HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/06/13 - Agenda Packeti
W
C7 4
O
N
W
O
7
s
17
m
K
5
00
T
J
^" Lv7t�` f t r i •{ t t,� t !� >1 z t t� I
1 l
�y r+
RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
i PLAhNINC COMMISSION
fit AGENDA
Wednesday, June 13, 1979, 7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
I. Pledge of Allegiance
1I. Roll Call
�. Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel
' Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy.
Commissioner Jones
III. Approval,of Minutes
April-26, 1979, May 3, 1979, May 23, 1979, and May 24, 1979
• IV. Announcement$` L
g-
V7TRO V. tsemt Calendar
l7 A. NEGATIVE DECL TION POR DIRECTOR VI N0. l STRAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. — Request for con-
struction of a 5740 square foot industrial' building T
at 8975 Rochester Avenue.
B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5194 - HUCKS -
°'t The division of approximately 6.1.acres of industrial
a land located, on the south side of Ninth Street between
Vineyard Avenue and Hellman Avenue into 8 parcels..`
fri ...
1 C. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5260 - WARRPN -
' The division of 19.67 acres of industrial land located
on the west aide of Turner, north of 7th Street into
two .parcels.
VI. 'Pu lie Hearings
SITE 'APPROVAL W_79 -14 HAUSER - The development of.
a 2,000 square foot small animal veterinary., hospital
c'. to be, located on the southwest' corner of 19th.and
r Carnelian' within the C-1 zone.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
O. 79 -04;' CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONGA Administrative,,-
i
ohanges'to the ';Sign•Ordinance for clarificatioi purposes., a
s
�3y • (, 'yt � t
.
�` sNdvH`l�'�•1 gip) F; y 1 t .f i.. ��
w
� s�fN, ����r`iFrIYiSy`t Jil Yitwf f1. ti itiY'�,�5�'1 [ '• rah �Gb�S�''h:
A [ 1
1
5 Planning Commission Agenda
t
dune;13,'1979
Fnge 2:
L;
Y. I
M1; :
VII." Old Business
r VIII. New Business
F. DIRECTOR REVIEW SIGNS NO. 79-02 - ONTARIO SAVINGS
AND LOAN - Requesting approval of a 3 -aided time and
;..' temperature monument sign at 20'square foot per side
w a maximum height of .612".
11� G. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - CIRCULATION ELEMENT INDUSTRIAL AREA
C
H. REPORT REGARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIST:tiCT.
REPORT REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
t;.
IX. Council Referral
R. Director's Reports
J. SIGN PROGRAM FOR TRACT DEVELOPMENTS
K. PROGRESS REPORT REGARDING THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN.
r
L. RE E5T FOR ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING KEEPING.
k.t � GOATS.
M. PLANNING COMMISSION VACATIONS
XI. :Eblic Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items
A _ a not ]�i$j as the a may do so at this time.
Commis n ant
I Agenda for June 27, 1979:
ral "Plan Amendment No. 79 -01
2. Site Approval No. 79 -12 - Hone
3. Site Approval No. 79 -13 - Vanguard
4. Zone Change No. 79 -05 Coral
S. Zone Change No. 79 -06 - Westways
6. Site Approval No. 79 -11 - Oliver Helicopters
7. Site Approval No. 79 -05 - Wyckoff
r~ S. Negative Declaration - Parcel Map No. 5144 - Wastways
9. Director Review No. 79 -40 - Coral
10. .Director._Review'Noi.79 -41 - Westways
11.:.Minor,Deviation too. 79 -11'- Hone
µ; XIV: 'Adjournment The.Plgnning Commission has ado pted:Admin
'istrative Regulations that., me
Pet an 11 :Op p :m.,'edjournment;:,
r time If items go heyond' that ti, it shall be heard
i only with the consent of the Commission. fat
�' �y ��ra bra a+�yhV'i1 i11 Vtf A, A;. i(, •[� r e aY �� i�,i�L
=..J. t . '" i. n ... s';• . 31.
. ,.?y 'V
RANCRO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA'
Wwdnesday, June 13, 1979, 7.00 p.m.
Community Services Building
ry-
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
' ACTION
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call:
commissioner Dahl Absent Commissioner Hempel ' X
Commissioner Garcia. X Cormaissioner Tolstoy X
Commissioner Jones X
III. Approval of Minutes
Approved 4-0
April 26, 1979, May 3,'107:" , May 23, 1979,,and May 24, 1979
IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
Approve 4 -0
A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION4 .4 FOR REVIEW N0. 79 -39 -
VITRO STRAND TECHNOLOGIES. INC. - Request for con-
struction of a 5740 square foot industrial building
at 8975 Rochester Avenue.
Approve 4 -0
B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5194 - HUC &S -
The division of approximately 6.1 acres of industrial
land.located-on the south side of Ninth Street between
Vineyard Avenue and Hellman'Avenue into 8 parcels.
!a
C. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5260 - WARREN -
Approve 4-0
The division of 19.67 acres of-'industrial land locsted
on the west side of Turner, north of 7th Street,into
two parcels.
VI. Public Hearings
?`. Approve 3 -1
D' SITE APPROVAL N0. 79 -14 - HAUSER The development of
:T• Tolstoy felt use not
appro foot-small
a 2,000'square 'animal veterinary hospital
priate for size of center
to be located on the southwest corner of 19th and -
Carnelian within the, C-1 zone.
h.
E. "NEGATIVE DECLARATION'AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Approve 4 70 with clari- N0. 79 -04 - CITY OF '..ANCHO CUCAMONGA — Administrative
a°
>. fication that the two
r, changes to the Sign Ordinance for clarification purposes.
monument, signs.be, the
same copy_c
rg9
slr�fifa�,kk
;+
lit
_ Plannii1j:,Commission Agenda
r »'�LLne 13, : 1979
yf `
ir rig e
2
VII.
Old Business
VIII.
New Business
Approve 4 -0
F. DIRECTOR REVIEW SIGNS NO. 79-02 - ONTARIO SAVINGS
AND LOAN - Requesting approval of a 3- sided: time and
temperature monument sign at 20 square foot per aide
a maximum. height of 6'2 °'.
:.
?'-
Staff directed to look at
P;;,
connections b add '1 traffic G. GENERAL PI,A27 AMENDMENT - CIRCU;,ATION ELEMENT INDUSTRIAI; "AREA'?'
Prapare more detailed reportg
' REPORT REGARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTEW.NCE DISTRICT:
re estimates for tol:al city
& landscape district info.
concept ok to C.O. 4-0
1. REPORT R.EGARDING!L"ITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
recommended
approval to C.C. 4-0 IX.,
Council Referral
X.
Director's Reports
Recommended to C.C. 4-0
J. SIGN PROGRAM FOR TRACT DEVELOPMENTS
Received and filed
K. PROGRESS REPORT REGARDING THE 2NDUSTRIAL ARFA
PLAN.
4_
Continued to July 11 in
L. RETEST FOR ORDINANCE CHA►NGF, REGARDING KEEPING
order to notify applicant
OF GOATS.
4-0
r.
Received & filed 4-0
M. PLANNING COMMISSION VACATIONS
XI.
Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any;itms
not listed on the Agenda may, do so at this time.
s
Added Item- XII.
Commission Comment
Magnolia Center -
Request by developer RIII.
Upcoming Agenda for June 27, 1979:
to waive block wall
-requirement at shopping
1. General .Plan Amendment No. 79-01
center located at SWC
2. Site Approval No. 79 -12 - Hone
19th and Carnelian-
3. Site Approval No. 79 -13 - Vanguard
Continued to 6127 for
4. Zone Change No. 79-05 - Coral
P.C. review of site
5. Zone Change No.'79 -06 - Westwayu
6. Site Approval No. 79 -11 - Oliver Helicopters
7. Site Approval No. 79-05 - Wyckoff
8. Negative.,Declaradion - Parcel Map No. 4 514 -.Wes tways
.
9. Director Review No.:•79 -40 - Coral .
10. Director Review No. '79 -41 - :Westways
11. Minor• Deviation-No. 79 -11 -
..Hone
`
XIV.
Adjournment - The Planning Commi'saion.hes adopted Admin-
istrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. :adjournment
A!
time. If atems'go beyond that time, it'shall be heard'
only with the consent of the.. Commission.
.r�
a
a+
`F�t�r , .f, �. •.. .. .:rt e. .. ^�a , .'(, ..
{".. ,..r'kJ�raR.h,'Eti'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 26, 1979
Special Study Session
Meeting was called to order it 4:30 by Chairman Rempel at the Rancho Cucamonga
City Hall Conference Room.
Commissioners Present: Rempel, Garcia, Tolatcy
Absent: Jones, Dahl (excused)
Staff Present: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan,
Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner.
The first topic of discussion was specific plans. The Director of Community
Development discussed their significance and advantages in the encouragement of
specific plans. A general discussion ensued. General consensus was reached by
the Commission that encouragement of specific plans was in the beat interest of
the City and good planning.
Director of Community Development presented an over view of Design Review. Four
alternatives were outlined. Alternative one would be a Planning Commission
Review, alternative two would be the creation of a Design Review Board with all
of the Planning Commissioners as members, alternative three would be a separate
and distinct commission, alternative four would be a Committee of the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy questicned which one is the best alternative. He was
concerned that there should be input from the public.
Commii.ssioner Garcia stated that alternative one, two and three have their advan-
tages and disadvantages, however, the simplest and most straight forward means of
accomplishing design review was alternative four.
Chairman Rempel echoed Commission Garcia's comment and added that he wished
clarification on what status the committee would have, who would make up the
committee, the projects that would be reviewed by the committee and some design
criteria on which to base review.
It was generally agreed by the Commission present that the process would be called
Design Review since the desire of the Commission was to look at not only architec-
ture but the site planning, landscaping, urban design, etc.
Staff was directed to proceed on a preparation of an ordinance based upon a Design
Review Subcommittee of the Planning Commission.
There was some concern expressed by Chairman Rempel that if the group had outside
members such as a professional, it might cause some ramifications that would not
be advantageous to the City. His experience had been that the professional tend to
steer the committee to his way of thinking rather than adding constructive criti-
cisas or comments.
. M :. c:
Planning Commission Minutes
Special Study Session
April 26, 1979
Page 2
Commissioner Garcia wanted to otnphasiza that any one who was picked for the
committee should be someon,- vhD is c07- nitted to good design.
Sack Lam suggested that the Gommisaiin think about the various concepts, firm up
their ideas on Design Review so chat at our next Adjourned Meeting on May 3,
staff would have more definite direction.
Meeting was adjourned to May 3, at 4:30 at City Hall. Time of adjournment was
6:35 p.m.
CITY, OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 3, 1979
Special Study Session
Meeting was called to order at 4:41 p.m, by Chairman Rempel at the Rancho
Cucamonga City Hall Conference Room.
Commissioners Present: Rempel,.Garcia,,Jones, Dahl, Tolstoy
Staff ]Present: Jack Lam, Director of Community,Development; Barry Hogan,
Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Bill
Hofman, Assistant Planner.
The Director reviewed the last study session regarding Design Review, and
indicated that the consensus of the Comml-ssion was -that a process would be
called the Design Review process instead of Architectural, Review. .He then
reviewed the timing for a proposed project and the review procedure. it would
have to go through.
The Commission discussed the development process. It was their indication that
the Design Review should come after the Development Review Committee had roviewed
the project. Second, that'scue applications .(to be 'determined) would end at the
staff level and others would go on to the full Planning Commission', third, it
was emphasized that the Development Review Process should remain simple and short;
fourth, the Commission agreed, that the time schedule for Design Review' meetings
should be at least 1 per month and 1 date floating; fifth, the membership of the
Commission would rotate every six .months with the first time being fora three .
month period. This last item was discussed at some length as to the' consistency
of the Design Review Committee and the suggestion was made that the terms of
office be overlapping.
As a follow up, staff will prepare a revised flow chart, set up the frame work for
the process, give the perimeters for projects that would not go to the Planning
Commission, create the Design Review Committee.by ordinance and develop.detsign
criteria on which to base a:review of a particular project.,
Meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
M1
1.
'M
l 1 y
It
it
r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 23, 1979
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga was held at the Coamunity Services Building, 9161 Baseline
Road, Rancho Cucamonga on Wednesday, May 23, 1979.
Meeting was coded to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Hempel who led the
meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
fk * k iF
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy,
Berman Rempel
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ALSO PRESENT: Ja& Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan,
Senior Plainer; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Paul Rougeau,
Assistant Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner;
and Nancy McAllister, Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones, and
unanimouely carried, the minutes of May 9, 1979 were approved subject to
the following change:
Page 3, the last sentence of Chairman Rempel's comment under
Negative Declaration for and Director Review No. 79 -16 should
read as follows: it is his opinion this request should be taken
off the Agenda until the City Council notifies the Commission to
review the site plan as a condition of the zone change.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jack Lan stated as a reminder, at the first meeting in July, the Commission
W -4- will be holding elections for Chairman of the Planning Coomilasion. The
Commission may want to conduct the elections at the conclusion of the last
meeting in June so that the selection will be in effect by the first meeting.
*)• in July.
Jack Lam stated the Commission is to adjourn tonights' meeting to May 24,
1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Services Building for a joint City
Council /Planning Commission meeting. The Citizens Advisory Committee
has also been Invited to this meeting as well as any other interested
people. This meeting is to review the Lewis Specific Plan.
Mr. Lam stated staff received an application from K -Mart for a General
Plan Amendment and has referred it to the Industrial Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce to review the concept of retail commercial in the
industrial areas. They will be reviewing the project and providing any
input they may have to the Commission. A copy of the traffic study pre-
pared by Weston Pringle (which was part of the requirement for the applica-
tion) was given to each Commission member. This study is given to the
Commission in advance for review.
Mr. Lam reminded the Commission that the tour of Mission Viejo and the
City of Irvine will be held on Saturday, June 9, 1979. We will leave
from the City Hail at 7:30 a.m. He asked that the Commission R.S.V.P.
as soon as possible.
Mr. Len stated Item "B" on the Consent Calendar, Time Extension for
Minor Sc- bdivision No. W78 -0194 is to be removed. In addition, two
"New Business" items are requested to be added to the Agenda: 1) Revi-
sions to the approved Foothill Fire District office and 2) a Report
Regarding Commercial Recreational Vehicle Storage Facilities within the
agricultural and residential districts.
Mr. Lam stated a date h::s been set for review of preliminary plans for
Wendy's Hamburgers. The sub - committee is to meet next Wednesday, May
30th at 3:30 p.m, in the City Hall. The sub- commitr.ee was appointed at
the last meeting which includes Commissioners Jones and Tolstoy.
* * * * *
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Garcia indicated he had a question regarding Item "A"
Consent Calendar and asked that it be pulled off at this time. an the
A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones
and unanimously carried to approve the following Consent Calendar items:
C. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79 -31 - Mountain
View Builders
D. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79 -33 - Guiley Trucking,
Inc.
E. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79 -38 - G.S.R. Development
Planning Commission Minutes -2-
May 23. 1979
Planning Commission Minutes _3-
May 23, 1979
; Jf,
Commissioner Garcia asked regarding Item "A", if there will be any'circula-
tion problems created by the development as proposed.
Mr. Rougeau, Associate Civil Engineer, stated in order to allow this subdi-
vision, the public roads would have to be :installed according to City atom-
dards. He does not see any problem with the circulation pattern as proposed.
A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Jones -.
and unanimously carried to approve Item "A ', '['ime Extension for Minor Subdi-
vision No. 77 -0590 - Spangler, as presented.
REVISIONS TO FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT - SITE APPROVAL NO. 79-03
Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reported Foothill Fire District is_ requesting
modification to their previously approved plans. They are removing some
steel poste in one location and have changed some of the interior design.
Concrete block building material was proposed; however, they would like
to go to stucco instead. These revidions would pose no problems as far
t use
as Staff is concerned. However, they are also requesting approval
composition roofing instead of tile. It is the opL:Ion of staff, with
the existing fire station, post office, and the proposed Vanir development
all proposed or existing with' tile, that it would be inappropriate to
change to composition roofing. If the Commission agrees, staff would
recommend that the Commission allow staff to work with the applicant
to find an alternative to the tile roofing proposed so long as the
material used simulates tile.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated whatever is used on the roof, it should look
like the tile that is on the existing fire station.
ss:
Mr. Hogan stated if there is any question in Staffs' mind as to the appearance,
it would be brought back to the Commission for review and approval.
