The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982/02/22 - Agenda Packet y.... '�� y .,. �".8'.y,�.ii"'S.{�,ir - is '"' .�.; Y • . j t , Tu w ff� � r r 1 1� y QrY OF s A RANCHO CUCA MONGA PLANNING COMMISSION v gZ AGENM L977 MONDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1982 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE; RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A C T I O N I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl X_ Commissioner Sceranka E=uwd Commissioner King_ Commissioner Toistoy____k_ t: Commissioner Reapel X CONTINUED to III- Approval of Minutes s-10-82 February 10, 1982 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar The following =nsent calendar items are ex_rected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. if anyone has concern over any item, then it should be removed for discussion. APPROVED 4-0-1 A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-08 VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned Individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. is Please wait to be recognized by the Chairmar, and address the Commission from the public microphone by giving uoux name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes par individual for each project. APPROVED 3-0-1-1 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01 A - LEWIS - A request to amend the Land Use Policies of the General Plan, that waald allow the City to consider development plans with- in a Planned Cotmmn:ty area, prior to adoption of the Planned Community. d L r Planning Commission Agenda February 22, 1982 Page 2 APPROVED 3-0-1-1 C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01 C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Land Use Element the General Plan to change the land use designation in the area fronting 4th Street extending approximately 1400' north between Etiwanda Avenue and the AT & SF railroad tracks .1-is land use designation is recommended to be changed from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial . CONTINUED 4-28-82 D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-0, B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Circulation Eft f the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill Freewey Corridor from Haven Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim Imprurmtents to Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a secondary arterial to collector standards. APPROVED 2-1-1-1 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7370 - CITY OF RANLIIO CUCAMONGPA The division of 32 T acres of land into i0 parcels for park land located at the north end of Hermosa on the west side thereof_ VII. Old Business VITI. New Business IX. Council Referrals X- Direc*or's Reports F. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN STATUS REPORT APPROVED 3-0-1-1 G. REQUEST FORA TIME EXTENSION FOP. SA 79-07 - BRETHREN N HRI T CHURCH - Request for an extension o time to redesign or remove an existing structure located at 9974 19th Street. xi. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Iteas to be discesssed here are those: whicL do not: already appear on this agenda.. XII. Upcoming Agenda XIII. Recess XIV. Adjourned Regular Meeting - Public Hearing Process H. PERRA VISTA PLANNED COW"ITY - Resideatial land Use and Design Guidelines Planning Commission Agenda February 22, 1982 Page 3 XV. Adjournment 2.he P.I.,,ng Comaission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 12c00 P.m. adjoursment r;,ro. beyond that time, they shall be heard If items go Sion. only with the consent of the Commis The PlaMni.n4 Co=1dssiub jc: adjourn to Monday' The March 2, 2982, to a Public hearing Terra " sta Planed Co=nity- t- sX. 4 W_ pe dry' • N �r; Y 3JUJ AVU300 W N a eL s � 4 F N t• • 3Rt •nwminJ13 ?S � •1 J.J.i...}�••7'Y_.J •w :¢ �L 3m tialSaHjob tnvrr-WA 311V N31IVM 8LU � .,.• L� �e � � I3ro a i want • `;:: R �{� • 3M13Jv a»a3 b — N, M }}1.1 1Y1 YY CITY OF RANCHO CQC.9ZiONGA PLANNING COMIaSSION MYNUTES Regular Meeting February 10, 1982 CALL TC ORDER Chairman Jeff Ting caLed the regular meeting of the City of Fancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Forum of the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. POLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman. Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter To>>tcy, Jeff King ABSM'T: CM01ISSIONERS: Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorne,; Jerry Grant, BUlding Official; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Jim Robinson Assistant City Manager; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner 4 .` APPROVAL OF YINDTFS ,. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried to approve the Minutes of January 27, 1982. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried to approve the Minutes of February 1, 1982 with the deletion of paragraph three on page twelve. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Community Development Director, announced that the presentation of the Law and Justice Center, item J under New Business, was requested r: to be moved up and be heard by --he Commission before their consideration of the public hearings. Mr. Lam also announced that the nett regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be held on Monday, February 22, 1982 and that this meeting would also include a public hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community. r CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME rM. (TE."ISION FOR DEVELt3PMFo+T RMEW 80-07 A= SI-03 E. r"iM ESCfENS�ON FOR ?ARC??. NAPS 5260, 612k, 6C762 5997. 5114 C. ENV ONME!.'TAL ASSESS- FOR DEVELOPMENT REV?E[? "h0. 82-02 The development of a 5,800 square foot two-story office building on .369 acre, generclly located on the south side of Civic Center Drive, west of Utica, Lot 23 of Parcel Map 6206. D. REVISION TO RESOLUTION NO 81-80 CLAR=FXING THE REQUTREM£:T OF 9 DEWALTS ON :ENDUSTRIAL LOCAL STREET$ E. REQUEST TO VACATE OFFER OF DMICSTIGE syR OAK ROAD LOCATE) NORTB OF n1LT-'-='Z % OF KI.USMAN Motiou: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried to adopt all items on the wnsent Calendar. NEW BUSINESS J. PROPOSED WEST VALLEY LW AND JUSTICE CENTER Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the Staff Report and introduced Mr- Bill Valentine of HOK, San Francisco, who reviewed the Site Plan and invited the Commissioners to take a look at the model on display. It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioners that the architects should work to improve the north and west sides of the building and that the park-like appearance should carry around to the rear of the building. Mr. Valentine stated that they would work on the items recommended by the Commission and try to improve them before the center was formally submitted_ * * * 7:30 p.m_ The Planning Commission Recessed 7:40 p-m. The Planning Commission Reconvened .iy Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 10, 1982 is: Richard Hanson, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, designer of the project, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant w= in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and :a` no questions on the Staff Report or the contents of the approving Resolutions. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Vairin if provisions had been made for the tot lot as required during Design Review. Mr. Vairin replied that Exhibit "I" of the Staff Report would show the location of the tot lot. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was concerned about the buffering on the south side because of the loading docks for the grocery and drug stores but saw where it was addressed in the Staff report. However, he did not see how the buffering on the west side from the single family residence was being addressed. Mr. Vairin stated that Design Review had required dense landscaping in that area, but that an exhibit had not been drawn to illustrate that. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was to be a wall in that location. Mr. Vairin replied that there was a wall proposed in that location that would be five to six feet high along the property line. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the distance would be from the wall to the first unit. Mr. Vairin replied that it would be twenty to thirty feet. 5' Chairman King asked the applicant why there was a rather substantial setback as opposed to the other setbacks on the south side. _ Mr. Hanson replied that it was done that way to buffer. Chairman King stated if that were the case, it seemed that the same y problem existed on the east side. Although they are presently vacant "y. pieces of land, ultimately the uses to the east would be the same as the uses to the south and if it were logical to use the distance as a buffering agent for properties to the south, it would also be logical to use it as a buffering for properties to the east. Commissioner Rempel stated that the distances on both sides of the property mentioned by Chairman King were the same and that this issue was addressed during Design Review. There were no further comments and the: public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 11615. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 10, 1982 r: would take appropriate action. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that the Commission had been strong in their implementation of standards and the time frames in which people were expected to perform these standards. When exceptions are made for purposes which he felt are valid, it is important for the applicant to be sensitive to the fact that they are being given special consideration for charges in the proceedure and they should not be able to take advantage of that to the detriment of the community. