansion to include paving, parking, landscaping, and
lighting required for the expansion of retail use. The application was deemed incomplete and the
applicant notified by letter (Exhibit "D") of the missing information, technical deficiencies, and design
issues. As requested by the Planning Commission on February 28, staff advised the owners that a new
time line with specific dates is necessary for the Planning Commission hearing this evening.
ANALYSIS:
At the of January 10 meeting, the applicant was given additional time to comply with outstanding issues.
The Planning Commission addressed public comments regarding the applicant's request to allow retail
use and additional time to comply with the outstanding issues, including the operation of a retail use
without a permit and the new Conditional Use Permit application for expansion of the parking area.
Code Compliance Issues: Outstanding code compliance issues are now limited to the operation of the
retail store in violation of City codes. The use was approved only for wholesale due to the insufficient
number of parking spaces. To address this issue, the business owners filed a new Conditional Use
Permit application to expand the parking lot onto adjoining property to the north. The application was
deemed incomplete, and a list of the Planning Division Completeness Comments was given to the
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER
Apd125,2001
Page 2
contractor at a meeting on Mamh 12. Since then, staff has been in contact with the contractor and the
owners on a weekly basis to assist in revised plans and code issues. Staff has also made site visits on a
weekly basis for follow-up on completion of the original 14 parking spaces (Exhibit "C"). The contractor is
currantly working on revisions to resubmit to the City. Additional facsimiles were sent to the applicant to
follow-up on the status of the new parking area on March 7 and Mamh 14, as well as a sign permit
application and landscaping requirements. Staff has been working diligently with the applicant to help
resolve all outstanding issues.
Later during the week of March 7, the owners met with Planning staff to discuss the lack of compliance
and the process associated with the application for a retail use. Planning staff has repeatedly contacted
the applicant via facsimiles, phone contacts, and meetings to resolve outstanding issues. The use of the
building as a retail establishment requires 38 parking spaces, which were to be approved/completed by
April 25, 2001. The applicant is currently conducting the retail use despite the lack of approved parking
spaces for the property on Amethyst Street.
Planning Division staff has kept in complete contact with the applicant, as well as the construction
company and the draftsperson, throughout the 60-day extension period. The applicant has made an
effort to submit plans and bring the property up to code since the last Planning Commission hearing;
however, the Engineering Division has not received any new or modified plans with curb and gutter
improvements, right of way dedication, or any street improvements necessary with the parking lot
expansion. Planning staff has required corrected plans with a phasing layout since Apdl 5, 2001.
Notwithstanding, the retail business continues to be operated in violation.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, and the
property was posted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the operation to be in violation of the Conditional
Use Permit and authorize the City Planner to revoke the Conditional Use Permit if, after 10 days, the City
Planner finds the retail operation is still being conducted and sufficient parking to meet the Cites codes
has not being provided by the applicant.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:EW/jc
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Approved minutes of February 14, 2001
Exhibit "B" Approved minutes of February 28, 2001
Exhibit "C" - New Paving and Striping
Exhibit "D" - Letter of Incompleteness dated April 5, 2001
Exhibit "E" Business License Correction letter reiterating the approved use
Resolution of Revocation
easement for general public and public utility purposes, located on the north side of Base Line
Road, east of Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45. Related File: Tract 16051.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar.
.PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER-A request to revoke the
Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial
District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN 202-092-08.
Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that two letters had been
received in support of the applicant asking that the Conditional Use Permit not be revoked and
indicated that the owner of the 7-11 store had telephoned and indicated support of a revocation
because customers of Baseline Bargain Center block his access and trash pickup.
Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that he had accompanied Ms. Wimer to the site and noted there
is progress being made. He suggested the applicant speak regarding the progress and public
testimony be taken.
Chairman McNiel noted the staff report included a long list of code enforcement problems and it
appeared staff had been attempting to obtain conformance for a long time. He felt the matter had
gone on for an excessive amount of time.
Mr. Buller concurred it had gone on a long time but indicated the applicant had made some major
moves in the last few days to bdng it into compliance.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Laura Iftikhar, 9456 Roberds Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she and her husband own the
store. She said they have almost completed the parking area with the exception of stripping which
should be completed shortly. She reported they were going to submit for a new conditiOnal use
permit to allow retail. She indicated she had the plans with her and would be submitting them either
later in the evening or on Thursday. She stated they made tax contributions of over $26,00She felt
the personal investment they made should be considered based on the business license which was
approved in error in June 1999. She pointed out that the business makes charitable contributions to
the community including Feed the Children, Spark of Love toy drive, and food drives for schools.
She stated they have community support and presented a petition signed by approximately 1,300
people. She felt the petition demonstrated community support and said the business meets the
needs of the community. She stated they opened their business because the City wrongfully
approved a business license. Mrs. Iffikhar felt the City was unfairly targeting their business and said
that they had observed signs such as theirs and parking violations by other businesses in the
community. She asked that the City consider future development of their property and said they may
have a farmer's market or event hail on their property. She said they need to maintain a positive
retail cash flow in order to pay for the development and they want to spend the money on developing
their property rather than renting retail space elsewhere. Mrs. Iflikhar thought the City was interfering
with her constitutional rights and said that the rights of property owners and customers must be
considered. She said the people have the right to alter or abolish government if it becomes
excessive. She acknowledged that their business does not fully comply with City codes but she felt
the business did more good than harm. She requested that the City continue to work with them
while they attempt to comply. She indicated they had been frustrated because their architect did not
lead them through the process and they had recently obtained a contractor and she believed things
would progress more quickly now.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - February 14, 2001
Commissioner Tolstoy indicted he had visited the establishment eadier in the day and noticed work
being performed on the parking lot, He observed that the parking lot will be quite a distance from the
front door to the store. He said he noticed three cars illegally parked in the yellow stdped area. He
felt that people will continue to park illegally because the parking lot is so far away.
Mrs. Iftikhar responded they want to develop the street and curb along Roberds and have street
parking. She said they are also considering moving the store within the building to be closer to the
parking lot.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the plans Mrs. Iflikhar had with her reflect what she had just told the
Commission.
Mrs. Iftikhar replied that she was not sure.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if licensed professional people must prepare final plans.
Mr. Buller replied that the City requires that a licensed landscape architect prepare final landscape
plans and an engineer must prepare any street improvement plans.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the required signatures were on the plans,
Mrs. Iftikhar responded that they were not as they were only taking baby steps and a draftsman
prepared the plans,
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the illegal parking currently occurring is very dangerous.
Commissioner Stewart asked Mrs. Iftikhar what plans she had.
Mrs. Iftikhar said they were plans for the proposed parking lot.
Commissioner Stewart asked if it addressed changes to the building.
Mrs. Iftikhar said it did not as they are still considering changes.
Bob Lamb, 7250 Amethyst Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property joins the property in
question. He said he was speaking for the Trujillos, whom he had spoken to earlier in the day. He
gave a brief history of the building. He said he had been there since the 1920s. He indicated a
small road curves from Base Line Road to Amethyst and he previously wanted to have that read shut
off, but he failed to contact the City. He thought the 7-11 store has created a lot of problems for the
neighborhood. He stated that kids hang out there and there have been stolen cars and a lot of
graffiti. He said people come up Base Line Road and ignore the stop sign. He felt the Iftikhars have
done a lot to improve the property and said they have stopped the graffiti, reptaced floors, and
upgraded the building.
Clarence Weaver, Western State Construction, 1500 Crestfield, Duarte, said he had picked up a set
of plans on Thursday, February 8. He stated that Ms. Wimer had been very cooperative. He felt
they were on the right track and would fall into compliance.
Susie Cuzynski, 6262 Marble Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the business is a wonderful asset to
the community. She indicated she is an aide in her children's' school and gets many items for the
school and church there and said she would hate to see the demise of the facility. She stated she
has never had a problem parking there. She said the Iftikhars do not have the money to make it
perfect from the start but she felt they will eventually be able to comply. She thought the City should
consider their hard work and endurance.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - February 14, 2001
Chairman McNiel asked how many people in the audience were there in support of the applicant.
Approximately 25 people raised their hands.
Bob Burglan, 7126 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has been a resident for the
past 25 years and the building now looks better than it ever has. He said they welcome him every
time he goes into the store.
Chairman McNiel temporarily closed the public headng to allow discussion with staff.
Mr. Bullet stated that staff had received calls and wdtten correspondence supporting the applicant.
He said staff believes there has been an effort in the recent past to comply. He observed there had
not been compliance until the City started revocation proceedings. He noted the parking is on the
north side of the building away from the door. He stated the approved use was for a warehouse
facility, not a retail center;, therefore, staff accepted the distance between the parking lot and the
door. He said the 14 parking spaces were placed in the only area of the site that could physically
accommodate them. He felt the Planning Commission may wish to grant a two-week continuance to
see if the parking is finalized in that time. He said the front of the building must be stripped, posted
"No parking," and policed by the Iftikhars. He stated the wheel stops should also be removed from
that area and the Iftikhars had indicated they will be moved to the new parking area. He observed
that the retail business would have to be closed in order to come into compliance with the existing
conditional use permit. He stated the wholesale business could be open by appointment in order to
still meet the needs of the community and said it was meant to be a wholesale business. He
believed a two-week continuance would be appropriate and said staff needs to work with the
applicant. He stated staff is very pleased with the contractor they had hired. He believed the
Iftikhars have a larger dream for the area and it would improve the area. He said the applicants
could come back to the Commission with a new conditional use permit to allow retail and could
present a phasing plan; however, a complete application had not been submitted as yet.
Chairman McNiel asked if two weeks would be sufficient.
Mr. Buller felt it would.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the existing conditional use permit requires full improvements in front
of the store.