Commissioner Dahl agreed that the material used should be as close in color
and appearance as the tile roof previously approved.
A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy
to go on record in support of the revisions as presented with the exception
of the composition shingle roof. The Commission recommended that a tile roof
or material similar in appearance to tile be constructed on the roof.
AYES; GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL
HOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Planning Commission Minutes _3-
May 23, 1979
; Jf,
Jack Lam, Director of Communfly Development, reported at a previous meeting,
the Commiission reviewed the issue of a current illegal commercial recreational
storage facility located on the southeast corner of Hermosa and Baseline.
The Commission raised the question of whether such facilities might be allow-
able under certain conditions by modifying the current ordinance. The issue
was referred to the Citizens Advisory Committee for their input. At their
meeting, the. Advisory Committee unanimously voted to request that the Com-
mission not modify the ordinance to allow for such facilities within agricul-
tural or residential districts and not to allow any deviations from the present
ordinance to do so. The concensus of the Committee was that these are commer-
cial facilities and should be located within commercial or industrial areas
and not within residential or agricultural districts.
Chairman Rempel stated there is a serious problem with regard to storing
of recreational vehicles. Proper design standards for this type of facility
with proper screening, landscaping, etc., could be taken care of under a Con-
ditional Use Permit. There is a definite need for this type of use in the
residential areas and it is his opinion with proper controls under Conditional
Use Permit this use could be allowed.
Commissioner Garcia stated the City at the present time has a very restrictive
ordinance regarding the storing of recreational vehicles. There is a tremen-
dous amount of residents within our community that own recreational vehicles.
It is hie opinion if the recreational vehicle storage lots are allowed within
the industrial and commercial areas only, this takes away from the enjoyment of
the recreational vehicle. If we have a restrictive ordinance for R.V. parking,
then the City should make accommodations for R.V. parking in the residential
area.
Chairman Rempel stated he would like to see this issue covered in the new
zoning ordinance. In the meantime, the lot on the southeast corner of Hermosa
and Baseline shculd be allowed to ruin.
Commissioner Tolatoy stated that the parking of recreational vehicles as close
to the person that owns it as possible is a good idea. He agrees that recrea-
tional vehicle storage lots should be allowed within the residential and agri-
cultural zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Dahl stated he would also agree that this use needs to be develgped
as close as possible to those that have recreational vehicles. inis does not
have to detract from the beauty of the city if planned well.
A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl, and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy
to direct staff to draft an ordinance allowing recreational vehicle storage
lots within the residential and agricultural zones subject to Conditional
Use Permit and include it in the new zoning ordinance.
AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, ,TONES, GARCIA, REMPEL
NOES: NOME
ABSENT: NONE
tin Planning Cam'ssion Minutes -4- May 23, 1979
E'
x.
PRIORITIES FOR GEWAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 79-01 - Set priorities for
hearing on various amendments
Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail. He indi-
cated the Planning Division has received three formal applications requesting
amendments to the Land Use Element . of the General Plan which he reviewed for
the Commission. In addition, the Staff is aware of two areas that may necessi-
tate amendments which he reviewed. He further indicated the Commission may
have areas of concern that need to be analyzed. The second meeting in June
is the first hearing date (June 27, 1979). Staff recommends that the Com-
mission prioritize the requests. .
Chairman Rempel indicated in addition to the items listed in the staff
report, a clarification of mixed use should be added. Clarification is
needed on the commercial uses allowed within the mixed use area as well as
discussion of whether apartments should be allowed in this classification.
Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to have a current update of the
General Plan.
Mr. Lam indicated staff is presently preparing a general plan map for
distribution.
Mr. Lam stated as the housing element is reviewed, the Commission may
find there will be substantial need to update the residential plan.
Also, by September, the Industrial Specific Plan, the Lewis $lan, and
the William Lyon Specific Plan will be before the Commission for review.
The Commission might be in a better position after reviewing these items
to request further changes to the General Plan. Therefore the Commission
may wish to wait until the September hearing date to-add further discussion
items for amendment to the General Plan.
A Motion was masse by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl
` to prioritize the requests in the order as listed below beginning June 27,
1979 and continuing until all itemn have been reviewed.
Item 1. Strand /Commonwealth - Southeast corner of Haven and
Foothill Blvd.
v.
Item 2.
William Lockhart - Northeast corner of Peron Blvd. and
Archibald.
Item 3.
Jack Sylvester - Northwest corner
of Haven and Highland.
Item 4.
South side of Foothill Blvd. between Baker and the Cuca-
i +.
monga Channel.
Item S.
South side of 19th Street between
Archibald and Amethyst.
Item 6.
Clarification of Mixed Use.
AYES: GARCIA.
DAHL, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Planning Commission Meeting -5-
May 23 1979
f +
� r
r
CLARIFICATION OF SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING SIGNS FOR COMMERCIAL CENTERS
Mr. Lam reported the Council upheld the Commissitm's decision to deny the
use of a monument sign for Sierra Savings and Loan. During Council review,
two issues were raised that needs clarification. The intent of the ordi-
nance was to provide separate provisions for signing for businesses within
shopping centers and businesses not within shopping centers. The Council
has suggested that additional language be added to this Section to make
the ordinance perfectly clear. 'The other issue was the question on who
and what constitutes a major tenant. The Planning Division recommends
that the Commission review and discuss the issues and direct staff to
prepare necessary documents for further action.
Commissioner Tolatoy stated if he were a developer within the City, he
would not want the City to tell him who the major tenants are within his
center. The developer should be able to determine this on his own.
Commissioner Garcia stated he would agree with Cf maissioner Tolstoy. Per-
haps in order to avoid any real controversial issues of who is the major
tenant, would be to amend the ordinance to state: The center will be allowed
a monument sign for center identification as well as two businesses. Delete
the words '!major tenants" completely.
Chairman Rempel stated he would agree the developer should be allowed to
decide which tenants should be on the sign. Staff will review each sign,
if it doesn't coufor, to code requirements staff will not approve the sign.
Mr. Lam stated the other item was to suggest adding clarification to the
ordinance regarding center identification signs. Sierra Savings felt that
since they were a separate parcel from the center they should be allowed
a separate monument sign. The intent of the ordinance was to limit identi-
fication to the center. Clarification could be added to indicate center
identification has nothing to do with the number of parcels involved.
Shopping centers designed as one total integrated development or center
is a commercial cents:r even though it may contain individual parcels and
buildings.
A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy
to direct staff to clarify the issue of signage regarding major shopping
centers and that the word "major tenant;" should be stricken from the
ordinance and state that not more than two tenants should be allowed on
the center identification sign. Separite parcels within centers are to be
considered as shopping center signing and not individual parcel or business
signing.
AYES: GARCIA, 10''STOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Planning Commission Meeting -6- Mav 23, 1979
.,
Mr. Doug Gorgen stated there is a problem of people dumping materials
on empty lots within the city. The pool companies are the biggest problems
with dumping dirt onto vacant lots. He asked if it would be possible to
not issue final approval on a pool until the contractor demonstrates proof
of where he dumps the dirt. He stated something needs to be done soon or
this problem will be compounded.
Chairman Rempel stated this 1s a worthwhile item to explore.
Mr. Lam stated he will ask our Code Enforcement Officer to find out if there
are any provisions for dumping within our ordinance. If there isn't, we will
look into sample ordinances of other communities and how they handle this
issue.
COMMISSION COMMENT
Commmissioner Garcia requested updated copies of the following: Subdivision
Map Act, an updated copy of the Sign Ordinance, filing requirements, update
of the status of the moratorium, development fee ordinances, and final rules
and procedures of the Planning Commaission. He indicated he would also like
to have the scope of work proposed for 1979.
1; 4
Chairman Rempel asked for public cam7nents.
A member of the audience stated he ;'.a concerned about the lighting stan-
dards for shopping center developments within the city.
Mr. Rougeau reported the, commercial developments approved by the County
did not have strict lightii4 standards, however, any new developments
approved by the City will requite ligh_ing at the same spacing or greater
than required of residential development.
A member of the audience asked what the City's plans are for re- planting
parkway areas in the city where the areas are overgrown with weeds and
the plants have died.
Chairman Rempel stated the City does have plans to take care of these
areas in the future; however at the present time there are no funds
available. The intent of the beautification fee is to help revegetate
and beautify these areas.
A member of the audience indicated since Alta Loma High School was con-
structed there has been no sidewalks along Baseline east of the high
school. He asked if sidewalk: will be constructed in this area in the
future.
Chairman Rempel stated again, there is a problem of city funds.
Mr. Doug Gorgen stated there is a problem of people dumping materials
on empty lots within the city. The pool companies are the biggest problems
with dumping dirt onto vacant lots. He asked if it would be possible to
not issue final approval on a pool until the contractor demonstrates proof
of where he dumps the dirt. He stated something needs to be done soon or
this problem will be compounded.
Chairman Rempel stated this 1s a worthwhile item to explore.
Mr. Lam stated he will ask our Code Enforcement Officer to find out if there
are any provisions for dumping within our ordinance. If there isn't, we will
look into sample ordinances of other communities and how they handle this
issue.
COMMISSION COMMENT
Commmissioner Garcia requested updated copies of the following: Subdivision
Map Act, an updated copy of the Sign Ordinance, filing requirements, update
of the status of the moratorium, development fee ordinances, and final rules
and procedures of the Planning Commaission. He indicated he would also like
to have the scope of work proposed for 1979.
Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by C.ommiasiouer Garcia and
unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting
of May 23, 1979 to the Special Study Session Thursday, May 24, 1979 at
7:00 p.m. in the Community Services Building. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
spectful y submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 24, 1919
Special Study Session
This was ra joint meeting with the City Council calles specifically for the
presentation of the Lewis Terra Vista specific plan.
Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. with all Planning Commissioners
present and City Council members, Frost, Mikels and Polumbo.
Staff Present: Jack Lem, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan,
Senior Planner; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Michael Vairin,:.
Associate Planner; and Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner
Introductory comments were made by the Mayor and -the Chairman with Jack Lam,
Director of Community Development, making introduction comments regarding the
planning process, the reasons and advantages for specific plans. He then
introduced Dick Ramella of the Planning Center for the presentation of the
Lewis Terra Vista plan.
Meeting was adjourned to the June 9 study session at 8 :26 p.m.
r
7.
ea
John Blayney Associates
(I. Urban and Regional Planners
June 8. 1979 %Al-Y'6f RANCHO CU ENT D PT- 1uhnA.[9lnync ?,A.LN
CONINIUt ►ITY OEVELOPh1ENT DEPT. Robert W.bover,A.I.P.
1979 Michael V. Dyctt. A.I.P.
To: Jack Lam-,' JUN 1 FM
Lloyd Hubbs 12 gI'�1516
Hans Korve ��I$ ►g ►10 ►i1112 I �
Prom: John Blayney, Margie Qurdziel
Re: Industrial Area Development Assumptions for Traffic Modeling
The accompanying sheets summarize comparative trip generation data from Irvine, Bay
Area, and elsewhere. Jack Lam and I agreed June 4 that we should use assumption that
lean toward Irvine densities, although I am reluctant to go to the densities Drachman was
assuming In Irvine for the entire Rancho Cucamonga industrial area. We may get current
Irvine data next week.
Our assumptions are as follows:
Area A: Slight increase In density on developed parcels from 11.1 (current) to 15
employees per acres; 3 trips per employee; 45 trips per acre.
Major ends thoroughfare frontage designated "Office /Commercial/R&D": 120 trip ends
per acre per day. Banks, restaurants, and most retail would be much higher; R&D would
be 1-twer — this is a guesstimate that probably overstates the average for the total
acreage — at least for many years.
Area B — Distribution center area: 80 trip ends per acre — employment density Is low;
total traffic is high but peak is spread.
Area B — proposed Koll area R&D plus offices: 20 employees per acre; 3 trips per
employee; 60 trip ends per acre.
:c. :. Area.B — "General industrial ":.12 employees per acre; •'f trips per employee; 36 trips per
day. Assumption is that larger.parcels than In Area A will have somewhat lower density.
Area C: 6 employees per acre;:3 trips per employee; 18 trips per acre.
All of the above figures are for net acreak'e: We have assumed net at 80% of gross in
Area A and 83% of gross in Areas B and C based on existing development In Area A and
in Irvine.
If all the trip generation numbers are added and it is assumed that the total represents 3
trips per employee per day, the overall average density would be 18 employees per net
acre. The general plan assumed 10 employees per acre — equivalent to 12 per net acre.
Comments are solicited before June 15.
JB,l41G:kbc 17" 11()st Sire - Suite ?;n
Enclosures
Vii, _• -San Frencisclr.CA-44108
it 14151 +21 -773_
n
d7
w m tc a
N OD ep v! cy v> C4 N
}+ w
k' z-.
z
ami
w
u
'a3 m
V
a
G
° O V
A
a
U2x04
ti
S
U
�1
U
Cl.
W
d
m
cn o
m
N
m
N
%6 m
ua
Q
Q G
E
M 'V' `W Ci
DO ~ c9
M
Q
�
'✓' V
d Q� DD m
O
.n
w 9
M
.r
7
y
wz
U
D
U N
to
x L d tz
z a m c w
Ln C
o, o
v a co
14 E oa a Go
;j co t d
u r .{�' C C C v 00 JV
4ca 19 co
10 o to °G b b a'� b o
e- �u n
t
r�
a l�
0
d
G mNU]O
F co tD O O
cm c0 V4N Lo
o 4 E
F
G C 9 C
� N
F
u
Td' ma; Hao
o
YA a 4 ri of
C)NP1N
W C7
N
ami
w
u
'a3 m
V
G
° O V
A
U2x04
ti
S
�1
W. i f:
d
v
O C
u y w.o
V x
2 C13 H �
a �
a es lag
� � O
N
A
Sow
TmV
N 6 1# O vJ N [.. c! �: rai Cf
UJ vi d d' y v m
CP
4
4 M h
rnww�
rn0 O Vly ���
IL.
Cd
0 cis
d
c' a �m C? n.33 �5
a a � as tii p �? eo n v
��iof
v «ax ern V
C gyp+
L f
It
I
j
Up
xw to
Q I l l l l t l l l l l l l 1,1 1 1 1 1
Q
NI I I I I I{ I I I t I M l l l
d�
1 1 1
cog
N
F N
m�
y � �
Y
1 I N N G
co W4
Cl* Ir C4
A��
d
G
cis
o
4°c
m
W
w C3 v V' d O tO to tf0 tw 1A O O O O d d
co 0 0
to tD to
CA
O
C6 i�
OON V ticoL tD V'O mcl iA mw cq=NtD wCN
4m. N OID"tD Vr meq tea O CO to Na N. to N
O NO
Mtf7M
fx...
H.♦ttf
Ntn ..lw C7 em IV tDOt — In N..O:~O w to
as
1
N
9 .
rl w eat r1 !•i � ri rt N rl M
CL.
O
U d
aW S
f�
u7
C
a
cis
d
CL
C
d
w
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1
I l y
to E
C)
t0
w
[d
C
Q
C
-
0
i.y
N amt
O
v
O
as
t �D tgo I O I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I IA to
I I to
w �.
z•. Q
O O
t7 t�.. Co
W4
O O
O
N
gig
Oi
l l l l l l l 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
6t C1
Up
xw to
Q I l l l l t l l l l l l l 1,1 1 1 1 1
Q
NI I I I I I{ I I I t I M l l l
d�
1 1 1
cog
N
F N
m�
y � �
Y
1 I N N G
co W4
Cl* Ir C4
A��
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 13, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
0
SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0, 79 -39
VITRO STRAND TECHNOLOGY, INC. — Request for construction
of a 5,740 square foot industrial building at 8975 Rochester
Avenue
ABSTRACT: The project is located on the east side of Rochester Avenue south of
8th Street and adjacent to the Devore Freeway. The site currently contains
Vineyards and gently slopes north to south. There are no buildings on the site
or on surrounding properties.
