HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/10/11 - Agenda Packetd
H
n
H
O
4
O 9
M [�
A N
yN „y
y r
d
M
e
q4 1
r:
October 10, 197a +t,*
Planning Commission".
�..„ The City of Rancho Cucamonga
9340 Baseline Road
r Rancho Cucamonga, Calif, 91730 - 4.
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is to ask that you seriously consider for amendment
the proposed General Plan in relation to the proposed land uses
surrounding Chaffey College.
iF
We are the developers and b-ailders of the Deer Creek Community.
An equestrian oriented, acre lot, single family home area that will f.
have a beneficial effect on the surrounding areas, including Chaffey
College. Our development covers 293 acres and 293 homes. As you are
aware, there are other large -lot homes under construction in this area.
We believe that high density apartments along Haven Avenue cannot
benefit the existing and planned large -lot homes. We do not desire a
change from the prior indicated large -lot zoning in any -ray close to
Wilson Avenue or Chaffey College, and we do not believe any major
frontage on Haven Avenue should be so designated. We are also
questioning a density up to 30 units per acre as this would indicate
no open space or garden type development. The 2 to 5 unit zone lying L
„Xt immediately east of Chaffey College appears questionable due to the = :,
w; type ot - land and location adjacent to, flood lands. This'wculd' eem:tb°
support no more the- two per kcre' "" • w� d
We will support this position in person at the public hearing
that will be held in the future.
Very truly your
By: a'
William Griqkby ..,
cc: Mr. Jack Lam, Public Works Director
Mr. Lloyd'Hubbs. City Manager . ";.I
Mr. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Dr. Cantonzero, President, bhaffey College
THE DEER CREEK COMPANY R)S1' OFFICE: IM' 488 AER I MA,CAI .IFORNIA 91701 (710989-33211
VANGUARD COMPANIES
9211 ARCHIBALD AVE. • CLICANIONCA, CALIFORNIA 91730 • (714) 987 -6376
October 6, 1978
nv FL,
^_ITY QF RANChU UUCA AONGA
Comn,0ITY VLVEL OPLILNT DEPT.
City of Rancho Cucamonga uCT ] (; 1978
9320 Baseline AM PM
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 71gln1jo111112111218141516
ATTN: Jack Lam, Planning Dircctor
RE: General Plan - North side 19t1i Street
10 acres West of Ramona Avenue
Dear Mr. Lam,
We appreciate the staff recommendation to show the high
density on the subject property.
In support of our request and our proposed multi - family
project, I would like to provide the following; additional
information:
1. Attached is a 3 page sequence of events which shows
the activity on this project over the last 7 years,
particularly, the heavy envolvements over the past
three years.
2. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council at its meeting
of January 41 1978 approved our request for zone
change extension.
3. We have developed a site plan with the input of
marketing, engineering and the County staff, which
has cost us $7,000 in consulting fees only. Our
in -house manhour cost would probably exceed $5,000,
Plus th-!r^ has been an addi tional land holding cos'
4. Our latest plan details 172 apartment units on the
site. The engineering, and planning is 90% complete.
We hope the above information will assist you in a positive
decision towards the high density designation on the subject
property..
Very truly yours,
Ron Nottingham
Director of Development
Vanguard Builders, Inc.
RN /cs
encl..
J
r
r.
!h.
Job #370 -0101
VANGUARD L.S.H.P. SEQUENCE: OF EVENTS
On or About
11 -11 -71
Zone Chang2, C.U.P. and L.S.H.P. applications filed by John
F. Anderson for entire parcel from Archibald to Ramona.
Proposal for L.S.H.P. (apartments) discussed with represen-
tative from Vanguard.
Duplex project proposed by Vanguard through Maxwell Brown G
Muldins with requirement that a L.S.H.P. be filed.
11- 3.3 -75
L.S.H.P. fi.lcd by Vanguard for duplex development.
Continued review by County of both duplex and apartment
project.
11 -24 -75
Conditions of approval prepared on duplex project for Planning
Commission meeting of December 1975-
11 -24 -75
Maxwell, Bro'.Jn and Mullins notified of expired zoning (by
King, County) .
11 -25 -75
Duscussion with Phil Brown re: status of projects and zoning
re: which (apartment or duplex) will proceed, and action on
zone change, letter to follow (by King, County).
1 -30 -76
Retroactive zone change extension granted by Board to 9 -5 -76.
1 -30 -76
Phil Brown of Maxwell, Brown and Mullins requests an indefinite
continuance of time to resolve zoning and to determine scope of
project.
2 -19 -76
Planning Commission approves zone chan92 on remainder parcel
to north and recommends Board withhold final action until
1- 26 -77. L.S.H.P. and Tentative Tract continued till 1 -26 -77
by scmn action.
5 -3 -76
Board acts to approve withhold zone change on remainder parcel
and to extend existing zone change to 1- 26 -77.
6 -1 -77
Processing re- initiated by R.M.A.
6 -7 -77
Discussion with Tommy Stephens re: processing and modifications
of existing plan.
Paqe 1
T'a�jv 2
I
c I In -0101 !
6 -29 -77
'f
Review with Tommy Stephens of preliminary modifications to i
existing plan (minor changes suggested, basically O.K.)
7 -12 -77
Review of Dick Scott of modifications and processing re-
quirements per Tommy Stephens on L.S.H.P.
B -11 -77
Submission of revised plans to Planning and E.R.C.
B -16 -77
E.R.B. review of revised plan - O.K. for single use of an
existing E.I.R.
i
B -26 -77
Notice of 9 -1 -77 Subdivision Committee meeting.
l
9 -1 -77
Subdivision Committee Meeting (note: plan 3 submitted on
B -11 -77 were not passed out and were apparently lost, thus
no in -depth review and no conditions). Ben Mackell of
comply with
Foothill Fire District indicated plan did not
building in
districts requirements as to access to rear of
s
verbal recognition by Joe
spite of previous clearance and
indicated that he would schedule item
Longo. Tommy Stephens
on 9 -29 -77 Planning commission agenda.
9 -77
Meeting with Tommy Sti2pliens on proposed revisions per Foothill
in
-6
Fire District and fact that is should not ca-tse delay
processing.
9 -9 -77
Letter from Ben Mackell (Foothill Fire District) re: non
acceptance of existing plan as proposed, request of Tommy
Stephens that plan not be approved if taken to Planning
commission on 9 -29 -77 until clearance from him. i
9 -14 -77
Letter from Joe Longo, Foothill Fire District, re:
additional conditions.
9 -19 -77
Letter from Joe Longo, Foothill Fire District, further
conditions. i
9 -15 -77
Frank Molina on vacation with note on top of file requesting '1
new property• !
through
9 -30 -77
Owners list
9 -26 -77
Notified by Doug Payne that a new property owner's list will
late
be required prior to Planning Commission (and it is too
to get on 9 -29 -77 agenda).
10 -3 -77
Revised property owners list to San Bernardino County. i
T'a�jv 2
I
.101, #370-0101
10 -6 -77 Subdivision Committee Meeting.
10 -7 -77 Noise Control Plan submitted per staff condition.
10 -20 -77 Planning commission Hearing continued to 11- 17 -77.
Page 3
0
0
„r1
THE GARDEN APARTMENTS CITY OT r %AN';;, CUCAN,ONCA
.HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1 -WAII ISTI.ATION
SNCORPI ... �' OCT 11 1978
6300iAVEN AVENLE AM ,
ALtqAOMA. CA. 91701 71819.1101111i21112131A15 6 PM
September 29, 1978
Planning C0Fslp1iS5i on
City of Rancho Cucanonga
9340 Base Line Road
Llta Loma, California 91701
Pear Sirs:
The undersigned, all homeowners of the Alta Loma Garden
Condominiums, wish to voice their concern and displeasure with
the proposal contained in the Proposed General Plan for Rancho
Cucamonga to erect a shopping :enter on the "east or west” corner
of haven and Iliehland Avenues, Ale would like to recommend a
modification of the plan such that neither east, west, north or
south of Highland and haven be developed as a shopping center.
First of all, the General Plan shows this area as resident -
inl in character. A,o do not agree that a shopping center is
compatible with the indicated use. Several shopping centers
nlready exist on 19th and Base Line Avenues, so that there is
simply no need for an additional shopping center only two blocks
away from the Stater's Supermarhot complex. Even John Blayney,
at the public hearing on September 13, admitted that there were
already too many shopping centers for Alta Loma.
Second, the existence of Chaffey College north of the
projected shopping center with its present 10,000 students,
faculty and staff members going up and clown Haven Avenue at least
twice a day moans that, already, a minimum of 20,000 vehicles
rust utilize this major thoroughfare every weekday. This does
not include traffic that will result from the occupation of the
Peer Creek develoilment north of the collcGe and the apartment
buildings around the college that the Commission had seen fit
to approve. It stands to reason that a shopping center on either
.side. of Haven :venue and esi-ecially at an intersection such as
Highland Avenue will e:cacerbate.this problem. If, as rumored,
Haven ;,venue is being groomed as a scenic road much like north
Euclid Avenue, Iood residences, not markets, are more in conso-
nance with the plan, unless the commission plans to make Haven
itvenue look like do%,ntown Ontario on Euclid. It seem= that
rather than further congest, the city should deflect traffic
from Haven Avenue by locating markets elsewhere.
The third reason which we believe the commission hould
be made acutely aware of is the positive correlation between the
establishment of shopping centers and the increase in congestion,
noise, air pollution and, most serious; of all., crime.
i�
r 1 :e1 t]+e 11o1,11: ouruurn of the .'.lta Loma Garden Condominiums,
]v-chased our homes bocnuse, long before the creation of a P.ancho
C Awn ?-lonrn2 the ];old nruund us was zoned nn residential. Our
model cnndominimq developmenc is cstal.lished in the community.
`'le like vherc we live and would like to preserve the residential
nature of our environment. To this end v.-c ask the Planning Com-
mission to delete the projected shopping center on'the northeast
and northwest corners of highland and Haven Avenue.
It is the responstibillty of an aware, responsible and
forward—looking city commission to resolutely avoid and eliminate
problems as nov exist in all too rally American cities. Alta Loma
still has a chance to mnintain its rustic nature. Let rustic,
pastoral charm be the identity, the associative image of our
city, not the clutter of shopping centers block after block that
is the mark of Anyto+:n, U.S.A.
Ae'
..othaay�i,rtL �am��� ->v
Sincerely,
V
V'\
U
f-
Bondad Winery
LIunM 3707
PHONE 7141037 -2710
October 6, 1978
Planning Commissioners
Rancho Cucamonga
California
Dear Commissioners:
G� ,L% lNC.
PRODUCERS OF
FINE WINES
ALTA LOMA, CALIFORNIA 01701
We respectfully request a commercial zoning on land
owned by Opici Winery, Inc., located at Hermosa and
Highland, and Mayberry Avenues, Alta Loma, California,
excluding 2081 north and 223.961 east per the attached
plot plan.
It is planned that a small restaurant will develop.
We wish to express our gratitude and appreciation for
the time, effort and duties which you are putting forth
in behalf of the people of Rancho Cucamonga.
Sincerely yotll' °.
v �
�ir ".i�;f• / ',•,• 1//'77j 17, r'�s l%�t ,
Mary iri llUmergut
MCH:mdc
cc: Planning staff
Attachmont
C
STAFF RIYOP.T
0
12
DA'1'1:: October 11, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
PROM: Jack Lam, Director of Commun'ty Development
S1114.i1:C'1': SITE APPROVAL NO. 78 -01 - The development of a public equestrian
boarding facility on approximately 5 acres of land located at
5394 Hermosa Avenue - A -1 -5 zone - Request submitted by James
McHann.
BACKCROUND: As the Commission will ;eca11, this project was continued to
allow the applicant time to provide additional information in regards to
horse.densities and trail systems. Attached is a copy of the original staff
report and support material provided by the applicant.