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not feel that this item should be continued indefinitely and that staff should just keep checking to see if he were completing the items. He felt that a date should be set and if Mr. Sharma did not complete his Conditions of Approval by that date, staff should come back to the Commission at the next meeting and the Commission should revoke his permit. He further stated that the applicant had been given several extensions alread7 and had still not completed these conditions. Chairman Ring stated tbat he agreed with Commissioner Sceranka but he did not feel it should be part of the motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to continue the item to the Planning Commission of March 10, 1982. P3CES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCRRANRA , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL G. MMRONMENT_AL Av.SESSMEA'T AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82-02 — TENTATIVE TRACT 11615 - LEWIS POAPERTIES - A chtage of zone from C-1 (Neigh- borhood Commercial) to R-3 PD (Multiple Family Residentlel/Planned Development) and the development of 152 condominium units on 10.4 acres of land located north of Base Line and west of Archibald - APN 202-161-37 and 202-151-34. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Vairin who owned the vacant land next to the property. Mr. Vairin replied that he was not totally sure who the owe-tr was„ but was most likely owned by the Water District. 4 Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that since there was a water tank on that piece of land, it probably belonged to the Water District. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February P0, 1982 lr AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, RING NOES: COMMISSIOh'SR.S: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAIM Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by R.empel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Planned Development 82-02. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, R.FM PEL, TOLSTOY, RING NOES: COMMISSIO+I s.RS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DARL H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7061-4 - KACOR - A division of 28.7 acres into 24 lots within the M-2 zone located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue - APN 210- 082-8, 9, 10. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer. reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau where this industrial tract would fit into the storm drain systca. Mr. Rougeau replied that there would be a storm drain provided by the Assessment District in Cleveland Avenue. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. Dan Reed, San Diego, representing tine applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that his engineers were present to answer any technical questions the Commission might have. There were no further questions or comments from the public, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt the 5 Resolution approving Parcel lisp 7061-4. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCMtANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL N r Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 10, 1932 f i I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7128 - EJL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A division of 6.2 acres into 2 lots within the R-1 zone located at the southwest corner .of Righland and Haven Avenue - APN. 202-19-15. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. There were no questions from the Commission, therefore Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rougeau advised the Commission that the applicant had contacted him earlier in the afternoon and informed him that they would not be in attendance at the meeting, however, wished to state that they had no cu5ections to the Conditions of Approval or any items mentioned in the Staff Report. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7128. AYES: CODeaSSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANP.A, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO!MSSIONERS: DAH1. 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 8:20 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened * * * x x DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. DESICN REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF TESTA= TRACT 11934 - LYON - The development of 301 single family homes within the Victoria Planned Community, located north of Base Line Road, west of Etiwanda Avenue, and south of Highland Avenue. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Staff Report stating that the Commission was being presented tonight with the revisions provided by the applicant to the lower portion of the tract. Mr. Lam further stated that the Design Review Committee had looked at the revision and stated that they were satisfied with the revisions and felt they met with the intent and purpose of the Condition which the Commission Imposed on the tract. Planning Commission Minutes -7- Febriary 1p, 1982 There was much discussion on the design of the park and the elements which the Commissioa wished to have included in the design of the park. It was the consensus of the Commission that the design of the park be brought back to them for review before final approval. :Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried, to accept the revisions to Tentative Tract 11934, Phase I. f k AYES: COMMISSI0NERS: TOLSTOY, REPEL, SCERANRA, TING r`:• DOES: CO*AfISSIONERS: NONE ABSr,%T: CC"?U11ISS10:'EFS: D= fi i" DPCO=G AGENDA Ss It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff be instructed to research and bring back to the Commission for discussion the Parking Standards Ordinance for residential development to eee if the standards were adequate to meet the parking needs of projects with bigh density. ADJO=NM 1T Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tol.stoy, carried to adjourn_ 8:45 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 10, 1982 ^'. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAn�o STA'E REPORT ' of u-w iZ DATE: February 22, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROV: Jack Lam, AIC7, Director of Community Development ! BY: Karl Hill, Panning Aide i SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 81 I f BACKGROUND- The attaches letter from the APP14 cant is a time extension request for the above-described project. The request is based on present monetary problems and the cost of construction financing_ The above listed i Development Review project has not submitted any plans for plan check to date_ The approved Site Plan is shown as Exhibit "B". Listed below is the present expiration date for the project. Development Review No. Expiration Date 81-08 3-11-82 The maximum time allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for Development Review projects is two and one-half years. Deveiopmeat Review 81-08 has only been approved for one year. c; RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that an eighteen months extension be granted for Development Review 81-08 to run from the present expiration date to the date listed on the attached R`solution. Respectfully submitted, JACK, LAM, AICP Director of Community Development JL:iH:jr Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution ITEM A C/L. INC. February 1, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Dan Zoleman Re: DR 81-08 - Restaurant Dear Dan: C/L, Inc. has not been able to proceed with construction of this proposed development fcr several reasons. The primary proble- has been the cost of construction financing. ;he high cost of money and stagnated residential growth of Rancho Cucamonga forced the termination of our original contract with the operators for whom this proposal was designed. There have been a number of small restaurant operators and large restaurant chains interested in this project over the last year. Currently, two restauranteurs are looking at this package, one of which is a large chain of exclusive restaurants. At t',is time I would like to request extension of this approves' for an additional 18 months to relieve the pressure for immediate construction and allow for the optimmu timing for project financing for the restuarant operator. Thank you for your cooperation oa this matter. Sincerely, C/LBUILDERS-DEVELOPERS, INC. /L Y' i/ 0�_ Bob Nastase Project Coordinator BX/mlb s BUILDERS-DEVELOPERS 521 No. Mountain Ave.; Suite A • Upland, California 91786 • Telephone (714) 981-1041 ly II •� C� I 11 W � ? N • S 11 �x 1 2 S 3 = W <II F LL Cc 3n N t{ 0 NI > VONVMIL3 1 N 1 �1• i 7133M7 LVO� j t < '31-V 834S31400N E G tu cc 2 We I tea' <OO> + K03 W N3AVN t VI 1 t f Y II � 11 2 VSONN3H 1 N ei 11 x j > .: ItJ3N4oa1 F IL NY 93740 3N a • a , 11 i 3AW 0BVa3Nln j r W 1S NVIl3NMtl? � 'v9NONv3nD tl F o 1 O v CZ EE � = 1 • it °1 � _ O T 1 a 1� F.✓� y { RI Y < � 3nK3AV Ot'M � I1 . ► ii - aE i49, I I t ` '`j:`�%!-�1' �' lam• ,. ' 17 .1 I � L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CONRAISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSION FOR D.R. 81-08 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8 of Ordinance 28-8, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above-described project. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has ma'..= the following`indings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a lack of financing and high interest rates for con- struction; 8. That these economic conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time; C. That external physical, conditions have caused delay in the start of construction; ` D. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval V regarding axpirationF would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code; F E_ That the granting of said time extension will not s be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially .injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby w grants a time extension for the above-described project as follows: Development Review Expiration Date 81-08 9/11/83 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF P.ANC40 CUCAMONGA Resolution No. Page 2 BY Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Comission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Comiss-ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adcpted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Punning Commission held on the 22nd day of February, 1982, by the fallowing vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COWUSSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 / f' CITY OF RANCHO CUCA MONGA STAFF REPORT ® z r z W 7 i� kR S DATE: February 22, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission a FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Pianner SUBJECT: ENVIRO�'�7"eNTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERA! PLAN AMENDMENTNO. 82-01 A - LEWIS - A request to amend a portion of the General P ar. text, III page 30, relating to development within the Planned Community areas prior to adoption of the Planned Com- brani ty i i ` SUMMARY: Lewis Development Company has requested an amendment to the text cf the General Plan that would allow the City to consider develop- ment plans within adoption Planned Community area prior to final adoptio of the Planned Community 1 text. Attached is a description orovided by Lewis Development Company which explains the reasons for such. a request_ ANALYSIS: The policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan presently state that: "The City shall not consider for approval any development plans located within the Planned Community area until such time as the Planned Communities have been reviewed and adopted by the City Council." As the Commission is aware, the Lewis Development Company has submitted the Planned Community text for Terra Vista and review of the text is currently in process. The Applicant has found a need to relocate their headquarters and would like to do so within the Terra Vista Planned Com- ti, munity area. The Applicant's time frame requires them to be relocated into the new office building by the end of the 1982 calendar year. Since the Terra Vista Planned Community just began to be reviewed by the Plan- nir.9 Commission, it is not possible to have the entire Planned Commnunity ' text adopted by the City Council in time to allow the submission of devei- " opment plans and construction of an office building by the end of the year. Therefore, Lewis Development Company has requested we amend the General Plan text to allow some flexibility on the part of the City to choose whether or not the City should approve development within the Planned Com- munity area prior to adoption of the actual Planned Community text. P: ITEM 8 General Plan Amendment 82-01 AJLcwis Planning Commission Agenda February 22, 1982 Page 2 The Applicant i suggested the following wording that would replace the policy statement contained or. page 30 of the General Plan: "The City snall not gen-rally consider for approval any development plans located within the Planned Communities area until such time as the Planned Communities have been reviewed and adopted by the City Council. However, the City may approve miner exceptions to this policy, if in its judgment they are consistent with the Plan- ned Community and General Plan goals." This suc,3ested wording allows the. City not to consider approval of any development within the Planned Communities area- if it feels that it is a major deviation from the intent and goals of the Planned Community area or the General Plan. If the City did feel that the proposal was in keeping with :lose major goals, then the City could consider the plans for approval_ However, the City still has the option to deny the project if it finds in its review that it is not within the expectations of the Planned Community area or the General Plan. Since the Planned Community text is not adopted and decisions have not been made regarding development standards or design quality, the City would have to review the proposed plans based upon current %City development standards and design policie For instance, the Lewis Development Company proposes a reduction in the required amount of parking for an office use within the Planned Community area. The standard which the Applicant is proposing is less than the standard presently used by the City. Therefore, since the City has not made any policy decision to allow for a lesser amount of parking, the plan would have to abide ty the current devel- opment standards. i This policy statement of the General Plan basically applies to the Terra Vista Planned Community area since the Victoria Planned Community has already been adopted. The Terra Vista Planned Commur.:ty has been submitted and the Commission has become somewhat familiar with it to make de,7isions regarding the design of an office building within the office area of the Planned Community. Attached is Part I of the Initial Study which describes the General Plan amendment and any associated environmental impacts. Staff has completed the 'Environmental Assessment and has found no significant adverse impacts upon the environment. Therefore, if the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment then they should recommend approval of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. General Plan Amendment 82-01 A/La-wis Planning Commission Agenda February 22, 1982 Page 3 RECONJMENOATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider input regarding the proposed amendment. If the Commission p" finds that the amendment is appropriate in light of the circumstances, then please find attached a copy of the Resolution recommending approval of the amendment to the City Council. y ^r Respectfully submitted, A4-1— L AICP i Director of Community Development ' JL:MV:jr •�.'' � Attachments: Location Map Description of GPA Part I Initial Study tr' Resolution r. yt 0 - b � Z gy 1 I o " Jf ME R Wcc r ilt U) cc mz va Z � vzcr. 4 � �' Z �W W W J � iz z mCC m > wQQt'fl �►�� RT a t / r t l r REASONS FOR THE REgUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Tole intend to move our corporate office to Terra Vista as the community's first office building_ This will help us oversee the day-today development of Terra Vista and will also help demonstrate our commitment to the project. This office development will benefit the City by generating proper'cy tax, business license, and fee revenue, along with the business of our 100+ employees. It is a major benefit to the'City to start the development of Terra Vista, which will be good for the City in many ways. A major company, which leases the building next to our present office, wants to expand into our building. Recently, they have set a deadline that they must be able to occupy our present building by the end of the year_ With the extended Planned Community hearing schedule just adopted by the Planning Commission, it will be very difficult for us to meet this deadline. Failure to meet the deadline would cause a major loss for us, since both the building we occupy and the one occupied by the tenant would become vacant as soon_ as we move into our new office in Terra Vista. This seems an unnecessary hardship since we would be moving into our new office within a few months after the deadline had passed. It is possible for us to have our new office in Terra Vista built and occupied by the end of this year, if we can submit plans shortly and have them processed at the same time that the Planned Community is undergoing public hearings. It requires a tight schedule, but it can be done. The problem is that a statement in the General Plan may be interpreted as prohibiting this. The statement (which appears on page 30) says that no development in the planned communities area will be processed until after Planned Community approval by the City Council. We believe we are complying with the spirit and intent of that provision. After many months of work, our Planned Community has been submitted and will begin public hearings on February 1. By working with staff, we believe we could accelerate the development of this single building with no detriment to the overall Planned Community. The site plan and building design would reflect the intent of the PC to the best of our ability, and by working with stat'f and officials we would try to accomplish a design that everyone would be happy with. There would of course be some risk that during the course of_the Planned Community hearings, changes would be made which would require us to change the office plans. we are willing to take the risk that redesign j..: would be required at a later point_ Right now we only want to be permitted to submit the plans and begin processing them, since project design and review will take several months. The General Plan shows office use at the site we have in mind, which is a 2.3-acre parcel on Haven south of Church. The project would consist only of our own office, parking, and landscaping. We would submit conceptual site plans for the surrounding area to show the larger office park of which our building would be a part. We would amend our Planned Community submittal to technically exclude this parcel so that it could proceed through normal development review in the near future. Pf%_ E i5Y= LEWK, WYCLCRAWT Co. �® CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INTFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Enviro=ental Assessment Review Fee- $87.00 For all projects recruiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department -ehere the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prevare 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 significant environmental inpact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact P.eport will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project. 