The applicant proposes to construct a pre- engineered steel building to be used as
a headquarters, engineering office and pilot plant for the development of glass
fiber manufacturing. A second phase is contemplated to occur several years in
the future to provide for expected growth. The process involves possible emmissions
into the atmosphere and requires approval of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Attached please find a copy of the permit to construct from the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
After review of the Initial Study and field check verification, we feel that the
proposed project will not have an adverse affect upon the environment and the
issuance of a Negative Declaration is in order.
RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the issuance
of•a Negativa Declaration for Director Revie::• No. 79 -30 — Vitro Strand Technology Inc.
S
?` Respeftfully submitted,
i k
E° .Lam irector of
}.,.: Community Development
JL: BRIi: cc
Attachments: Initial Study
.,. '. South Coast Air Quality Management District Permit to Construct
ITEM °An
r
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Will construct pre-engineered steel
building to be used by owner, Vitro Strand Technologies. Inc.
as its headouarters enaineering office and pilot plant for
I..i
would then provide for the expectea groWtin oz cne uvapauy.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 1.66 acres --- No existing
buildingd 5740 a ft proposed building
DESCRIBE THE EWIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROTECT SITE
INCLUDING INFOR'.1ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
groUnd with g4elieral North to South slope.
No buildinrzs on surrounding propertiee - all undayelopsd. `
r ,
r
Is the project, part of a larger. project, one of a series -
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
I..i
r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I PROJECT INFORMATION SKEET — To be completed ny applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For "all. projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and zubmitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
- project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part TI of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information- report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: VITRO STRAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. H.Q.
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: _ Charles H. Cog gin I Jr..
0
IOCATSON OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS "ND ASSESSOR PARCEL 140.)
$975 RneQ13trr Ave-, Cucamonta, Calif.
-book 229, pg. 27, lot #34, Por. Sec. 8, T.I.S., R6H, SBR ".M
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL„ STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
South Coast, Air Quality permit Attached
y {y�S
�r�
�f WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)
Y_ x h. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
, x 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
_ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the .Development
Review Committee.
Hate Signature
Title f We-61Z)cz- ll'
z..,
:a.
The following information sh,•..id be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
school district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
C_
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
Number of single
family units:
2.. Number of multiple
family units:
Date proposed to
begin constriction:
4L Earliest date of
occupancy:
r 7 Model $
and 4 of Tentative
'S. Bedrooms Price Ranve
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
EASTERN ZONE
22850 Cooley Olive, Calton, CA 9237;
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
APPLICATION NUMBER:
A- 00330 -E
AL OWNER Vitro Strand Technologies, Inc. ORANTlO AS OF January 18, 7979
OPERATOR: Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
The equipment doscribwd below and as shown on the Approved plane and
&pacification♦ and subject to the special condition, orconditicne, listed.
Nf IRKENT Air pollution. Control System, Consisting of: Baghouse, Flex- K1een, Model
MRI PT ION 5BBV16, Sixteen Bags (Each Bag 5.5" D X 6' L), 138 Square Feet, Exhaust Air
-AND Supplied by Conveying System, pneumatic Shake, Empties into the Mixed Batch
IDITIONS: Surge Silo.
CONDITION:
1. This equipment must be kept in good -jperating condition at all times.
Approval or denial of this Application for permit to operate the above equipment will be mode after an lnepection
to determine if tie equipment has been constructed in accordance with the approved pion& and specifications and
if the equipment can be operated in compliance with All Rules Of tM South Coast Air Quality Managamsnt District.
Please notify Mr, W. G. Berg at 824 -2660 when construction of equipment in completed -
It Ic the Applicant's responsibility to comply with all laws. ordinances and rsoulations of other governnsntal
agencies ehich are applicable to the equipment to be constructed.
This Permit to Construct %hall serve at a N *Parry/ rafa,it
to Operate pro.ldsd the 4ecutivs Offiter It ilvan prier
Tnlb larmilt to Construct *III baco -s Inralle It the porwlt
to Operate Is denlse or If cola application Ie carcellad-
TnIS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SMALL fart Mf 7e0 TEAKS rMOw TnE
DATE Of 1`11.IR. Or APPLICA7106 unlatt An eatenalon Is gran.
too by the Eaecrtive Officer.
Y
0
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER
Y'
,'TNhaaat Mu ♦(ri
0
r ' SOUTH COAST AIR OUALIT" MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
EASTERN ZONE
22050 Cooley Orivs, Colton. CA 82324
APPLICATION NURSER:
A-00331 -E
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
LEGAL OWNER Vitro Strand Technologies, Inc. GRANTED AS OF- January 18, 1979
OR OPERATOR: Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
The equipment described below and ae shown on the approved plans and
specifications and subject to the special condition, or Condltiona, liated.
EQUIPMENT Glass Fiber Manufacturing System, Consisting of: Six 1.5 Screw Conveyors;
DESCRIPTION Scale /Blender /Transporter, Whirl- Air -Flow, Model 10AM200, with 50 HP Air
.AND Compressor; 752 Gallon Mixed Batch Surge Silo; Melter Furnace, Eight North
CONDITIONS: American Natural Gas Burners, Model OC7 -969G or Equivalent, 10 HP Blower, 1
HP Danloering Air Blower; Furnace Forehearth,41 Eclipse Natural Gas Burners,
or Equivalent, 3 HP Blower; Total Furnace Rated at 5,250,000 BTU /Hr; and
Drying Oven, North American Natural Gas Burner or Equivalent, 315,000 BTU /Hr,
3 HP Bir:wer, Cooling System, Fiberizing Bushings, Size Applicators, Package
Winders and Ionics Recuperator are Exempt. Total - 5,565,000 BTU /Hr and 76 HP.
CONDITIONS:
1. This equipment shall not be operated unless it is vented to functional
air pollution control equipment which is operating under a valid permit issued
by this District.
2. This equipment must be kept in good operating condition at all times.
Approval or denial of this application for permit to operate the above equipment will be Wade after an inspection
to determine if the equipment has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
if the equipment can be operated in compliance with all Rules of the South Coast Air Quality Nanagoment District.
Please notify Mr. W. G. Berg at 824 -2660 when construction of equipment In completed.
It Is the applicant'% responsibility to comply with all laws. ordinances and regulations of other Governmental
■pantie■ which are applicable to the equlpment to be constructed.
Tnit Form :t to Construct she 11 serve at a tempore ry Fermlt
". to Operate pro.lded trio E,acutive Officer Is )Ivan prier
This Permit to Constrict will bacon• in,elid It the Permit
to OParfte 14 denied or If this epplleetlen la cencU led.
Tn13 PERNIT TO CONSTRUCT SnALL [•PIN( TWO TEAKS fhOw TnE
DATE Of FILING OP APPLICATION unlnt An ontenslon is gran -
led of tee Eeety.lve office.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER
it.11111144t pod
ey furr `
SOUIJ OAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT Dee ICT
EASTERN ZONE
22850 Cooley Drive, Colton, CA 9221
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
APPLICATION NUMBER:
A- 00332 -E
LEGAL OWNER Vitro Strand Technologies, Inc.
GRANTED AS OF January 18, 1979
ap OPERATOR: Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
The equipment described below and as ■hewh on the approved plans and
specifications and subject to thr special condition, orconditione, listed.
EQUIPMENT Air Pollution Control System, Consisting of: Baghouse, Fabri -Jet, Model
DESCRIPTION SQ16 -8 "C" Style, Sixteen Bags (Each Bag 5 1/2" D X 81 L), 184 Square Feet,
Alto 3 HP Exhaust Fan, 600 CFM, Pneumatic Shake, Manually Emptied. Total - 3 HP.
CONDITIONS:
CONDITION:
1. This equipment must be kept in good operating condition at all times.
Approval or denial of this application for permit to operate the sbois equipment will be made after an Inspection
to determine if the equipment has been constructed in accordance with the approved Plana and specifications and
if the equipment can be operated in compliance with all Rules of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Pleas& notify Mr. W. G. Berg at 824 -2660 when construction of equipment Is completed.
It Is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of other governmental
agencies which are applicable to the equipment to bs constructed.
Thlt Permit to Construct %hall ttraP to a temporary Permit
to OPerate pro-141d the I,ttutl,e Officer It ilran prior
notice of such Intent to opwrale.
Toll Perhlt to constrict will beco -e Inralld It ens PPr..lt
to OPe+ale It danced or It this applicstlan It capealled. Alp POLLUTION CONTROL OfFIC[R
TATS PFPdly TO CONSTRUCT S"ALL FFPlar TWO TFal.b FP7w TM(
DATE OF Pltlhn OF APPLICATION vnival an eaton,ion ;a gr-sn.
led of tea (decut(ve Officer. y)
Opp �� � : ieDiKKE Rar.�lTT
r
rr .
SoulibOAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT D & ICT
EASTERN ZONE
22850 COOIgy 00YO, COIIOn, CA 92324
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
LEM WREN Vitro Strand Technologies, Inc.
01 OPERATOR: Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
APPLICATION NUMBER:
A- 00333 -E
GRANTED AS or January 18, 1979
The equipment described below and be shown an the approved plans and
speeifiestions and subject to the spacial condition. oraandilione. listed.
ECUIPyIENT Silo Complex, Cons :sting of: One 11,750 Gallon Silo and Three 5,640 Gallon
DESCRIPTION Silos Vented to a Common Baghouse, Pneumatically Filled. Total - 28,670
Ip
CONDITIONS: Gallons.
CONDITIONS:
1. This equipment shall not be operated unless it is vented to functional
air pollution control equipment which is operating under a valid permit issued
by this District.
2. This equipment must be kept in good operating condition at all times.
Approval or denial of this application for permit to operate the above equipment will be leads attar an Inspection
to dotermins if the equipment ties been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
> if the equipment can be operated in compliance with all Rules of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Please notify Mr. W. G. Berg at 824 -2660 when construction of equipment Is completed.
it is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all lees, ordinances and regulations of other governmental
agencies which are applicable to the equipment to be constructed.
This Permit to Construct shell serve Ae a temporary Fermit
to Operate provided the Executive Officer Is glvan prier
notice of such Intent to operate.
This Permit to construct will become invalid If the Permit
to Operate Is aerlsd or If this application It concealed.
?All PEReIT TO COasTROCT IhALL Witt Tao TPARS PhOa Tnf AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER
OATE OF PILIRf, Of APPLICATIOM unless an extension Is Iran-
tee by the Executive officer.
` NY
Aft
, , —� ,rte
, Y 1 x6biNAE hp.�ltT.:.
�kl
g CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 13, 1979
T0: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Tentative Parcel Map No 5194 - HUCKS -
Request to divide approximately 6.1 acres of industrial land
into 8 parcels located on the south side of Ninth Street
between Vineyard Avenue and Hellman Avenue.
BACKGROUND: Howard Hucks is requesting approval to divide a 6.1 acre industrial
parcel into 8 lots as shown on Exhibit 'A'. The site is zoned M -R and the General
Plan designation is Minimum Impact Industrial. The proposed subdivision meets all
zoning requirements and.is consistent with the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is vacant except for the existing Verson -West, Inc._
building on proposed parcel 1. Native weeds and a few small rodents and animals
occupy the vacant portion of the parcels; none are considered significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part 1 of the Initial Study indicates no significant
environmental impacts reau!.ting from the subdivision and is attachtd for your
review. Further, no cultural, historical or scenic aspects are associated with
the site. Staff hag field in estigated the site and has found no discrepancies
with the Initial St�ly.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant
adverse impart on the environment and therefore recommends _- sauance of a Negative
Declaration.
Res 9f lly (sub iel,
Jack Lam, Direc or of
Community Development
.IL: cc
Attachments: Initial Study
t' Exhibit 'A' - Parcel Ptap
k,l
I'M "B"
FF• •r
r *_
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SKEET •- To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be'completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be .
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Flower Industrial
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Howard Hucks,
806 First St. , Encinitas California 92024. 714/436-3636.'
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Philip Douglas - Associated Engineers,
316 East "Ell St., Ontario, California. 986 -5818.
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS A MI ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
8989 Ninth Street
Parcel No. 38 AMB 109 -01
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL hGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
None known of.
{
i
0
PROJECT DFSCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
of currently vacant propert
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
at this point in
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTJNG OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
v+uy existing structure on the property to be divided is an•industriai
,a
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series,
Of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
No.
f
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
1. Create ,a substantial change in ground t
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
-noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page. (Does Not Apply)
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the .
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand tltz t
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
Date 'i/-ee 7 `,
7 1
Signature .
Title Engineer - Agent for Howard Hucks,
9
4 i
D
TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP TAO. 5194
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
tK- 6 A Orv1610M OF A' PORTIOM or LOT IO, SIUDDN151G1J
OF LOT' 10, COCAMONaA VIIJCVARO TRACT AS PCR MAP
IMCORDID IU BOOK YO, PA.00 M OR MAPS. pCcOaDi
OF SAM 6[RMAO•un COUNTY, CALtFQRMIA
• �,
APR,,-. 191.1
(011: u,,r INDUSTRIAL USC OMLV
MIYFIY
f,K
\I
NINTH W - STF
0
a
r
W
♦ R
T
L
KrA'T' lA
mOU
P.
.y(a al• •2w
a.a•
1xs
..
••905(- M. W
,
•Y
a
e. 7.
4
W
...
.)r,.
ryyrr
I
I
� .r 1
a
,....
j
:)•1•
arT•a v-.
♦n.4
•.p -�YK
le
0
a
r
W
♦ R
T
L
KrA'T' lA
mOU
P.
.y(a al• •2w
a.a•
.21.1
..
••905(- M. W
♦..O
•Y
EIGHTH
SWAT 1 O I /MIST/
4110C1ATIr IRURll11
Rn.lro. wraelle
Ppl�
.II�
a.a•
..
a
Iz
a
e. 7.
4
W
ryyrr
I
� .r 1
p
Y
I;
•.p -�YK
1
., )4•
I
I
�
to
i
I�
w
b
�
' J
=
t
jf
I
ar'� r2 STREET
Date:
To:
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 13, 1979
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
Fran: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5260 - WARREN
CO. - Request to divide a 19.67 acre industrial lot into two
parcels located on the west side of Turner Avenue, north of
7th Street
BACKGROUND: The Warren Company is requesting approval to divide a
19.67 acre of land into two parcels; parcel 1, 9.75 acres; and parcel 2,
9.92 acres as shown on Exhibit "A ".
The site is zoned M -2 and the General Plan designation is Minimum Impact
Industrial. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is presently vacant and slopes south -
southwestward at a 2X grade. Existing vegetation includes pepper and
eucalyptus trees and smaller native shrubs. No trees would be removed
as a result of the subdivision. Further, no significant wildlife exists
on the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part 1 of the initial study La attached for your
review and indicates no significant envirunmental impacts resulting from
the subdivision. Also, the initial study indicates no cultural, historical
or scenic aspects on the site. Staff has field investigated the site and
has found no discrepancies with the initial study.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant
adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
0
q:V
fdir Tk ..
CITY OF RANCFIO cucAMON(7A
INITIAL STUDY
PART I PROJECT INFORMATION SIiEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
I
�b1a +i
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development P.evlaa
Committee will meet and take action • ) later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to he heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Fkf,PCEG MA1447AA 15940
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS,
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED ^,
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: � !yow�1/, 17 AM /��1
LOCATION OF
ASSESSOR PARCFL NO.)
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE ANC'
FEDERAL, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SOUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
--
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL 3LTTING OF TTIE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INa*'MMTION ON T.IPOGP.APHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, H-.STORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS)i-
t10�,5 r0 n'iE 15cY/rff �AYi�i✓�5T . .
AT 6 1�,�7)( /M.9�LEy l/�G�T�MA/ ft/ /1J�h/ n4fz SlE 16
C644441!M i cam' Aa%25e -e 4W44vv7&'6 r�� ~A00 AM2x., ,
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series-
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
ADO.
wi.bl. S P110J CT:
YES NO
1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing '
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fires, water,
sewage, etc.)°.
4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?.
5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
6, Create the need for use or disposal of d
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables.or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnishes
above and in the attached exhibits present tb- data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge'and belief.• I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
/5�77r /
Date_ Si gnature
Title 6'Iriaos/.
k
�s
r'
j.
t.MF
0
1•
I•,� Ilka
A1-2 IAPJSTR104
t
VIP a
-
Eli-
Pill o
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 13, 1979 W
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -14 - HAUSER - Request for Commission to
locate a 2,000 square foot small animal veterinary hospital
in the shopping center located at the southwest corner of 19th
Street and Carnelian within the C -1 neighborhood commercial
zone.