Mr. Bullet replied the existing conditional use permit does not require those improvements. He said
- a new conditional-use-p~rmit would require curb, gutter, and sidewalk7 -- -
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the parking he observed earlier in the day is dangerous.
Motion: Moved by Mannedno to continue Conditional Use Permit 98-08 to February 28, 2001, based
on the apparent good faith effort.
Commissioner Macias stated he was glad progress is finally being made toward obtaining the
parking; however, the issue remains as to the retail use. He felt the Commission should not ignore
the fact that the applicant is not in compliance. He suggested that the applicant submit a phasing
plan if the matter were continued for two weeks. He said the Commission routinely deals with small
businesses that do things correctly and scdmp and save to do things dght. Because of those who do
things dght, he felt it was unfair to ignore non-compliance.
Commissioner Mannedno amended his motion to include the requirement for a draft phasing plan.
He said it is clear the applicants are popular people who do good things for the community but the
said the Commission cannot turn its back on its legal obligations. He suggested people watch where
they park and said that if the illegal parking continues, the City would have no choice but to act.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - February 14, 2001
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, suggested reopening the public hearing for additional
comments.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public headng.
Mary Dineen, 6418 Malachite Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she agreed with what she had
heard. She suggested the area with the yellow stripes be labeled to prohibit parking. She said she
would hate to see the store closed and indicated she prefers "mom and pop" shops to larger stores.
Mr. Lamb stated that the store is convenient to the assisted living facility and many of those
residents walk to the store.
Joan Tammer, 7250 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the store creates a wonderful
atmosphere. She asked how the Iflikhars will live if their retail business is dosed. She thought the
City should not stop them since they are improving the area. She acknowledged she did not
understand the technical items but said the area is kept up.
Maria Perez, 6231 Filkins Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she wanted to keep the store open
because it provides food for kids and wrinkle cream for older people.
Commissioner Tolstoy seconded Commissioner Mannedno's motion to continue Conditional Use
Permit 98-08 to February 28, 2001,with a requirement for submission of a phasing plan. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Chairman McNiel thanked the audience members for their support of the Iftikhars but indicated it is
important that the location be brought into compliance. He said the Commission has to consider the
rest of the community and there are certain standards and guidelines with which they must comply.
He said the City is not trying to put them out of business, but is trying to make them comply with the
terms of the conditional use permit and to protect the public safety.
Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the problem has been going on for 2~ years.
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:17 p.m. to 8:23 p.m.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-04 - AMERICAN
BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a Development Agreement for the
development project known as the Victoria Arbors on approximately 300.64 acres of land in the
Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the
north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to
the west - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31,33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33,
35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 01-04 - AMERICAN
BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a residential Master Plan for a
development project known as the Victoria Arbors for approximately 300.64 acres of land, in the
Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the
north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - February 14, 2001
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 28, 2001
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, Para Stewart,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner;, Kevin Ennis,
Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner;, Nancy Fong,
Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate
Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Rudy Zeledon,
Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated several items were placed in front of the Commissioners and
those items would be referred to when the related projects were considered. He recommended that
Items B through E be moved to the end of the agenda and stated that staff had been working with
that applicant up until tonight's meeting.
-'APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, carded 5-0, to approve the minutes.of the
Adjourned Meeting of February 14, 2001.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER - A request to revoke the
Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial
District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN 202-092-08. (Continued from February 14, 2001)
Emily VVimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated the applicant submitted a
phasing plan detailing proposed development, which had been placed before the Commission. She
noted that on Tuesday, February 27, the applicant submitted plans for a parking lot for the parcel on
Amethyst.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the dates were on the phasing plan.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, said staff asked the applicant to state dates. He explained that if the
applicant submits a complete application for the retail store, the matter would be heard at the City
Planner level and he would ask for specific dates or would set dates as conditions if he approves
the use. He indicated the phasing plan was submitted in response to the Commission's request at
the Planning Commission meeting on February 14.
Chairman McNiel stated the public hearing was still open.
Lora Iffikhar, 9456 Roberds Street, Rancho Cucamonga, apologized for not providing the dates on
the phasing plan. She stated she and her husband are not project managers or contractors and they
do not know how long it will take to complete some of the steps but she realized that each step is
contingent upon completing the previous step. She said they are eager to get the project done as
soon as possible. She felt things would go faster now that they have acquired the Amethyst lot. She
said they have not completed the striping and slurry seal on the parking lot because of the weather.
She reported that escrow on the Amethyst lot had closed and they had asked their draftsman to
provide a list of civil engineers so they can get going right away.
Commissioner Stewart stated the phasing plan lists acquisition of several homes and she asked if
that was feasible.
Ms. Iftikhar replied they are in negotiations with a home and property on Amethyst and for the Enright
Plumbing property. She said they are working on acquiring financing for them. She indicated the 59
parking spaces on the Amethyst lot is a separate issue and those are strategic acquisitions for future
potential use.
Commissioner Macias asked for clarification of the issues at hand.
Mr. Bullet said the currently approved Conditional Use is for wholesale use and certain
improvements were supposed to be completed before they began operations. He indicated the
Iftikhars opened their business before the physical improvements were completed. He said the
second issue was that they opened the business for retail use, which had not been approved.
Commissioner Macias asked which of the seven phases in the phasing plan are pertinent to
resolving the issues at hand.
Mr. Buller replied the land acquisitions shown in the phasing plan are not pertinent to resolving the
'immediate issu~-Pl~-s-~'~d-they v~ere required to build a parking lot with 14 spaces prior to opening
the wholesale use. He thought that parking lot would have been completed bythis evening except
for the recent rains. He explained the retail component was opened without secudng proper permits
and requires additional parking. He said the Iftikhars have now closed escrow on a lot which will
allow them to develop the required parking. He observed the future acquisitions are to allow them to
ultimately take the entire block and master plan a business plan to allow them to maximize the use of
the large existing building with potential uses suggested of a Farmers Market, event hall, or shopping
mini-mall. He stated that Commissioner Tolstoy raised a good point at the last meeting regarding the
majority of the parking being to the north, but the retail entrance being to the south. He said the City
Planner is suggesting that the orientation of the building be related to where the parking lot is located
or a good pedestrian circulation path be developed from the parking to the entrance. He reported the
application submitted is still incomplete.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mannedno supported staff's recommendation to give the applicant 60 days to
complete the Conditional Use Permit for retail use. He commented that the phasing plan is an
ambitious endeavor and he favored success, but he was concerned that the applicant has twice told
the Commission that they are unfamiliar with what is necessary. He said they have become a
Planning Commission Minutes -2~.. February 28, 2001
developer of a retail use and he felt that comment dngs hollow. He suggested they must familiarize
themselves with what is needed if they wish to pursue.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the phasing plan needs dates for other than the land acquisition. He
suggested that the phasing timeline be required immediately.
Commissioner Stewart agreed. She was particularly interested in seeing the timeline for Phase Two
because that is what will bdng the retail use into compliance.
Commissioner Macias asked if there had been any interaction between the Iftikhars and staff since
the ast Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Ms. Iftikhar responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Macias said no one wants to shut them down but we want them to do things dght. He
observed that other people have limited resources and they do things right and the Iftikhars need to
also. He concurred with staff's recommendation to continue the item until April 25.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He agreed with the recommendation for a
continuance to April 25. He felt staff had probably already offered assistance to help them through
the process. He thought that if they are not in compliance by Apd125, the Commission should just
go ahead and act on the initial recommendation for revocation.
Mr. Bullet appreciated the indulgence of the Commission because he believed the Iftikhars are
making a good faith effort but said they need some assistance from somebody on their team to do
the plans as the City cannot do the plans for them. He said he can condition the phasing plan with
what he believes to be apprepdate timelines but he was giving them an opportunity to submit a
recommended timeline as a business decision.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that was what he thought was going to be submitted tonight.
Commissioner Mannedno commented they are in the business and they have chosen the business.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to continue Conditional Use Permit 98-08 to
-,~pdl--25,- 2001; -Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
F. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15278 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC -A request to subdivide 1.10
acres into three parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at
the northwest comer of Banyan Street and London Avenue - APN: 201-251-049.
Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel asked for clarification regarding the letter from Metropolitan Water District and
asked if the project would infringe on Metropolitan Water District property.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied the City will send them grading plans during the technical
plan check for comments· He indicated there would be no impacts or infringements on Metropolitan
Water District property.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- ~ February 28, 2001
NEW DOUBLE STRIPING PER APPROVED PLANS 2-08-01
NEW PAVING AND "NO PARKING" STRIPING PER APPROVED PLANS
T H E C I T Y 0 F
A NC I-IO C UCA MONO A
April 5, 2001
Sam and Lora Iftikhar
8811 Lurline Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
SUBJECT: DRC 2001-00088
Dear Mr. Iftikhar:
Thank you for submitting your proposed project. We want your project to be a success, one which you
and the City can be proud of. We have assigned a project planner, Emily Wimer, to assist you throughout
the review process up to final occupancy.
We have reviewed the application for your proposed project for completeness and accuracy of filing and
determined it to be incomplete for processing. Attached is a list of information needed prior to finding the
application complete, non-conformities with development standards, and major design issues. Further
processing of your project will begin once the Completeness Items are submitted and the application
accepted as complete. We recommend that all issues on the attached list be addressed now to expedite
processing of your project. Submit eight copies of the revised application to the Planning Division. The
information and/or plans necessary to make the application complete must be received within 60
'days from the date of this letter.
This determination of incompleteness is final unless'appealed within 10-calendar days from the date of
this letter. Only Completeness Items may be appealed at this time. A wdtten statement of reasons for
the appeal must be filed with the Planning Commission Secretary with a $62 appeal fee.