The applicant has provided a survey of existing boarding facilities. From
review of this survey, it can be seen that the density this applicant is
proposing is not unreasonable. In addition, three of these facilities are
located in urban areas of higher residential densities than that around the
subject site. Staff has called several agencies to determine possible den -
siti.cs for an equestrian boarding facility. Only one agency, the City of
Pico Rivr_rn, had any guidelines. Their provision:; allowed the Commission
to determine the density based on the specific use, its l- ocation in relation
to surrounding uses and its accessibility to the trail system. But in no
case could they approve a density higher than 50 horses per acre.
The applicant has also submitted his comments on the trail system and its
relationship to the proposed facility.
The County Environmental Health Department is presently reviewing the develop-
ment plans. However, their comments weri not available at the time this re-
port was written.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division re- ammends that the Planning Com-
mission approvwa and adopt resolution Va. 78 -09 with the following additions
and amendments to the conditions:
Amendments:
6. That the applicant submit complete plans to the County health De-
partment and obtain necessary permits. Such permit with conditions
shall be filed with the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permits.
SITE. APPROVAL NO. 78 -01
Page 2
October 11, 1978
8
Additions:
10. That daily clean -up of horse manure lie done to insure control of
flies.
11. That annual staff review of the development: be done. to insure that
the project id complying with the conditions of approval. If pro-
blems have arisen, then the project shall be brought before the
Planning Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
SACK LAM, Director \ef-
Community Development
JL:MV:deb
0 0
TR1.II:
At this time there are no desigLated public trails in
Rancho CucaaonSa. Riding that is cai-rently being done is
being done along roadsides and private •_properties- Until a
proper trail system is constructed, It mould not be our inten-
tion to have riders ri.di.ng off our p:roperty.. the rLrlers �,iuuld
be properly advised of the trail ro'blems and private property
boundries. if th °y do rids: on private r,roperty , they would be-
come coley responsible for the consequences.
There is a trails committee rec,earching and analysing the
turrdnt'.problems and poss'.ble solut'..ons; The Alta Loma Riding
Club. The members of the A.L.i.C. -chat ire contacted felt an
equestrian _development of the proposed kind is needed in this
area, Phil Beniot, J'err,; :Iilson, Pam Henry. It would seem
logical to assume that if such a development were to be ailoaed
on the proposed site, Wiat an easily accessible trail would be
incoruorated in the =ea durin;; the - ,_itie.l 1:ra3.1 design and
I ro_t.
It would become ,, part of cur civic res_onsibility and best
intc:cests to see a 77crhable trail sys(c:u maintained in our area.
The increase-if horses in the Rancho CucamonSa area will neces-
witate a solution tr. the current proble:as. :ie feel a develop-
ment of the proposed kind would further aid ecizestrian type pro-.
sects tivit:zin the community.
GUE:DT SP': .t Bob Bill
':7e ccu -u rind no means to computate horses per
contained area. :7e asked a,crofessional horseman and
t2quC.5 U-:Oj n COnsuit�a%t to v.'°ifer his adviecc. He 2IMS
a -reed to come and talk with the Commission and an5vler
any question: the CcLmicsion may have.abcut horse board-
ing facilities.
Bob Hill. has ormed his own public boardi =E stablt.
in San Dimas. He housed 120 horses on 10 acres. He now
c:-rns and operates a equestrian products business. He
designs, fabricates and installs box stalls, paddocks and
other horse related equipment.
EW.E,'TRIAN C.iT .'RS HOrzE r:SISITY SURVEY
NAT J3 & LOCATION
# San Dimas Equestrian
Center
299 E. Foothill Blvd.
San Dimas, CA 917 ?3
(714) 539-2494
Via Verde Equestrian
Center
20610 2. Renehaw
Covina (San Dimas)
(213) 91-:;6 -2371
:iestr:ard Ho
21st 2treet
Upland, C:_
(714) : c:2 -0097
Bay Bar Ranch
3900 Bar Bar Road
wittier, CA
(213) 6;, -9260
*Rancho San Di aas
741 YT. San Dimas Ave.
San Dimas, CA 11775
(714) 5 9 -9119
Painbow Canon
9300 TT. San Gabriel
Azusa, CA 91702
(213) 334 ~7719
ACREAGE HORSES CONDITION
6 102 Very well maintained
16 112 Laintained
7 on hill -
side
10 75 Mai ntalned
5 in grove
6 88 Maintained
5 50 Very well maintained
6 89 Very !ell maintained
Contact .:as wade with the Health Department of San Bernardino
Count,;. ;e e-t_:lained that ..e needed to s'__o• :f that this site is �ccep-
t_ble for the proposed hon-c ;e.'_city. `^he Health Depart _ le - U _eferred
us to the Invironment:..l Derartment Vector Control. A cox. ^.lete site
i,.lan :vas �-i.ven to the Zvi :' ,mental Dept. for analysis. The address
and vhone ni.inbcr of the Plarmin Co,:Lmission .:az also included in the
plcn. They indicated t':.Gt t: e;; -:could try to t;et back to us by Oct.
5, The r.lan does recsuire He, -1th DcpExtment - anitation approval.
�.hb�b arc IMO-W wn Uri lu e, E u: etf 1Vur raidie, aE doW�f'ecr *n -P(W
n
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 11, 1976
T0: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT* SITE APPROVAL 78 -02 - Request for an Alu;riinum RecvclinR Plant
in an M -2 zone generally located` on the .,f stxAi,
Street between Archibald and Turner Avenue - Request submitted
by Reynolds
BACKGROUND AND DCSC_ItIPTION: The applicant is requesting site approval of
an 8,325 square foot recycling plant in a M -2 zone on the above described
property. The plant is designed to break down aluminum brought to it by
truck from collection stations throughout Southern California. After
breakdown, the aluminum would be stored in a 65' high storage silo and
then transported by train to melting plants back east.
The land use designation on the proposed General Plan for this site is
minimum impact industrial. The zoning for the site and surrounding pro -
perty is M -2. The existing land use for the. area t, currently vacant
except for the adjacent east property which has light industrial buildings
under construction.
ANALYSLS: The operation of the recycling plant would he conducted within
an enclosed building. Further, the applicant proposes to incorporate
noise attenuation techniques into the plant to minimize noise impact.
The applicant has asrsured staff that the noise generated by the plant
would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. To support
their contention, the applicant has submitted noise level statistics for
their plant located in the City of Unyward. Staff ha. r, reviewed these
statistics and has determined that the noise levels are within reasonable
limits for a minimum impact industrial use.
The plant would require eight parking spaces and the applicant has provided
eighteen (18). Staff recommends that the five (5) spaces located at the
;;outheast corner of the property in front of the entrance gate: be replaced
with landscaping. Further, Staff rec nends an increase to size of the
landscepc island in front of the building allowing a twenty -five (25) feet
aisle width for the driveway.
SITI. APPROVAL 78 -02
CORRESPONDF.NCF: A public hearing notice was published in the Cucamonga
Times on September 28, 1978. In addition, property owners within 300
feet of the subject property were notified of said hearing. Staff has
not received any response from such notification.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Ptv "ion recommends approvrl of Resolution
No. 78 -12 based on the findings and conditior.� listed therein.
Respectfully suhmltted,
� n
A:1, Director of
Community Deve1cpment
.11.: B11: iun
11
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 11, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
U
PROM: Jack Lain, Director of Community Development .
Sillt.lECT; DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN ISSUES
At the first Planning Commission public hearing on the General Plan numerous
snout was received regarding certain designations nn the proposed General
Plan. As a result of this .input, Staff has organized L. Specific lrtsues
regarding specl.fic areas and has developed rcoommendations in regards to some
of these issues. These areas have been discussed with the Planning Consultant_
and the following is a description of rach lssae follow by the Staff's
recommendation. These issu -.s nre not all inclusLve and some items not
elaborated here will lie discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting
(t.e. "reserve' areas, other, residential and commercial areas, etc.). It
is hoped that the Planning Commission can disco ;s each one of these issues and make
decisions on each so that the Commission can move closer to a formal recommendation
to the City Council regarding s land use plan.
RESIDENTIAL ISSUES:
<Area: North side of Foothill Boulevard between Vineyard and Hellmcn
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential
Issue: Residents nearby oppose multi - family high density designation.
Commercial interests however feel the area should be service
commercial.
Factors: This: area has been shown as servire commercial in previous
Ccnf —al Plan alternatives, however, some Commissioners
felt it desirable to limit commercial designation along
Foothill to avoid the de ✓elopmrnt of a commercial strip.
Staff in examin[ng this particular area finds the lot
depths insignificant for multi- family development. Currently
existing In the area are the commercial offices of Lucas Land
Company and the `uture development of a motorcycle sales and
repair service on the northwest corner of Hellman and Foothill.
Other commercial uses near Vinevird Avenue are also prevalent.
RECOMMENDATION_: This area should be designated service commercial consistent
with rrevious sketch plans.
Area: Are, east of Chaffey College
I/ General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Issue: Should Uu• area be high density residential.
I
0
DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN ISSUES
Page 2
September 27, 1978
2. Factor: The area is close to Chaffey College and is buffered by flood
plane directly east and south and by the future Wilson Avenue
extension. High density residential could be compatible with
surrounding lower density residential as well as create an
excellent college residential environment. Higher density
residential can he consistent with recommendations for high
density west and south, of Chaffcy Collcgc.
RECOILMENDATION: This area should be designated high density residential.
�rea: East hank of Cucamonga Channel northeast corner of the City above
Hillside Road.
General Plan Designation: Very Low Density.
Issue: One individual asked for consideration of lower density for this
area.
Factor: The General Plan designation is a maximum and does not imply that
aLl property will and should be developed to those densities.
The General Plan does not prohibit lower density in regards to
zoning and lower density zoning districts can he developed for
this and other areas where density can be m:.intained at less
than General Plan designation. This can be accomplished through
zoning.
RECOMMENDATION: Retain the proposed very low density residential designation.
Area North side oC 19th Street between Ramona and the- commercial designation
` on the corner of 19th and Archi�hald.
J �
Gcner3l Plan Designation: Low Density Residential.
Issue: Vanguard apparently has R -3 multi - family zoning and desires to retain
the name. The .nrea is adjacent :o n currently developing shopping
center, and since the plan fosters nniti- family adjacent to
commer,.ial facilitiep and since multi - family development can be
adequately huffored both by the pre�pised freeway, the commercial
facility at 19111 Street, the notcntiai extension of Ramona, and
because: the site has adequate access, the area can be considered
for high density residential.
RECOMMENDATI01% Change this area to high density residential.
5. Area: Hermosa Avenue school locations below 19th Street.
Issue: The Janes Company objects to the iocntion of proposed schools on
their property.
0
DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN ISSUES
Pare 3
September 27, 1978
Factors: The School District has examined school site selection very
carefully and indicates that the general locations shown are
excellent sites able to serve a large walk -in area. The
School District is going to proceed with plans to purchase at
least an elementary school site somewhere in this location.
RECOMMENDATION: Retain General Plan designation for school site.
Arco: Park site designation east of Archibald above Foothill.
General Plan Designation: Park Site.
Issue: Marlborough Company is concerned with location of parr. site.
Factor: The argtnnents concerning the. location of park site had been
debated over rind ov ^r in the past. These designations are
not necessarily site specific. It designates a concept that some
park area near tl-w vicinity would be desirable from the standpoint
of a public facility.
Retain park site designation
COMMERCIAL ISSUES:
Area: n� Ci Wind
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential.
Issue: Opici Winery desires commercial designation.
Factors: If any commercial uses are to be associated with existing, uses
thought to be important to the heritage or history of the
community, detailed examination of those uses should he done
prior to indiscriminately creating commercial designations.