ABSTRACT: Recently the Planning Commission amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow
for the location of small animal veterinary hospitals within shopping centers with
the approval of a site approval application. The request before the Commission is
the first one under this new Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Special attention should
be paid to the possible precedent setting actions that the Planning Commission's
decision may have on future applications.
S DISCUSSION: Since this is the first application for a veterinary clinic before
the Commission, staff has requested that the applicant provide a statement of
operating guidelines. See Exhibit "A ". Included in the statement of operating
guidelines are the following items:
1. Noise and odor proofing,
2. Dead animal disposal.
3. Patient and plant ingress and egress.
4. Length of stay of animal.
5. Hours of operation.
6. Responsibility for operations.
7. Public information and education.
Also provided for the Commission's information is Exhibit "B" showing the proposed
location in the shopping center of the 2,000 square foot clinic. Exhibit "C" shows
the relative relationship of the center to the surrounding land uses through the use
of an aerial photo.
ANALYSIS: The applicant has adequately covered seven items of possible concern,
however, staff feels that an eighth item should be considered; that is the location
of the use relative to tie other uses in the center. In the Commissions delibera-
tion on whether or not veterinary clinics should be allowed in shopping centers
subject to site approval, the thought was expressed that the use would have the
potential for least conflict if it were to be located in a free standing structure
or at the ends of a multi- tenant structure. In this way, the possible conflict
ITEM "D"
between sick or injured animals frequenting clinic and shoppers using the center
would be minimized.
In staff analysis of this application we find the proposed location to have the
Potential to conflict the users at the center. There are three courses of action
in this regard.
1. Continue the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to
seek a location that would lessen the conflict for his use within
this center or other center.
2. Deny the applicant's request at this location.
3. If the Planning Commission feels that there is not a great potential
for conflict between users approve the applicant's request.
RECODAiENDpTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue Site
Approval No. 79 -14 to the July 11 Plarning Commissi -ja meeting in order to allow
the applicant the opportunity to seek alternative site(s) for his particular use.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH :cc
Attachments: Exhibit A - Statement of Operating Guidelines
Exhibit B - Site Man
Exhibit C - Aerial Photo
0
r:7
�J
i
�. RE: Proposed veterinary clinic in Alta Loma, By Dr. Richard Hauser,
8799 Hidden Fann Road, Alta Loma, Ca. 91701
STATEMENT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES
1, NOISE AND ODOR PROOFING. These specifications will be incor-
porated into a general architectural plan for the facility
drawn up by an architect experienced in planning small animal
clinics. There will be no animal holding structures at the
back wall of the building, nor at any common wall with another
use within the main structure, to furthur minimize noise.
2, DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL. All animals which are euthanized (put
to sleep) or which die will be put into heavy duty impervious
cadaver bags and held in a deep freeze. They will be regularly
nicked up and hauled off in an unobtrusive manner by a profes-
sional service, through a near entrance into the clinic.
3. PATIENT AND CLIENT INGRESS AND EGRESS. Dog and cat patients
will have separate entrances in order to minimize commotion
in front of the clinic. These entrances, which will also serve
as exi.tc: for the respective specie,, will be separated by at
least 22 feet at their centers. Separate waiting room areas
will be maintained to preserve the types of separation of
animals and clients within the facility.
4. LENGTH OF ANIMAL STAY. This clinic is intended to be operated
as an outpatient clinic. Animals will be housedin the clinic
only so long as is needed to convert them to a status enabling
them to be cared for at home. No boarding of animals will be
permitted; there are ample boarding facilities to refer peo-
ple to elsewhere. It is expected that the maximum hospitali-
zation time for an animal, in rare instances, would be 1 week.
Animals will be treated on an in in the morning and out in the
evening basis even if they do need extended care and super=
vision, This works out best for the patients and clients as well.
5• XCO RS of OPERATION. Normal.busiaess hours will not commence
before 8100 a.m. nor continue beyond 900 p.m.
6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATIONS. I will give surrounding mer-
chants and neighi :ors my home phone number. Since I live within
five minutes access to the proposed clinic site, I will be
quickly available to respond to any contingency which might
arise when I am not at the clinic.
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION. The clinic will provide
tours for schoolchildren, and many handout materials to inform
and educate about animal health and welfoare, and the inter-
relationships with human health and welfare. The clinic also
is desgnate d as a civil defnse first aid station in the event
of disaster. I recognize that such a facility has civic re-
sponsibilities beyond servicing the immediate needs of its
clientele.
Respectfully,
z
s
4
� Mii6dPV
� • fMY
.� P+; rsr ra. r �•� xc
LO
CzxvwIAINY ® CO&L K omvmvEfiBt 6 A9ocKx^=
ate.,......, w w • •t•••� + ♦ a
L '6tr
♦ y
0
! w 1 + .y .�+.•. �.lt6raFl` •, } � ..r �� C4 ' ( ay'.
59 wimle
��•� y. ,. rte•� rrte
�
IN G4;
Ik 41,
, �'• � a'
.i� f X111. t�I, t Itiik �y /y •�.1.a,� �� �li .t •.+ '•
cillo
. !�C 1� ` .CA .1+41'. D r..�••.� N. ,•, _ t`(1 rr � `�fi7�R r: a •� �. �-'[ \�..
•♦ rrw 1 7T•�� � '�yr .�.c�rLL�yi� � rr"tll�P' yl ��' + 1 't ���...
Y ..•�. ,.• 1,i_ 1. ! �4��.r w...',��_ , r 11��,� r`'� !•;��(�
-1• 1 4 .' I
� , •1 �:•. di � t.`�T f'ti �• ��1._�+t y '� x.'1 �'.• �j�ri S���jSM 1�r
l �} •��i'F°� ' .%f at a r mss• AL ry-Y ,.
' '. 1 �, � °a 'M1. . :� 7 w. '�+j�, :;'r iw,�., t.i •jii :� i.Q;�'`:a: s � ..
1•• 7.a q• is r V ,..�
.. .. s.,V � �,, 1 f, i+� -.•a _ • �. r,t.� i r �•.: 1'�a ,' r'�� �� ;.0 .:i
%`: �� "�i wa. }Nir�•1~ i✓ yr , r � Ylt rY •9� ,r , ,:
,ar..ar 1jf y
,•I.a � t' �' F' S•'� J, '�i,. Vii, f .r ._ �., r _. .,
• ''� }�� ,+ir � ` x' Ins l4 1
�, • ~S' ry ll j Y ,' y• :a j 1 ..7;- r.whw \w1w•w w !��
h •"Yitti� X11 S' 1r 4 t'fat -i• •�4 Y Y. �, t +
f Ii!
r
1
r]
0
RESOLUTION N0. 79••43
A.RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
Ca*aSSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -04 WHICH AMENDS
ARTICLE v, SECTIONS 5.4.1 AND 5.4.2 OF ORDTNANCE
NO. 65
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of June, 1979, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
the following findinga:
1. That such amendment is in conformance with the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That such amendment is consistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan.
3. Tnnt aUClz a;,Ga'w =11 not be detrimental to
the public health, safety and general welfare.
4. That the proposed amene�-ant would not have
significant adverse environmental Impacts.
SECTION 2: The-Hancbo
will nootper ate$ V that
a 'adverse
dverse
h
impact on the environment and has recommended issuance
of a Negative Declaration on June 13, 1979.
SECTION 3: NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1.
That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
hereby recommends approval on the 13th day of
June, 1979, of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 79-04.
2.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends City
Council approve and aulcpt Zoning en
Amendment No. 79 -04 which amends Article V,
Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 of Ordinance No. 65.
3.
That a certified copy of this Resolution and
related material hereby adopted by the Planning
commission shall be forwarded to the City Council.
s,.
r,
r, _....,. ..
- -
1 1�'
k +�
4, That the attached amended Sections of the Sign
Ordinance becomes a
part of this Resolution.
APPROyED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF .TUNE. 1479.
1UNNING CLW'SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY;_
Herman Rempel, Chairman
I' JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
Commission held nga at a regular meeting of the ning
on the 13t}� day of June, 1979, by the following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
0
`ll
ll
w
DATE:
T0:
FROM:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
June 6, 1979
Planning Commission
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
0
SUBJECT: Director Review of Signs No. 79 -02 - A request to construct a time
and temperature monument sign to be located at the proposed Ontario
Savings and Loan building on the southeast corner of Baseline and
Carnelian.
BACKGROUND: Ontario Savings and Loan has requested approval to use a time and
temperature sign on their site located on the southeast corner of Baseline and
Carnelian. Exhibit "A" is a site plan showing the location of the structure
which will be no less than 25 feet from each street property line. This would
place the sign approximately 42 feet from the curb face of Baseline and 35 feet
from the curb face of Carnelian. Exhibit "B" displays the elevations of the
sign structure. The structure will be a 3 -sided time and temperature display, at
a maximum height of 6 feet 2 inches and a maximum sign area of 20 square feet per
side. The sign ordinance exempts time and temperature signs not.exeeeding 12
square feet per side. Since this proposal exceeds 12 square feet staff is
bringing it before the Commission for its review.
The sign will be on a stucco base with wood trim and 0v-, module will be bronzed
finished metal. The design of the sign appears to be architecturally compatible
with the building. A colored rendering of the sign will be on display at the
meeting. The sign will be placed in a fully landscaped area.
RECOW ENDATION: If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed time and
temperature sign is consistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance and the
design of the center, then the Planning Division recommends that the Commission
approve Director Review of Signs No. 79 -02.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL: MV. cc
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Plot Plan
Exhibit "B" Sign Elevation
E
*
gr; at•. -.:
e
IYl ••Vyy����')w;
ij
" t i3�Fs
1r• _ y� may. � 11 �� �1ia.
• ®® wlrr v.srrvr � 1 • -' M�`^ •� � t }�'1
M.Y �FYa4lIF 1� � i
♦ cir
1
aa .
■
W u
1
i'
ly
.t
1,
n
L'.
1 �
1 1
-
r �
`may' •�.,,
- �• 1TfP vlsw
Y =8 �
Z -T
Cq•EV4TCT.l PEP
— we —'J�r r�rxt.�sv L1c�.a. �+n ua+a Sw
w�..me. w�aae. �atsn }.r.. L•nw w Icu'P�
� IMB�b�lf MC1W- PJ1.4V �`.���
Sw.wal•nYa X/�-•� K.ufaFl �IUTKV
TCIVI W /[IIUM.N 0.h }�C. Y,JwNJ
wme J..u. -rJ_
. wervw••a :+�a+�.1t�r.
RttltltRRR'- tl.,r�
AAit
CFlttb q-�� '
w . _
AMERICAN seGrd
S� Z
1 AND INDICATOR COATORATION
,rye
in.w.r•..rr.r..r�aw
:j�,� �
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG7
MEMORANDUM
A
DATE: June 16, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - CIRCULATION ELEMENT INDUSTRIAL AREA
Y: Attached for Commission review is a report from the Industrial Area Specific
Plan consultants dealing with the issue of the General Plan amendments to the
Industrial Area Circulation Element. The issues dealt with are:.
1. The elimination of the Seventh Street precise alignment.
2. Abandonnent of Eighth Street.
3. Reclassification of Sixth Street from a Collector to a
'iecondary Highway.
The report concludes, based on a capacity balance analysis for a range of pro-
posed uses:
1. Seventh Street can be eliminated.
2. Eighth Street can be abandoned.
3. Sixth Street should be reclassified.
1.:
4. Alternative connector should be reviewed for Sixth Street.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the report and concurs with the basic
conclusions with the following clarifications.
1. Seventh Streit should be maintained as a Collector between
Hellman Avenue and Turner Avenue to provide for current
development.
2. Eighth Street should be maintained as a through route and
not be abandoned until such time as Sixth Street has been
completed between Haven and Rochester.
3. That the Sixth Street alignment shall be indicated with the
recommended connectors between Eighth Street on the west an6
Seventh Street on the east and that precise alignments be
developed for these connectors.
ITEM 110 ;
"d,
SY:
. (Ir
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 2
June 16, 1979
1 (i.
4. That Sixth Street be designated as a secondary route with 88
feet of right of way and 64 foot curb separation.
Implementation of the above requirements will require a General Plan Amendment
to establish the reclassification of Sixth and Seventh Streets. A specific
plan for the realignment of Sixth Street for Planning Commission and Council
approval and Official abandonment proceedings for Eighth Street. Due to time
constraints related to the proposed construction of PlPuss- Staufer only the
General Plan Amendment is recommended at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission accept the consultant's report and schedule hear-
ings for Amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element at its June 27,
1979 meeting to eliminate Seventh Street between Turner and Rochester; to
reclassify Seventh Street between Hellman and Turner to a Collector; to.re -
classify Sixth Street to a Secondary Highway 88 feet right of way with a
64 foot curb separation from Vineyard Avenue to Rochester.
Respectfully submitted,
/ 7
J /-, /
LLOYr(AiUBBS-
City Engineer
LBH :deb
a
May 10l 1979
CITY Of RAKIiO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
To: Jack Lam, Community Development Director MAY 4 1979
i Livyu aaLbw, Cily •.n�.iaccr, fia.y of unlwlly vuunll,ring0AM `rM
"r ►g�911011lti2►1►�►314►$i(j
From: Steve Colman /Hans Korve, DeLeuw Cather do Company
John Blayney, John Blayney Associates
Subject: Traffic Network Around Pleuss- Staufer Plant, Rancho Cucamonga
Pleuss- Staufer, a manufactur?ng firm, has requested that the planned extension of 7th
Street through its property be deleted.. Pleuss -Staufer also has requested that Eighth
Street be closed adjoining its site. This memorandum analyzes the impacts of these
proposals.
Site and Plant'Description
Pleuss- Staufer proposes to construct a plant on an 80 acre parcel shown on Exhibit 1.
The plant will front on 6th Street (not presently constructed), with both employee
parking and truck access provided from a single entrance on 6th Street. The entrance
will be approximately In the middle of the site.
The plant will pulverize rock which will arri e via the Santa Fe rail line adjoining 8th
Street. The finished product will be transported by truck. Bail movements will consist
of two 15 -20 car trains each day. Truck movements will include 20-25 trucks at the
plant per day. The plant is a seven day /week, 24 -hour /day operation. Fewer than 100
employees will be based at the plant. Approximately 60 will be on the day shift, Inclu-
ding 20 -25 office /managerial workers. Skeleton crews will man the plant at night.
Trip Generation in Area "C"
Rancho Cucamonga's Industrial area has been divided into three segments for planning
purposes. Area A is west of Haven Avenue; B extends from Haven to the Devore Free-
way and Area C Is east of the freeway. Trip generat.,n in industrial Area C is critical in
determining whether a through east -west street is needed between Arrow Route and 4th
Street.
Area C includes approximately 1,500 acres. Projections of future employment densities
range from a low of four employees /acre to a high of 12 employees /acre or 6,000 to
18,000 employees at full development. The lower end of this range is mtre likely than
the higher end.
LL
Trip Generation in Area "B" .
The industrial area between Haven and the Devore Freeway includes about 2,30^ acres.
Assuming 800 acres is most easily accessible from the perimeter streets (Haven, Foothill,
Rochester, and 4th), 1,500 acres would be served mainly by Milliken Avenue and 6th, 7th
or 3th. Because this acreage is the same as in Area C, the same density assumptions
produce the same number of trip ends as in the table above — 8,340 to 97,200. Assuming
an equal divisicn of this traffic between Milliken and the east -west route, volume could
approach 50,000 ADT on the east -west route, including the 1,300 -3,100 trips destined for
area C. It is more likely that volumes will be less than 25,000. The traffic model now
being prepared will narrow the range of uncertainty by more carefully documented
projections of future employment densities and by more accurate trip assignment to
specific streets.
In order to handle a volume approaching or exceeding 259000 ADT, the east -west street
will need to be continuous between Haven and Rochester even if no through trips were
projected. Attempts to serve Area B with cul-de -sacs or loops would overload the peri-
meter thoroughfares by forcing into -zonal trips to use them. Any unforseen concentra-
tions of employment that substantially exceeds the density assumption would throw such
a system out of balance because adjustments in routes to increase capacity would not be i
possible.