Should you have any questions regarding the review process, or if we can be of further assistance, please
feel free to contact the project planner at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thumday from 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
fiU~NITY DEVE~NT DEPARTMENT
Dan~3oleman
Principal Planner
DC:EW/jc
Attachment
cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
Steve Locati, Fire Protection Planning SA
Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councilmember Paul Biane
Mayor Pro-Tem Diane Williams Councilmember Bob Dulton
Jack Lam, AICE City Manager Councilmember James V, Curatolo
10500 Civic Center Drive * Ea. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 FAX (909] 477-2849
~'X h~, b~ '~" 'tO" www, cL roncho-cuc~a .co .us
FILE NO.: DRC2001-00088
(COMPLETENESS COMMENTS)
NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package
complete for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon
a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process.
I. 'Tips for a Successful Process:
A. Address Technical and Design Issues as early in the process as possible.
B. Identify one person for overall cooidination between your professional design team and
to serve as the key contact person with City staff.
II. Planninq Division (Emily Wimer) (909) 477-2750:
A. Completeness Items - Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the
application complete:
1. Show ultimate curb face location along Roberds Street, which is to be 18 feet from
centerline.
2. Show correct ultimate curb face .location along Amethyst Street, which is 22 feet
from centerline.
3. Show use of "existing A.C. paving" area south of building, including adjoining lot.
State what your intentions are for improvements to this area. If you intend to keep
using for parking, then it must be improved to meet ail City Codes, such as parking
aisle, striping, landscaping, and lighting.
· 4. Show location of public entrances to building, and any service entrances or loading
docks.
B. Technical issues - The following preliminary technical issues are minimum code
requirements, which must be satisfied before the project can be recommended for
approval to the Planning Commission. It is recommended that these issues be
addressed in the revised plans:
1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter is required around entire perimeter.
2. Extend landscaping across northeast property lines and remove handicapped
parking stall.
3. Add note that all parking spaces shall be double striped.
4. Provide planter areas, which are consistent with the approved planters on-site.
Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every three parking spaces. Trees
shall also be planted adjacent to building (north, south) at an equivalent of one tree
per 30 linear feet of building (which would be 3 trees each on north and south
sides of building).
SAM AND LORA IFTIKHAR
DRC2001-00088 - COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
April 5, 2001
Page 2
5. Provide a 6-fooi wide planter at the end of parking spaces in central triangular
area. This can be accomplished be relocating two southernmost spaces (see
attached sketch).
6. Provide wheel stops for parking areas, which do not have a 5-foot planter.
7. Provide lighting at a minimum of one-foot candle throughout the parking area.
Provide detail and elevations of the type of lighting, not to exceed 15 feet in height.
8. Provide detail of wrought iron fencing that will surround the parking area. Wrought
iron shall be painted to match existing gates.
9. As a local/collector streets, both Roberds Street and Amethyst Avenue require a
35-foot average, not less than 25 feet, landscape setback (as measured from
ultimate curb face). Revise plans to address this setback. The minimum-parking
setback is 25 feet; however, the average landscape setback must be maintained
by increasing landscape setback to 45 feet elsewhere along same street frontage.
10. Provide any combination of berming, shrub row, and 3 ~-foot high decorative walls
to screen parking areas from public view (i.e., from Roberds Street and Amethyst
Avenue, and the.future P~cific Electric Inland Empire Trail to the west).
11. Delete the northernmost parallel parking space, because it is impossible for
vehicles to get in or out of space due to adjoining perpendicular parking space
blocking access.
12. A minimum of 1-foot candle power lighting is required for security and safety,
Lights shall be designed to reflect away from residential use. Light standards
(i.e., poles) shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height.
C. Desiqn Issues - The following are preliminary design issues that are recommended to be
addressed in the revised plans:
1. Planning Commission requested that public entrance to building be relocated to
north side for convenience of customers.
2. Redesign entrance to parking lot. The awkward angles around corner of building
create bottleneck so that two vehicles cannot successfully negotiate at same time.
Shift driveway to the east to avoid building comer.
3. A walkway shall be provided from the parking area to the entrance of the building.
4. Provide screening of the Parking areas form public view.
5. Planters shall be fully landscaped in accordance with the Landscaping
requirements for General Commercial Districts.
SAM AND LORA IFTIKHAR
DRC2001-00088 - COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
April 5, 2001
Page 3
Ill. Enqineerinq Division - (Vicki Chilliki) (909) 477-2740, ext.4010:
A. Completeness:
1. Show street right-of way dimensions, showing both existing and ultimate right-of-
way and improvement cross-sections, for both Amethyst and Roberds Streets.
Include the parkway areas, and the .location of the proposed new on-site fencing
behind the parkway on Amethyst Street.
2. Show the existing ddveway locations on both sides of the streets within 300 feet of
the site, ad the proposed new driveway on Roberds Street.
3. Plot the existing overhead utilities and type, (per the attached Overhead Utility
handout).
B. Development Conditions/Comments:
1. Roberds Street frontage shall be fully improved to current city "Local Street"
standards, as required, including, curb gutter, A/C, parkway trees, sidewalk, and a
commercial driveway approach. Install two 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights, and
R26 "No Parking Anytime" signs, to be posted on Roberds Street frontage.
2. Amethyst Street frontage 'to be .fully improved to current City "Collector Street"
standards, as required, including, curb gutter, NC, commemial drive approach,
sidewalk, parkway trees, two 5800 Lumen streetlights, and R26 "No Parking
Anytime" signs along the frontage of Amethyst Street.
3. The property owner will sign a consent and waiver to join the appropriate Lighting
and Landscaping Districts to be filed with the City Engineer, prior to pen'nit
issuance and approval.
IV. Buildinq and Safety Division - (Allen Brock) (909) 477-2710, ext. 4200: If the project is
approved, then the following plan check requirements will apply:
NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSIATE
ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S)
A. General Requirements:
1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Floor Plan;
c. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of main switch, number
and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line
diagrams;
d. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams,
water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas
piping, and heating and air conditioning; and
e. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'F'r, CUP, DR, etc.) clearly identified
on the outside of all plans. ,.~
SAM AND LORA IFTIKHAR
DRC2001-00088 - COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
April 5, 2001
Page 4
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a
soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to
plan check submittal.
3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'
Compensation coverage to the City.prior to permit issuance.
4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls.
5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy
issued by the Building and Safety Division.
B. Site Development:
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved pdor to construction. All
plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., DRC2001-00001). The
applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other
applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit
application. Contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code
Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building .permits for a new commercial or industrial
development project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at
the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City
Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee,
Permit and Plan Check Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of
the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance,
3. Construction activity shall not occur betWeen the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays.
4. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's
public counter).
C. New Structures:
1. provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for all applicable
accessibility requirements, including but not limited to, parking, path of travel,
access, etc.
2. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be
needed.
D. Grading:
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building
Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading
plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of
California to perform such work.
SAM AND LORA IFTIKHAR
DRC2001-00088 - COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
April 5, 2001
PagE, 5
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the
issuance of building permits.
5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction
projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will
generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall
be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer.
V. Fire Prevention/New construction Unit - (Steve Locati) (909) 477-2770, ext. 3009: If the
project is approved, then the following plan check requirements will apply:
No comments at this time.
T H E C I T Y O F
D A NC HO C UC A HO A
July 1, 1999
Sved fftikhar
9456 Roberds Street
Alta Loma, CA 91701
SUBJECT; BUSINESS LICENSE CORRECTION - 9456 ROBERDS STREET
Dear Mr. I~tikhar:
In my absence, you approached the Planning Division for approval of a business license pursuant to Conditional Use
Permit 98-08. Upon my return, I reviewed the application and noticed the business description you provided is
inaccurate. Your business license application indicates the proposed business is "retail general merchandise product
and grocery items'. However, the Conditional Use Permit is for a product storage warehouse in a leased space of
approximately 14,000 square feet. Business license fees are different for retail and warehouse, and the erroneous
description will cause an incorrect calculation of business license i'ees.
An error on your business license application will not allow a business contrary to the approved Conditional Use Permit.
As we have discussed many times, the conditions of approval for the existing building at 9456 Roberds Street include:
"The application shall be restricted to warehousing of product storage only. Any expansion or substantial
change in use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit application, in which full site improvements will be
required in order to bring the site and use into conformance with all development standards required in the
General Commercial Zone." (Planning Condition No. 1)
A copy of Planning Commission Resolution 98-06 is attached for your reference. Any business activity which goes
beyond the scope of a product storage warehouse of approximately 14,000 square feet would violate your Conditional
Use Permit. Failure to comply with your Conditional Use Permit will cause this office to initiate a revocation hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Please come in and speak with our Business License Division to make the necessary corrections on your business
license application within 10 days of this letter to prevent voiding the license.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Rebecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 98-06
cc: Brad Bullet, City Planner
Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councllmennber Paul Biane
Mayor Pro-Tem Diane Williams ~ Councilmember Bob Duff'on
Jack Lam, ,NCP, City Manager Councilmember James V. Curcriolo
10500 CMc Center Drive · RO. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 FAX (909] 477-2849
£xh bi'/'
"~" www. ci.rancho-cuca~o~g~,ca, us
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY PLANNER TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-08,
LOCATED IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 202-092-08
A. Recitals.
1. Sam and Lora Iftakar filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No.
98-08, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 10th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission determined there was
sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on a proposed revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
3. On the 14th day of February 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heating for the revocation or modification of the
Conditional Use Permit; in which case the Commission rendered a decision finding that the
Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner, and that modifications to
conditions were necessary and continued the matter to February 28, 2001.
4. On the 28th date of February 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng for the revocation or modification; in which case
the Commission rendered a decision to find that the applicant had demonstrated a good faith effort
to modify the property for conformance, and continued the matter to Apdi 25, 200.