Criteria and standards for such selections as well as other
planning considerations must be made at a site specific
level hef•;re any such decisions are made. The General
Plan currently provides for policies that would allow for
a zoning procedure to so enable non- rc::identinl uses in
residential areas provided that standards and criteria are
met and other planning considerations have been examined and if
such sites are found to be in fact important to the heritage
or history of the community.
REMMENDATION: Retain the Gencrae Plan do-A gnation until futher study.
The Plan does preclude such xoni.ng procedure.
l.! Area:
side or isaseline.
lroad tr
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential.
DISCUSSION OF GENERAL. PLAN ISSUES
Page 4
September 27, 1978
0
2. Issue: There are existing commercial uses in this area as well as
developing commercial uses.
Factors: Because of the existing uses and the new uses being built in
the area and the location of the Southern Pacific Railway and
the juncture of two major arte.ials and the location of a
shopping center nn thn vnrnrr of Ra.pl_inp and Arrhihn1d, it
is questionable whether this area is condusive for residential
development.
RL•'COMMENDATION: Change General Plan to reflec* service commercial designation.
3. Area: Thomas Vineyard Winery
General Plan Designation: Service Commercial.
Issue: Thomas Winery intends to expand the small commercial center.
Factors: The Genera. Plan does not prnhibtt this since the designation
is service commercial whether a free stnading use or a center.
RECOMMENDATION: No conflict. Retain General Plan designation.
4. Area: Alternative A.
General Plan Designation: Regional Center Alternative.
Issue: Individual objects to regional shopping center concept as a focal
point for community, desires more open space.
Factors: Over the course of future City development, the community cau
support a regional type comwercir.l center which can have benefits
both to the community in term~ of the availability of commercial
Pacillties as well as cor.Lributions to the !cmmunLty tax base.
The question of central identity for the community was a topic
of previous discussion and space it is difficult to project
precisely into the future and project precise .Locations of
such a center proposal it was desirable to show the three most
rea: unable alternatives for potential ccnLcr sitvf; and to Indicate
a choice in the General Plan rather than to reflect one site.
There was strong agreement by the Plannin; Commission in previous
discussions that a shopping conger if designed properly and
planned for properly can prov: a strong central identity for
the urban area.
RECOMMENDATION: Maintain policy position of the Planning Commission.
5. Area: Southeast corner of Heilman and foothill.
General Plan Designation: Service Commercial.
DISCUSSION OF GENERAL Pi.AN ISSUES
Page 5
September 27, 1978
0
5. Issue: Lucas desires conunercial center designation.
Factor: There is no conflict between this desire and the General Plan
designation since service commercial does not discriminate between
freestanding uses and multi — tenant center.
RECOMMENDATION: No conflict. Keep Generai Pian designation.
6. Area: East side of Vineyard between Arrow Route and Foothill.
General Plan Designation: Mixed Use.
Issue: Speaker desires commercial uses rather than mixed uses.
Vineyard is a major arterial and a major entry into the City.
It is undcosirable to encourage uses that would change the
character of the street to a commercial strip when there is
an opportunity to control development of the area by allowing
only uses which develop less'vehiculir turn movements from
Vineyard.
RECOMMENDATION: Retain mixed use designations
7. Area: Area abounded by Southern Pacific tracks, Devore
General Plan Designation: Windrow.
Issue: Property owner feels property is not condusive for residential
development and instead desires commercial designation.
Factors: Because of the area's relative small size and buffering from
the transportation corridors and its exposure and accessibility,
service commercial can he compatible on this site. This was once
a proposal on a previous sketch plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Modify the General Plan to reflect service commercial.
espectfully submitted,
fluo�-, of
Community Development
JL:dm
et( aAft,
0
STAFF REPOWl'
DATE: October 11, 1978
f0: Planning Commission
0
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Minor Deviation No. 78 -01 - Magnolia Development - Southwest
corner 19th and Carnelian
The property in question is located on toe southwest corner of 19th and
Carnelian and the project was approved by the County Planning Staff prior
to the adoption of Ordinance 19 that require: Director Review. III fact,
this particular project has been issued building permits and construction
has already commenced. The approval. lacked attention toward proper land-
scape area, nod furthermore neglected any consideration for building eleva-
tion treatment and proper circulation on the site. Since the project has
been approved and construction has commenced there is little the City can
do to significantly modify the site plan for the buildings. Staff however
has contacted the developer of the project and asked his cooperation in making
improvements to the site that would enhance the safety for circulation on the
site, would resolve some drainage problems, and greatly Improve the aesthetic
quality of the development itself. The appltcant has been very cooperative
-Ind staff feels that the modifications proposed would be a benefit to the
community. Without such modification::, the project would be hnilt as approved
and would detract from the visual character of the intersection and the neigh-
borhood.
In order to achieve the improvements to the site it is necessary for the City
to consider g,rantilig of n minor deviation in regnrd, to a building set back
from the western property line (Building "C "). The applicant with the support
of staff is requesting a minor deviation of 10' thereby freoi.ng up the cir-
rulation pattern (drive aisles) on the site and allow fo, significant aesthetic
Improvements to the center. With such a minor deviation the applicant has
agreed to install significant. landscaping on the site whereby the previously
approved plan shows only a maximum 15' of .landscaping, in the front portions
of the prc, -jest. The new reviscd plan shows up to 30' of landscaping. Further-
more, landscaping would lbc Included within the parking lot itself, and planter
area:: wottld be placed near the buildings where the previon:;ly approved plan
showed none. Furthermore, design considerations have liven made to the eleva-
tions of the buildings that would enhance visual. appearance of the project
enormously. The applicant has agreed to provide special treatment to the rear
of Building "C ", the portion that faces the residential neighborhood. The
previous approval just showed the back of a building with no considerations
for screening of mechanical equipment and so forth. furthermore, the applicant
intends to provide significant landscaping within that 10' set back. The
applicant has also agreed to certain site modifications that would improve
drainage conditions on the sILe and would tic into in(] resolve (Iralnir(t
problems related to adjacent properties. Gurl.hermore, for applicant has
agreed to participate in the coordinated effort of improving the 1901 and
Carnelian intersection to the point where the intersection may be improved
considerably from its present. conditions.
RHCO,NZIF.NDA'r1ON: Staff recommends that thr. PlannillP Cammission approve the
minor deviation regucst aS per rho nlnw-, submitted. Purthcrmore, that the
approval prove the following conditions:
1.. The rear of 11u11ding "R" ~hall have architocturai troatment to
GI•roen mechanical cqulpment and provide some architectural relier.
p. The mansard.rcaf on till, north clovatton of Building "C" he con-
tinued to the back of the building.
3. 'fbr drtvewj%,
along 19th
StrceL be tenved ent:t
to align with tllr
driveway on
tilt, prnjcct
directly npr:a;ite of
this project (north
side of 19th
St.rvei;.
4. I'he landscaping plan be modifled as per silo staff ccnnmcnta On the
submitted e-cnccptual landscape plats and that a final d"talI" land -
srape and irrigation plan he submitted to atni arproved by thr plan-
ning Division.
5. A uniform sign program be developed for Staff review and approval-
Respoctfully fauhmtttcd,
JACK LM, Director of
Community Dc`velopment.
.1 L:ntn
STAFF REPORT
RATE: October 11, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
E
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
ECTS tiodification of Tract Conditions for Regency Equestrian
1 Estates - Tracts 9378 -79 -
Regency Equestrian E: =tales is located at the northeast intersection of
Archibald and Hillside load. As a condition for approval. of this particular
tract, the County .__gnired that "a standard or approved block wsl.l or other
acceptable alternative will be required.along the rear lots on Hillside Road"
The particular subdivision, as the name denotes, is equestrian oriented and
therefore the design concept has been to provide a rural character. The
developer feels that the requirement for such a block wall would destroy the
ru.tal character of the setting.
The County requirement was not for the purpose of f.l.00d protection but solely
for the purpose of providing "screening ". As you notice from the attached
site plan the lots for these tracts are elevated so that the h ,3mos would be
situated above the site line of the required block wall. Furthermore,
directly behind the block wall is a bridle trail and behind the bridle trail
is a growth of citrus trees that wera preserved on the site. Further up
the slope are the homes. It is the desire of the developer to have the
b.'• meek wall requirement removed from the conditions of approval and substi-
tute tl,e wall with a split rail type fencin; along both sides - ^4 the hr;dle
trail path. Such a fence alternative would be compatible with the character
of the development as well as be more rusLic than a solid block wall. Staff
feels that because of the physical character of the building site and the
design concept of the subdivision itself, the 'alternative of the split rail
fence on either side of the bridle path would be more approp -late to the sur-
roundings than a solid block wall.
MOMENDATION: Staff recommences that the Plannin; Canmission amend the con -
ditions of approval to delete the requirement of a solid block wall along the
perimeter of Hillside Avenue and instead require n s=plit rail type fence be
constructed on both sides of the bridle easement.
Rv,;plectfully s hill ittcd,
r�
JACK LAM, Director of ----
Community Development
JL -. nm
a
0 0
September 12, 1978
Mr. Jack Lam, Planning Director
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9340 Baseline Road Unit A
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
C►7y f "f t= " C p
OF RACH C
COMMUNITY 0 GL AMONC/�
DfVC!t1PdlCryr 0CPF,
SAP ') 14j&
AM
7181n1;v1ii112111t)13i41S G
49
S� Re: Regency Equestrian Esta °.es - Tracts 9378 -79
County Requirement for Clock Wall - Hillside Avenue
Dear Mr. Lam :
Confirming your recent meeting with John Miller we are enclosing
a copy of the conditions covering :tract 9 378 as set forth by the San
Bernardino County Planning Conmiss'on.
These conditions state "A standard or approved block wall or ;
other acceptable alternative will be required along the rear of lots
on Hillside Road ".
We have done our utmost to develop this project with a minimum
impact on the environment. The project consists of 33 single family
homes en one acre lo'cs (vs. one half acr zoning). We were able to
save many of the citrus, eucalyptus, and other trees on the site.
The project will be surrounded by a bridle trail ranging frott
12' to 24' and wider with lodge pole fence on both sides of the
bridle trail. Because of thi,; double fence, the existing and planned
landscaping, the topography (most lets are well above hillside with
a steep rear, slope) and regulations concerning use of the bridle trail
via the Homeowners Association we believe that the added protection and/
or security of a 6' concrete block wall is unnecessary. We further
believe that it would serve to destroy part of the rural atmosphere that
we have attempted to preserve.
We therefore re ,.fully request that the Rancho Cucamonga City
Council review this cuunty requiremt,nt and consider accepting our pre-
sent lodge pole fence in place of the block wall.
4010 Palos Verdes Drive North Nc, 101, Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 (213) 3770955
Either Mr. Miller or I would be happy to review this further
with you or the Council. Associated Engineers can supply you with
any required copies of plans. Please contact Rick Martin or Bob
Mills at 986 - 5818.
Your attention to our request is sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely,
i ' /2 j
'John Chavanne
General Partner
Regency Equestrian Estates
'.C: Bob Mills, Associated Engineers
R & L Harris, General Contractor
John Miller
Encl: 1 set of Landscape Plans
2 Polaroid pictures of bridle trail fencing
2 Polaroid pictures of tract Coking north from Hillside Rd.
Copy of letter from Environmental improvement Agency (7- 28 -76)
l�
STAFF Rlivovi
DAIF: October 11., 1978
'10: Planning Commission
0
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SOIt.)f•.c'f: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -30 - The demolition of an existing
service station and construction of a new service station
facility located on the northeast corner of A---raw and Archi-
bald - C -1 zone - Request submitted by Mobil Oil Corporation
BACKGROUN,. Mobil Oil is requesting approval to construct a service
station on the northeast corner of Arrow Highway and Archibald Avenue
(WiLbit "A "). This site is presently occupled by an old service
station with minimal improvements. The applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing service station in its entirety. Mobil Oil
is proposing to construct a two bay service station witli a side entry.