5 yVy1i. PROJECT TITLE: Amendment to General Plan text 3 APPLICAN'T 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Lewis Development Co., fi;.. 11S6 N- Motmtnin A.vP. . P. n. Box 670 Unl rd .A g1786 714-285-0971 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCEPNING THIS PROJECT: Richard Lewis IACATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) Not applicable LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND' FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: - T t 2-7 Page 2 As stated above, we believe we are complying with the intent Of al the General Plan provision and can continue to do so with res�s allowed to move forward pect to the Office Ge er . We feel that theit building to meet an unuv^ua a single office l situation development he does not violate the intent of the policy. However, since there is some feeling that interpretaticn of the polity as written prohibits this, we a• e asking for a change in wording. This change would not mean that the City must approve our office develop- ment, but would Provide flexibility for tle City to approve the project if it wishes_ PZt is our request that the paragraph in question, or. page 30 of the Gelan, be reworded more or less as follows: neral The Citv shall generally not consider for approval any development Plans located within the planned communitie, a_-r the Planned communities have been rev until such time as reviewed and adopted by the City council. Ho.n_ver, the City may approve minor exceptions to this policy if in its judgment they arc consistent with the planned community goal_ we hope the City finds this an acceptable modification that does not contravene the general policy involved, since early development of t'� Office project would benefit the City as well as our company. y f . PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To modify the language of the General Plan text regarding development vit. t ane C cities area. Please see attached letter_ ACREASE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF Ey.ISTING AND BUILDINGS, T_r^ AXy: Not applicable DESCP,I5E THE ENVIRO: IETrAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFtOPiPMTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLP_NTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTT'FAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEiiC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUITDING PROPER—LIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF Ah'Y EXISTING STRUCTURES Al%M THEIR USZ (ATTACH NECESSARY SF7EE':'S) Nor a"nlir^blo ' 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? ho w7ILL THTS PROJECT: YES Alp X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? S Z. Create a substantial charge in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewc.ge, etc.)? X4. 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, fla.-n-nables or explosives? M1. - Explanation oL any YES answers above: ' IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on tha next page. Not applicable CERTIFICATIONt I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exzibits 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 nay be required to be submitted before an adequate evauuation can be made by the Developm Review Co:mnittee. LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO Date January 15, 1952 signature By Title = 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING MIENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council has activated the optional General Plar Amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised Public hear-3ng to consider all comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BF IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the following amendments to the land use element of the General Plan. SECTION 1: General Plan Amendment No. 82-01-A: Under the first palicv statement, paragraph 3 of the Land Use Element (page 30) shall be changed to read as follows: "The City shall not generally consider for approval , any development plans ioated within the Planned Communities area, until such time as the Planned Community has been reviewed and adopted by the City Council. However, the City may approve minor exceptions to this policy, if in its judgement, the plans are consistent with the Planned Community and General Plan Goals". SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment No. 82-01-C: An amend- ment of the-6—en—e-r—aT Plan Land Use Map in the area north of 4th Street extending approximately 1400' east of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad tracks and west of Etiwanda Avenue as shown on attached Exhibit "A". This area shall be shown on the General Plan as General 'Industrial Land Use. SECTION 3: It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for these General Plan amendments, based upon the completion and findings of the Initial Study. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982. PLANNING COMMIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman '.w Resolution M. Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary Of the Planning Commission I, JACK, LAM, Secretary of the Pianning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutiun was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pianning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regul.r meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of February, 1982, by the following vcte-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: x t ; N CITY OF RANCI 10 CUCAMONGA STAFF :IEPORT �.0 a x r 0 �A ' F 2 U > i 2977 I DATE: February 22, 1982 10: Members of the Planning Comm- ssion r FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of :ommunity Development . BY: Tim J. Beedie, Senior Planne SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01 C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - ' An amendment to change property fronting the north side of 4th Street, east of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe rail- road tracks, and west of Et Wanda Avenue from Heavy industrial I to General Industrial_ f; ABSTRACT: This report presents the sta•'f analysis on a General Plan amendment and recommends that this amendment be approved with the issuance of a Negative Declaration. ® BACKGROUND: This General Plan amendment is to cover approximately 150 acres of vacant land extending from 4th Street 1400' north between the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad tracks and Etiwanda Avenue. This site is located at the most extreme southeastern boundary of the City Limits. At the time the General PItn was being prepared, this area was considered for all Heavy Industrial ;and use; however, during the preparation of the industrial Specific P an, many concerns were raised regarding the acceptability of Heavy Industrial users located along 4th Street. Attention was drawn to this issce whet property developers for the Pic 'N Save warehousing showed an interest to provide a retail out- let located along 4th Street-. The Heavy Industrial category did not provide for the retail operation ror any General Industrial or Office 1 -type uses. Therefore, the Industrial Specific Plan established this 1 area as General Industrial category whict would provide for both light and medium industrial operations along with warehousing, office, and commercial uses. Essentially, this General Plan amendment vill change the General Plan to be consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan. The issues have ' i already been addressed through the compie :ion of the Industrial Specific Plan. It is necessary, therefore, to have the General Plan and the Specific Plan consistent with each other. The environmental analysis of this change has been studied through the environmental process of the Industrial Specific Plan. No increased environmental impacts will be developed through the amendment of the ' General Plan. Staff has completed the environmental assessment and recoamie:nds the issuance of a Negative Declaration. f General Plan Amendment 82-01 C Planning Co missior. Agenda February 22, 1982 Page 2 RECOMdENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the accompanying Resolution amending the General Plan as shown on Exhibit "A" and approve the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Resoectfvlly submitted, JACK. (.r�M' AICP Director of Community eD elopnent JL:TJB:jr ttZ-6rients: Exhibit "A" - Land Use Map Initial Study Part I Resolution At , 1 .i�.75 f I :ff1.Y•: . . ®r 1,10.101 F // 00IPP F%/P /% III lip It i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INITORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 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 Revie•.r 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 significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The Droject will have a significant environmental impact k: 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 pronosed project. PROJECT TITLE: GPA 82-01 C 4 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucamonga; P. 0. Box 807; Rancho Cucamonga, CA 51730 17141 9R9-18S1 _ NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPRONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner, City of Rancho. Cucamonaa WCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL. NO. ) 4th Street north 1400' between AT 8 SF Railroad tracks and Etiwanda__ _ Avenue LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND S: N/A FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMIT rr v N AT A SF RA a }� ii i] •nli; �. + �t wjbe�la is 3 i (F A v ryry. Na amy Au y�P�� .- 1 .. 4th a .. ��,. _........._...... .._.. twit.'..—..-..w• roe..i•r r .3.s.ci' ��i.Sttrri.u�tJ� '�.s-- :P' GPA 82-01 C •��.�i-l-M �^.•�M�Yy~Kew�_ � .� - W i• +'•�� _ d~•' PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: General Plan amendment to the Lard Use Man to rhanna from Noayu Tndmtri-1 to hanPral Tndnetri 1 Thic will make the Cenral Plan consistent with the Specific Plan For the Iridustrtal area. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: N/A DESCRIBE THE EN'JIRONIL.NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCL nA7G INHURINlATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SL7RRGUVDING PROPERTIES, AIM TEE DESCRIPTION' OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : M/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? Nn WILL TF?IS PROJECT- YES 1% X 1. Create a substantial change in ground conto-ars? 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- CERTT_FICATION: 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. Date February 17, 1982 Signature ® Tim .], 8eedle .itle Senior Planner RESOLD?ION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLAIINING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council has activated the optional General Plan Amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Conanission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the fcllowing amendments to the land use element of the General Plan. SECTION is General Plan Amendment No. 82-01-A: Under the first policy statement, paragraph 3 of the Land Use Element (page 30) shall be changed to read as follows: "The City shall not generally consider for approval , any development plans located within the Planned Communities area, until such time as the Planned Community has been reviewed and adopted by the City Council. However, the City may approve minor exceptions to this policy, if in its judgement, the plans are consistent with the Planned Community and General Plan. Goals". SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment No. 82-01-C: An amend- ment of the e�neraT Plan Land Use Map in the area north of 4th Street extending approximately 1400' east of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad tracks and west of Etiwanda Avenue as shown on attached Exhibit "A". This area shall be shown on the General Plan as General -Industrial Land Use. SECTION 3: It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for these General Plan amendments, based upon the completion and fir.4ings of the Initial Study. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982. PLANNING COt4MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman {b �f d )Y. Resolution No. Paae 2 ATTEST• Secretary of the Planning Commission I, SACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plan„..g Cvn ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of February, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1: y ' �i . { ' f ' d�/IIjII�iII%/ / w ��'IIII �� y ' 4 ' �-• I' � R�__... R .. OF ol ' 0 , . � % :ol sir////, : VFO t � OIL ' OW, ryry� /l/////, ;r 1 1 1 1 . 1 Ll _I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 44,� ycSTAFF REPORTIc �' Iz DATE: February 22, 1982 U la 1977 TO: Plan vag Commission FRCSs: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City algineer SUBJECT: COAL PLAN ANENMMM 82-01 S - CITY CP RANCHO MCAYJCNC A A request to amend the circulation Element of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim. improvements to Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a se=x1ary arterial to collector standards. .rough the process of review of the initial phases of the Victnria Planned Camunity, staff working with CalTrans has developed an approach to the interim sxmpmva..ent of Highland Avenue between Haven Ave n t and the Devore Freeway which differs from the designation spelled out :n the current Circulation Element of the Goal Plan. r� Attached for Commission review is a copy of t� current plan text which discusses an interim designation for Highland Avenue as a "C" Section providing for a 64 foot curb to curb sectiaz with an 88 foot right-of-way. This designation: was assigned to reflect continuity with the westerly portions of Roate 30 along 19th Street. in revewing the first phase of Victoria, two facts became apparent: first because the freeway corriddor is adjacent to highland Avenue at this location the potential of development on the f'th half of the street would { not occur as long as the f-- option is viable: second, that if a freeway I is constructed, Highland would became a frontage road to the freeway requir- ing a collector standards road 44 fee` wide with a 66 foot right-of-way. It has generally been recocp: a that If the freeway is not eonstrt.-ted that some major arterial or expressay should be provided in the corridor. Giver_ these facts, an approach has been developed which calls for the redesignation of Highland to the collector standard to be constructed fully by the southerly fronting property. Zhe section will be designed as the southerly half of a major divided arte:ira. This :--roach would seem to Provide the most flexibility for the cata,z nIty and fi. s well with all of the options currently contemplated within the corri , dor. Staff has taken the opportLzity of the current General Plan ammx1ment period ® to begin consideration of the proposed amendment. The revised General Plan ITEM D PIA1�AIIi1� (I�IlN,ZSSTON S'TAc"�' REPORT GUMMAL PIM AMEIMMM 82-01 February 22, 1982 Page 2 lan4uage is attached along with the Enviz anaital Assessnent/Negatime Declara- tion. Ca12Yans being a responsible agc3xq £or this facility should be ccm- tatted with the prcr�.,al. am eavismmental dete uMtion and given formal review rights. IMCOMMEIIM=CN: It is rued that the Ccmmissicn accept public testiaonp on General Plan Amex bxnt 82-01 B and corx it the pub-I ic hearing to April 28, 1982 to allow review of the Avend� and M%v=,mmtal Deteanix-lation by CalTmrs. Respectfully submitted, IM:ja / Attachments }�. GENERAL PIrM Aram 82-01 B ^fie Circulation Element of the General Plan, page 62 dealing with Highland Avertue is amended as follows: FiicLhland Avenue The portion of Highland Avenue (Route 30) between. Haven Avenue and Interstate 15 (Devore r eeway)shalI be designated as a "B" Solon: collectz- standz and she.'1 be fully con.�t�zn. -ed by sa=.herly abutting property owners to provide compatibility with future construction of a major divided arterial or expressway and aim suitable to became the south frontage mad with the eventual development of a Foot-hall Freeway. Prior to development at interchange locations, the fxtun'..age system, should be precisely defined and right-oi. way dedications obtained for the future roadway requirements. Mom: Map 11-3 should be amended app prriately. c- The following discussion addresses special problem areas that are to be addressed through further studies and intergovernmen- tal coordination. Alignment. The Circulation Plan identif;es major streets where alignment configuration is variable. Precise locstreet otentiat alignments will be dependent upon p development reeds of surrounding lands. Alignment requirements will need to e studied at the time of future is eev lopment agnment Routes requiring more p determination are: - Banyan Street - east of Haven Avenue - Milliken Avenue - north of Fourth Street - Rochester Avenue - south of Eighth - Cleveland Aver,+e - Arrow Route to Base Lire R3ad - victorir Avenue - vest of Etiwanda Avenue i - Day Creek Boulevard Church Street - Haven to Miller Avenue Foo«hill Freeway Coor_idor. The development of a high speed limited access route aleng an imPO'tart the Foothill Freeway Corridor is stem of the component to the circulation sy lifornia Transportation City. Recently Ca Commission (CTC) adopted a resolution with Caltrans encouraging the City to wore. in determining appropriate methods for fi- nancing and construction of the Foothill Freeway. CTC will evaluate the status of a financing plan in early 1983. The City policy stresses the need for the development of an access controlled hig:j speed facility along this corridor. Shouldoftransa with- Foothill draw from the development Freeway, the City will evaluate other meth- ods for development of the high speed corridor. Any changes in the City's Policy should be reflected in revisions to the Gen- eral Plan. Highland Avenue. The de asnat'o ofcll Becton land Avenue (Route 30) providing for four lanes of traffic is an interim designation until the time of con- struction of the Foothill Freeway. -r t 62 i With construction of the freeway or 'other limited access expressway, Highland Avenue will become the sou.:h frontage road to the freeway and be reduced to a collector "B" section street. Special alignments of the frontage system will be required at inter- change locations. Prior to development in the interchange locations the frontage system in the area should be precisely defined and right-of-way dedications obtained for the future roadway requirements. Grade Separation Regquirements. It has been idertifict! that railroad grade separations will be required at Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue a� the Santa Fe Railroad. Grade separations have implications for right-of-way requirements or. adjacent pro- perties. They will, therefore, require fur- ther detailed studies to establish right-of- way requirement and local circulation ties. Studies along the Santa Fe at Milliken and Haven Avenue are currently being prepared and should be adopted as precise plans through a nearing process. Special Intersections. Through the trans- portation modeling process, specific intersec- tions were identified which may require local- ized widening to accommodate projected traff- ic volumes and turning movements. These w intersections will require detailed traffic analysis in the suture but in some cases can be mitigated through category F street widths. Intersections of concern are indi- cated on the Circulation Plan. A Transportation System Management Pro- gram (TSMP) ss necessary to alleviate some of the potential traffic problems. ThP TSMP, if effectively implemented, would reauce in- dustrial traffic load np to 17 percent and 21 percent during