5. On the 25th day of April 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
6. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing on Apd125th, 200'1, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 9456 Roberds Street with a street
frontage of 263.4 feet, and lot depth of 206.3 feet, which is presently impreved with a 24,258 square-
foot warehouse facility, 14 standard parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER
April 25, 2001
Page 2
b. The property to the north of the subject site is residential, the property to the south
consists of commercial uses, the property to the east is a Southern Pacific Railway easement, and
the property to the west is a 7-Eleven service station; and
c. The application contemplated the establishment of a wholesale business; and
d. On May 26, 1998, the City of Rancho Cucamonga granted a business license for
warehouse use only comprised of the 1st floor, which has expanded to both floors; and
e. On July 7, 1998, the Planning Division approved a parking plan for 14 spaces with
the potential for 10 more spaces; and
f. On August 23, 1998, the Planning Division denied a Business License for retail use.
Since December 1998, the owners have continually operated a retail business; and
g. On June 21, 1999, the applicant submitted an a new Business License application
indicating some retail use; and
h. On July 1, 1999, the Planning Division issued a Business License correction letter,
which stated the permitted use was for a "product storage warehouse" pursuant to the approved
Conditional Use Permit; and
i. The applicant has been operating the business beyond the Conditions of Approval
which restrict the application to wholesale use only; and
j. The current property has not been upgraded with the required amount of parking for
a retail establishment, in order to conduct a retail use on the site, 38 spaces would be required, and
14 parking spaces are currently in use; and
k. The City has not received evidence that these issues have been resolved since the
original violations were detected in September 1998.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the retail use without sufficient
parking is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the
purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, would be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and would be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity by creating inadequate on-site parking and resulting in off site panVJng
congestion.
c. The proposed retail use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER
Apdl 25, 2001
Page 3
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission finds the operation to be in violation of the Conditional Use Permit and authorizes the City
Planner to revoke the Conditional Use Permit if, after ten days from the effective date of the
Commission's action, the City Planner finds the retail operation on the site is still being conducted.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bythe
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 25th day of Apd12001, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CI'I'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
API 2 4 2001
RECEIVED - PLANNING
BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER
PHASING PLAN
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED DATES:
DURATION FROM TO
~"'/ 1. Demo and construction of new street improvements 3 Weeks 06/20/01 07/11/01
2. Grading of parking lot 1 Week 07/12/01 07/19/01
3. Trenching, etc., for site underground development
(I.e., plumbing/sprinklers, electrical/lighting) 2 Weeks 07/23/01 08/06/01
4. Construction of new landscape planters, curbs, gutters 3 Weeks 08/07/01 08/28/01
~,~ 5. Finish grading and construct trash enclosure 1 Week 08/29/01 09/05/01
6. A.C. paving
a.) Place base 1 Week 09/06/01 09/13/01
b.) Pave 1 Week 09/14/01 09/21/01
c.) Stripe Parking 1 Week 09/24/01 09/30/01
7. Install landscaping with sprinklers 2 Weeks 10/01/01 10/15/01
8. Install lighting 1 Week 10/16/01 10/23/01
9. Install new masonry pillars and wrought iron fencing 3 Weeks 10/24/01 11/14/01
* NOTE: Time periods for separate trades may overlap.
BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER
PHASING PLAN I JUN 18-24 I JUN 25 - JUL 01 [ JUL 02-08 [ JUL 09-'15
M T WTH F S S M T WTH F $ S M T WTH F S S M T WTH F S
1. Demo and construction of newstreet improvements 3Weeks X X X X X X X X X X X X X X lX X X X X X!X X
2. Grading of parking lot 1 Week: X X X
3. Trenching, etc., for site underground development
(I.e., plumbing/sprinklers, electrical/lighting) 2 Weeks
4. Construction of new landscape planters, curbs, gutters 3 Weeks
5. Finish grading and construct trash enclosure 1 Week
6. A.C. paving
a.) Place base 1 Week
b.) Pave 1 Week I
c.) Stripe Parking 1 Week
7. Install landscaping with sprinklers 2 Weeks
8. Install lighting 1 Week
9. Install new masonry pillars and wrought iron fencing 3 Weeks
* NOTE: Time periods for separate trades may overlap.
I ~u~-~ I ~u~-~ I~u~o-^u~o~l ^u~o~-~ I ^u~-~ I ^u~o-~ I^u~-~
$ M T WT" F S S M T WTH F $ $ M T WTH F S S M T WTH F $ $ M T WT. F S S M.T WTH F S S M T WT.
XXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX~XXXXXXXXXXX
XX
F S $ M T WTH F S S M T WTH F $ $ M T WTH F S $ M T WTH F S S M T WTH F S $ M T WTH F $ S M T
XXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXxxxlxxxxx
X
=CT~S-=~ I OCT==-=S I OCT2S-NOV04I NOV0S-~I I NOV~2-1S I .OV~.-=S I
WTH F S S M T WTH F S S M T WTH F S S M T WTH F $ S M T WTH F $ S M T WTH F S S M T WTH F $ S
XXXXXXIX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
the city of
Rancho Cucamonga
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director
BY: Mitch Slagerman, Senior Redevelopment Analyst
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA - A REVIEW OF CONFORMITY OF REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA, EXTENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ABILITY
TO INCUR DEBT BY 10 YEARS AND ADDING CAPITAL PROJECTS TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
BACKGROUND:
The proposed Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment
Project (the "Amendment") has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit A. At its regular
meeting held March 21, 2001, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency")
authorized the transmittal of this Plan to the Planning Commission for its report and
recommendations concerning the Plan and its conformity to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
General Plan. California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code 33346) requires that the
Planning Commission, with jurisdiction over a Project Area, review the Redevelopment Plan and
make recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency pdor to its approval of the Plan.
In accordance with California Community Redevelopment Law (the "CRL") and the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impac~ Report ("Draft
Supplemental EIR") was prepared for the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan. The purpose
of the Draft Supplemental EIR is to provide affected taxing agencies, responsible agencies and
the public with an environmental assessment of the proposed amendment. A Draft
Supplemental EIR was prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse on April 6, 2001,
which started the 45-day public review period. The public review period for the Draft
Supplemental EIR will end on May 21, 2001.
ITEMS C & E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2
April 25, 2001
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
The Redevelopment Plan contains the provisions required for the Amendment. The
Redevelopment Plan is not a "plan" in the traditional sense of a plan, but primarily a legal
document, which authorizes certain Agency activities in the Project Area.
The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the time limit for establishing loans, advances and
indebtedness by 10 years pursuant to Section 33333.6 (a) (2) of the Health and Safety Code. In
addition, the Agency desires to include five additional public improvement proiec{s to the Plan to
be carried out by the Agency to eliminate blighting conditions within and adjacent to the Project
Area. The additional public improvements are:
1) Improve the freeway interchange at Base Line Road and the 1-15 Freeway;
2) Construct a satellite City Yard facility;
3) Install a fiber optic ring;
4) Widen Haven Avenue from Base Line Road to the SR-30 Freeway; and
5) Improve Foothill Boulevard from Vineyard Avenue west to the City limits.
(A map indicating the location of the additional public improvements is
attached as Exhibit B).
The Amendment makes no other changes to the existing Rancho Redevelopment Plan. All of
the additional public improvement projects conform to the City's General Plan.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential environmental
impacts associated with the project on biological resources, cultural resources, air quality,
transportation and traffic, noise and public services and utilities. Based on the assessment, the
project's impact on air quality was identified as potentially significant. In response to this impact,
mitigation measures have been included in the Draft Supplemental EIR to ensure the impact will
be reduced to a less than significant level.
Based upon CEQA recommendation, a public hearing on the Draft Supplemental EIR is
scheduled to be conducted'by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting as part
of this item. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments on the Draft
Supplemental EIR, but is not a formal evidentiary hearing. Responses to the Draft
Supplemental EIR comments received during the public review period, which includes oral
comments from the public hearing and written comments received by the Agency, will be
incorporated in the Final Supplemental EIR.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2
April 25, 2001
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and receive and make comments on
the Draft Supplemental EIR for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment Project and
make comments and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency regarding
Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 2.
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding that the proposed
Redevelopment Plan is in conformity with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Daniels
Redevelopment Director
LD:MS\Is
Attachments: ExhibitA- Draft Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Project
Exhibit B - Map depicting locations of five new capital projects
Draft Supplemental EIR for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment
Project (provided under separate cover)
Resolution Recommending Approval of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for
Amendment No. 2
Exhibit A
March 21, 2001
Draft Redevelopment Plan
for Amendment No. 2 to the
Rancho Redevelopment
Project
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment
Agency
DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE RANCHO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL/
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY MEMBERS
William J. Alexander, MayodBoardmember
Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem/Boardmember
Paul Biane, CouncilmembedBoardmember
James V. Curatalo, Councilmember/Boardmember
Bob Dutton, CouncilmembedBoardmember
PLANNING COMMISSION/
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
Larry McNiel, Chair
Rich Macias, Vice-Chair
John D. Mannerino, Commissioner
Pam Stewart, Commissioner
Peter Tolstoy, Commissioner
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCYSTAFF
Jack Lam, City Manager/Executive Director
Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director
Mitch Slagerman, Sr. Redevelopment Analyst
James L. Markman, Agency Counsel, Richards, Watson &
Gershon
DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
A. (§100) AUTHORITY ...................................
B. (§110) BASIS FOR THE PLAN ..........................
C. (§ 120) PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES ................................................. 1
II. REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION ................................ 2
A. (§200) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................... 2
B. (§210) FINANCING LIMITATIONS ........................................................ 3
IlL ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................... 4
A. (§300) ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN....4
B (§310) SEVERABILITY ............................................................................. 4
Appendix A - Redevelopment Map
Appendix B - Legal Description
Draft Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment Project
L INTRODUCTION
A. (§100) AUTHORITY
This Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter "Plan") for Amendment No. 2 to the
Rancho Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") was prepared by the
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency in accordance with the
California Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seq. (hereinafter"CRL"), and all applicable laws and
ordinances. The Plan consists of this text, the Redevelopment Plan Map for
the Rancho Redevelopment Project and the corresponding legal description
(Appendix A).