In addition to the n,ai.n structure, two parallel gasoline islands and
three underground storage tanks will be added to the site.
ANALYSIS_ The development as proposed by the applicant is in conformance
with the 7oniu- Ordinance. The site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed development.
Access for the development is proposed to be taken from two driveway:
on Archibald and one driveway from Arrow. As the Commission recalls,
the Commission is presently considering a policy on the limitation of
access on major and secondary streets. The applicant's development plan
is not consistent with the proposed policy as such policy proposes to
limit developments to one access point wherever possible. However, the
driveways as shoo_ rnr the applicants' plan, are an existing siturtion.
The applicant feels that the elimination of the south driveway would
Jeopardize the feasibility of this project.
This driveway issue is unique because of its current existence and the
fact that the appHE'ant is willing to totally upgrade the existing site.
Staff therefore proposes an alternate solution that the Commission may
find to be consistent with the proposed acrot+s pill iry in 1 ight of the
unique circumst.MCr Mi lff feels that. 1;ic major probl.m with the loca-
tion of the south driveway on Archihal,i and the fact of having another
driveway only 65' to the north, is the possible left hand turn movements
from south bound traffic on Archibald. Thos(, possible movements could
cause significant traffic conflicts. If this situation could be prohibited,
then the issue of the drivewnys would not be as great. Stafi has asked
the applicant if they would be willing to finance a landscaped center
median island on 'Archibald Avenue across the front of the subject property
In order to prevent left hand turn movements if tbev were able to retain
the two driveways on Archibald. The applicant has responded favorably for
DIRECTOR REVIF,W N0. 78 -30 9
such an improvement if they could retain the south driveway. Staff recom-
mends that tite Planning Commission finds that either the median island will
satisfy their concerns of multiple driveways or that the multiple drives
would cause subutantial traffic impacts with or without the median and
would require elimination of the south driveway.
The Engineering Division is recommending that the driveway on Arrow be
moved east on the subject ororerty to maintai•: a minimum distance of
80' from the curb return.
Exhibits "B" and "C" display the building and canopy elevations. The
applicant is proposing to use a tiled roof design with split face block
veneer. The building has been placed so that the entrance to the bays
is from the side of :he building.
Exhibit "D" shows the landscape plan for the :site. The plan shows the
use of mounded landscaped areas with low -lying bushes. However, the
plan indicates the use of only one tree. Staff recommends that more
trees he placed in n1l of the landscaped areas. In addition, an irriga-
tion plan is recommended to be submitted.
Exhibit "E" and "F" shows the proposed signing for the service station.
The monument identification and price sign is consistent with the proposed
stgn ordinance. Staff recommends that the special service signs be limitea
to 3' in height and 3 square feet in area. In addition to these signs, the
applicant is requesting thre use of a 12.5 square foot logo on the front of
the building anu a three sided island message unit 4' in height for each
island.
The applicant has been very cooperative in working with staff in the design
of this project to sulc the wishes of the community.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commis-
sion approve and adopt Resolution No. 78 -14 based on the findings and condi-
tions listed therein.
Respectfully Isubmitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV:nm
E
0
STAFF REPORT.
t,
DATE: October V. X978
TO: Planning Commission
PROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
S(Ill.lECT': DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -28 - Request for a Light Manufacturing
Building in an M -1. zone gvneraily :Located on the southeast
corner of Arrow Route na dLt�� _ "_ �^ c - Request subnt`te'i by
c ona for Pnea- Draulles, Inc.
D_ESCRIP'1't_O_N AND BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of it
31,690 square feet manofncturLng building at the above mentioned site.
Pneu- Dranlics, Tile. Intends to manufacture h lie valves
cvlinders for use on n rcra ts. The site is wi':hin a M -I zoning district
wh ch allows manu ac ur ng u his type of equipment. The proposed General
Plan designates the land use for the site as light industrial. The sur-
rounding land use and ronlng is as follows:
ZONING LAND USE
North R -1 Single family resipencus
South M -1 Light industrial - Pacific Fabrication Facility
Easy M -I Vacant
West M -1 Light Industrial - Metropolitan Wire Corp. &
Goods Corp.
ANALYSIS: The proposed project takes up 1.93 acres of a 8.53 acre parcel
owned by Pncu- Draulles, Inc. The applicant lean statLd that future development
is planned for the site. Staff feels that a Mae:ter Plan of development would
be more beneficial to the planning o tilt-F-SI LU tM ,
arcFiiCectur.l design. etc.. cot, a c•; a[ca:- -a-arrrlrarn- rre.��a
site.
SL:ff recir.,imends the plaremcnt of n 1! n1not cr alone the west side of the
building. Such a pl:mLor would allow for landscnpe treatment of the weti�
side of the build hig which faces Nelms Avenue. The piacement of the planter
could he acc•ompl irehed l,v reducing the parkins; stall icngth un the west side
of the building to nineteen (19) feet and the landscape harrier to fifteen
(15) feet.
Staff further recommends that an additional trash enclosure caoable of
handling two (2) bins be provided In a location ..pvrific:d by the applicant
subject to .ipprev,-I by the Planning Division. Additional Planning, Engi-
neering and Fire. Department comments are listed in the attached Resolution.
L1r1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 11, 1978
TO: Flanni-t.- Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
5N1.JFCT: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -29 - Request for a Light Industrial Building
in an M -2 ;x ae generally lu�aled uu the youth side of 8th Street
east of Archibald Avenue - Request submitted by F.E. McDonald for
L.V. Hofgaarden
DESCRIPTION AND ilACRGROUND: Mr. McDonald is requesting approval Of au 18,000
square - foot tllight industrial building in an 1.1 -2 zone at the above described
location. This building would be the second of a planned eight (8) building
complex (Exhlblt "A "). It would architecturally conf,,rm to the existing
building on toe site. TLe proposed Land Use Element of the General Plan
designates the site as Major Industrial. The zoning and land use of the
site and surrounding property is as follows:
ANALYSIS: This building would be the largest of a future eight 8 bnildin
complex. It will be a standard concrete block construction to match the
existing twin building on the property. All other architectural features will
substantially conform to the first building. Staff is recommending that the
c,.Q1orin of the con-opy above the doorways match the color design of thi�L-
build nunte e u '10 -2. With
materials that match the architectural desien of the buildine.
Staff feels that a mister plan should be developed for the entire site. Such
a plan would allow for integrated piannins, of parking, traffic flow, drainage,
signing and areliLtecturni design. The applicant h:-s indicated to staff' that
a master development plan for the site will be submitted to the Planning; Can -
mission for approval prior to subsequent. development on that parcel.
The parking required for the proposed building aml the existing building is
thirty (30) spaces. The applicant has provided sixty -three (63) spaces for
both buildings. Staff is recommending that two (2) additional loading spaces
be provide. as per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This project
meets all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning_
iznd Use
Site
M -2
Vacant
North
11 -2
AT&SF Railroad
Sonth
M -2
Vacant
West
R -1.
Single Family Residence
East
M -2
Vacant
ANALYSIS: This building would be the largest of a future eight 8 bnildin
complex. It will be a standard concrete block construction to match the
existing twin building on the property. All other architectural features will
substantially conform to the first building. Staff is recommending that the
c,.Q1orin of the con-opy above the doorways match the color design of thi�L-
build nunte e u '10 -2. With
materials that match the architectural desien of the buildine.
Staff feels that a mister plan should be developed for the entire site. Such
a plan would allow for integrated piannins, of parking, traffic flow, drainage,
signing and areliLtecturni design. The applicant h:-s indicated to staff' that
a master development plan for the site will be submitted to the Planning; Can -
mission for approval prior to subsequent. development on that parcel.
The parking required for the proposed building aml the existing building is
thirty (30) spaces. The applicant has provided sixty -three (63) spaces for
both buildings. Staff is recommending that two (2) additional loading spaces
be provide. as per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This project
meets all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
OE
r
y
�
C
i�
O
y
DATE:
To
FROM
STAFF Rt:ilohr
October 11, 1978
Planning Commission
Director of Community Development
9
SUBJECT: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - The development of a two -story
office building totaling 10,000 square feet to be located
at 8030 Vineyard Avenue - C -2 zone - Request submitted by
Alderfer Ranch Partnership
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a professional office
building on approximately 1 acre of land located on the west side of Vineyard
Avenue north of Foothill Blvd (Exhibits A S B). The site. iresently contains
the Call cry Real Estate Office -. The building is proposed to be two stories
and located west of the existing office building. The applicant had submitted
this requst to County Planning Department prior to the establishment of the
r,ity "tanning Division. The County processed this application and denied it
'used on the recommendations of the Flood Control District. The Flood Control
District stated that there were not adequate flood protection facilities as
Cucamonga channel is contained only by an earth berm. The applicant did not
appeal this decision as City Staff requested that a new application with full
detail:: be submitted to the City for their review and action.
ANALYSIS: After review of the development plan and details of the project
site and surrounding area, Staff finds that the subject site is subject to
flooding. The project site Is located east and adjacent to the Cucamonga
Creek Channel. This channel has become a major watercourse carry significant
flows from mountain ttibutarics. Presently, the portions of the channel within
the City of Rancho Cucamonga is constructed with ou.ly interim improvements ^on-
sisting of an earth- excavated hermed channel. This type of improvement, although
able to handle small flood flows, is considered inadequate to sustain a major
flood.
The Engineering Division has thoroughly reviewed the flood aspects of this
project. They indicated that In past floods, major portions of the subject
site were inundated from overf.ow of the Cucamonga Channel. It is Engineering's
w anion that the project site is presently subject to flood hazards by reason
of ovcrfluw erosion, and debris deposition from the Cuc::mouga Creek until such
time that permanent channel improvements and debris retention facilities are
provided for the Creek. Tht: Flood Control District, in conjunction with the
Corps of Engineer :;, Is actively pursuing a Federal project to provide permanent
improvements to the Cucamonga Creek. Conntructlon has already commenced at
the southern terminus. At. the present schedule, the anticipated completion
date for the proj -ect is 1980 -81, depending upon annual fund appropriations
by Congress.
DIRECTOR REVILW NO. 78 -I 2
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted an ordinance establishing regula-
tions in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
for the implementation of the Flood Insurance Program (Exhibit "C "). This
ordinance requires that the City of Rancho Cucamonga determine if the site
of any proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding. Under the
Floo6 Insurance Program, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is eligible for
Federal grants in the course of flood disasters. liowever, if the City
neglects its responsibility to insure that any new development is reason -
,:bly protected from major flood hazards, such grants or financial aid
would not be provided. Failure to follow the Flood Insurance provisions
would jeopardize aid to all portions of tbt: City.
Staff feels that there are presently no provisions available to reasonably
protect this site from flood hazards until such time that permanent improve -
menu art, Installed In the Cucamonga Creek. The applicant has been very
cooperative and patient in order to allow City Staff to fully analyze this
project. Therefore, Staff recommends that this project be denied without
prejudice so that the applicant may reapply once adequate flood protection
facilities arc provided for the subject site.
RECOMEMATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commis-
lion approve and adopt Resolution No. 78 -13 based on the findings listed therein.
Rpspectful'fy submitted,
�321CK LM, ^Jtrector ;tf'
Community Development
JL:NV:rim
sI'Arr REPORT
DATE: October 11, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
n
u
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
5111i.IGCT: DIRECTOR REVIEW No. 78 -32 - The development of a multi- tenant
industrial complex to be located on the - outhwcst corner of
Helms and Ninth Street - M -R Zone - Request submitted by G -S -R
Development
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to develop 38,984 square feet of
Industrial building space. The complex is designed to accommodate 19'
individual industrial tenants. The project is proposed to be constructed
on 1.8 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Helms and Ninth
Street (Exhibit "A "). The project site is presently vacant and zoned M -R
(Restricted Manufacturing). Surrounding property is beirF developed for
industL;ui uses and is zoned M -R.