peak traffic hours. How- ever, even with this program, information from the traffic modeling indicated the potential for significant traffic problems. '. The TSMP will involve the close monitoring of industrial development to insure that suit- able transportation control measures are enforced on all developments. These control f 63 r� I CITY OF RANCHO oCAMONGA INITIAL ; PL"DY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applican : Enviro =ental Assessment 1 eview Fee: $87.00 For all projects requirin • environmental revietr, this form must be completed an; . submitted to the Development Review Committee through 1 .he department where the project application is ma, ie_ Upon receipt of this application, the Environ+al:r_tal Analysis stasf will prep; .re Part II of the Initial St idy. The Development Review Committee will meet and t Lke action no later than t..n (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard_ nze Con-aui.ttee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environraertal impact and a Negati-re Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Rer)rt will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report siould be supplied by the applicant giving further information cone !rning the pronosed project. PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Enaineerina Division - City• of Rancho Cucamonga NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PER_cON TO 33E CONTACTED CONCEPU12NG THIS PROJECT: A 1; Tx1ihlysq ('ity EnginPpr LOCATION OF 13ROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL FTighland AVennA/HnyPn A -n to to Route i5 " LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, ST-4TE 7 I ANI" FEDEr�AL AGENCIES AND THE AGE`CY ISSUL37G SUCH PERMITS: CalTrans (District-8) San Bernardino I y , , PROJECT P' 3CRT_PTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Amend General Plan Designation of Highland Avenue from ee ion econ Highway to "B" Section Collector Road ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDI:3GS, IF ANY: 1�ot applicable DESCRIBE THE ENVIR01?^P3TAL SETTIE-G OF THE PROJECT SITE INCL,'DZ27G INTOP.iJUA.TIOX 021 TOPOGRAPHY, PLAINTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE*+iC ASPECTS, USE OF SMPUROLi'DING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AiW THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : Open natural setting spot residential development with one coimercial use near Etiwanda. Eucalyptus (Blue Gum are := -thickly planted in a area west ot FtxwancLau - ? pant of East Avenue. The west half of the project site runs eaZt-west over an alluvia far irom Day and Deer Qanyons. y 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 enviro= ntal impact? No. WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO Create a subztantial change in ground �t contours? _Y 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fie, water, sewage, etc.)? X_ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? S 5- Remove any cAisting trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fia=nables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 4. Drolect yuZi2gse is to downgrade designation of Hiablamm Avenue which is thereby the change to the General Plan IMPORTA=1 If the projet.r 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 recuired 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 evauuaticn can be mace the DeveZe. meat m Review Ccmittee_ �. Date February 18, 1982 Signatur * � Title City Engineer _ ,. M 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY r NCIRONN.EN`ZAL CHECKLIST DATE: February 18. 1982 APPLICANT: City E_ iileer DAin: February 18 , 1982 LOG NTrIBER: PROJECT: Amendment to General Plan - Highland Avenue PROJECT LOCATION: Highland Avenue (Route 30) Haver_ Ave. to Route 15 I. ENWIFO%N L^T9TAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets) . YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have ® significant results ia: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground sur£ac= contour intervals? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physi-.al fearurts? X e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? X f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? X S. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X h. An zncrease in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral rasonrce? X = � 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: .f. r. rage Z YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course cr flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? IL e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? £. Atterati,n of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? IL h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X. 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? IL Stationary sources? X b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attaLnment of applicable air quality standards? IL c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? IL 4. Biota i Flora. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? IL b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare � : or endangered species of plants? s YES MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? 2L d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? _ 2L Fauna. Will the proposal Have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ 2L c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into a^. area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ 1L d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ 2L S. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of — the human population of an area? $. b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 2L C. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional Socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? i. Land Use and ?lanning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of aL :ea? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental ® entities? X _ An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? X cage YES MAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X b_ Effects on existing streets, or demand for X new street construction? — c_ Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? -- X X d. Substantial impact upon existing transport-a- X tion systems? — e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or X air traffic? — g, Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X bicyclists or pedestrians? — 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? X 10. Aealth Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? — b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X c. A risk of e3c2losion or release of hazardous substances in -_he event of an accident? X d_ An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or patheaogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such X organisms? — e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially d=gerous X noise levels? — g. The creation of objectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or glare? X "p, ' Page YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? x b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? S 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? % b. Natural o: packaged gas? $ c. Communications systems? % d. Water supply? % e. Wastewater facilities? X ® f. Flood control structures? X g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? X. i. Police protection? % j. Schools? % k. Parks or other recreational facilities? % 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? % M. Other go-.ernmental services? X 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? % b. Substantial increase in demand upon eristing sources of energy? % c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? % d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption _ -'' of nonrenewable forms of energy, when feasible s; renewable sources of energy are available? % j� _ eage b YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs ir, a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . _ X.. c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, bat cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). X d. Does the project have environmental effects vhich will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X II. DISCUSSION OF EN=ONMMr= E4AIAATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 1b. The General Plan designation presently conforms with CalTrans designation. This road being Route 30 0f� California Highway System, the proposed reduced designation will need CalTrans appro.ral prior to implementation. r t .s vs .;j rage 7 III. DETERMINATION on the basis of this initial evaluation_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect g on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that altaough the proposed project could have a significant f I effect on the e%wiroament, there wil1 not be a significant effect LJ in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet brave been added co the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. D1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect ou the es-r==t, and an E`"M RONMENT IMPACT REMIT it; requir Date February 18 , 1982 T�Signature City Engineer Title r Y I RANCHOCrrY OF CUCAMONGA STAFF R • • • Aj .' r . � - To: Cmimissim w .. City a .. - BY- Join mirtin, Assistant Civil Engineer .. EM-IRMOU36L ASSESSM0 -,.tom MP 7170 acres • .0 o •. .• - • land located • thereof Me zubject, parcel map is sx:bmitted tc) the C=u-smm 5cr approval by the cawixinity Services Departmxent. -lie purpose oZ the nap is to arrange the property Luxes cor saDsecr� aramal parkland parchase. The owner, r)=k Scottof Vanguard, has agreed tosigncontract Please nobe that Parcel 2.0 will be retained by Mr. Scott- it wil.1 receive -.