-2-
For land use type 140 (manufacturing), the 1TE Trip Generation Manual specifies a mini-
mum of 1.39 trips /employee /day (TED), with an average of 2.17 TED. A maximum rate
in a study of the Irvine Industrial Park. Using a peak hour factor of
of 5.4 TED was used
16 percent, peak hour trip generation is computed as follows:
Trip Generation Assumption
1,ow Median Hizh
Daily Trip -Ends in Area 8,340 26,040 97,200
11334 4,155 15,552
Peak Hour Trip Productions
The primary users of the existing 7th Street Undercrossing of the Devore Freeway would
A trip-length distri-
be workers living in the western portion of Rancho Cucamonga.
bution curve (see page 3) which assumes an average trip length of six miles, serves as the
basis for a preliminary estimate that between 5 and 12 percent of those working in Area
These workers will find three surface traffic -
C will live in west Rancho Cucamonga.
ways — Foothill, Base Line, or the 6th /7th continuation — faster than using either the
San Bernardino Freeway or the proposed Foothill Freeway.
Using the median trip generation assumption, 11300 to 3,100 trips would be added to the
trafficways (200 to 500 trips during the peak hour). At
ADT of these through east -west
the load point (Haven Avenue), the San Bernardino County Public Works
maximum
Department 1978 study projected a 1995 ADT of 27,000 on Foothill and 24,000 on Base
Line. An April, 19799 study by Weston Pringle and Associates that assumes major
of tt.e Haven - Foothill Intersection pro-
shopping center development in two quadrants
jects ADT of nearly 46,000 on Foothill east of Haven.
Without a through route on 6th or 7th Streets, the additional 1,300 -3,100 trips would be
While the through route is not absolutely
distributed between Foothill and Base Line.
to serve Area C, deletion would cause service levels on east -west routes to
necessary
decline unless a lane in each direction could be added to Foothill or Base Line.
Trip Generation in Area "B" .
The industrial area between Haven and the Devore Freeway includes about 2,30^ acres.
Assuming 800 acres is most easily accessible from the perimeter streets (Haven, Foothill,
Rochester, and 4th), 1,500 acres would be served mainly by Milliken Avenue and 6th, 7th
or 3th. Because this acreage is the same as in Area C, the same density assumptions
produce the same number of trip ends as in the table above — 8,340 to 97,200. Assuming
an equal divisicn of this traffic between Milliken and the east -west route, volume could
approach 50,000 ADT on the east -west route, including the 1,300 -3,100 trips destined for
area C. It is more likely that volumes will be less than 25,000. The traffic model now
being prepared will narrow the range of uncertainty by more carefully documented
projections of future employment densities and by more accurate trip assignment to
specific streets.
In order to handle a volume approaching or exceeding 259000 ADT, the east -west street
will need to be continuous between Haven and Rochester even if no through trips were
projected. Attempts to serve Area B with cul-de -sacs or loops would overload the peri-
meter thoroughfares by forcing into -zonal trips to use them. Any unforseen concentra-
tions of employment that substantially exceeds the density assumption would throw such
a system out of balance because adjustments in routes to increase capacity would not be i
possible.
-2-
INEFRS ___SHEET N0 OF
MADE DY DATE ____ .NECKED GY DAB
E
n
DISTANCE (mi.l es)
Distance Range
of West R.C. to
Area nCn
Note: Because west Rancho Cucamonga will include approximately one quarter of the
population living within 5 to 6 miles of Area C, the percentages indicated on the diagram
must be divided by four to estimate the proportion of Area C workers tnaking trips to
west Rancho Cucamonga.
Y ,
;a
-3-
rw
Analysis
Five questions must be answared before the City can respond to Pleuss- Staufar's
requests.
1. Can 8th Street be closed without causing congestion or disturbing network
continuity?
There are no apparent reasons why 8th Street can't be closed, and, in fact, there appears
to be a general consensus that it should be, although needs of owners fronting on 8th
must be studied further before the segments to be closed can be determined and the
timing of the closures recommended. But, if 8th is closed and 6th and 7th Streets do not
run through, east -west continuity will be impair-_d, leaving no through streets between
4th and Arrow Route (about 8,000 feet).
8th Street is immediately adjacent to the Santa Fe mainline track. The street is two
lanes wide and generally is in poor condition. Because it is three to five feet below the
grade of the railroad track, there are humps at every intersection with cross streets. At
several of these, sight distance is severely restricted for vehicles on 8th Street and for
northbound vehicles on the cross streets attempting to turn left onto 8th Street.
Several flood control channel crossings are at -grade. Spur tracks cross 8th Street to
serve industries tc the south. In the future, more crossings will be needed. Each must be
protected by flashing lights and possibly by gates. The cost could range up to $100,000 at
each location.
Bringing 8th Street up to standard would require raising its grade three to five feet,
signalizing all intersections with major cross streets, (including railroad pre -empt at
$109000 to $20,000 cost penalty), and building several bridges over flood control
channels. Such a costly project is not warranted because equivalent, if not better, east -
west traffic service can be provided by 6th or 7th Otreet. Continuity at the east end is
not an Issue, since 8th Street does not cross the Devore Freeway. Continuity at the west
end can easily be provided by a connector road parallel to Cucamonga Wash, between 6th
or 7th Street and 8th Street. (See Exhibit 4)
1
Ll
2. Can 7th Street be deleted without causing congestion or distrubing network
continuity?
With 8th Street abandoned, 7th Street would be the logical alternative for a through
street, because it has an undercrossing at the Devore Freway, and Is approximately
halfway between 4th Street and Arrow Route. A precise plan for 70, Street between
Vineyard Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue was prepared in 1972 and has been adopted by the
County and the City. It would be logical, but not essential, to extend 7th cast to
Milliken, if not to the Devore Freeway. Even if it were not a through street, 7th would
function as a collector street in place of 8th Street.
»4-
^,
.ti
0
I 3. flow should Sth Street be developed in the event that all or portions of both 7th and
Sth Streets are abandoned?
If both 7th and 6th Streets are dosed, 6th Street becomes the only potential through
east -west arterial connaetion. 6th Street presently terminates at Haven. If 7th Is not
built, 6th should extend at ist to Rochester. Three alternatives for a through con -
nectlon warrant considerat..m:
(a) A "T'; intersection with Rochester requiring a left and rlgbt turn to jog up to the
7th Street alignment and the Devore Freeway iUnderorzaing. (Exhibit 2) To provide
additional capacity on Rochester to handle the offset intersections, Rochester
should be widened to 64 feet curb -to -curb between 6th and 7th Streets, with transi-
tion areas at either end. Exhibit 3 shows a possible lane arrangement.
(b) Build a "West Rochester" parallel to Rochester between 6th and 7th Streets, but
about 800 feet to the west. Rochester would not need to be widened.
(c) Build a curved road connecting 6th Street to the 7th Street undererossing, elimi-
nating turning movemer`s and allowing 40 mph traffic flow. (Exhibit 1) This hari
the disadvantage of cutting parcels Into odd - shaped sizes, but could be worked out
with little disruption if property owners are willing to consider trades.
r°1
LJ
Y
4. what provisions are needed for truck access to the regional freeway system?
Industrial development in the area will generate truck trips malidy to the San Berrardino
Freeway. Truck access to the Pleuss- Staufer site can be via Rochester from the c.over -
leaf at 4th Street and Devore Freeway, but trucks destined to the San Bernardino or
Pomona Freeway probably will not use the Devore Freeway. When Milliken Avenue is
extended north to 6th Street, most truck trips may divert to Milliken to reach the San
Bernardino Freeway because the distance Is shorter for the predomina- t westbound
destinations.
5. Should east-west continuity into Ontaric be provided via 6th or 8th Street?
East -west continuity into Ontario can be provided either to 6th Street ov to 8th Street.
7th Street is not suitable, because it is a residential street in Ontario tuirl is narrowEr
than 6th Street. One solution would be to bc:*Id a diagonal roadway along the east bank
of Cucamonga Wash between 6th and 8th Streets. Exhibit 4 shows that a 40 mph align-
ment is achievable. 6th Street could be turned to intersect the connector road at 90
degrees or the connector road could Intersect 66th Street at 90 degrees. The choice of
designs would depend on which street would carry more traffic in Ontario — 8th or 6th.
The decision should be made jointly by the two cities.
7ih Street should be extended westerly to connect to the new connector, which should be
built to Secondary Thoroughfare standards.
If the connection is not built, Hellman would carry the through traffic between 6th and
8th :'treets. This would exacerbate the already dangerous sight distance problem at 8th
Street and Hellman, especially for left turning vehicles. With the connector read in
place, 6th Str : could be abandoned east of the connector and the Hellman /8th Street
intersection need not be rebuilt.
-5-
2
L�
The feasibility of constructing the connector will depend, in part, on the plans of
affected landowners who can develop when Cucamonga Wash Improvements al-e com-
plete. A decision need not be made before the question of deleting 7th Street east of
Haven is resolved.
Summary of ConnJusions
— 7th Street need not be continuous OTough the Pleuss- Staufer site.
— 8th Street can be abandoned.
— An additional east -west roadway is necessary between Arrow Route and 9th Street.
6th Street is the most logical east -wesi connector. It should be connected to 8th
Street at the west end and to 7th Street at Rochester at the east end, until the
traffic model for the Industrial Area Specific Phut 'is In operation and available for
more precise analysis, any development approvals should provide for dedication of a
I 1 foot right -of -way allowing six moving lanes (irciuding 16 foot lanes adjoining
the curbs) and a continuous turn lane. If the model indicates that no more tilan four
lanes are likely to be needed, the right -of way could be narrowed to 92 feet.
Additional right-of-way should be provided at intersections with major north -south
streets to allow for future double tern lanes chat mkr be needed.
Three alternative connector alignments are possible i t the east end of 6th Stlleet.
A direct connection (Exhibit 1) or a "West Rocbestex I are preferable to a widened
Rochester (Exhibits 2 and 3) for access, traffic operrcions, capacity, and safety
reasons.
?t
e
+
r;
i-
u+ -6-
or, r4
Ld
J pet
co
ill �•, � �v`° .
a q F
f I CIA
%Z
cL
Po
I
�iw
ti 1
y j
_� Y]
g
z i
Q z
� dj1, ,• � � 11 � �i� r
1 I tv
Pla
pi
IP
O
pi y N I
1 v { Cd
f
' C14
Qe
iGA VI \Vr+•e•4r.. ..r.e .
�B�Re &e4o -&O. na Gn f for`,JC�',a- errx�r�•r -smr No of
MADN. - rC. DA �• ' 2&CX20 BY DATE -
�N
I I�
5
v
4
7
.i cress ' Qv`wPASS
77 R-. 57-,
Sr.
r
o I I I
421
o -2
0
�urc F�cc �Typ.�
rr,�,•',;�iC Sari ��. (r -!�.}
�r •,. See Conclusions fo r discussion
4 of street width.
f
F I
1
if
,a�
- r � � • • r •(.i• � i i 1. ! � ]�(( rat
• r. , l
I 1:�1 wr.rit r �� •4 iii
s
Iw � 4 � 7•• w �ti• r ' ��
p • � ,hLj; • r w x `
of SF .ww
2 Li Ll I ♦�.rhrt
Ik
? -� . K� • w•Si. �r aeas'ry � }.
I � Q
i i q 11 n
ri
ZO. }
- ylwl0 Y (t � \ ti' 1 I`• Q r
S �.. hr•++r . �+ Rl
ro
� .y � w��r Ff� 1riO •. F �� 1 �
�.
crow o. C r r •wr ownrs
N M141N -141-1 A-1
S .M2.wyi+ i^Jfi ..I� u./ 7 � 1s..vrrrr
7n q. 1IYd PT ,• it
� w 4 ti w � � • t r 1 1
1S !✓trT7lI.•'yM7 Cr
4�
lYl ryf •1 .w. •'• rf • r • if)
1
DATE: June 13, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
6111 Holley, Director of Community
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
Attached for Commission review is preliminary information developed for the
proposed formation of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. Included is a
list of the tracts to be included, the procedures for establishing the
District and preliminary cost data for maint ?nance o F the District.
The tracts to be included in this District were chosen because they have
not yet left the control of the developer and remain as one ownership.
This fact will facilitate the formation process.
The attached meno on cost describes those methods of cost distribution
throughout the District and gives samples of typical costs under each
option.
This information was reviewed by the Citizen's Advisory Committees, who
recommended a two phased approach. The Committees were strongly in favor
of developing a parkway maintenance program, but felt that the program
should be Citywide with approval of the taxing authority.by ballot measure.
Prior to this action, the combined maintenance district for the recommended
tracts was approved. This is the Plan 2 option descr a in the tache
memo. �✓,�
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commis'Si m e d h / establishmen
of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as one encompass n district with
cost distributed on a per lot basis.
ITEM nHn '
0 0
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
FORMATION PROCEDURES
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
1. Determination of Need fora District
The Community Development Department will determine the need for maintenance
districts on tentative tracts that have backup and side -on lots to the peri-
phery of the tract.
2. Notification of Property Owners
All effective property owners will be notified of the Council hearing and in-
tention to form the district.
3. Preparation of the Resolution of Intention
The Department will prepare a Resolutio_. of Intention for City Council
approval.
4. Preparation of District Ma
The Engineering Division shall prepare a map showing the boundaries of the
District, the lots to be assrzssed, and the relationship of the final tract
to the overall street pattern.
5. Adoption of the Resolution of Intention
The City Council will adopt the Resolution of Intention, setting a time and
place for hearing protest against the District. The time and date for hear-
ing protest must be set at least 10 days after the date of the Resolution of
Intention.
6. Posting Notice of Improvement
The Engineering Division will prepare a Notice of Improvement. The Engineer -
ing Division will post this notice at intervals of not more than 300 feet
along all streets within the proposed district. (At least three notices must
be posted.) The posting must occur at least ten days prior to the time of
the hearing of protests.
7. Publication of Notice of Improvement
�I
The City Clerk will publish the Notice of Improvement in the Ontario Doily
Report and will obtain proof of publication. The notice must be published
once, at least ten days prior to the time and date for hearing protest.
B. Mailing Notice of Improvement
The City Clerk will mail notices to all property owners within the District
ten days prior to the date of hearing.
tl
., 0 0
I
0 9. Cost Estimate
The Community ServicEZ Department will make an estimate of costs for the
District, including maintenance, water, administration and vandalism.
10. Engineer's Report
The Engineering Division will prepare a report showing:
a. Plans and specifications of the maintenance
b. An estimate of the cost of maintenance (same as (a) above)
c. A diagram of the assess -.ent district
d. An assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance
11. Protests
The City Clerk will receive protests and forward them to the Community
Development Department. The Department will rrepare resolutions over-
ruling the written protests.
12. Resolution Ordering the Formation
The Community Development Department will prepare a resolution ordering
the formation of the District. A report discussing the District and pro-
test will be prepared at this time.
13. Agenda for Hearing Protest
The City Clerk will prepare an agenda for all protests received and will
note on the agenda that protests may be received up to the hour of the
meeting and that those protests received after the preparation of the
agenda shall be heard in the order of submission.
14. Hearing and Protests
The City Council will hold a hearing of objections. The hearing will pro-
ceed in accordance with the agenda.
15. Filing the Resolution
The City Clerk will file a certified copy of the resolution ordering forma-
tion of the Maintenance District 4n the Office of the County Assessor.
16. Tax Rate
The tax rate shall be determined by the Department of Finance.
17. Adoption of 'ax Rate
The City Council will adopt a budget and tax rate for the Maintenance District.
18. Submission of Tax Rate
The Finance Department will submit tax rate to the County Tax Collector no
later than August 15 of the budget year. The Tax Collector prefers the tax
rate to be submitted in July.
STREET LENGTH SQUARE F €ET''
Tract 9351 - Mark III Hanes, Inc. Sapphire 565 x 1% 5 933
63 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9225
- Lesny Development Company
69 Lots
447 South Fairfax Avenue
Carnelian
673 x 5
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tract 9306
- Walton Construction Corporation
Archibald
1307 x 1311i
48 Lots
511 West Citrus Edge
P. 0. Box 775
Glendora, CA 91740
Tract 9269
- Mark III Homes, Inc.
Nilson
1379 x 1131
53 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Archibald
971 x 13
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9,:68
- Mark III Homes, Inc.