ANALYSIS: The development plan as proposed by the applicant is consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Fiirtf.er, such a development
is consistent and compatible with surrounding laid uses.
Access to this development is provided by one driveway on Ninth Strcet and
four driveways on Helms Avenue. All. driveways and access aisles are of
adequate size to accommodate the proposed traffic patterns. Staff does
recommend that directional arrows be painted in the central parking area
as angled parking is being utilized.
A development of this size requires 39 parking stalls and 8 loading spaces.
The applicant has proposed ail parking stalls and 8 Loading spaces. Staff
recommends that the two loading spaces, as circled on Exhibit "A ", lie eli-
minated and that two other parking stalls be designated as loading spaces.
Staff feels that these two loading spaces may conflict with parked cars
as they are placed at an awkward angle.
Exhibit "B" displays the exterior building elevations for th L+ project.
Matorinls proposed to bo used are glu -Inm beam::. tilt roof mansards, and
stucco columns. Because of the grade of the site, tht buildings along
Ninth Street will be approximately S feet below the street elevation..
This will create more roof visibility. Therefore, staff recommends that
any roof mounted equipment be screened from view with materials and methods
consistent with the design of the building.
The Environmental Analysts Staff has prepared and published a draft Negative
Declaration for this project as no significant adverse impacts were .found as
a r.sult of this project.
111PEICTOH C(:VTTIf tai. /=- • �"
0
RECOMTPIDATION: The Planning Division recommends that
mission appt:)vc and adopt Resolution No. 78 -15 based on
conditions listed therein.
Re�spectfulJ.y submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
the Planning Com-
the findings and
0
'll
T
E'
• ° j
.? . —,—t -- •- , r -:- �� ` ' is � ;
i a•
z ,zi
i
3
v
Y
i
W
Kk
a
f '
1�
. _
i�
F�
3i
2'
.ra
r
I., E i -
ri
` I �•' a
1 I �• 1 vvz'
1 :• r `rl 1 y•L I
t I 1
1 i
4; ilE� I '�•� {�•+`'Y1;�. i'I »f�.l`l;l�!�!j'1: �1 { I `,
•, I 1
Y
.rLt
L.
a
zi
�
rI
F:
All
0
I�
y;-
_aI
-- - El
I II!I�1LI IIIIi- I_111J11111-11 li1.11J.Hil I !+�LI1.111_ -1,
i
I
0
i
t
M) �
`J
LI
7I �I
.1
e
i
dl
i t
r---N
� I 1
I
\ J
'.1
W.
ri�. e•
J i �
R
w8 .i
� 3
7
v �
1
t
fJ
�.1
I'
i.
F_..7 - --
ppp
S
1
r
1
� i •t I I I �
i
i
ti
r- --7
I
I
.1
y!.
0
<`,
No
rp
S
1.
OH •a
.II
I�
�C•
• � '°Tj� t �� _ __ ' -.— I' I — �I. i _ .I �, � era. � '' 1 _... t
•.._.. _.�..� I II t'.' I it ,` • =__ _�; z $ts!
c) '
"1
P3�3
I
V.-
— ,�1'� I '� — �1'� •�I
!
I ! , • II Y
_I 1• I I� ;.I
\ —_. , li I I - ^� 1�• � � I, I,..' I I 1111 .. _ '.
it
�I
4.
1L --
t� rt lull �_... _._ I' - —i �, �.• I�'.. °'
��� ' � 1• � it I 1 �I I I I i ...
-
L -- in
k-u
♦
u
r- I it
JO
__- ______.T�_:___ -� _ ►Iii{ .{
1106
12
V4
till-
! 11 'I ri
ZZ"
t- i 41,4
12.
!177
ii
:1 !'t
-------- --
t�
SI
cti _
k
- a
'II
,a a
F1
Tica)1_9
r
k
�6
� arc
i y
i•'I«
s
�fM
1v
III
P'n
1
,a a
F1
Tica)1_9
r
k
�6
� arc
i y
i•'I«
s
�fM
"
r
•� �" E 3 :�b,y
till
- y w .i r ; •• � i 1�
IIry�� I .� i _ •i��� I � � I��`� o
1� _I 1
1
i
_ I 3
#I
pE� i
j cg Al .�
oil
in
a ri
Bib �FS
NN
L
.• V 41 ,��� / f771
T
1
a
1,�k'��
� '1 '•` � � bra
' I
Lill I !• T�+L1 !t� l I ,ski ��5.� nuB:c � J 44 \§ �i�.�
gill
1 _ q 1 �� g r. tt •�S f
II yI ] �{ �,i.:;l � . {.;i�1�Y{ . ^:,.Y }iI I'��t)=���i Sit, SV��• �I;
w..r .. rl -0.•- � � 9 T p t
' __ r.. "_ — a.•.,r��..- _ —Y`-r 1 rr.r..) , ati —. I i s ��� �1�� .1'�
. \la' � .'" ''r_` w 1�l( _ �• 1,'~ ` �,� i t ti�t'J —� 1�,'. li l
,, i � --`!. ♦ ` 1 'il F' "~i..� ti�'}1 l •5 _ "��III !�,� iIl
I 1
1F �• 1 � t �..M i I � I � �,
i
r J
'i� 1
✓ • _., lit •�� .� Dial
OSI
QT
0�FImIEill�l�l
r
o .
r •
\�L. _ • . I .6 III T1., 1 II
,1 11 '
1
1
! O
1 2
W
W
1 O
r z
•0
Lcc
f W
L
�O
,W
X
O
�O
1
F
W
l IC
a
0
a
w
i '-
a
.0
LL
a
W
,u
x
'W
0
1W
N
7
a
)
O
0
W
IL
.0
u
W
J
Self
N serve
island
V
0
0
N
SPECIAL___- _S_ERV_ IC J SIGNSM_
Le Y4'
Mobil Oil Corporation
CH. CK°o NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION
J 5 MARKETING OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT r
NEW YORK, N. Y. 1001 7
sFECINL 10-3ERV1CL
, 5�r1N5`
5 2Z 7G _
•.w cw.v v. •.
REVISIONS t3WG NO pt VISIJN 1."
r _ __
I�
l
f
I 11
I
1
Ill
91
t
T_
'1
TL
C�
1
\
O
T_
Z C�
r ,
• it
f
V '
0
1
Iij �1. 1'I
1 � 1
1
� .10.f,"
tr3.vae � 1xe.
:I
r
i
z
y
Y •
y.
Iij �1. 1'I
1 � 1
1
� .10.f,"
tr3.vae � 1xe.
:I
r
i
8
L
L
0
l
FA
6
K
i�
rd �r
i
ir1 ; Sf
V
V c
fi
S
tad
r �
,
- I3nd
rfodb3N
.-., .�,`� rn ,a
-- ;r�y;� ��xtaa? �,..�.ayitA
u= �y:ay��t• :'ro 0 9i..a:
_� _c��
f•
j
— •- ~- -��-` ��-- �-
---- -�
�n,
� � is G.w- � -,\
x
6
r-
i
z
�
I .
g
.d
C 1
iIC
O
� . _ --
(._. __._.�,._ 7
CIO ti
lj
fj
p'
� I
r.
w'
•I
I
I
0
rn
U
m r
r
�r
V
k
a �
�6
sy
t'al
tLi)
LIS
A.)
i)
N
ra
I
I
�l
tm
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
�
r
ly`
t f,•n
r
9
J
<i rl
I
I
I
I
21
•I
I
I
I
I
I
Ilr
:I
Ub
C
Re
O
C—)
F'
(bn))
Ih
�.!
1Zy.�n
.FWi)Yr♦)
'�• —Wig �-
�` 1 T "�.�
_...a
lape a urNi ay, le u•d C q q
per •/l ue ue„e.,lelc. ul l9'rW,r a, I "q •p.nl�e �. I" • ..� r rte 1� ley'
1
:
l
sy
t'al
tLi)
LIS
A.)
�U
r?
S1.
c�
i�
V
lll
qI I���Jq
\ 4r
W-
C
u
v
z
I
L
a
i)
N
ra
I
I
�l
tm
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
t f,•n
Iq
J
<i rl
I
I
I
I
21
•I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
Ub
Re
' SF
C—)
F'
�U
r?
S1.
c�
i�
V
lll
qI I���Jq
\ 4r
W-
C
u
v
z
I
L
a
i)
N
ra
tm
t f,•n
Iq
<i rl
J
Ub
KI
(bn))
Ih
�.!
1Zy.�n
.FWi)Yr♦)
lape a urNi ay, le u•d C q q
per •/l ue ue„e.,lelc. ul l9'rW,r a, I "q •p.nl�e �. I" • ..� r rte 1� ley'
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
F'!, 4
Wednesday, October 11, 1978, 7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
9161 Beseline, Rancho Cucamonga., CA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call:
Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rem pel
Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstcy
Commissioner Jones
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Publir Hparinoc
M A. Site Approval No. 78 -01 - The development of a public equestrian
boarding facility on approximately 5 acres of land located at
5394 Hermosa Avenue - A -1 -5 zone - Request submitted by James
Mellann.
8. Site Approval No. 78 -02 - Request for an Aluminum Recycling
Plant in an M -2 zone generally located on the north side of
Sixth Street between Archibald and Turner Avenue - Request
submitted by Reynolds Aluminum.
C. General Plan - Certain residential. and commercial designations
will be discussed. However, reserve area will not be discussed
at this meeting.
5. Old Business
A. Minor Deviation No. 78 -01 - Magnolia Development - Southwest
corner of 19th and Carnelian.
B. Modification of 'Tract Conditions for Regency Equestrian Estates -
Tracts. 9378-'9.
6. hew Business
A. Director Review No. 78 -30 - The demolition of an existing service
station and construction of a new service station facility located
on the northeast corner of Arrow and Archibald - C -1 zone - Request
submitted by Mobil Oil Corporation
J B. Director Review No. 78 -28 - Request for a Light Manufacturing
Building in an M -1 zone generally located on the southeast corner
of Arrow Route and Helms Avenue - Request submitted by F.E. McDonald
for Pneu- Draulics, Inc.
C. Director Review No. 78 -29 - Bequest for a Light Industri:.al Building
in an M -2 zone generally located on the south side of 8th Streat
east of Archibald Avenue - Request submitted by F.E. McDonald for
L.V. Hofgaatden.
D. Director Review No. 78 -12 - Tap_ development of a two -story office
} building totaling 10,000 square feet to be located at 8030 Vineyard
Avenue - C -2 zone - Request submitted by Alderfer Ranch Partnership.
E. Director Review No. 78 -32 - The development of a multi - tenant Indus-
' trial complex to be located on the southwest corner of Helms and
Ninth Street - M -R Zone - Request submitted by G -S -R Development.
7. Communications
8. Adjournment
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -12
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAliONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL. NO. 78 -02
ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALUMINUM PLANT
IN A M -2 ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF SIXTH STREET BETWEEN TURNER AVENUE.
AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of September, 1978, an application was
filed and accepted on the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 11th day of Cctober, 1978, the Planning Commission
reviewed the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCMIONGA PLANNINI. COMISSIOM RESOLVED
AS FOLL014S*
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga makes the following findings:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan
is adequate in size and shape to accomeodate the
proposed use, and all yards, spnces, walls, fences,
parking, loading, landscaping and other features
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop-
ment plan are located in such a manner as to be
properly related to existing and proposed streets
and highways.
3. That the improvements as shown on the develop-
ment plan are consistent with all adopted stan-
dards and policies as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverre
impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration Is issued on
October 11, 1978.