The Plan contains provisions that are based on the CRL in effect on the
adoption date of this Plan. This shall not be construed to limit the powers or
duties of the Agency under the CRL, which powers and duties shall be
governed by the CRL in effect at the applicable time, for the action taken,
obligation incurred and/or requirement imposed.
B. (§110) BASIS FOR THE PLAN
The basis for this Plan is the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho
Redevelopment Project adopted by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council on
December 23, 1981, by Ordinance No. 166; Amendment No. 1 adopted on
August 6, 1987 by Ordinance No. 316A to increase the financial limitations to
the Plan and to include additional public improvements to be undertaken by
the Agency; and by Ordinance No. 537 to establish time limits consistent with
Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6.
C. (§120) PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES
The boundaries of the Project Area are shown and described in Appendices
A and B.
1
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency ~_~ __~ %
Draft Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment Project
II. REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
A. (~200) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
To the extent and in the manner permitted by law, the Agency may, with the
consent and cooperation of the City, pay all or part of the value of the land for,
and the cost of the installation and construction of, any buildings, facilities,
structures or other improvements which are publicly owned, either outside or
inside the Project Area.
1. (§201) ADDITIONAL FACILITIES OR IMPROVEMENTS
W~thout limiting its general authority, the Agency is specifically authorized
to provide or participate in providing the improvements listed below.
Improve the freeway interchange at Base Line Road and the 1-15
Freeway
· Construct a Satellite City Yard facility
· Install a fiber optic ring
· Widen Haven Avenue from Base Line Road to the SR-30 Freeway
· Improve Foothill Boulevard from Vineyard Avenue west to the City
limits
Changes in circumstances or designs may alter the location of the
facilities described above in this Section 201, or may require other related
facilities. Such related facilities shall be deemed authorized by the
Agency.
The Agency will be authorized to finance the construction of additional
improvements in the Project Area based on the requirements of any future
project, environmental impact report, any congestion management
program, or any air quality management plan, or any other regional or
local regulator~ program. These items may include, but are not limited to,
such travel demand management strategies as: signalized intersections
and signal coordination; park and ride facilities, traffic calming; and,
extension and expansion of transit services.
Rar~cho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency ~_~ ~ ~__ ~) 2
Draft Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment Project
B. (§210) FINANCING LIMITATIONS
Consistent with CRL Sections 33333.6 and 33334.1, the following financing
limitations are imposed on this Plan:
1. (§211) TIME LIMIT ON INCURRING DEBT
The Agency shall not establish or incur loans, advances, or indebtedness
to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes beyond January 1, 2014.
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 3
Draft Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment Project
III. ADMINISTRATION
A. (~300) ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THE PLAN
The administration and enforcement of this Plan, including the preparation
and execution of any documents implementing this Plan, shall be performed
by the Agency and/or the City in accordance with all applicable provisions of
the CRL.
The provisions of this Plan, or other documents entered into pursuant to this
Plan, may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by either the Agency
or the City. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, specific
performance, damages, re-entry, injunctions, or any other available legal or
equitable remedies.
B (§310) SEVERABILITY
If any provision, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Plan is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable, or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity and effectiveness of
the remaining portion or portions of the Plan.
Rancho Redevelopment Projeet
APPENDIX A
Redevelopment Plan Map
Rancho Redevelopment Project
~__~.~ ~ ~ Appendix A
Oug~ld~ Proj~c~ Ar~a
No~ ~o 5~aI~ '~ ....
Ranct~o Cucare~nga Redevelopment A~ency I~RO~IE CT AREA MAP
~ancho Redevelopment Project Area
Rancho Redevelopment Project
APPENDIX B
Legal Description
Rancho Redevelopment Project
Appendix B
RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That real property in the City of Rancho Cuc~monga, County of San Bernardino,
State of California, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Highland Avenue, 60 feet
wide, State Highway No. 190, and the East line of Hanley Avenue, 30 feet wide;
thence Easterly, 1,320 feet, more or less, along said centerline of Highland
Avenue, to the Northerly projection of the Easterly line of that certain parcel,
shown in San Bernardino County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 03, Block 031,
as Parcel 2, the same being the Northerly projection of the Westerly line of Lot
2, Block I, of the Etiwanda Colony Land Subdivision, C.S. File 474, recorded in
Book 2, Page 24; thence Southerly along a llne parallel to said East line of
Hanley Avenue and its Southerly projection, along the Westerly line of Lots 2,
7, 10, and 15, Block I, Lots 2, 7, 10, 15, Block J, Lots 2, 7, 10, and 15, Block S, of
said Etiwanda Colony Lands Subdivision, further described as Southerly, along '
the Northerly projection and Easterly line of said Parcel 2, continuing
Southerly along the Easterly line of Parcel 9 in said County Assessor's Map
Book 227, Page 03, Block 031, continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of
Parcel 2 in said County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 04, Block 041,
continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of Parcel 13, shown in said
County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 04, Block 041, to the Northerly line of
Victoria Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Southerly, across said Victoria Avenue,
along the Northerly projection and Easterly line of Parcel 3, shown in said
County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 10, Block 101, continuing Southerly
along said Parcel 3, continuing Southerly along the Southerly projection an.d
easterly line of Parcel i in said County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 10,
Block 101, to the Northerly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way,
100 feet wide; thence continuing Southerly, 1,420 feet, along the Northerly
projection and the Easterly line oi~ Parcel 17, shown in said County Assessor's
Map Book 227, Page I1, Block 111, to the Northerly line of Baseline Avenue,66
feet wide; thence continuing Southerly along the Southerly projection of the
East line of' said Parcel 17, along the Easterly line of' Parcels 8, 9, 20, and the
Southerly projection of said parcels, shown in said Assessor's Map Book 227,
Page 17, Block 171, to the Westerly projection of the centerline of Miller
Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence S 89° 41' 50' E, along said canterline of Miller-
Avenue, to the centerline of Etiwanda Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence Southerly
along the said centerline of Etiwanda Avenue, to the Southerly City boundary
line of said City of Rancho Cuc~monga, said City Boundary also being the
Northerly City boundary of the City of Ontario, and the centerline of Fourth
Street, 120 feet wide; thence Westerly, along said City boundary line, to the
centerline of Archibald Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence Northerly, along the said
centerline of Archibald Avenue, to the centerline of Femn Boulevard, 68 feet
wide; thence S 89° 50' 10' E, 2663.17 feet, ~long said centerline of Feron
Boulevard, to the centerline of Turner Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence Northerly
along said centerline of Turner Avenue, to the Westerly projection of the South
line of Tract No. 9337, recorded in Map Book 134, Pages 65 and 66, in the Office
of the Recorder of said County, said Southerly line being 132 feet, more or less,
Southerly of the centerline of Devon Street, 60 feet wide; thence S 89° 27" 36' E,
822.74 feet, along said Westerly projection and South line of Tract No. 9337, to
the East line of said Tract No. 9337; thence N 0° 08' 34' W, 9?9.86 feet, along
said East line of Tract Ho. 9337, to the North line of said Tract No. 9337; thence
N 89° 19' 32' W, 822.32 feet, along said North line of Tract No. 9337, to the said
centerline of Turner Avenue, thence Northerly, along said centerline of Turner
Avenue, to the centerline of Foothill Boulevard, 110 feet wide; thence
S 89° 35' 40' W, 1329.57 feet, along said centerline of Foothill Boulevard, to
the Northerly projection of the Eas~ line of Ramona Avenue, 55 feet wide;
thense S 0° 07' 00~ E, 340 feet, more or less, along said East line Of l~,~ona
Avenue, to the Eaat~rly projection of t, he South line of sn alley, 20 feet wide;
thence S 89° 54' 40~W, 937.78 feet, more or less, along said Westerly projection
and South line of ths alley, said South line also being the North line of Lots No.
101 through 115 ot'Tract No. 3054, recorded in Map Book 54, Pages 14 and .15,
in the Office ot'the Recorder of said County; thence N 44° 03' 20' W, 167.11 feet,
continuing along said South line of the alley; thence S 89° 56' 00'. W, 275.89
feet, to the centerline of said Archibald Avenue; thence S 0° 05' 20' E, 121 feet,
more or less, along said centerline of Archibald Avenue, to the Easterly
projection of the South line of an alley, 10 feet wide, said South line of the alley
also being the North line of Tract No. 5121, recorded in Map Book 64, Page 18,
in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence S 89° 59' 07" W, 1338.26
feet, along said North line of Tract No. 5121, to the West line of said Tract No.