Archibald
721 x 131,
53 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Amethyst
810 x 1%
Costa Mesa, CA 32626
Tract 9267
- Mark III Homes, Inc.
Archibald
826 x 1335
28 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9444 -
Mark III Homes, Inc.
20 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9445 -
Mark III Homes, Inc.
Archibald
2140 x 12
61 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Wilson
665 x 10
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9440 -
Chevron Construction
Hermosa
1138 x 10
45 Lots
21211 Wilshire Evulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9423 -
Coral Investment, Inc.
23 Lots
540 South Pasadena Avenue
Glendora, CA 91740
Tract 9434 - Chevron Construction 19th Street 603 x 5
32 Lots 2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9430 - R. L. Seivers & �Sons, Inc. Wilson 1160 x 11
29 Lots 6481 Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 8 Haven 617 x 10
Buena Park, CA 90620
0
3,365
17,645
15,859
13,109
9,734
8,505
11,151
25,680
6,650
11,380
Tract 9387 —
The Jones Company
Hermosa 110,x 5
56 Lots
LENGTH
P. 0. Box 1178
STREET!
Cerritos, CA 90701
Tract
9436 -
Chevron Construction
Walnut
733
x 10
27 Lots
2120 Wilshire, Boulevard
Haven
442
x 10
Archibald 827 x 5
25 Lots
Santa Monica,. CA 90403
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract
9437 -
Chevron Construction
Walnut
1310
x 10
20 Lots
2120 nii3hire Boulevard
Tract 9402
- Olympus Pacific Corporate nn
Lemon 977 x 536
46 Lots
Santa, Monica, CA 90403
Anaheim, CA 92803
Tract
9454
- Lewis Homes of:California
Haven
514
x 12
59 Lots
1156 North Mountain Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92803
Tract 9480
- Kaufman & Broad Homes, Inc.
Baseline • :. 430 x 15
P. 0. Sox 670
18902 Bardeen Way
Irvine, CA 92715
Upland; CA 91786
- Boulevard Development
19th Street 528 x 6
GO Lots
Tract 9387 —
The Jones Company
Hermosa 110,x 5
56 Lots
10945 South Street
P. 0. Box 1178
Cerritos, CA 90701
Tract 9637 —
Chevron Construction
31 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9638 —
Chevron Construction
Archibald 827 x 5
25 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9567
- Travis L. Manning
Hermosa 494 x 10
33 Lots
2110. Hacienda Boulevard
Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Tract 9402
- Olympus Pacific Corporate nn
Lemon 977 x 536
46 Lots
2110 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92803
Tract 9403
- Olympus Pacific Corporation
43 Lots
2110 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92803
Tract 9480
- Kaufman & Broad Homes, Inc.
Baseline • :. 430 x 15
54 Lots
18902 Bardeen Way
Irvine, CA 92715
Tract 9472
- Boulevard Development
19th Street 528 x 6
GO Lots
778 South Main Street, Suite
106
Orange, CA 92688
SQUARE FEET
7,330
4,420
13,100
6,165
550
4,175
4,940
5,374
6,450
3,167
M E M O R A N D U M k
Date: May 11, 1979
To: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
a"'rom: i•iii Noliey, Director, Comranity Services
Subject: Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
Find attached cost information, based on current City of Ontario
figures, relating to landscape maintenance districts.
District operations cost
1) Per square foot, per year
a) Water. .$0.040
b) Vandalism and reiiair 0.015
c) Equipment 0.028
d) Labor .0 280
T.7b3
2) Other
a) Electrical, per meter., per year .. 39.5:1
b) Inspections, per tract, per year. 168.0^
Methods of assessin cost
T-i are t ree as c ways or funding a Maintenance District,
such as we propose:
1) Each tract is a district;
2) All tracts are part of the same district; and
3) The whole City is the district.
An examination of the assessment levied against each homeowner
using "plan 1" in sample tracts 9351, 9269, and 9387, and using
the projected :.ont figures above, yields the following:
9351 per home, per year. $37.48*
9269 per home, per year 202.19*
9387 per home, per year 13.
Usi "plan " the homeowner in Maintenance District No. 1
ould s eq ally the cost of maintaining the entire dis
With the 25 cts in No. 1, cost t. each residence would
$75.37 per y r.�
n Lam, while the correct solution (I continue to hold the
minority view) is not politically feasible, and further
exploration into it will not be made at this time.
*The cost assumes that only one electrical meter per tract
E
is used, and this is not generally the case in larger develop -
ments .
3
r
°ti
Lloyd, we obviously have a serious problem. The cost to each
homeowner is too high under "plan 2' and financially out of
" the question in several instances using "plan 1 ". We are going
to have to address cost reduction methods through "hsrdscaping
some existing areas, utilizing beautification fees, and better
control of " financial"y excessive greenery" imposed in planning
requirements. We must move quickly on this and get a policy set.
BA
cc: Lauren Wasserman
DATE: June 16, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM* Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer,
SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMEWS PROGRAM
Attached for Commission review and recommendation for t:ty Council action is
staff recommendation for the 1979 -80 Streets and Storm Drain Improvement Pro-
gram ana the long range program priorities as recommended by the Engineering
Division. The current staff recommendation is a slight modification of the
information submitted in the June 4 memo dealing with this subjec ±_ :�'-_on
struction and overlay priorities and cost estimates have been modified and
East Avenue overlay replaced by the Church Street overlay and minor widening
from Archibald to Turner Avenue.
The priorities as presented reflect immediate maintenance needs applied to
the most traveled streets, traffic safety problems as in the case of carnelian
Street redesign and the goal of completing full development of Base Line from
Haven to Carnelian. Traffic signal priorities relate primarily to traffic
volume and safe :y.
Capital Projects on Page 1 to be funded by Gas Tax and related funds have
been previously committed by the City Council. Additional budget comtittments
are for Systems Development and Storm Drain funds. Revenue under these two
sources depend on development activity and may be greater or less than the
program amounts.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the
attached Capital Improvements Program ar,d long range priorities.
Respectfully submitted,
LLOYD! Hem S
City'•Engineer
LBH: deb
C�r�
'SK
PRELIMINARY
GAS TAX BUDGET
REVENUE
2106 $276,158
2107 296,315
Total Gas Tax $572,473
SB 325 4899246
Federal Aid Urban (Available) 222,000
Community Block Grant 240,000
TOTAL REVENUE $19523,719
EXPENDITURES
Maintenance and Transfers
Maintenance Contracts $500,000
Signal Maintenance Contract 20,000
State Signal Maintenance 15,000
Engineering Transfers 7,500
Total Maintenance :nd Transfers $542,500
Capital Projects
Baseline Reconstruction (FAU) $130,000
Archibald Avenue & Church Street Signals (FAU) 75,000
Baseline & Hellman Avenue Street Signals (FAU) 75,000
Haven Avenue & Amber Street Signals (FAU) 75,000
North Town Street Improvements (Block Grant) 240,000
Cucamonga Creek Bridges - Phase VI 150,000
Deer Creek Bridges (Balance) 236,219
Total Capital Projects
TOTAL
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 4, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Attached for Commission review is the recommended Advisory Committee Capital
Improvements Program. This program will be submitted to the Planning Com-
mission for review at it's June 13 meeting. The program received review from
the Chamber Industrial Committee, who recommended that storm drains prioritized
as 7 and 8 in the attached list be moved to 3 and 4. This is recommended in
recognition of the need to enhance industrial development to increase City
General fund revenues.
Under Systems Development funding (Reconstruction and Overlay), $225,000 has
been budgeted for the listed projects. These projects are being restudied
by the Engineering Division to refine costs and priorities related to local
street maintenance protlems.
Ll
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS
BUDGETED AMOUNT
Design Studies & Systems Development
1. Circulation Element Revision - Special Studies $ 30,000
2. Specific Plan - 19th Street 10,000
3. General Engineering 20,000
Drafting services for standards, develop -
ment of survey record systems and general
survey support activities.
4. Vineyard Avenue Right of Way Acquisition 30,000
5. Vineyard Avenue Design Studies 10,000
6. Baseline at Hermosa 40,000
Design of widening, realignment and
drainage of intersection
7. Preliminary Design Studies - Hellman Avenue, 10,000
Foothill Boulevard
TOTAL
$ 545,000
160,000
Reconstruction and Overlav
I.
Lemon Avenue - Opal to Beryl Reconstruction
$ 30,000
2.
Carnelian Street - Orange to Banyan Overlay
30,000
3.
Alta Cuesta - Red Hill to Camino Norte Overlay
25,000
4.
Base Line - Alta Cuesta to West City Limit
20,000
Reconstruction
5.
Highland Avenue - Hermosa to Haven Overlay and
35,000
Minor Widening
6.
Church Street - Archibald to Turner Overlay and
25,000
Minor Widening
7.
Victoria Street - Etiwanda to Pecan Thin Overlay
15,000
and Reconstruction
1
(Ptr.
� l
�i
-2-
t
77
L
8. Arrow Route - Cucamonga Creek to Vineyard $ 20,000
Reconstruction
9. Base Line - Etiwanda to East 1000' 20,000
10. Hellman Avenue - 100' South of Alta Loma to 15,000
Orange
TOTAL $ 235,000
Major Construction
1. Carnelian Street - Foothill to Base Line
Street redesign for traffic safety
TOTAL
TOTAL BUDGET
$ 150,000
CONTINGENCY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Traffic Signals
1. Archibald Avenue & 19th Street
2. Archibald Avenue & 4th Street
3. Modify signals and widen at Grove Avenue & Arrow Route
TOTAL
150,000
$ 545,000
$ 60,000
50,000
120,000
$ 230,000
.E
Funding for each project will be phased to provide optimum construction
scheduling and potential for capture of grant funding. Projects will be
completed as funds are received. The Engineering Division has been esti-
mating approximately $500,000 per year.
r li
STORPI DRAIN
PRIORITIES
Estimated Cost
1.
Storm Drain Master.Plan Update (Phased)
$ 75,000
2.
Day - Etiwanda - San Sevaine System
25,000
3.
Carnelian Channel
500,000
4.
Red Hill - Beryl Storm Drain - Project 2a -2b
11600,000
5.
19th Street Storm Drain - Project 4b
5001000 .
6.
Baseline Storm Drain - Project 4c
1,000,000
7.
8th Street Storm Drain - Project 5d
1,500,000
8.
Hellman Avenue Storm Drain - Project 6a
2,250,000
9.
Arrow Route Storm Drain - Project Sc
1,300,000
10.
Foothill- Turner Storm Drain - Project 5e
1,000,000
TOTAL
$ 9,750,000
Funding for each project will be phased to provide optimum construction
scheduling and potential for capture of grant funding. Projects will be
completed as funds are received. The Engineering Division has been esti-
mating approximately $500,000 per year.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
LONG RANGE PROJECT
PRIORITIES
RECOMMENDED
MAJOR PROJECT PRIORITY
STREET
LIMITS
ESTIMATED COST
1.
Vineyard Avenue
Arrow Route to City Limit - FAU
$ 330,000
Z.
19th Street
SPECIFIC PLAN
10,000
3.
Carralian Street
Foothill to Base Lire
150,000
Realign & reconstruct
4.
Base Line
At Herm ,)sa
450,000
Widening & drainage
5.
Hellman Avenue
San Sernardino Road to Church Street
75,000
6.
Hellman Avenue
At Foothill Boulevard
400,000
Signals, widening & drainage
7.
Hellman Avenue
Base Line to SPRR
250,000
Widening & drainage
B.
Archibald Avenue
19th Street to Highland
100,000
9.
Ramona Avenue
At SPRR
150,000
Widening & drainage
10.
Hermosa Avenue
At SPRR
150,000
Widenir.g & drainage
11.
Hellman Avenue
At AT & SFRR
150,000
Widening & drainage
12.
Turner Avenue
At Foothill Boulevard
400,000
Signals, widening & drainage
13.
Turner Avenue
At AT & SF'RR & 8th Street
175,000
14.
Hellman Avenue
Base Line to 19th Street
200,000
Widening
15.
Amethyst Street
Base Line to 19th Street
100,000
Widening & sidewalks
16.
Hermosa Avenue
South of Bristol
75,000
Widening & drainage
TOTAL
$ 3,165,000
_5_
ENGINEERING DIVISION
LONG RANGE PROJECT
PRIORITIES
RECOMMENDED
MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
0
STREET
LIMITS
ESTIMATED COST
1.
Base Line
Vineyard to Hellman - FAU
$ 150,000
2.
Lemon Avenue
Opal to Beryl
30,000
3.
Carnelian Street
Orange to Banyan
30,000
4.
Alta Cuesta
Red Hill to Camino Norte
12,000
5.
Base Line
Alta Cuesta to West City Limit
20,000
6.
Church Street
Archibald to Turner
25,000
7.
Victoria Street
Etiwanda to Pecan
12,000
2.
Arrow Route
Madrone to Vineyard
20,000
9.
Base Line
Etiwanda to City Limit
20,000
10.
Hellman Avenue
100' south Alta Loma to Orange
15,000
11.
,Archibald Avenue
4th Street to 19th Street - Misc.
400,000
12.
Etiwanda Avenue
19th Street to 23rd Street
40,000
13.
Etiwanda Avenue
I -15 to Base Line
35,000
14.
Hermosa Avenue
19th Street to Banyan
50,000
15.
East Avenue
19th Street to Summit
25,000
16.
Base Line
Day Creek to Rochester
15,000
At
Various Local Streets
260,000
TOTAL $ 1,119,000
*
These projects are on
local residential streets which are
not recommended for
funding this year.
Agate .street - Roberds
to LaVine Dorset Street -
End East - 0.2 M
Garnet Street - Baseline
N 0.2 M LaVine Street -
Hellman to Amethyst
Malvern Avenue - Stafford
N /Effen Ramona Avenue -
SPRR to 19th Street
Stafford Street - Turner
E /Center Ninth Street -
Sierra Madre to Grove
Baker Avenue - Ninth
Street to AT b SFRR
,;.
-6-
0
STREET
1. Highland Avei,ue
2. Archibald Avenue
3. Hermosa Avenue
4. Beryl Avenue
S. Hermosa Avenue
6• Church Street
7. Arrow Route
RECOMMENDED
MINOR WIDENING PRIORITY
LIMITS ESTIMATED COST
Hermosa to Haven $ 35,000
Banyan to Hillside 25,000
300' south to Mignoette 10,000
Lemon to 500' north 35,000
North of Banyan - Realign & widen 50,000
Center to Haven @ Church Street Basin, 40,000
Archibald to Haven 60,000
TOTAL $ 255,000
}
INTERSECTION
1. Archibald and Church
2. Base Line and Hellman
3. Haven and Amber
4. Archibald and 19th Streit
5. Archibald and Fourth
6. Modify Grove and Arrow
7. Carnelian and San Bernardino Road
8. Modify Grove and San Bernardino Road
9. Modify Grave and Ninth Street
10, Base Line and Beryl Street
11. Grove and 8th Street
12. 19th Street and Beryl Street
13. 19th Street and Amethyst
14. 19th Street and Hellman Avenue
15. Sapphire and 19th Street
16. Foothill and Red Hill Country Club Drive
.M:
TOTAL $ 1,330,000
ESTIMATED COST
$ 80,000
?..
80,000
80,000
60,000
50,000
120,000
60,000
160,000
150,000
50,000
150,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
60,000
TOTAL $ 1,330,000
•1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
I4) V 1 77 MI)
DATE: June 13, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubba, City Engineer
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - CIRCULATION ELaMNT INDUSTRIAL AREA
The Commission is reviewing the above subject at it's June 13 meeting as Item
VIII - G.
After further review of the industrial Area Specific Plan Consultant's report
and receipt of new data from the General Plan consultant, a modification of the
City Engineer's recommendation is necessary.
Item 4, paragraph 3 of the City Engineer's report should now read as follows:
"That Sixth Street be designated as a secondary route from Vineyard Avenue to
Archibald Avenue and a major route from Archibald Avenue east ".
The City Engineer's recommendation is now as follows:
That the Planning Commission accept the consultant's report and schedule
hearings for Amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element at it's
June 27, 1979 meeting to eliminate Seventh Street between Tuuner and
Rochester; to reclassify Seventh Street between Hellman and Turner to a
Collector; to reclassify Sixth Street to a Secondary Highway with 88 feet
of right of way and 64 feet wide, from Vineyard Avenue to Archibald
Avenue and a Major Highway with 100 feet of right of way and 72 feet wide
from Archibald Avenue east, as an interim policy until acceptance of a
final circulation report.