SECTION 3: The Planning Commission sets the following conditions
on the above described project:
Foothill Fire District:
The following items will be required by this agency
prior to commencing construction of any building(s)
or structure(s):
1. Two (2) sets of building and plot plans shall be
submitted to this department.
2. The required fire flow wi1.1 be 3000 gallons per
minute for a duration of 3 hours.
3, c,t.= -' -tea -np irAlcnting that the fire flow re-
quirement will be meL .hall be submitted to this
department prior to p'_�-i approval.
4. Water mains and appurtenances shall be installed
in accordance with the requirements of the Cucamonga
County Water District.
5. This department shall be iorified to witness an ac-
ceptance test of the water system.
6. Fire protection water systems and fire hydrants.
shall, be provided and installed in accordance
with requirements of this district.
7. A minimum 24 foot access shall be provided around
the proposed building.
a. In lieu of the 24 foot access on the west side
of the building, this department will accept
a fully automatic fire sprinkler system in the
office area of said building.
B. This department will require an on -site private
hydrant, at s location to be determined by this
department, capable of providing a minimum of
1500 gallons per minute for a duration of 3 hours
at - min..-.um residual pressurc> Of 20 poi. This
department will al.so require the installation of
an approved public fire hydrant within 50 feet of
the fire department connection for the fire sprink-
le' system.
9. Fire extinguishers will be required. The size,
type and number will be determined by this depart-
ment prior to occupancy.
10. Should the operation lie found to be producing an
explosive or conbustible dust hazard, an approved
dust collection system will be required by this
agency.
11. Street address numbering shall be in accordance
with local ordinance.
it is further recommended that all buildings be pro-
vided with an approved automatic fire detection system
providing for the transmission of all fire alarms to
the Ontario Fire Department dispatch center.
jLnFiincering Livision,
12. At the time of development grading, drainage, and
street plans prepared by a Registered Civil Fngiuer"
shall be submitted for review and approval of the
City Engineer. Hydraulic calculations and a topo-
graphic map will be required to support the sizing
and location of dr -inage structures shown on the
plans.
13. At the time of development curb, gutter, drive ap-
proaches, sidewalk, street trees. and A.C. match -
up paving shall be provided along, 6th Street frontage.
14. All drainage shall oc to publi.- right of way or with
prior approval of abutting property owners with pro-
per drainage facilities.
1.5. Drainage from the site shall be way of sidewalk
drains through the curb face and not over drive
npproachc -s.
Planar Division:
16. That all requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Zoning
Ordinance be compiled.
17
is,
1
9'h, t the project hc• dovoloped a:: Shawn nn the
approved site plan nn file In the Planning Divl.-
sion officep
That the five (5) parking stallr: on the south -
eatit corner of the property located outside the
entrance gates hr eliminated and replaced with
landscapingO
That detailed . landscape and irrigation pl:ns he
submitted Lo and approved by the Manning DIvl-
.ion prior to issu:neu ol. hui1ding Pcrmitr.W
That the landscape island in front of the Plant
ho ii,creased in ;iron while maintaining a drive-
way width of twenty five (25) Icete
21. That all. roof mounted equipment he screened from
surrocinding properties with materials which con-
form with the atchitectura7. design of tho building•
22. 'ihat signs are not approved :or the center. Further,
sign plans must be submitted cu and approved by the
Planning Division prior to installation&
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11.T11 DAY OF OCTOBER, 1978.
I'LANNINC COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C1lCA110NGA.
By: -- - --
Herman Rempe.l, Chairman
ArTEST:
Secretary of the I'laniOng Commission
I, , Secretary of the PLanninl; Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, do herehv certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the P.lnnning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the T_ T day of -^ - -- 1.978, by the following
vote to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
ROES: COMTSSIONF.RS:
ABSENT: COMMSSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
Ca*IISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -30
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SERVICE STA'riOA LOCATFA)
t'N THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND ARROW
WHEREAS. on the 30th day of August, 1978, a complete appli-
cation was filed for review of the above de.zribcd project; and
WHEREAS, cn the 11th day of October, 1978, the Rancho Cuca-
monga Planning Comm L;sl-in held a meeting to consider the above described
project..
NOW, TIE REFbRE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the Following findings have been made:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan
Is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use, nrd all yards, spaces, walls, fenr_es,
parking, loading, landscaping and other features
required by this section.
2. The• t:te improvements as Indicated on the develop-
mr:.L plan are located in such a manner as to b-
properiy related to existing and proposed streets
and highways.
3. That the improvements :is shown on the develo -dent
plan are consisten.: with all. adopted standards
and policies as set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: That Director Review No. 78 -30 1s approved subjnet to
the following conditions:
Planning Diviaton`
1. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be
complied with.
2. That a revised site plan according to the revi.-
sions adopted herciu he submitte(+ to and approved
by the Planning 1)i.tsion prior 'o the Issuance or
building permits.
3. That revised lands,!-Pi, and irrigation plans bo sub-
mitted to and approved by the Planning Division
prior ti the issuance of building permits.
4. That more trees be incorporated irto the land-
scaping as per the staff comments on the land-
scaping plan.
5. That the special service signs be Limited to 3'
in hcbnt and 3 square feet in area.
Engineering Division
6. Ar offer of ded'cat Ian consigting of a 20 foot corner
cutoff and 10 feet along the Archibald frontage.
7. At the time of development grading, drainage, storm
drain and st'Pet plans prepared by a Registered
Civil Engi.ncer shall he submitted for review and
approval of the City Engineer. Hydraulic Caicu-
lations and a topographic map will be require] to
support the sizing and locations of drainage struc-
tures shown on the 1-lans.
0 9
H. At the time of duvelopmeot relocation of and
Installation 4 feet east of existi!lg location
of curb, gutter, d;.ve approach, sids„r&lk and
A.C. match -up pavlr.e. shall he provided along
Archibald. Installation of curb. gutter, and
sidewalk along Arrow.
9. Drive a-ppronch a,: Arrow shall begto a minimum of
80 feet east of the nor:: -east curb return.
10. All surface.. ; ;hall drain rn the street unless pei-
mission of adjacent property owners are obtnic-!
in advance and proper proi�:sions made.
11. Surface drainage from the site to the street sha.li
be by sidewalk drain and not over drive approaches.
Fire Department_
In accordnucf_ with Ordinance 111, Foothill Fire District,
the following .tems will be .equired by this agency
prior to common ^.Ing construction of any building(s)
or structurr(s''.
12. Two (2) sets of building and Flot plane: sholl
he submitted to this department.
13. Required fire flow will be +000 gall„as per
minute for a duration of 3 hours.
14. ralculations indicatl:)g that the fire flow require-
ment will be met shad be submitted to this depart-
ment prior to plan ap rovsl.
13. A minimum 24 foo_ areesc shall be pr. ,3vided hround
the proposed building. .
16. Permits for the ab. ;ndonmcnt of c:;inting under-
ground flammable liquid tanks and installation
of new tanks will be required by this district.
the following requirements are necessary prior to i'om-
pletion or occupancy of the aforementioned building;:
17. Fire extlngui:;hers will be required. The glz�2,
typr and number will be determinfn by this de.3art --
ment prior to occupancy.
18. Street address numbering shall be in accordan::e
with local ordinance.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 'I..ITil 0AY OF OCTOBER, 1976.
PLANNING, COLMISSION (117 Tllr MY OF PANCIIO CUCANONGA.
Borman Rempo.l , 06^ l t7oan
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Ccmmtl,::lon
1,
, Secretary of
Or Pl:n iftig Commi,:viun
of t.la, City
of Rancho Cocanu-nga,
do hereby certify
t.Lat the lorci,olni;.roaolutlon
w;r:
duly and regularly
inFreducod, passed,
and adopted by the
P.nnnlnl; C.-mtnl::-
sion held on the
day of
- - . 1976,
h: the nllcn,lttg
vote to -wit:
AYES: CoMI,.1S9l0idliRS:
WETS: C(1MNISSIONEIRS,
ABSENT: CO ?1NISSIONF.RS:
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -10
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCMIONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -23
TO ALLOW FOR A LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUILDING 14
AN M -1 ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON 111E SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND HELMS AVENUE
WHEREAS, on the 14th clay of September, 1978, an application
was filed atcd accepted on the above described project, and
WHEREAS, on the Ilth day of October, i978, the Plant. -ng Com-
mission reviewed the above described project.
AS FOLLOWS:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission of the City of Pancho Cuca-
monga makes the following findings:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan
Is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use, and all yards, spacee, walls,
fences, parking, loading, land ,4caping and other
features regnlred b^ the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That .ham improvements as indicated on the develop-
ment plan are loestod in such a manner as to be
proper.y related to existing and proposed streets
and hi; ,hwzys.
3. That the Improvements as shown on --he deveLop-
mcnt plan are consistent with all adopted scandards
aad policies as set forth in the Zoning Or,.linance.
SECTION 2: That this project will net create significant adverse
impccts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on
October 11, 19/8.
SECTION _3: The Planning Commission Gets the following conditions
on the above described project:
Foothill Fire District: The feliowini; items will be
required by this agency prior to commencing construc-
tion of any bulls'ing(s) or structure(s):
�_. Two (2) set:: of building and plot plans shr.11 be
submitted to this department.
2. The required fire flow will be 3500 gallons per
minute for a d-t:ration of 3 hours.
3. Calculations indicating that the fire flow requ!re-
ment will be met shall he submitted to this depairt-
ment prior to plan approval.
4. Water mains dnci apPnrtc•nanees Shall he installed in
accordance iiLh the requirements of the Cucamonga
County Wate -• District.
5. Tuia department shall he notified to witness an
..cceptancc test of the water system.
b. Fire protection water systems and fire hydrants
shall be provided :tnd installed in accordance with
requirements of tails district.
7. A minimum 24 foot access shall be provided around
the proposed building.
0
R. This department .I1 requ:lre one public fire
hydrant to be heated at the entrance drive to the
building off Arrow Highway. In addition, one on-
site fire hydrant will be required, with a minimum
1750 gpm for a duration of 3 hours at a minimum
residual pressure of 20 psi. The location of said
hydrant shall be determined by this department.
9. The installation of the fire department connection
for the fire sprinkler system shall be located
within 50 feet of a publi- fire hydrant.
The following requirements are necessary prior to comple-
tion or occupancy of the aforementioned development:
10. Firc extinguishers will be required. the size,
type and number will be determined by this depart-
ment prier to occupancy.
li. If the trssh cnrloz_rc 1r. ic-stcd ^i:: t t!•
b`•
building, it will beYtcquired to be protected by
approved fire sprinkler brads serviced fron: the
fire sprinkler system.
12. Street address numbering shall be in accordance
with local ordinance..
It is further recommended that all buildings be provided
with an approved automatic fire detection system pro-
viding for the tratr,;mission of all fire alarms to the
Ontario Fire Department dispatching center.
Et sneering Division:
13. At the time of development, grading, drainage, and
street planes prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
shall be submitted for review and approval of the
City Engineer. hydraulic Calculations and a Topo-
graphic map will be required to support the sizing
and location of erai.rage structures shown on Cite
plans.
14. At the time of development, curb, gutter, drive
approaches, street trees and A.C. match -up paving
shall be provided along Arrow Rte. in accordance
with tha City of Rancho Cucamonga standards.
15. Street lights are required along arrow Rte. The
developer shall submit all necessary plans for
installation to the Southern California Edison
Company.
16. Surface drainar- from the site to the street shall
be by sidewalk drain and not over drive approaches,.
17. All surfaces shall drain to the street unless per-
mission of adjacent property owners are obtained in
advance and proper prnvisions provided.
Planning Division
18. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance be
complied with.
19. That the development shall ecnform to the specifica-
tions of the approved site plan on file in the Plro-
ning Division office.