5121; thence S 0° 03' 12" E, 331.04 feet, along said West line of Trect Bio. 5121,
to the North line of Tract No. 9083-1, recorded in Map Book 129, Pages 11
through 13, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence S 89° 58' 44' W,
1338.33 feet, along said North line of Tract No. 9083-I, and continuing along
the Westerly projection and North line of Tract no. 9083-2, recorded in Map
Book 130, Pages 14, and 15,'in the Office of the Recorder ofsaid County, to the
centerline of Hellman Avenue, 74 feet wide; thence BI 89° 40' 22~ W, along the
North line of Tract No. 9617, recorded in Map Books 137, Pages 56 through 59,
in the Office of the Recorder of said County, and continuing along the Westerly
projection of said North line of Tract Bio. 9617, to the Southerly projection of the
centerline of' San Diego Avenue; thence Northerly, along the said Southerly
projection and centerline of San Diego Avenue, to a line parallel with the said
centerline of Foothill Boulevard and 524 feet Northerly of' said centerline' of
Foothill Boulevard; thence Easterly, along said line paratlel with the
centerline of Foothill Boulevard, to the centerline of'Carnelian Avenue, 60 feet
wide; thence Northerly, along said centerline of' Carnelian Avenue, to the
centerline of San Bernardino Road, 60 feet wide; thence S 88° 06' 00' E, 1500.02
feet, along said centerline of San Bernardino Road, to the Northerly projection
of the West line of Tract No. 9297, recorded in Map Book 130, Pages 65 and 66,
in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence $14° 33' 28' W, 162.40,
along said Northerly projection and West line of. Tract No. 9297; thence
S 0° 12' 37' W, 314.89 feet, along the West line of said Tract 9297, to the South
line of said Tract No. 9297; thence S 89° 46' 53~ E, 1185 feet, along said South
line of Tract 9297, to the centerline of Hellman Avenue, 63 feet wide; thence
N 0° 08' 14' E, 438.71 feet, along said centerline of Hellman Avenue, to the said
centerline of San Bemardino Road; thence S 87' 56' 00' E, 2000.00 feet, along
said centerline of.San Bernardino Road, to the centerline of Klusman Avenue,
66 feet wide; thence S 0° 08' 00~ W, 385 feet, more or less, along said centerline
of' Klusman Avenue, to the centerline of Estacia Street, 50 feet wide; thence
Easterly, 676.25 feet, more or less, along said centerline of Estacia Street, to
the said centerline of Archibald Avenue; thence Northerly, 345 feet, more or
less, along said centerline of. Archibald Avenue, to the Westerly projection of
the North line of.Tract No. 9409, recorded in Map Book 135, Pages 85 through
87, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence N 89° 05' 36" E, 667.88
feet, more or less, along said Westerly projection and North llne of
Tract No. 9409; thence N 0° 03' 07" W, 677.05 feet; thence S 89' 56' 53" W,
667.88 feet, to the said centerline of Arch/bald Avenue; thence N 0° 03' 48" W,
676.89 feet, along said centerline of Archibald Avenue; thence N 89° 57' 15" E,
663.44 feet; thence N 0' 06' 21" W, 505.81 feet; thence N 89° 57 38" E, 230.77
feet; thence N 0° 6' 21"W, 185 feet, to the centerl/ne of Church Street, 88 feet
w/de; thence Easterly, 465.91 feet, along said centerline of Church Street, to
the Centerline of [~mona Avenue, 66 feet; thence S 0° 08' 53" E, 2044.96 feet,
more or less, along said centerline or' R~mona Avenue, to the Easterly
projection of the North llne of said Tract No. 9409; thence l~ 89* 05' 36" W,
664.36 feet, along said North llne of Tract No. 9409, and continuing along the
boundary lines of said Tract No. 9409, through the following bearings and
d/stances:
S 00° 15' 13"E, 10.62 feet;
S 89° 56' 25' W, 289.25 feet;'
S 00° 03' 56' E, 496.76 feet;
N 89° 55' 32" E, 288.51 feet;
N 89° 56' 23" E, 348.51 feet;
Northeasterly, 105.45 feet;
1%1 O0° 08' 28'W, 15.00 feet;
thence N 89° 55' 45' E, 232.87 feet, to the said centerline of Ramona Avenue;
thence N 0° 08' 28" W, 416.75 feet, along sa/d centerline of'Ramona Avenue, to
the Westerly projection of the South line of Tract 9422-1, recorded in Map Book
137, Pages 10 through 13, in the Office of' the Recorder of sam County; thence
N 89° 56' 52' E, 664.67 feet, along said South line of Tract 9422-1, to the West
line of Tract 9153 recorded in Map Book 130, Pages 22 through 24, in the Office
of the Recorder of said County; thence S 0° 11' 25" E, 330 feet, more or less,
along ss/d West line of Tract No. 9153, to the South line of said Tract No. 9153;-
thence N 89° 36' 14" E, 664.97 feet along said South line of Tract No. 9153, to
the cen[erline of Turner Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence I%1 0° 14' 30" W, 330.97
feet, alonl~ said centerline of Turner Avenue, to the Westerly projection of the
South line of Tract 5591, recorded in Map Book 67, Pages 61 and 62, in the
Office of the Recorder of said County; thence S 89° 30' 45" E, 689.32 feet, along
said Westerly projection and South line of Tract 5591, to the South line of Tract
5592, recorded in Map Book 69, Pages 38 and 39, in the Office of the Recorder of
said County; thence continuing S 89° 30' 45' E, 1947.42 feet, along the Easterly
project/on and South llne of Tract No. 5592, recorded in Map Book 69, Pages 38
and 39, in the Office of the Recorder of said County, to the centerline of Haven
Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Northerly, 6260 feet, more or less, along said
centerline of Haven Avenue, to the North right-of-way line of the Southern
Pacific Railroad, 80 feet wide; thence Easterly, 2098.25 feet, along the said
North line of Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, to the Westerly line of a
flood control easement, 100 feet wide; thence Northeasterly, 4084 feet, more or
less, along the Westerly line of said flood control easement, to the centerline of
said Highland Avenue, thence Easterly, along said centorline of Highland
Avenue, to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTIONS.
Except for the following described parcel;
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Baseline Avenue, 120 feet
wide, and the centorline of Rochester Avenue, 50 feet; thence Southerly, 5042
feet, more or less, along said centerline of Rochester Avenue; thence Easterly,
903.40 feet; thence Northerly, 947.10 feet, to the South line of Ellen Street, 60
feet wide; thence Easterly, 27.55 feet, along said South line of Effen Street,/o
the Southerly projection of the East line of Parcel 2, recorded in Book 22?, Pa~e
28, in the Office of the Recorder oi' sa/.'d County; thence Northerly, 4089.18 feet,
to the centerline of said Baseline Avenue; thence Westerly, 886 feet, more or
less, to the Point of Beginning, the property more particularly described as
Tract 8806, recorded in Map Book 130, Pa~es 38 through 39, in the Office of the
Recorder ofsa/d County, Tract 8805, recorded in Map Book 126, Pages 61 and
62, in the Office of the .Recorder of said County, and Tract 8369, recorded in
Map Book 118, Pages 36 through 39 in the Office of the 'Recorder of said ·
County.
Exh ~l~t B
:~..,,~,',~rt, ,",:o. 2 FI/~t./(; I,~]k?.,OI'EMENT ,~E~c?JEc. T i'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING TO THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AMENDMENT NO. 2 ,TO THE RANCHO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BE APPROVED, AND MAKING ITS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE CONFORMITY OF
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
WHEREAS, proceedings have been initiated by the Rancho Cucamonga
Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") for the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for
Amendment No. 2 to the Rancho Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 33346 of the California Health and Safety
Code, the Redevelopment Plan is to be submitted to the Planning Commission for its repot[
and recommendation conceming the Redevelopment Plan and its conformity to the City's
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Redevelopment Plan provides for the construction of public
improvements in conformity with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
finds and determines that the proposed Redevelopment Plan is in
conformity with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2. The Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a copy of
this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
and to the Agency as prescribed in Section 33346 and 33347 of the
Health and Safety Code.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
LarTy T. McNiel, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2
APRIL 25, 2001
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
' adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of Apd12001, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
THE CItY OF
]~AN C H 0 C II CA M 0 N C,^
Staff Report
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Michael Smith, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101
- WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY - An appeal of a Condition of Approval in
connection with the City Planner Conditions of Approval of Tree Removal Permit
on approximately 7.5 acres in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located
at 9201-9299 Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-211-14 and 32.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Division received an application for Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00101 from
the Wohl Investment Company (Exhibit "E") on March 5, 2001. The application was submitted
in response to a "stop work" order that was issued by Code Enfomement Officer Art Chacon,
when he observed 4 trees being removed without a permit on March 1, 2001 (Exhibit "D"). The
applicant requested a permit to remove 2 Ash trees, and 2 Juniper trees that were located within
the parking lot along the Amhibald Avenue street frontage. The applicant cited damage to the
adjoining parking lot curbing, and a blocked view to the businesses within the center as reasons
for removing the trees. As part of the review process, staff inspected the subject property, and
did not observe any significant damage to the parking lot curbing around the trees' former
locations. The amount of visual obstruction caused by the trees could not be determined since
the trees had been completely removed.
Staff recommended approval of the permit on Mamh 13, 2001 with the condition that eight
15-gallon size, Platanus Acerifolia (Sycamore) trees be planted at a spacing of 35 feet on center
along the Archibald Avenue street frontage (Exhibit "F"). The planting of these trees is
consistent with the Archibald Avenue Beautification Master Plan.
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101 -WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY
April 25, 2001
Page 2
On March 26, 2001, the applicant submitted a Letter of Appeal requesting that they be permitted
to plant six 10-foot Washingtonia Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) trees instead. They indicated
that these would better integrate with the remaining Palm trees on-site (Exhibit "G").
ANALYSIS:
There are six Mexican Fan Palm trees located on the site. Of the six, only three are located
along the street frontage; however, they are not the designated street trees within the Amhibald
Avonue Beautification Master Plan. Currently, there are Sycamore trees planted along both
sides of Archibald Avenue on properties adjacent to the subject property. Staff believes that
planting Sycamore trees would best fulfill the objectives of the Archibald Avenue Beautification
Master Plan and maintain consistency with neighboring properties.
Tree removals on private property are evaluated under Section 19.08.070 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code that establishes the following criteria for considering removal:
1. "The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any
portion of the tree(s), proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility
services."
FacEs: The applicant did not cite the physical health as a reason for removing the
trees. Additionally, since the trees were already removed, it was not possible
for staff to determine the extent of visual obstructions. There was no significant
damage to any parking lot curbing or paving observed.