Respectfully submitted,
L1rE ubbs
City Engineer
LH : PAR: cc
i..1 .
it
{u,1 yy
Mn i„ Cam''
d.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
GAS TAX & RELATED FUNDS
1979 -80
0
Signal Maintenance Contract $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Costs are deta ed in is contract
with Signal Maintenance Corp. for
maintenance of City traffic signals.
State Signal Maintenance
City s are of maintenance of
traffic signals on State High-
ways at intersection with City
streets.
l t-
$ 15,000 $ 15,000
FAU
BLOCK
GRANT
TOTAL
PROJECT
BUDGET GAS TAX FUNDS
MAINTE14ANCE
CounIf Maintenance Agreement
$4300000 $430,000
T �s tem covers tr cost of con -
tinuing ordinary road maintenance
as described in the specific main-
tenance contracts. Items include
street patching, storm drainage
repair, weed control, tree trim -
ming, traffic striping and signal -
ing and minor construction.
Street Sweeping
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
The C ty will contract for street
sweeping services with the goal
fo a one time Citywide clean up
to establish a full scale sweep -
ing program and desired level of
service.
Minor Concrete Repair
Contract for minor curb, gutter
$ 50,000 $ 50,000
and sidewalk repair at locations
of failure throughout the City
and construction or reconstruc-
tion of cross gutters.
Signal Maintenance Contract $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Costs are deta ed in is contract
with Signal Maintenance Corp. for
maintenance of City traffic signals.
State Signal Maintenance
City s are of maintenance of
traffic signals on State High-
ways at intersection with City
streets.
l t-
$ 15,000 $ 15,000
FAU
BLOCK
GRANT
1979 -80
TOTAL
PROJECT BUDGET
GAS TAX FUNDS FAU
CONSTRUCTION
Base Line Reconstruction $130,000
$ 36,500 $ 93,500
This tem is a edera Aid 'Urban
project to reconstruct, resurface
and perform minor widening of Base
Line from east of Vineyard to
Hellman Avenue and east of .Archibald
to east of Ramona.
Archibald & Church Street Signals $ 75,000
$ 10,750 $ 64,250
This item will construct traffic
signals with FAU funds
Base Line & Hellman Si pals $ 75,000
$ 10,150 $ 64,250
Construction of traffic signals
with FAU funds.
Haven & Amber Street Si nals $ 75,000
$ 75,000
Construct tra is s gna s at
Chaffey College.
Cucamon a Creek Brides $150,000
$150,000
Prove es for Cr portion of bridge
construction over the Cucamonga Creek
at Red Hill Country Club Drive,
Sapphire, Carnelian and Beryl Streets.
Reconstruction _ and Overlay $260,867
$260,867
The pro— jests below are all recon-
struction and repair of existing
deteriorated pavements between the
limits indicated.
1. Lemon Avenue -Opal to Beryl
2. Carnelian - Orange to Banyan
3. Alta Cuesta -Red Hill to Camino Norte
4. Base Line -Alta Cuesta to West City Limit
5. Highland Avenue - Hermosa to Haven
6. Church Street- Archibald to Turner
7. Victoria Street - Etiwanda to Pecan
S. Arrow Route- Cucamonga Creek to Vineyard
9. Base. Line - Etiwanda East 1000'
10. Hellman Avenue- 100'south of Alta Loma
to Orange
Styr, d�e • _ .. — - - - -
BLOCK
GRANT
PROJECT
North Town Street Impro_v_ement
Construction of curbs, gutters,
sidewalk and A.C. pavement to pro-
vide full street improvements on
24th, 25th, 26th, Humbolt, Center
and Marine Avenues.
Engineers Transfer
Suppurt to cove�ty Engineer's
salary.
TOTAL
1979 -80
� I
TOTAL
BUDGET GAS TAX FUNDS
$240,000
$ 6,000 $ 6,000
$1,546,867 $1,084,867
It
BLOCK
FAU GRANT
$240,000
$222,000 $240,000
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS
1979 -80
PROJECT
MAJOR CONSTRUCTION
Deer Creek Bridges '
Construct of n of Master Plan Development
for bridges over Deer Creek in conjunction
with Cucamonga Creek Phase VII. project.
Bridges at San Bernardino Avenue, 6th
y Street, 8th Street, HumbOlt, 24th Street,
25th Street, 26th Street, Arrotr Route,
Haven Avenue and Base Line.
DESIGN STUDIES TRANSFERS & SERVICES
Circulation Revisions
Traffic and transportation studies lead-
ing to the adoption of City Master Plan
of Streets or Specific Plan for various
streets.
19th Street S ecific Plan
Deve op prec sea gnment and right of
way requirements for the construction
of 19th Street.
Vine and Avenue-Bight of Way Ac uisition
Tc acquire rig t o way or construct on
of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route
and Eighth Street with Federal Aid Urban
funds.
Vineyard Avenue Desi n in--,,.
inar
Des gn o rO Avenue w en ng and
traffic signals.
General Fund Transfer
r
0
TOTAL BUDGETED
BUDGET
$240,000
$ 15,000
$ 10,000
$ 28,000
$ 10,000
$ 3_ 30
$336,600
•G.
+iY
•G.
k'
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
CONTINGENCY BUDGET
1979 -80
PROJECT
Carnelian Street Po�ali nment
The rea gnms ^t an reconstruction of
Carnelian Street frog."oothill to Base
Line to improve street alignment for
traffic safety.
Base Line at Hermosa Design
Design of widening, re m
ent and
drainage of intersection.
Fnn +h411 Ani,lauard -
improvement of street and drainge configuration.
Archibald Avenue & 19th Street
Traf c s gna nsta a on - CALTRANS
participation.
Archibald Avenue & 4th Street
Traffic s gna lnsta at on - Ontario
City participation.
Grove Avenue & Arrow Route
Roadway widening and signal modification.
TOTAL
r
ALA
BUDGET
$150,000
$ 40,000
$ 10,000
$ 60,000
$ 50,000
$120,000
$430,000
I
*Project to be funded per attached priority list.
1
1 )j
c
}}
STORM DRAIN
FUNDS
1979 -80
PROJECT
BUDGET
Storm Drain Master Plan U date
$100,000
Contract to rev se Master Plan
of Storm
Drains in selected areas including
aerial
topographic surveys.
Day- Etiwanda -San Sevaine Flood
Control Drainage Alternatives
$ 25,000
Carnelian Channel Design
$ 50,000
Red Hill -Beryl Storm Drain Design
$100,000
General Fund Transfer
S 38,750
* Project Funds
73,750
TOTAL
$387,500
*Project to be funded per attached priority list.
1
r
r
?'. CITY OF RA14CI10 CUCAMONGA l
STAFF REPOR
DATE: June 13, 1979, II(( ((d
Rio" p �fG -u,.• �,..
T0: Planning Commissio . -��� �(��� d�Ua(c w �� 11`IPn•...
ifa14�lillll��i
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Commuaity'Development
SUBJECT: PROPOSED OFFSITE SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGN PROGRAM
BACKGROUND: The Planning Division staff has been working in cooperation with the
Baldy View Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, to
develop an off -site subdiviaion directional sign program. The intent of this pro-
gram is to outline the criteria for off -site subdivision directional signing within
�R1 the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Attached is a copy of the proposed program as pro-
posed by the Planning Division staff. Staff will be reviewing the elements of this
program with Ken Willis the Executive Director of BIA. The program was developed
in conformance with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance and with a significant
amount of input from the BIA. The BIA has been very instrumental in helping to
develop this program and is interested in the implementation of the 'program.
Staff is requesting Planning Commission review and comment. Your concerns or
suggestions will be incorporated in the program.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission
support the program as outlined or revised.
Rispectfully Aubmitted,
Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV:cc
r4
OFF -SITE SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGN PROGRAM
The following guidelines and program criteria is for the off -site
subdivision directional sign program to be implemented for all resi-
dential subdivisions in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in cooperation
with the Baldy View Chapter of the Building Industry Association (BIA).
I. BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has ultimate control and authority
of the sign program.
B. The Baldy View Chapter, Building Industry Association of
Southern California, Inc., has the responsibility of insuring
compliance with the sign program and coordinating the program
with all subdividers within the City. This program is only
for off -site signs and does not effect the present review
procedures for on -site subdivision signs.
C. The BIA will retain a sign contractor who will be directly
responsible to the BIA. The contractor shall be selected
by an open bidding process. The bids shall be reviewed by
both the City and the BIA to insure that the scope of work
proposed by the bid will cover the program criteria.
D. The City retains the right to take over full administration
of the program should the program not be properlv administered
and coordinated by the BIA.
E. If violations of the sign program occur, then the City shall
notify BIA of such violation. The BIA will have the respon-
sibility of seeking correction of the violation and notifying
the Department of Community Development of the results of such
corrections within one (1) working day. However, the City
retai.:s the right w remove all illegally placed subdivision
signs and retain them for pick -up by the BIA or subdivider.
F. Prior to the placement of the sign structures in accordance
with this program, all existing non - conforming off -site sub -
division directional signs shall be removed. The BIA shall
help the City communicate this to the developers and work
towards the removal of all non - conforming signs.
II. PROGRAM DETAILS
A. Sign structures shall be designed in conformance with the sign
ordinance guidelines. Details of such design shall be submitted '
to and approved by the Director of Community Development.'
fail
R. A detailed map anoving the exact location of sign structures
shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
C. Sign structures should be placed on private property wherever
possible. Use of City right -of -way may be permissible if
such placement will not be detrimental to public safety and
an encroachment permit is first approved by the City Engineer.
All structures placed on private property shall have the
written consent of that property owner.
D. In lieu of a cash deposit to insure compliance with the ordi-
nance and to cover such costs involved in enforcing the ordi-
nance, the City may charge the coat of removal and storage of
illegal signs to the developer. In addition to the above City
charges, the BIA will be responsible to administer a weekly
maintenance program which shall include but not be limited to:
1. Repair of all damaged structures.
2. Cleaning and painting of structures as necessary.
3. Removal of subdivision directional sign placed contrary
to the sign ordinance and this program.
E. The Department of Community Development shall conduct periodic
reviews of this sign program to insure total compliance with
the program and to determine non - essential sign structures which
should be removed.
F. The City shall be permitted to utilize space on the sign struc-
tures for identifying civic uses, such as fire, police, p ,
libraries, city hail, winerys, and historic sites.
C. All provisions of the sign ordinance shall be complied with.
r c
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 13, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - TNDUSTRTAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
Distributed to the Planning Commission earlier was a memorandum from John Blayney
and Associates indicating the status of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. This
is an informational item for the Planning Commission to keep you posted of the
progress of the planning for the industrial area.
The consultant has completed a basic data map priority, trafficways study, a survey,
employment densities and traffic generation assumptions, and industrial character -
istics. Should you have any questions on the information presented, please do not
hesitate to c 11.
it pe tfu ly uh ed(,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH:cc
"K°
ITEM
5.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 13, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR, ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING KEEPING OF PIGMY GOATS
ABSTRACT: Attached please find a letter from the Hunton family requesting that
the Planning Commission consider the amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow
the keeping of pigmy goats on R -1 lots 20,000 square feet or greater. Additionally,
the Hunton's have included a letter from their veterinarian and a petition from the
neighborhood in favor of the Hunton's keeping the goats.
The reason this request has come before the Planning Commission is by. complaint.
Upon investigation by the City's Community Code Representative the Hunton's. were
requested to comply with City ordinance by removal of the goats from this property.
Currently code does not allow the keeping of goats on lots less than 20,000 square
feet.
Should the Commission wish to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for
the keeping of pigmy goats on lots 20,000 or greater, then staff shluld be directed
to prepare such an ordinance and schedule it for public hearings. If the Planning
Commission does not desire to consider a change in the Zoning Ordinance, then this
item will be referred back to our Community Code Representative for completion of
action on the zoning complaint. All action regarding the zoning complaints for
the keeping of goats have been held in abeyance until this request has been acted
upon.
Respectfully ubmitted,
6, r'
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH:cc
Attachments: Hunton Letter of Request
Dear Sir;
0
April. 29. i9-77
This letter is a request to have the zoning ordinance for
goats ehangvd within 'Rancho Cucamunga. We live on a 209000
sq. ft, lot and arc only allowed to keep tzao horses.
1 have raised Pigmy Goats for the past three years. The
goats are nnlch cleaner than horses, and there is virtually no.
oddr to a female or a wither goat.
We reel that the zoning requirements for goats is very unfair
and should lie changed; in fact, they should be the same as
compared to the zoning ordinance fox. dogs. The goats far
Surpass dogs as to cleanliness and noise. Most people who buy
goats are buying a pet. Goats.will walk on a leash, ride in
cars, and can even be house broken.- A goat's size, in com-
parison with a horse, is even a bigger reason to have the
ordinance changed.
Our neighbors huve no objection to the goats and leave expressed
their opinions on the attached petition. I am also enclosing
a letter from my vet.
It is our sincere hope that you will consider this request
for an ordinance change to allot.: us to keep these goats as our
Pets. Thank you for your consideration.
CITY OF RAiiC1;C COCA' 10OUGA
COMNUNOITY LEVELOPMENT DEPT.
n i 19"q
AM
718191101!!1L11t2131415p6
!R
Sincerely,
"-q L,
S,q
DON M. SCHNESERCER, D.V.M.
CENTRAL VETERINARY HOSPITAL .
EQUINE # SMALL ANIMAL MEDICINE
281 NO. CENTRAL AVENUE
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91785
(714) 981.2855
ROBERT).SCHECHTER.D.V.M..PHI)
May 291 1979
To Whom It May Concern:
Y have been taking care of Mrs. Hunton's animals for
aproximately 3 years. They show no overt signs of clinical
disease, and their pens are sanitary. Mrs. Bunton has
maintained regular innoculations for her goats and treats.
any health problems promptly.
Sincerelya
Don I. Schnebargez, V.14#
We. THE UNDERSIGNED LIVING IN 171E VERY CL,USE P101XIM17Y Ul' 771E 111INTUN
.RESIDENCE AT 5327 CAROL AV' . ALTA LOMA. AND BEING AWARE or 711E CIRf:I1MSTANCES
OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST PIGMY GOATS WOULD LIKE TO WE OUR OPINION TO
WHAT WE CONSIDER TO DE AN FAIR COMPLAINT. WE HAVE OD RVED TIIE FACILITIES
AND CONDITIONS OF THE ANIMALS AND WE FEEL T:{EY ARE VERY WELL CARED FOR AND
LOVED AND THE FACILITIES ARE KEPT CLEAN AND ORDERLY. TIIE PIGMY GOATS DO NOT
PRESENT A PROBLEM TO US AS NEIGHBORS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD OUR SUPPORT
TO THE IIUNTONS
SIGNED:
b
Pb
7,Y3 Dag`
a 1JCIS G 4121h14J
$� 3 S t.. t+l 2c � •t '57- ,-c Tom- Lo
r. 1 Z4L-tC14- y714J $23 9 1at4 KC�..i y� ST �cfr� Lvh p
7) ,_
S 3 e-/i ) Cc's Oc,Q
r
1
`1fx;:' 4 l•y':' } J / r a ,1 : ,1 'J 1 . � t ' rY
1. i s' t to t )4lrt i>
r,�!" }/41 .. "lf ` }C iii}r !j, }'i llt(�tl lfdP i 1' � m .ir �•r i Y.t a r }, •� '
4 1 S' ki ,. t� �.a.L T t +1. 7`t, !Y I,li r :r:T`J{J},1ftr•• ' '1
• }�)j 4e' '; }a111 J.4 � 1'�`i[ �n�14f «.1.f�, 3t:�,ivl ,�. MS rfr �,� a�, riti�I�Itr �kry,l �. yl -.1 �1� t .It' !c'.iLr.,
e�S � J 4�7� F- r.R� 1 I �L/ ya.'.'7%Nr�'•c Xilii J i' • {i M11 F - � rt li .4. y lift t4Fr y,.. A i '• Iti
., . �', p 1� A� r F rYL r, t e 4 / I A } t cr• J t
Y'•� t.'I 4s tr•(�) r4Ly I,I` 11 a.'14 •D. >��:`11 , vti � .r} S °4tfy'S .Y'4 t�J y 4��. Sr
�,,,�.;r,i "- '^•0•i••r" .1 —i,.y1 l- ,.+��y..a- •_• --•-
r rt ---t- -- �'''I.r•.^.�••'^_ -.r - •^.-'*"'Tr -'-' r' In
4.0 ( r • '
(•Xl:^ -•1:l 1 �r 1'n f 9Ptt' "f yf:•'.41r +vr ra t. �,Ki1ry ��.11'`..�7JI't s '�, tl, +tl{ c•i'•'}_��I �i� r� ti- {t ,•�-- .�..'.