APPROVED
20. That a detailed lancL;+.al +ing; and irril;nrlon Plan
he submitted to and approved by 1.110 Planning D1v1-
sion prior to Issuance of huildi.nl; pormi.q.
21 That a three (3) foot wide planter be Provided along
the wort lido of the huilding. FurLher, that the
pari(ing stall length on the west vlde be reduced
In nitlet(•en (19) feet and the landscape barrier
bo reduced by Lwo (2) feet..
22. That ,ill additional Lrash enclosure capable of
handling two (2) bins be provided in a local Lon
spectfled by the applicout srthjec•t to approval
by the Planniult Division.
23. That all root mnanted equipment be adequoleiy
screened from surrwn»ling; propertcs with materials
that conform with thr nrchilectural, desimn of the
huiiding.
_1.4. That the signs nn tho etcrvat ion plans rare not
approved. Furtltor, that a t:ign Prol;rnm Bata•[ be
submitted to and approved by the Planninp Division
prior to placement of any signs.
ckc. JKA � 1 �
AND ADOPTED 'THIS 11TH DAY 01' m- follf-R, 197
PLANNING CJNMISSiON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CIICAMONCA.
By:
Herman Rempel, Ch:.frman
AT'rPS'r:__
SccreLary aF the Planning Commission
T. , Secretary or Lhe Planning; Comid-%sIon of Lh0 City
of Cuccln1011t1a. Go hereby certify tint. the fore(-,olnr, rt`solution was duly
and rc_gul.arly introduced, passed, and adopLed by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cuenmong;a at a regular mceting of the Plaun:ng Commission
held on the day or J 1978, by the following vote
to -Wit.
AYES: Ct7t• ISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -11
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COH!%1ISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -29
TO ALLOW FOR A LIGHT INDUSI'RIAI. BUILDING IN AN
1-1-2 ZONE'GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF 8TH STREET BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AND TURNER.
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of September, 1978, an application was
filed and accepted on the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 11th day of October, 1978, the Planning Commission .
reviewed the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION R-;SOLVED
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Placning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
makes the following findings:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan is
adequate in sizt and shape to accommodate the pro-
posed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences,
parking, loading, landscaping and other features
required by the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop-
ment plan are located in such a manner as to be
properly related to existing and proposed streets
and highways.
3. That the improvements as shovm on the development
plan are consistent with all adcpted standards and
_olicies as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
SEXTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse
impacts (in the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on
October .11, 1978.
SECTION ','he- Planning Commission sets the following conditions
on the above described project:
Foothill F3-:re Pistrict:
1. Two (2) sets of building and plot plans shall be
submitted to the Foothill Fire District.
2. The required fire flow will be 3500 gallons per
minute for a duration of 3 hours.
3. Calculations indicating that tae fire flow require-
ment will be met shall be submitted to the Foothill
Fire District prior to plan approval.
4. Water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the Cu,:amonga
County Water District.
5. The Foothill Fire DiatriLt shall be notified to
witness an acceptance test of the water system.
G. Fire protection water systems and fire hydrants shall
be provided and installed in accordance with require-
ments of the Foothill Firms District.
. I
7. A minimum 24 foot acess shall be provided around
the proposed building(s).
8. The Foothill Fire District will require the in-
stallation of an additional approved on -site fire
hydrant meeting a minimum of 1750 gpm for a dura-
tion of 3 hours at a minimum residual pressure of
20 pal.
The following requirements are necessary prior to com-
pletion or occupancy of the aforementioned development:
9. Fire extinguishers will br required. The size,
type, and number will be determined by the Foothill
Fire District prior tr. occ,,anty.
10. SLreet address numbering shall be in accordance
with the requirements of the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga.
11. All buildings shall be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system and an approved] automatic fire
detection system providing fo: tl,.e transmission of
all fire alarms to the Ontario fire Department dis-
patching center be installed.
Engineering Division:
32. Dedication to 30 feet from centerline along 8th Street
will be required per County plan Road No. 315400 (98 -99).
13. At the time of development grading, drainage, storm
drain, street plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer shall be submittal for review and approval
of the City Engineer. Hydi:aulic Calculations and a
topographic map will be required to support the siz-
ing and location of drainage structure.) shown on the
plans.
14. At the tima of development curb, gutter, drive ap-
proaches, sidewalk, street trees, and A.C. Match -
up paving shall be provided along 8th Street.
15. Street lights are required along 8th Street. The
developer :hall submit all necessary plans for in-
stallation to the southern California Edison, Company.
16. All drainage shall be directed to tite street unless
suitable easements and structural provisions have
been made with adjoining property owners. Drsinage
to the street shall be by way of sidewalk drait.a
through the curb face and not over drive approach
areas.
Planning Division:
17. That all provisions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Zoning Ordinance are •,omplied with.
18. That the site be develop -I _n accordance with the
approved plans on file in the Planning Division.
19. That a detailed landscape and irrigation plan be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Division
prior to issuance of building permits.
F:
20. That the canopy covering the doorways of the pro-
posed building be of the same color and design as
those on the existing building.
21. That all roof mounted equipment be adequately
screened from surrounding properties with materials
that conform with the architectural deaign of the
building.
22. That two (2) additional 10'x20' loading spaces
be provided.
23. That a sign program be developed by the applicant
subject to approval by the Planning Division prior
to installation.
24. That two (2) trash enclosures capable of handling
two (2) bins each be provided at a 7ocatlon specified
by the applicant subject to approval by the Planning
Division.
I
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF CCTOBER, 1978.
PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
By: _
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
1, , 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 Cnmmis lion of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held oil the _ day of 1978, by the following
vote to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: CO`RfISSIO::CRS
ABSENT: CO'YDIISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO, 24
AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF TiIF MY Of RANCIIO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS jN ACCORBANCE WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSiNG AND UROAN DEVLLOVPIENT DEPARTMLHT FLOOD
INSURANCE PR06RAM.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucaunnga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECT ION 1: The City of Rancho Cucamonga ;rereby has these added
responsibilities and is aut.horimi and directed to enforce all the provisions
of this Ordinance and all other Ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucammllue now
in force or hereafter adopted, relating to zoning, sub - division or building codes.
SECTION 2: The Comminity tle..velopmen; Director !hall Ire appointed to
these addit.innal The
by resolut inn of the City Council 111(1 his /her
appointment- -.hall continue during good behavior and
.
Satisfactory servir, : y at O,-ring L,Ill � Y of the Communit y 11� velnpruml
Director, the
Gnv ruing Body of the City rAlall designate +tn acting Community Development Director,
SECTION 3: Permjt.s I'- o(jilired: No person, firm or arrporatinn Shali erect,
construct, enlarge or iinl)rovo any building or structure in life City or cause the
same to be done without first obtaining a separate development permit for each
such building or structure.
a. 14i thin arras subject to flooding Sep :1 ,'ate devu lo{ uient permits
are r --quired for all nor•, cmrSlructjon, substantial improvements anc other
developm,nts, including Life placement of mobile tomes.
b. Application: To obtain is permit, the ar-nlicanl: Shall first file
an application ther(ifnr in writing r,cr a form furnishcri for -that purpose. .Every
such appl icati on hall:
1. Identify and dcscrihe the wrn-k to be covereG by the permit
for which application is made.
2. nescribe the land on rIhich t:he prnposed arork is to be done
by loL, block, tract and house and st.rert add -ca;, or,
similar dv1;cripLion that wit i readily idonLil• and definitely
locate the proposed building cn• work.
3- Indiralr lhct use or Occupancy for which the proposed work
is irrtendod.
4. Be acrmni,anied by plans and Sj;i•ll fications for proposeu
cons Inn: t :o.t.
5. Ile sinned b; Lice per'nri Live or Irs aut-horized agent who
may be required to summit evidence to indicate su -h
au thori ty.
6. WiIitit drsiynat.ed flood prom, arr•;ts, br ar-compauied by
c1r ,,1IJonS ( in relation f o lncan `:ea level ) of the lowest
hahital,le floor (includin(l ba"nrnont) or in the case of
flOUdproofcd nun- ,-usidential .trip tur-, f.he e'roation to
w m
hich if 10S been floodprorfed. Docamniation or
-t �r►1 -- u� r " " " "' cerlific:atiort of Stich elev- lLinr-S will he maintained by
�1 the Ci' .,. of Rancho ( ucamonga.
7_ Give such other information as reasonably may b,a required by
the City of Rancho Cucamonrla.
SECT IOil 4: life City of Ra:,cdo Cu:.amrnula ;hall review all devc lnprnent
permit applications In ricter•mine if the site of the proposed developni :';lt
is reasonably safe from flcnriing and i.haL all nrcnssary permits have been
received es required by Federal or State Law.
�XrEEFS(T'`C"
SECTION 5: The Canumrnity Development Director in reviewing all applications
for new construction, Substantial improvements, prefabricated buildings, placement
Of mobile homes and other develonment(s) (as de`ined in Section II of this Ordinance).
Vii 117
a. Obtain review and reasonably utilize, if availatrle, any regulatory
flood elevation data from Faderal, State or other sources, and require within
areas subject to floochng that the following performance standards be met:
I. The first -floor elevation (to include basement) of new
residential structures, be elevated to or above the
regulatory flood elevation.
2. The first -floor elevation (to include basemenL of non -
residential structures) he elevated nr floodproofed to
o r above the regulatory flood elevation.
b. Required the use of construction materials and utility equipment
that are resistant to flood damage,
c. nuyuit-e fire
minimize flood damage•
d.. Be des i gned
lateral movement of the
e. Assure that
requirements are:
use of construction methods and practices that will
or anchor•ee: to prever;t the flotation, collapse or
structure or pert-inhs of the structure due to flooding
in regard to mobile homes, specific anchoring
1. Over-thc -LOP ties be provided at o;ach of the four corners
Of the embile home with two additional ties per side at
the intermediate locations and mobile homes less than
50 f_;et long requiring one aed'.tional tie per side.
2. Fratrle ties be provided at oath corner of the hnnre with
five :uldit.innal ties per sine at intermediate Points and
nrohilo heroes less than 50 feet long requiring four
additional ties per side.
3. All components of the anchoring system b? capable of
carrying a force of 41100 pounds.
",- Any additions to mobile homes be similarly arch..'ed.
SECTION 6: the Gnvornino Body of the Ci#y shall review all subdivision
applications and shall make findings of fact and assure that:
a. All such proposed deveiopments are consistent with the need
to minimize flood damage,
b. Subdivision proposals and other prnpnsed new development
greater than five (5) acres of fifty (50) lots, whichever is lesser, include
Within such proposals renulatory flood elevation data in areas subject to
flooding.
c. Adequate drainage is provided so as to reduce exposure to flood
hazards
All public utilities and facilities are located so as to minimize
or eliminate flood damage.
SECTION 7: New 4; :ter and Sewer, etc. - New and replacement water and-sewer
Systems shall he constroctod to eliminate or minimize infiltr•atio;, by, ur.
discharge into floodwaters• Moreover, on -site waste disposal systems will
be designed to avoid impairment or contamination during flooding.
-2-
SFCTiON B: The Governing Body of the city will insure that the flood
carryingcipacity within the altered or rclocatod portion of any watercourse
is maintained. The City will notify, in rivering situations, adjacent connnunities
and the Stato Coordinating Office prior to any alteration or relocation of a
watercourse, and suLlmi: copies of such notifications to the Administrator.
SECTION 9: Definition: Unless specifically defined below, works or
phrases sd Mn chi's Clrcfinance shall he interpreted so as to give them the same
meaning as they have in cononolr usage and so as to give this Ordinance its most
reasonable application.
AREAS OF-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
- The land within a community subject
to a one percent or greater change of
Flooding in any given year. This
land is identified as Zone A on the
official map.