2. "The necessity to remove a tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic
enjoyment of the property."
FacEs: The applicant was not proposing any improvements. Sycamore trees are
commonly used throughout the neighborhood, and have sufficient canopy
height so that businesses are clearly visible from the street.
3. "The number of trees existing in the neighborhoods; and the effect the removal would
have on the established character of the area and the property values."
FacEs: The trees along the street were a natural aesthetic resource that, when
removed, negatively affected the property and its surroundings.
4. "Whether or not such trees are required to be preserved by any Specific Plan, Community
Plan, Condition of Approval, or designated as a Historic Landmark."
.FacEs: The Industrial Area Specific Plan Section 17.30.040.A.9. requires that "all
landscaping shall be kept free from weeds and debris, and maintained in a
healthy growing condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing,
and trimming." No evidence was submitted to indicate that the trees had been
properly pruned to improve visibility of the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101 -WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY
April 25, 2001
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the City Planner's Condition of Approval requiring the planting of the
Sycamore trees fulfills the City's vision of creating and preserving a positive, natural aesthetic
look along Archibald Avenue. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny
the appeal (uphold the City Planner's conditions of approval for Tree Removal Permit
DRC2001-00101 ) through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:MS/jc
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Stop Work Order and Photos provided by Code Enforcement
Exhibit "E" - Tree Removal Permit
Exhibit "F" - Letter of Approval with Conditions
Exhibit"G" - Appeal Letter
Resolution of Denial Upholding the Condition of Approval for Tree Removal
Permit DRC2001-00101
ITl
x LOCATI(~N MAP
7TH STREET
SUBJECT PROPERTY
920t-9299 ARCHIBALD
RANCHO IN.OUSTRIAL PARK
RET, AIL - OFFICE - INDUSTRIAL'
9201-9299 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga
9273 ,,%
9.520
9275/'
1260 9279
1260 s.L
'~:~.~x CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON
I ~ ~ CODE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
CORRECTION NOTICE
Day.~7"~'l~e~ Date ~ / // / ~) I Time /
File/Adr.~/~ '7.1~ } ~.--t'. ~"T~. ~'"--~"~.A~ 7,,a A 'i
An inspection has been scheduled on / /__ m verify compliance.
lou, r presence is not required. Please call if you need further inSrmati, on.
ease contact Code Enforcement to discuss the required correcUve acnon.
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Code Enforcement Bureau 10500 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
(909)A77 272~ - cf77,~L?7
EXHIBIT 'D'
C1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CODE ENFORCEMENT BLrI~EAU PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CODE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA coDE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIJDENCE
~ · ~cooo~-oo~ o i
Tree Removal Permit
~,.~c~.,..~ ~ Non - Development
Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person remove or relocate any
woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and
multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (30) inches or more (measured twenty-four (24) inches from ground level), without
first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the City.
Location of Subject Site: q/~/-~ k F~//~/t' ~..~,~
Name, Address,,Telephoneof^pplicant: I,~l'~J //~i'-V~,l/[.4: ....~'~/~
Name, Address, Telephone of Property Owner (if other than applicant):
This application shall include a plot plan indicating location of all trees to be removed and retained. The species, number,
and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased, then a written statement from a licensed
arborist stating the nature of the disease shall be required.
'BY ~ Reasons:
Date:
EXHIBIT 'E' :ReceivedRecelptNo.
,-) z 633 o/
1 Condition of the trees? ~,J~-[,)l~J "' ~ ~ '~/1~'~
2 Any safety hazards to persons, adiacent property or utilit7 installations?
3 Any conflict with proposed improvements? ~JoAJ~::
4 Proximity of other trees in the area? ~,)[/~1~9..~ '~..1~' ~ ~O~p4'~
5 Effect of tree removal on the aesthetics of the area and the public health, safety and welfare. "~?~'
6 Are any of the trees required to be preserved by any'specific plan, condition of approval, or historic landmafk~6signation.
7 Is an arborist required?
¥" T H E C I T Y 0 F
A NC HO C UCA lvIONGA
March 13, 2001
Karen Stinson
Wohl investment Company
2402 Michelson, Suite 170
Irvine, CA 92612
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101
Dear Ms. Stinson:
The Planning Division has reviewed the application for Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-
00101.
Based on review of the application and site inspection, staff has made the following findings:
1. The applicant has removed four trees along the street frontage of a commercial
center located at 9201-9299 Amhibald. Specifically, these trees were located in
the landscaped area between the sidewalk and the parking lot.
2. The roots of the subject trees were not causing significant damage to nearby
sidewalks, curbing, or parking lot pavement.
3. There are other, similarly sized trees in the complex and in surrounding
properties.
4. The removal of the trees has had a negative aesthetic effect on the area.
Therefore, your request has been approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The removed trees shall be replaced by eight, 15-gallon size, Platanus Acedfolia
"Bloodgood" trees consistent with the Amhibald Avenue Beautification Master
Plan. These replacement trees shall be spaced at 35 feet on center.
2. The replacement trees shall be planted within 90 days, unless an extension is
requested in writing at least 14 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The remaining trees on-site shall be preserved in place. Applications for their
removal shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to their removal.
This decision shall be final following a 10-day appeal pedod. Any appeals shall be
made in writing to the Secretary of the Planning Commission along with a $62 filing fee.
Mayor William J. Alexander ~J~ Councilmember Paul Biane
Mayor Pr~-T~m Diane Williams ~ Councilmember Bob Dutton
~, Cily Manager Councilmember James V. Curatalo
EXHIBIT'F' ~ox807. RanchoCucC~nonga, CA91729 · (909) 477-2700 ' FAX[909)477-2849
~2) X"~ www. ci,rancho-cucamonga,ca.us
KAREN STINSON
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101 -WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY
March 13, 2001
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact the City of Rancho Cucamonga at (909) 477-2750,
Monday through Thursday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Principal Planner
DC:MS/jc
cc: Art Chacon, Code Enforcement Officer
March 20, 2001
Secretary. of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Tree Removal
Permit #DRC2001-00101
Attn: Secretary of the Planning Commission
1. We would like to request removal of the remaining two existing junipers
(shrub species pruned to look like a tree/NOT A TREE).
2. We would also like to request to install 6 new Washingtonia Robusta (10'
trunk height, skinned) instead of 8 15-gallon Platanus Acerifolia as suggested.
The Washintonia Robusta will blend nicer with the 5 existing Washingtonia
Filifem along Diamond Bar.
I've enclosed a copy of our proposed tree renovation plan for your review.
Thank you in advance for your time. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
call me at 949/955-0115.
Sincerely,
WOHL/ARCHIBALD, LLC
Karen Stinson
Construction Coordinator
EXHIBIT 'G' ,Th~,NTCOMPANY2402Michelson, Suitel?O, lrvinc, California92612
.0115 · FAX: (949)95S-0123 · Web$ite: www. wohlinvestment,cora
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S APPROVAL OF TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT DRC2001-00101, INCLUDING THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL
REQUIRING REPLACEMENT PLANTING WITH EIGHT PLATANUS
ACERIFOLIA TREES, ON APPROXIMATELY 7.5 ACRES IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 4), LOCATED AT 9201-9299
ARCHIBALD AVENUE - APN: 209-211-14 AND 32.
A. Recitals.
1. On March 5, 2001, the Wohl Investment Company filed an application fora Tree Removal
Permit DRC2001-00101, requesting the removal of four trees within the parkway along Archibald
Avenue. The trees had already been removed and a "stop work" order issued by a City of Rancho
Cucamonga Code Enforcement Officer on March 1,2001. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tree Removal Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 13, 2001, the City Planner conditionally approved the application subject to
replacement planting with eight Sycamore trees in accordance with the Archibald Avenue
Beautification Plan.
3. Wohl Investment Company timely appealed the decision of the City Planner, specifically
the tree species and the number of replacement trees required.
4. On the 11th day of April 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting to consider the appeal.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on April 11, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 9201-9299 Archibald Avenue near the
northeast comer of Archibald Avenue, and 6th Street in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4),
with a street frontage of approximately 350 feet and lot depth of approximately 600 feet, which is
presently improved with an industrial park complex; and
b. The properties to the north, south, and east are within the General Industrial Distdct
(Subarea 4) and are improved with industrial park complexes similar to the subject property. The
properties to the west are within the Low Residential District and are improved with single-family
residential dwellings; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRC2001-00101 - WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY
Apdl 25, 2001
Page 2
c. The applicant is appealing a Condition of Approval requiring the planting of eight
15-gallon size Platanus Acerifolia (Sycamore) trees, spaced at 35 feet on center, consistent with the
Archibald Avenue Beautification Master Plan. The applicant requests planting six Washingtonia
Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) trees instead, which would not be consistent with the Archibald Avenue
Beautification Master Plan or with the majority of the trees located along the street on adjacent
properties.
d. The trees were required to be maintained by the property owner "in a healthy,
growing condition" by the Development Code (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section
17.30.040.A.9). No evidence was submitted to indicate that the trees had been pruned to improve
visibility.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The Sycamore trees required as a Condition of Approval are in accord with the
General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
b. The planting of the Sycamore trees, together with the conditions applicable thereto
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The planting of the Sycamore trees will be consistent with the Archibald Avenue
Beautification Master Plan that is being implemented on adjacent properties located along Archibald
Avenue.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the City Planner's approval, including Condition
of Approval No. 1, as contained in the approval letter dated March 13, 2001.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRC2001-00101 -WOHLINVESTMENT COMPANY
Apd125,2001
Page 3
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 25th day of April 2001, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
THE CITY OF
]~ANC I1 0 CUCAMONCA
Staff Report
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: TRAIL PRIORITIES ANNUAL REVIEW
ANALYSIS:
A. Trail Priorities: The City's Trails Implementation Plan adopted in 1991 sets forth trail
improvement priorities which are to be reviewed each year to adjust pdodty based upon
urgency, availability of funding, and revised cost estimates. Last year, the Alta Loma Riding
Club proposed that five dding trail projects be given funding priority. The top priority,
extending the regional trail around the Demens Basin from Hillside Road to Amethyst, was
completed. Completion of this project was made possible through the generous donation of
volunteer labor.