~•!•i� r 1 , 4= � •1 }w -•.•l 1/ ---day ir.f't yl_j; .^7,5 �*'�1; ci j�� •f r 11 S1 • r I:y i i +,
J •• , .� t 1 q [�'�,;, 1 l jld•1 •�'1� Yr s r -� t Fa -�. 1.
r 1 Qr * ; t�-1 ' .]1tdL�S�+ _��.a�ad4a {• }
ly
/�1 T. 14 rt r• 1[1} , N it '}�.s .rY, Y r� l / 1 "[[ ' v a�J/;�� ,�
y �r4J�yl4R..E t-� ' ,lr It.`�a -• • ' .-�t- .�'a•r '' •.�•ls _. _
� � y.. .• ! ,'J' J S r tr i�'• �,. �1 . l i f ' (i:j ..• ,i.. � 't �i 1,•;� t1 [. ' �i
� yt`
�,,•� ••• „•/^\�t+.1 ,r� f � U1 •y , t �1,{�L'.� ' ' �1�L r : �y y��� + �(} 1/�1 {/f) (�f/J1 ,( :, , ..
rll�. , • .: tr .'.: r •:1. •r .rj s �lrj�l 4� 1r, SrY�inti '
•+ 1 �.15.'-')C.a�� �-ti1��4.:i� t 411 ( /p� ��'N. 1 n. a 1 f
F,,• s =�r,`� f�L� /'C 1'l.Q `aer Y1 •i tr�k�t.��7 .1.�./zxv..•� �Y �l,17�•i}•V_tL..• :- �- �+..?±.11`� ! t' . ~r .'�1y
io
1 1 rAYYAY rJ j
j i• !'• S.fJ f,�.1.1 r rr ; .
'rT•� .t i•e 'rl ,. { }1 J.'. la ', 1. tr'oh117 4at::ir['} j n Jij
�
7
..~'jl• T' 1 { r 'r � t � `?{ �1"1 im4u
J( Y-•'•"�•"+� ti,. r. } Y '•t _ ..r • ia.•tY.l 1�'1.1p
4.•4 t ly 1 _..._. � ',.._ tom•- ^�c-1,*�' jj � •.J. ., yam. 1
•. r .. , L ,
'._d_ r .tee....-- �•-- •__- �_..•�.... .... �+j ----- _•__�____�. 1 :, .•. ';jt• =''
Ir •'. r r r. r•'. / t 1� ' t�tr`dr f'ip �. L,- rt! \' 1
• -r r.( 1 � ,� ,.�, � 1 t .ri .yr• �;.., tr •�L.Fy •ii•SY. . \'
/ .i' ♦T� T ,� 4' . .' I I V "� .. � 5 �:• �, ~ I. ? at• rz `:. •_:.�5 r 1
' �:��r � —.�-Z. ' ..+ —>• ':.-1 .'.�J•_y.,•,� "'�.4".r.' 1� yf� 'I.T T tit.. !i , �'r'T t _ �1
(yt hf ryh• ry I 1 rt 'tti 'Jw (,.` 4 t'1 •.1nr •S ,r ,.: I: }' ri, 71[ .j
I,�'i',��,.f '+ 4r ! �^�`- •rr —•.• v. s..•. � It -r`-•1 .� Y' '� '�.� /.�_ ti : 1 r i , 1�t
41} , 'e 1 ''1 r t . , 'u JIB 7l 1' !1+ •� } f Y F i .tl F 1•�
J�if1 ,f It Y f '.. ♦! .f r� •f r�...•',_.,r. � ..I r y�.._.�.. �..1 .. +1..•r. '. t +:�i�i., .:rt1
i�.
t i�
.1
.. .. /C CG��� .• . C*-'�i �L - C�GL�C{'. T'L T. LL/Y.'�l/J�il f�
y > r�c.tre.��� .•+� ��C.rvc.rej
.,::•• Q�y�G� Ct"G2'r�� � it °r.���i ��"��''- cZ�'z�•ir..� �i��r�•
r
CP
Ak -�,. :
�,�9.4�i �°Cc.�YX_f:.�c..il�i.4(Sr'•` ✓C• r}t%—
.i
. V r 1 1 t +• t ' 1 •.
1. i ' t .� �. •1 ). r III of {•'f'l .. SI
,�: '' ',. 1� a •. '� • • ` ' 'j •.''�.''
i •l 11• r j 1 t r ' �'
� •1 Sri .; t . +r . , �I �r 1� 1 ��hf f
�;�+ r ',..� r •, ,ail
' rr t S• :. 1 . , ,,, .l, �.. � 1.. i i�r tij � _: I' ��/ �rs��
j LM I,�y y�'� � 1 _ • :1 ,�� ' t:t. f ', 1 uy L tii {'`f;'rj{�w�
(Ir..\ �rr,l• jy {, '� i4 1. 1, i , •; .�(1. � 1 • ����i...
IiZ
1' yl�• +r: S,. 17ye
t'�• . k ji f ,'•' j i ,! It .11,T j' }`LS,, ,, `.
I , , ti.a 1l ( 1� , II' .., ur �i•,n 1, i. :.
• � � ' 'I• ! I i' �' `.')' ` �: 'fir. 1 t�. ^t .mot i rL,�•.
wU
j.'.;
( '1 '; j ': {r'.. yi �.�� t•i ,1 i -�1. ••'I ,, ..., { tl .1 LIY, r'v�C� ,' i
• .y r 'mot ! , :I � {lIzz
.. t j 1 r. 1�1 ,1. ,r,L�.I r�' Lr.Ir.J rt rj j7�Sif-J{ 1 �'�LF \i•A
r'1 {. !1 ' +t j,.r, .)1,'.i��J�r�rf' •(L{fr�l�Z���s'1� `}yJtr� {i±u
G ; '.' , r:., j'I t'r r `r� r i'tt , •1 y�� ? �77 r, 14"
'r,l •,� � rl r': � � a,' , � +, lijl -A -) 4r�,} 2� \» :[YI �
r:tj
a� ' t L. 1 ij, �' L 1' '4I'r e�t, .I r, 1' l.`r 'r ir.•,4 I�I,�tlt�,}y♦,h
j •_ 1 ir' ,. r i h.r . <v 's ( tl ��i•It• r it f�R .ill ��t�.,� :''•) 11/!71 {I� j 4 g4�NA`y y./4T
. •:.�,•. s . 1,- ! 1 1r s' '. ,:.rl rA r' , 'rli c, r.•. �) V yt jl }trl.
K• r,., ( .., a,NI { • y\ � � �(4 In. r 1 rI lirnlb t.•�/ rrLtt' .� iaM �
f,,r�rt
1,
9
I.
Z
L-
DATE: June 13, 1979
T0: Planning Commission
PROM: Jack tam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CDMMISSIONERS VACATIONS
_. �r
ABSTRACT: Listed below please find the proposed vacation schedule for the
Planning Commission This schedule is provided so you will be aware of future
excused absences. Staff will endeavor to arrange the scheduling of, sensitive
issees so that a full commission is present.
Peter Tolatoy - Month of July, 1979
Herman Rempel - July 29, 1979 - August 12, 1979
Jorge Garcia - Month of August
Laura Jones - September (no. definite date)
Dick Dahl - No scheduled Vacation
Please note that the August 8th Planning Commission meeting will have two
Commissioners absent. It should be also be noted that the absences will be
recorded as excused pursuant to the adopted Planning Commission Administrative
Guidglines.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, 9lrector of
Community Development
JL:BKH:CC
is
�y /�ti:t �7��x.., ,.� F : • -r�� �'�r >r _ _._yam e ���� �g�. ����ry}�
n,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: June 13, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject:
to the Sign
- Administrative
rification Purposes
AACKGROUND: As you will recall, the Planning Commission reviewed two
issues of the Sign Ordinance relative to signing for shopping centers
at its last meeting. As a result of that_ review, the Commission
instructed Planning Division Staff to prepare the necessary amendments
to clarify the provisions in question.
Exhibit "A" shows the proposed amendments to Article 5, Section 5.4.1
and Section 5.4.2. This amendment will clarify provisions for sign
regulations for businesses not within shopping centers and businesses
within shopping centers. Further, it will clarify the use of monument
signs for shopping centers.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends, following the public
hearing, that the Planning Commission approve mid adopt Resolution No.
79 -43 and transmit such recommendations to the City Council for cneir
action.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV :nm
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
'Resolution No. 79-43
v
y/
• n
r
M
Tow
1"" Q
.a I LCOM
a+
c
cm.
cm
°
c°
N
M
N
Pig,,
�- co
LZ
CD
co
co
M
-
�
r�
N
a
M 01 H
0) L
.o u C
F ro
40.1 co 4
v
a+ O 0 aO+
p
u
N O '�4 ,C
1 N
N u `O
F V N W
W M y F
u d
.-1 p
14 w
3 ++ w u
O O 0 Aa]
IAO F u �
N b C 9
10+
tl O d
Loa H d d
d W b
Cq to
1 NO
N y a1
7 u O
A O N
0) F O
u d H
u
ow w
O G ku1� 0
N M 01 W
d
P1 O
C T
O 8 G
M Nw p
O F u w
A O HM
H 000 60 W (A
N m G O d
0. u r g p
O W P. A
ti
++
u
W
Cd
F
pa
m
E
O
.a
Cn
14 0
"1
ra
H
O 0 w
d O
G
A G C of
Sri
�
ro
y�
ro u F
�
%
i
11�-r1
•F U
M
N O.
id
vl
F
N
•
al
M
q
M
4
M
0
vi -0 F Q
C
u
b � � Q u,
O
y
~ 3 1
G
f
M -,r
-
F uul
N
. b H iii
w
to y 0.
°c
O 7
to>
V. O. m
4 v
H (�
O O u
co
u M d
Q
d A
+0u0
z
y w
O
u
N -v al
0. M.
OX m
ca
H
0.
p
.> A
.0
41
00
.7
N
w
u Tu
m u
d
P
.-1
A u CO
..
GA
to
H A u
,y .�q
QgL)
%
r L O
N
A y
�Ti
4
W
w 0) N
[j 01 01
N
H
44
0
�
N
0
0
Vn..
0Ih
UM A
z
w m o
0
(7
044 d
o
al
ro 4
�ttoA
t~f]
H 00 V 01•
+OI
A O
tptl.
N
O
O O
N
0
N
T
C g
O
a
p
N 7
60 N O
1. y.f4
M
14
B F
u
NQ=..0
4
A
CO 1,
FA
'4 0
N
H at
7
c: A
F
N r-I .0
C M
p.
/ 1
u
00 HN
co
y F
N
m
"eq
0.
14
�x
6
o
3 m u°
d m
O
o
p
u
r�
N
a
M 01 H
0) L
.o u C
F ro
40.1 co 4
v
a+ O 0 aO+
p
u
N O '�4 ,C
1 N
N u `O
F V N W
W M y F
u d
.-1 p
14 w
3 ++ w u
O O 0 Aa]
IAO F u �
N b C 9
10+
tl O d
Loa H d d
d W b
Cq to
1 NO
N y a1
7 u O
A O N
0) F O
u d H
u
ow w
O G ku1� 0
N M 01 W
d
P1 O
C T
O 8 G
M Nw p
O F u w
A O HM
H 000 60 W (A
N m G O d
0. u r g p
O W P. A
ti
++
u
W
Cd
F
2 W
m
E
O
.a
Cn
14 0
"1
ra
H
O 0 w
d O
W
A G C of
Sri
ro
y�
ro u F
�
%
i
11�-r1
•F U
M
N O.
id
vl
F
u H w
3 v
M
q
M
4
M
•"o u c
vi -0 F Q
C
u
b � � Q u,
y
~ 3 1
G
N
M -,r
N
i
x LH'
w
to y 0.
°c
x
a w
4 v
H (�
O O u
co
u M d
Q
O
z
y w
O
u
-.
N
OX m
ca
H
0.
Z N u N
00
.7
d
1 N
..
01
QgL)
O A
r L O
A y
O
u
4
0
44
94
�
N
M
d '
z
w m o
0
(7
044 d
o
al
t~f]
H 00 V 01•
O
O p W
y +i
N
O to
N
0
M
O
a
w
4
O
xLn
c: A
0
M
O 94
u
t
/ 1
ql
y F
N
k1
"eq
0.
14
�x
x
u 4 ly
ul O �
al
7
1tl A
to .0 u v
H
F
4
to
Cu
dt
bo G A
CdC
CO N
.
ca L
O
G v
r�
N
a
M 01 H
0) L
.o u C
F ro
40.1 co 4
v
a+ O 0 aO+
p
u
N O '�4 ,C
1 N
N u `O
F V N W
W M y F
u d
.-1 p
14 w
3 ++ w u
O O 0 Aa]
IAO F u �
N b C 9
10+
tl O d
Loa H d d
d W b
Cq to
1 NO
N y a1
7 u O
A O N
0) F O
u d H
u
ow w
O G ku1� 0
N M 01 W
d
P1 O
C T
O 8 G
M Nw p
O F u w
A O HM
H 000 60 W (A
N m G O d
0. u r g p
O W P. A
ti
++
u
W
Cd
F
2 W
m
E
.a
Cn
14 0
"1
ra
H
� Q
d O
W
W
Sri
ro
y�
�
%
i
11�-r1
•F U
ter p
�w
N O.
id
vl
F
wro°+"iw
3 v
M
q
M
4
M
•"o u c
nl y
C
0
b � � Q u,
y
~ 3 1
G
N
M -,r
N
i
H
to y 0.
°c
m o.yq1I o
N
N
4 v
r�
N
a
M 01 H
0) L
.o u C
F ro
40.1 co 4
v
a+ O 0 aO+
p
u
N O '�4 ,C
1 N
N u `O
F V N W
W M y F
u d
.-1 p
14 w
3 ++ w u
O O 0 Aa]
IAO F u �
N b C 9
10+
tl O d
Loa H d d
d W b
Cq to
1 NO
N y a1
7 u O
A O N
0) F O
u d H
u
ow w
O G ku1� 0
N M 01 W
d
P1 O
C T
O 8 G
M Nw p
O F u w
A O HM
H 000 60 W (A
N m G O d
0. u r g p
O W P. A
ti
++
u
W
Cd
tC
u
.a
"1
ra
H
a+{+ C5
d O
W
W
y�
AI
%
N H
N O.
W �1
N
F
ci
M
q
M
4
M
nl y
C
0
p
CP
N
M -,r
N
O h
vw°
W H �
rl Fa+
.0C d N
m o u m
m n. 1O
d F yGy � aL�
uN Ol IJ u
0 OO w F r N 7 .0
j roc,°i yua+
A W N co A ci u 0 0
A O O N
O 3) N N . W tl e O N 0 M d O
P O
ai�1 u v d °fro Fa
vC O u h v m
b ®u u R
tl
�b 4.
01 M u 4.
A H G 0
44,0 '� 1
�F1.j 4E
W � 3 C
u CG1oF
w 8 ,4
al
rl OF 6 IC
1+ m $ a
'm N O •H z
to .1 t7
1 —SOIL -H X14 0
\ V�gCt w
N
Jly G m
d P G
P
[T
W N
N 1
1O4 a N
0
44 a
%
u O
N d
4+ 401 y JJ
d b
>J \✓
0) 0a \`
W
p gP.
O CO 1.1
u
R
G
6
w
O
u
d
1 'd
a
Pb �
1 M V
1
qj C�
p
b �F
.G ,t
u N�
In
m
N
1
u u u
�a
so
p �mpw
'd 4p1
b e�f
u «
co
H 7
d cut
y
b to
C O
d
a)
H
d
M u
Ll
AML.
n
C