DEVELOPMENT
- Any magi -made change to improved or
unimproved real estate, including
hi1i_ r,et 1roleted ,._ 1...l,J]- --
�u Vu11uIn�b ur'
other structures, mining, dredging
filling, grading, paving, excavation
cr drilling operations,
FLOOD
- A temporary rise in stream's flow
or stage that results in water
0`01- flrn•rin9 its banks and inundating
areas adjacent to- the channel or
an unusual and rapid accumulation
of runoff or surfacE ..,:_ers from
any scu'l•ce.
FLOODPROOFI14G
- Any comhination of structural and
non- structural additions, c1la- yes,
or adjustor ^nts to structures,
incl- cding utility and sanitary
facilities, which would preclude
the entry of vrater. Structural
component.s shall have the capability
Of 1-0sisting hydra static and
hydrodynamic loads and the effect
of buoyancy.
HABITABLE FLOOR
- Any floor usrci for 1, ing which
includes working, sleeping, rating.
cooking 01. 1'er.rn,ation or combination
thereof. A floor used only ir'
stor•ige purposes is not a "habitable
floor."
` MOBILE NOME
- A structu-o , transportable in one
or more sections, which is built
or' a perm ;uu•nL chassis and designed
Lo he ur.r" with or without a permanent
1001. +.1t il1n a:hcn connected to the required
utilities. it ones not include recreational
vehicles or t:•avel ;-ailers.
MOBILE. 1101.1 PARK
(SUBDIVISION)
_ "Mobile 11ome Subdivision" means a parcel
(or (fill ti(1unus parcels) of land which
has hecn divided into two or more lots
for rent or sale and the placement of
mobile homes.
R GULATORY FLOOD ELEVATION
- Thr. water :,urface elevation of the
100 -year flood.
STRUCTURE
_ A walled and roofed structure, including
a gas or ligaid storane tool: that is
Principally ahovo the ground, including
Out without lidritation to buildings,
factories, sheds, cabins, mobile homes and
other similar uses.
_ 3_
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT
"Substantial improvement means any
repair, reconstruction or improvement
of a structure, the cost of which equals
or exceeds 50 percent of the market value
of *.he structure either (a) before the
improvement is started, or (b) if the
structure has been damaged and is being
restored before the damage occurred.
For the purposes of this definition
" substantial i fill) 'ovcment" is considered
to occur when the first alteration of
any wall, ceiling, floor or other
structural part of the building cnmmences
whether or not that alteration affects
the external dimensions of the structure.
The Jorm does not, ho,iever, include
any alteration to comply with existing
cf ato nr 1p� l th I
"Co"
• ���, Sanitary,
building or safety codes or regulat,ons
as well as structures listed in National
or State Registers of historic places.
100 -YEAR FLOOD - The Condition of flooding having'a one
percent chance of annual occurrence.
APPROVED and ADOPTErb this 17th day of M.r 1978
AYES:
Schlosser,
Mikels, Palombo, West, Frost
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Nonc
`==
7`Mayor
of
the City of
Rancho Cucamonga
ATTEST:
V�
City
Clerk - --
- -�
-4-
0
0
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CCICAMUNC:A PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DIRECTOR
RL•VIEW NO. 78 -12 A 1IFQUES'r FOR THE DEVELOPM -v'NT
OF AN OFFICE DUILDINC. AT 8030 VINEYARD AVENUE
WHEREAS, on Aug---qt 15, 1978, n formal appl ic•ation was
submLtted roliuesting review of the above descvlbed project; and
WHERFAS, on October 11, 1978, the Planning Commission
held a meeting to review such a request.
NOW, 111RREFORE, THE RANCHO CLICM1oNCA PLANNING COPP11SSION
RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION is That the following i indinl;, hnve been made:
t. Illat t'C i.uu�ar:ii•i •1 cv � •..
of the project site is not fully improved to
contain major flood condIt inns.
2. That the City of RanOio Cucamonga has the res-
ponsibility to reasonably protect all new
development, from flood disasters per the pro-
visions of the Federal Flood Tusurnnce Program.
3. That the project site cannot he reasonably pro-
tected from flood conditions.
SECTTON 2., That Director Feview No. 78 -12 is denied without
prejudice to allow reapplication nt the time renaonable flood
proteetiou facilities are. installed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THl% 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1978.
P'.ANNIING COIDIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA.
8y
Herman Rempcl,- Chairman
AT'TES P:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, , 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
Citv of Rancho Cucamonf;) at a rcgular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the ^_ day of , 1978, by the following voce
to -wit:
AYES: COMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: CONMISSIONFRS:
0
F-1
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -15
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -32
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HEU4-q AVENUE AND
NINTH ST?EET.
WHEREAS, on the 1.9th day of September, 1978, a complete application
was filed for review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 11th day of October, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences,
parking, loading, landscaping and othAr features
required by this section.
2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop-
ment plan are Incated in such n manner as to be
properly related to existing and proposed streets
and highways.
3_ That the improvements as shown on the development
plan are consistent with all adopted standards
and policies as set forth in this section.
Section 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on
October 11, 1978.
Section 3: That Director Review No. 78 -32 is approved subject to
the following conditions:
Foothill Fire District:
In accordance with Ordinance 111, Foothill Fire District,
the following items will be required by this agency
prior to commencing construction of any building(s) or
structure(s).
1. Two (2) sets of building and plot plans shall be
submitted to this department.
2. The required fire flow will be 3500 gallons per
minute for a duration of 3 hours.
3. Calculations indicating that the fire flow require-
ment will be met shall be submitted to this depart-
ment prior to plan approval..
4. Water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the Cucamonga
County Water District.
5. This department shall be notified to witness an
acceptance test of the water system.
6. Fire protection water systems and fire hydrants shall
be provided and installed in accordance with require-
ments of this distract.
7. A minimum 24 foot access shall be provided around
the proposed building.
a. In lieu of the 24 foot access on the west pro-
perty line, this department will accept an ap-
proved automatic fire sprinkler system in all
buildings.
8. Fire department connections for fire sprinkler
system shall be located within 50 feet of a public
fire hydrant.
9. All streets and r.ul -de -sacs shall meet the minimum
requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
10. Street leading to cul -de -sacs or dead ends shall
not exceed 600 feet in length.
11. The proposed development will require the install-
ation of two or three public Lire hydrants.
The following requirements aye necessary prior to com-
pletion or occupancy of the aforementioned development.
12. Fire extinguishers will be required. The size, type
and number will be determined by this department prior
to occupancy.
13. Street address numbering shall be in accordance with
loc,al ordinance.
Engineering Division:
14. At the time of development grading and drainage plans
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be sub -
mitted for review and approval of the City Engineer.
Hydraulic calculations and a topographic map will be
required to support the sizing and location of drain-
age structures shown on the plans.
15. At the time of development curb, gutter, drive ap-
proaches, sidewalk, street trees, and A.C. match -up
paving shall be provided along Helms Street.
16. Street lights are required along 9th Street. The
developer shall submit all necessary.plans for in-
stallation to the Southern California Edison Company.
17. All drainage shall he to public right of way or with
prior approval of abutting property owners with pro-
per drainage facilities.
18. Drainage from the site shall be by way of sidewalk
drains through the curb face and not over drive ap-
proachits.
Planning Division:
19. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be com-
plied with.
20. That the site be developed in accordance with the
approved plans on file in the Planning Di.vibion.
21. That precise landscape and irtlgation plans be sub-
mitted to and approved by the Planning livision
prior to the issuance of building pe^mits.
22. That directional arrows be painted in the parking
areas.
23. That the two loading npnces circled on the develop-
ment plan be eliminated and that two other spaces
be designated as loading spaces.
24. That all roof mounted equipment be screened from
view with material compatible with the architecture
of the building.
25. That a detailed sign program be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division.
26. That the trash enclosures are provided with view
obstructinR Kates.
�7. That there shall be no outside storage associated
with this development and that only uses permitted
in the M -2 zone are permitted to occupy these
buildings.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1978.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
By:
Herman Rempel, Chariman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
and regularly Lntrodured, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the C ity of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the day of 1978, by the following
vote to -wit:
AYES: CO`CIISSIONERS:
NOES: COMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COWITSSTONERS:
{d1AL !p
r
a y
;q
p
i
i
I �
F
I
o i
z ,
N �
a C
r'
r
x
u
y.
I I
I O
i
w
'ILI
�.i ,� •s
� n•5
r^
I YA
i_
W Y �
6 Z~u
6 �
09� '
w�
4 C
eN }u
'Tit
Z i>t�
�7L a�
M V,
+
f ,•1a
+
R
u
°a
V
_
UP ;
O
+�4
pD
W
+�
i
YJ
F
D4
_
Nd
w
r^
I YA
i_
W Y �
6 Z~u
6 �
09� '
w�
4 C
eN }u
'Tit
Z i>t�
�7L a�
M V,
_ J \
e
a
� o
1
t c
F + U
zqr
_ w a
V �
� I
T
+
f ,•1a
R
u
V
O
+�4
Y T
_
m
w w
d
�
erg
v
td
+
'irVr
Y
w
p
r
N
D:n
om o
J
Ty
•~r�
G
1..
J
jd+
�rpp
OF
4
s39
r
•L
T.
_ J \
e
a
� o
1
t c
F + U
zqr
_ w a
V �
� I
T
+
f ,•1a
R
u
V
O
+�4
Y T
_
_ J \
e
a
� o
1
t c
F + U
zqr
_ w a
V �
� I
T
F
N
M.
r
G
1
i.
)I
ip
iY
i�
W i
O
Cl C4 • -1 ii )
i
I
W
v
q>X
f
o�R;
13
7
Cl C4 • -1 ii )
i
I
tu
S1e
7 Ii
S
Y
V
O
M
N w
t .
Q "
N �
O
r � r
n
M Y
V �:
W
J
tu
S1e
7 Ii
S
Y
V
O
M
N w
t .
Q "
N �
O
r � r
n
M Y
V �:
it •s.. ,�1 �. �, � � � � ,' \ I Wl
'I ' -;�i_I !.!����I I.I i I I_I I_,��I ! I .�1 Ii�► !�I ��,�� � --
,I
i.
,t -
�r •. —... •. � S31'C/t�OSSr °`9• �i37/49tfnC]'H '1`10 ( � ._._... .. �; ,
I
I n• 1f 4, I °,
r'r 4� � 11 1•� „''• Q 11 -,d ,'ti (.
� y- '1 �, yr .r S; r j I M' �;j �� ;I � •,r _ „)
cI„ jf
v-
�kl
Tv
i.
r Ii II;
I, Ii
, II
I
i lEill�illl 1.1 ( i
,
nnnwyl Ci .
711 " El i
�II
1r7
rl 10 '
r
!
r•� 1
l
i
I.
;•Li_
ion_ _I ,•. `'
i
�I I.
jll�ll
.:
U�
7
I I iI
11
�.1 �•, ..
—
_
.IT�II
Al
�
�� I
I1
J11iIl
.1
- -�yLI
i
i
cI„ jf
v-
�kl
Tv
i.
r Ii II;
I, Ii
, II
I
i lEill�illl 1.1 ( i
,
nnnwyl Ci .
711 " El i
�II
1r7
rl 10 '
r
!
-7i
l
i
I.
;•Li_
ion_ _I ,•. `'
i
' ,...�
7
cI„ jf
v-
�kl
Tv
i.
r Ii II;
I, Ii
, II
I
i lEill�illl 1.1 ( i
,
nnnwyl Ci .
711 " El i
�II
1r7
rl 10 '
r
!
OV
I
ir 7�,:
00
1.
17
Cj)
X11
L9
jJ
'TF
QN)
OV
I
ir 7�,:
00
1.
17
Cj)
X11
L9
'TF
OV
I
ir 7�,:
00
1.
17
Cj)
X11
L9
ill
n
QN)
77
ill
n