The Alta Loma Riding Club has submitted an updated list of recommended priorities (see
Exhibit "A"). The trail locations have not changed; however, the priorities for 2 and 3 have
been switched as follows (the 1991 estimated construction cost, excluding design, is identified
for each):
1. Beryl Street - from Banyan to Wilson ($63,000)
2. Beryl Street - from Hillside Road to Almond ($63,000)
3. Sapphire Street - from Jennet to Hillside, and a short section from Whidaway to
La Senda ($98,200)
4. Banyan Street - from Camelian to Archibald ($396,000)
Staff agrees that these locations would provide important linkages by "filling gaps" in the
existing trail network. The Trails Advisory Committee met on March 14, 2001, and
recommended approval. Their recommendation was considered by the Park and Recreation
Commission on Apd119, 2001.
B. Fundin.q: Trail projects, including acquisition of right-of-way, design, and construction, are
funded as Capital Improvement Projects. Funding sources typically include park fees,
beautification fees, and grants. For the Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Budget, which is currently
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TRAIL PRIORITIES
Apdl 25, 2001
Page 2
under review, all funding is targeted for the Pacific Electdc Inland Empire Trail. The master
plan for the multi-purpose regional Pacific Electdc Inland Empire Trail was approved in
December 2000, and the next step is engineering design and environmental review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
priorities. The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:DC~Is
Attachments: Exhibit 'W' - Letter from Alta Loma Riding Club dated March 9, 2001
ALTA P DING CLUB
Marchg, 2001 ~' ~ ... ""
Ci~ of Rancho Cucmonga
A~: D~ Colem~, Piing Dept.
10500 Civic Center Dr.
~cho Cucmong~ CA 91730
De~ ~. Colem~:
It h~ come to my a~ention ~t I made an enor in my le~er ~d Feb~ 20, 2001. I
~opped ~ item ~om the ~ ~ma ~ding Club's proioh~ list ~ e~or. Plebe note
that the list shoed read as follow:
1. Beryl St., North of Banyan, up to Wilson - This trail starts on the east side
of the street, crosses at approximately Manzanita, and proceeds up the west
side of Beryl. The safety and asthetics of th~s area would be greatly improved
by the addition of the white horse trail fencing. Note that it is particularly
unsafe at this time in the portion below Manzaulta (on the east side of the
street), as this area is slightly elevated and has a small retaining wall. When
horses spool% due to dogs or other activites in the yards adjacent to this trail,
they are not only unrestrained from the street and northbound traffic, but they
also have a drop of approximately 1 to 2 feet, to the street level. This
increases the threat to horse~ rider and traffic. We also note that the footing is
rocky and would be easily improved by the removal of rocks and the addition
of decomposed granite.
2. Beryl St., North of Hillside, up to Almond - This trail is on the east side
of the street. The safety and aesthetics of this area would be improved greatly
by widening the area near Hillside~ as the trail narrows at that location. It
could also be easily improved by removing rocks and/or adding decomposed
granite to improve the trail fooling.
3. Sapphire, North of Jennet to Hillside and a short section from Whirlaway
to La Senda - We note that bike lanes have been added to the street in the
section between Jennet & Hillside. This creates a concern, as presently riders
axe forced to use the street or the sidewalk, since there is currently no horse
trail in this area. This puts both horse and rider at risk. Connection of the
trails in this area would greatly increase the safety factor. The road narrows
at the section between Whirlaway and La Senda, putting riders dangerously
close to traffic, and at times on rocky footing, pavement orthe lawns of homes
in that area.
4. Banyan, between Carnelian and Archibald - The trails along Banyan
typically mn on the north side. We would like to confirm that the City
already has trail easements provided in this area. If so, we request
that they be improved to increase safety and to make more trail connections
at the southerly end oftbe City's most populated horse area. A concern of
ours is that delay in addressing this particular improvement may increase
problems with the adjacent residents.
Please refer to the attached corresponding maps. It has been brought to our attention that
these items have been brought to the attention of the Trails Committee and are currently
slated for their meeting scheduled on Wednesday, March 14. I hope that the addition
noted in this letter can be noted for the meeting.
Again, I apologize for my omission and hope that this letter will serve to correct it.
Please feel free to contact me at 945-3159 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Carol Douglass
Alta Loma Riding Club, City Liaison
P. O. Box 116
Alta Loma, CA 91701
Page 1 of 1
MAPBLAST! Beryl St AT Manzanita Dr
Ever~0~e nee~ = liff~ direr'ion in lifm Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
. ~-- ~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ] ~ ~AI~ L~ Dr ,~ ~ ~ I~~- '-~ ~ ~-~---
http://www, mapblast.com/myblast/mPrint, mb?CT=34.1477%3A- 117.6074%3A 10000&LV=2.. 3/11/01
Page 1 of 1
MAPBI S:T! Beryl St AT Camellia Ct
Ever)~e nee¢t~ ~ J~ ~ir~n i~ li~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
B~ ~a Dr ~dd~n F~ Rd ', ~
~ S~ ~ ~ Carr~ri CT r~----~
http://www, mapblast.con~myblast/mPrint mb?CT=34.1558%3A. 117.6076%3A 10000&LV=2.. 3/11/01
Page 1 of 1
MAPBLAST! Sapphire St AT Hillside Rd
E~er~e .~ ~ I~ ~ir~tlon i~ li~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
/ ~MAPB~T1
http://www, mapblast, com/myblast/mPrint.mb?CT=34.1545%3A-l17.6257%3A5000&LV=l&.. 3/11/01
Page 1 of 1
!13 MAPBLAST! Beryl St AT Manzani~ Dr
i. li~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Ave ~-~ ~-~ I ~ Apr ~t A~
http://w~vw, mapblast, com/myblast/mPrint, mb?CT=34.1477%3A- 117.6074%3A 10000&LV=2.. 3/11/01
PARKING BREAK DOWN HANDICAP SIGN
SLUMP STONE (TAN)
RETAIL AREA: 4,280 sq. ft. = 18 STALLS ~ K I I ~ , [ ~ ~
WAREHOUSE AR~: 26,520 sq. ft. = 24 STALLS _
WHITE ~ __ (~P.)
TOT*L *"~ 30.SO0 sq. ~t. ---- l
~ 42 SPACES ~NDICAPPEO ~ i--
-- _
~ 42 SPACES BLUE
F'~KINC ONLY ---
· ~ ~'-s" , __ --
42 STANDARD PARKING STALL ~ / ---- ---- 6" CONG.
0 COMPACT PARKING STALL --~ S~B PiPE ~ll~ CLEAR
_
2 HA~DICAPP[D PARKING STALLS ~__
--~ --- EXTERIOR COLOR · F=NISH
u u u u u u u u u u u u u
WITH BUILDING
PiPE GUARD-6"~ STO. ~'-0" ~ 9'-0"
10'-0" ~P' STEEL PIPE PILLED W/ AT VAN STANDARD
~p. )NCRETE ~ ALL EXPOSED CORNERS ACCESSIBLE 5'-0" 9'-0"
FRONT EL~ATION HANDICAP (~P.)
RAILDROAD R.O.W.
5'-0" WIDE
290.0,5' PL. //--- EXISTING C.F.L. .ANDSCAPE
y 3o'-7 ,°
ADJACENT ~- a ' ~ ~ / ~ / ~" ,? WROUGHT
RETAIL AREA ~ ,~ /
ADJACENT///LBASEMEN'= 14.000 ,q.f'.,// '* ~ !'
LOT . ,,
LOT LINE o/ /
_ CAb / A GUTTER
~ ~88.65' [ PATH OF ACCESSIBLE P~NTER % ~,,~ ~
16'-0" - ~N~SCAP[ I .,~RK PAINT TRAV[L ~P' '0, ,
~RIVEWAY EW CURe , % ~ / / / /
ROBERDS% MARK PAINT % %/ ~ / WROUGHT "
70 SO. INCH % /LOT LiNE LOT ~ x ~
z
ADJACENT %0~ Xo.. ~ ~
ADOACENT ../ m
PROJECT DATA LEGEND ~ ~ ~
~ I~IK~ - ~- SPRINKLERS
~SELINE ~RGIN CENTER
9456 ROBERDS STREET ~ 0 TREES AND
D~WlNGS PREPPED BY: 1. TREES PROVIDED SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM 15 GALLON PER Cl~ STANDARDS. x~
C · G CONSTRUCTION SE~ICES 2. ~NDSCAPING SHALL INCLUDE 15-GALLON TREES AND 5 GALLON SHRUBS WHICH ,
869 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE J PROVIDE A ~NDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG FENCE. ~ ~ ~ 3-25-01
UP~ND, CALIFORNIA 91786 3. PARKING LOT LIGHTING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET HIGH,
PHONE: (909)608-0080 A MINIMUM ONE FOOT CANDLE SHALL BE PROVIDED. S.L.
FAX: (909)608-0088
E-MAIL : CONSTSERVl~aol.com 4. ROBERDS STREET AND AMETHYST STREET FRONTAGES TO BE POSTED WITH
~SESSOR'S P~CEL No. R-26 "NO PRKING ANY TIME SIGNS".~ ~ GAR
1" = 20'
202-092-008
00-07 -INTERIM PARKING 0~--7~
BUILDING COVE~GE: SHEET NO.
~ OF 1 SHEET~