• •.1the northviaTract it •'. ld alsobe rioted . tiot t-1,xis site was cnce a portion of Tentative Tract No. 13-933. rECa%Z0MA=CK: it is recamxmder; that the Cawdssicn approve the attached \ I r- � l—utiicn • that aNegative Declarationbe b LBH:7:j)aa' -71 • i ■ �1 J r`til1t� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7370 (TENTATIVE PARCEL N&* NO. 7370), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HERMOSA, AT THE NORTH CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7370, submitted by Community Services Department and consisting of 10 parcels, located on the west side of Hermosa at the north City Limits, hPing a division of Section 23 T. I N. R. 7 W. San Bernardino Meridian; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1982, a formal appl ;cation was submitted requesting review of the above-described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 1982, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following Findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 7. That the imnrnvalmn�• nF �1... J ..L J=..: ^r• w p:vj.v:,cu auuu 1• 1 O 1 VO is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 22, 1982. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7370 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Repert pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA Resolution No. Page 2 Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Manning Commission I, JACK LPaM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of February, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COWISSIONEP.S: :TOES: COMMISSIONERS: I ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: v^ ti�; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: ggpMM-�it9 Services Department TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7370 LOCATION: west side of Hermosa at North Cipr Limits DATE FILED: Fe-'=nary 2, 1982 14UMBER OF LOTS: 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion o�f Section 2. T.1 %1. RECEIPT NUMBER: — $,7.w. sar. Be--mardino Base and Meridian FEE: ZONE: TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Associated Engineers GROSS ACREAGE: ADDRESS: 316 Fast "E" Street MINIMUM LOT AREA: Ontario, CA 91764 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE n;.v c�tt (ccntact Bill Holley, Director c rammity Services REPORT OF FHE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street -ation required for: S. Master Tian of Streets revision required or: o. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 .4t TENTATIVE MAP N0. Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for j E3 Building permit for ) _ 7. Construct full street improvements (including cdrb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets- 8- Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *including landscaping and irrigation on meter CURB & A.C. SIDE DRIVE DRIVE STREETSTREET MEDIAN STREET NAME GJTTER PVMT. WALK APPR. TREES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHER i - I � 1 1 i 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. 11 . ;Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poses or other existing public utilities as necessary. 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. _ 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. _ 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Scuthern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underground service. 16. - The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: _ 17. The following specific dimensions, i.e. , cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The following existing streets are substanda They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. ° ' RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. __ Page 3 21 . Permits from other agencies will be r_ g squired as follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: _ B. City: _ C. County Oust Abatement District: _ O. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any tr>nches are over, 5 deep: E. Cucamonga County Water District:_ F. Other: Map Control 22. If only a portion of this Map is recordec , adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two-way traffic and parking on ell affected streets. _ 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map _ 24. Ali corner lots shall have a corner radi�!s at the right-of-way line in accord • ante with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to ;he first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel l )cated 26. The boundary of the TFRYEive Map needs arification as o ows: _ 27. The border shallbe shown to centerline �f existing perimeter streets, or title explanation recraired. Parcel Map Waiver 28. Information submitted at the time of app3ication is / is not sufficient ' to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certifi ate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to 13 Recording for ) E3 Building permit 29. - Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Prcgram. This subdivision will be subject tc the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. 30. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall along the entire north pro- perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. ; uch flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. _ 31. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curl. returns. _ 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:_ _ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will be required to assess impact ot increasedj runoff. S RCE 20 f;>. � TENTATIVE MAP NO. Page 4 Miscellaneous 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project_ 36. noise impact on this project will bZ mitigated in accordance with the Plann'ng Division report on subject property. _ 37 . T::s property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: 39. Proper grading and erosion control, including the preventati;,n of sedimenta- tion or darrzge to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will to furnished to the Ennineering Division_ _ 41 . The fiiing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will to available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked tc certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 42. f4e r° =v Engineer shall m-ike the determination, in accordance with Section 664%C;C;' 'i ) pf the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will nct unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right-of-way or easement and the sign ture of any such public entity or public ut'.Iity may be omitted from the fina % map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Se.:tion. _ 43. At the time of Final flap submittal , the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets) , copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. ' _ 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. ?Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. CITY OF WiCHO CUCAf40,11GA LLOYD B_ HUBBS ;. CITY ENGINEER ;;. By: '. 1. SHEET r OF r SMEE •j"'--' PARI(EL MAP NO. 7370 IN THE CRY OF RANCHOCOC4YONCP WEST P ONISION QI . mO1SECO M THE NCNTw �rrri ��_��L� 1• �i. H.--W CH!- .COUNT SCCT'NN O T 1 N.• N.:Mt; :D.Y,COYOf CALJP CNNPROIMO.STATE Fw+' .� .N \ ��r��e w• fora wuce t. ^4i4 F: NOrz-5 r L ALL K///NO9 /NO ONTiIw�[7 !M'/N 1 z4l �I 1 KC AM" PV RrGGI/O O✓mNR✓C✓ 1 71 /). [w JecGtIOJ G✓7RL c 40- d 4jli Ci MN eGA'V.rRO/KO. 9TA7L O/ E(y f UUMRNGl. 4 .Inrica �l/M M.�H•:l/ ceie-csrnvr)su*veoRr deco w R/KG[ 7 L' J�ti l.Ot" KLCB w Ip.rLS3 •w0'•..we.•ai.+.rJ�'^:.w:'.f.' .. ... .. r. r:�... . � -..M.'n: .r«-' .. ... .L.�L,p,,. �Z� Zry Oi/C C G ACrG'J ' 4�~ 4 r i = � 6 /vwCct Jr. r roz/scr_e X"14com :\ i a, _-- o ae NKr[ r • JYo, .,i►u.,..^ rrr/.crew •'T� >� •r /�� `r/ Ali V, Nw.w ♦ .- .. 1. � ' CITY OF P.ANCAO CUM14ONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT MNKEDRMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 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 Envircnmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Co:rmittee 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 significant environme=tal impact and a' •:egative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project wall have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impart Pi!port will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information conct:rning the pronosed project. PROJECT TITLE: Parcel Map No. 7370 APPLICAI'T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Services Department NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CGiTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Mr. Bill HolieX LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR. sr=CEL NO. ) North end of Hermosa on the west side thereof LIST OTHER VER.MITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUI_vG SUCH PERMITS: None P PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Subdivision of 32+ acres into 10 parcels for park land purchase ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EY.ISTIPIG P.NZ PROPOSED BUILD?'NGS, IF ANY: Project area is 32+ acres. No existing or propose ui zrgs DESCRIBE TEE ENVIRON_%QTiAL SETTI`7G OF THE pROT CT ST?T INCLUDING INFOPUTATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLAINTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTCRICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF A17Z EXISTLIG STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : Tha eite ic" incated at the mouth of a anyon and is it m+scribed by a natural drama a ditch which drains the can on. The entire site is densely planted by overspreading eucalyptus cams du ens:s or red um eucaly tus. The plantingis 50 thick that the gees have been unable to mature, although in good con ition. 1he site is of uniguP_ccenic otali v in the city and is inhabited 4 by various birds and mammals as noted_ in the City's General Plan. f. . G M: k Y. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cvmulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Thie nrniert'e nur4oce is t4 Subdivide t►,e site into reasonably sized parcels for park land purchase. ` WT. L THIS PMJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? V 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 i_-a 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, £lamnables or explosives? Explanation of any �S answe_s above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, o=lete 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. Date February 8, 1982 Signatur Title Director of Com v s ,; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG-A COCAMO STAFF REPORT 4I � Q U > L47� DATE: February 22, 1982 i TO: Members of the Planning Commission L r E FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development r BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND: Progress on the preparation of the Specific Plan for the Etiwanda area is proceeding well . The Etiwanda Committee has been meeting on an average of two tides a month since the process was started in August. The Committee meetings have been structured to provide an opportunity to review a selected topic area and to receive public input. In addition, the Committee has held two "Town Hall" meetings in order to encourage Vie broadest possible input. The Committee's effort to prepare a Specific Plan involves two areas: (1) to educate itself and the public as to the issues and solutions which are possible in Etiwanda; and, (2) to determine the appropriate policy recommendations which can be used to develop the details of the Specific Plan. It is these two aspects that most characterize the process which the Committee has undergone during the mretings. Attached to this report is the overall work schedule fcr the Specific Plan. The schedule ctlls for the Committee to continue work on the preliminary Plan including land use. The preliminary Plan includes policies in the selected topic areas. To refresh your memory, the Committee set out topic areas which they wish to review at selected meetings. These include: 0 Community Character o Circulation o Commercial Centers o Parks o Equestrian Areas o Community Trai Is s, i+ Land Use Adjustments o Architecture o Public Services `` ' ITEM F Status Report on Etiwanda Specific Plan Planning Commission Agenda February 22, 1982 Page 2 Attached to this report you will also find a summary of Committee considerations and a composite map with major concepts. The Committee is currently reviewing land use considerations and have selected four subareas within Etiwanda in order to further refine their approach towards land use (see attached map). Staff presented the Committee with four land use alternative maps from which the Committee chose a land use base in order to begin their review. The Committee has made no particular land usa designations other than to start with a land use base which will help focus their conceptS. It is this process which the Committee is currently involved and it is antici- pated that several more meetings will be necessary in order to complete the review of the land use. Throughout this process public input has been encouraged and, indeed, has been quite extensive at times. Members of the Committee have met with property owners on an individual basis and in small groups to discuss their concerns. In addition, staff has provided the Committee a review of- the input received from property owners. As described earlier, once the Committee has completed the review of policies within the selected topic areas, staff will be preparing a detailed Specific Plan which includes all the development standards and guidelines necessary for Etiwanda. The Committee has been proceeding well through the topics as outlined previously; however, because land use is such a major consideration to the Com- mittee, more time will be necessary in that area before staff can begin work on the detailed Specific Plan. It is anticipated that this will add some additional time in the preparation of the draft Specific Plan. However, it is still antici- pated that the draft Plan, should be complete for public distribution during the summer months. Respectfully Fubm/fitted, JACK LAM, AICP Director of Community Development JL:TJB:jr Attachments: Time Schedule Summary of Committee Considerations Summary Map Subarea Map Land Use Map ATTACHMM 2 ETI`d1lANDA SPECIFIC PLAN COMMI I II'E1= ® UPCOMING AGENDAS � 1981 OCTOBER o Conceptual Circulation o Commercial Centers e Windbreaks NOVEMBER a Residential Concepts/Standards o Parks and Open Space e Trails and Equestrian Areas DECEMBER o Preliminary Land Use Plan o Streets and Circulation o Architectural Design o Public Services and Safety h , Z U 3 O "' f- G d � V W Q � LLI J ._ • . e pf � � d LLJ � Q m Z a c .J cc O. a < Q C U LS: rLULL ¢ a UJ ¢ �,� to Uuj 0 ca W Z 0 zP a rV so 1— O to LSJ = C. G7 CL . W ao s Cl) F- m o. � W � Q Q J w,r ; yx fi, f� SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE CONSIDERATIONS TO DATE Character o Preservation of the Etiwanda windrow system. o Replacement of the Slue Gum species of Eucalyptus with a more appropriate variety of tree. o Preservation of the "rural" character associated with Etiwanda. Circulation o Establishment of an "East Avenue Bypass" designed to divert traffic away from the Etiwanda cove. o Establishment of an "umbrella loop" designed to proze-t Etiwanda from traffic generated in the sphere of influence, north of 24th Street. o Limit Foothill Freeway (Route 30) access to Day Creek and Cherry Avenues only. No freeway access to be provided at East and Etiwanda Avenues. o Depress the Foothill Freeway (Route 30) facility whenever possible. o Establishment of similar access and grade separation restric- tions on ary future major regional traffic artery, in the event the Foothill Freeway is not constructed_ o Provide alternative vehicular access to the proposed High School to reduce traffic impacts upon East, Etiwanda, and Victoria Avenues. Commercial o Establish one neighborhood commercial center (5-10 acres) , located in the general vicinity of Highland and the East Avenue 5ypass Road. o Establish a convenience commercial center (1-3 acres), located at Foothill and Etiwanda. c Provide a freeway-related commercial facility located on the 1.8 acre site at the northwest corner of East and Base Line. o Provide a freeway-related commercial facility (1-3 acres), located at Cherry Avenue and the Devore Freeway. o To establish a convenience commercial center in the northwest quadrant of Etiwanda, provided the viability of such a center can be demonstrated. t wt.. Parks o Establishment of three "medium sized" neighborhood parks, located in the general vicinity of: I. Summit and Zast Avenue (Summit Park). 2. The Etiwanda "core" (Etiwanda Park, East, Etiwanda, Highland, Victoria). (Floating location) 3. Miller Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue. East Avenue, Foothill Boulevard (Miller Park). (Floating location) o Establishment of a "small sizes" neighborhood park to be located south of Foothill Boulevard, within the project area. o Size of these parks is to be determined based or. land use densities in their relative service areas. Equestrian Areas o Future equestrian residential uses should be established in a designated equestrian-oriented area. o The Specific Plan should achieve a balance between the cost of and the need for trails and other equestrian facilities. o Future equestrian uses should be discouraged outside the equestrian area unless the lots are a minimum of 23S acres or the property has airect access to a equestrian trail . Standards should be employed to guarantee separation and buffering from adjacent uses. o The use of common equestrian facilities (stables, rinks, access trails) , should be encouraged. o That the areas north of Summit Avenue, west of East Etiwanda Creek be designated as an equestrian residential area. o Establish a "residential equestrian area" with common equestrian facilities to be located in the area north of Highland, east of East Etiwanda Creek and west of Cherry Avenue. Equestrian uses are to be considered optional and if elected to be used, will be located within common equestrian facilities. Community Trails o Establishment of the most "extensive and intensive" community trail system the Community can be expected to afford. o The trail system is to include multi-uses (horse, bicycle, pedestrian) whenever feasible. o If the proposed trail system is not "affordable" various alternative solutions are to be considered in the following order: I. Increase the assessment area. 2. Increase the equestrian area. 3. Decrease trail system development. 4. Decrease "scope" of trail system. o Establishment of a "passeos" system, designed to link residential areas to activity centers. .......-. . ......--•••--••-•-••.... ..................... _ ---------- -- ................... t ....... . ...................... _. d...... - - . ===_ .............. ........................:.............-..................... ...... ...............................................................:...... .............. ............:......:........................................... -. ............ . ...._..: • ..._+��-, ::::::::::iiiiE Ei2:FEi2EEiF.E22iidc�E'ri=(_iiiiiriii:iiiiiiilE°�::ii.`iiSiii -• _.......... .. . .. ....... ..... ' �- : .. r- ;✓'SiE .................d:::::::n::::::::asS::i 7-9 i z_ :°sir.^ iiii .•%S_'1 , ,ysSsiiFiiii_' iiiiiii3ii {N L�R s 411, SI'1CCI1'3C Yi..1x _ �'` � • RESIOEIMAi_ OPEN SPACE ..:� wp Lo.+ �;.::.{�;.•�;.;�•'''$:r�1t�Glum-1NQp �.�.•..�0117CR i-�-Ni11dCP INDUSTRIAL N79N - PArk G{ol OPPn NM�g�fBj i" LOM-Y�aauR �Mql �. INR1AtMMReoA �%/� �Flood /tRu tr CpmmarGsl t!CL �!LLCIl-nOu�trwt COnerol/Cp��GOr r , R tonal �, .Yy...-_ 7Cer WCbl 0/��/5.13 141 . �'1 I I p z _ `h` LM 1 C� I 1 I I t 1 i Jc I P.=$iDciY T 7A1. ca�=c-c;aES �- M1 esswt ncmocrm•_ R 11 1. th o/awulXaJ.e.. LJti I Va"cover LOW DENSMY LOW mmmu i MlDR!d ucowa wcm LM ;��/J � � 1Mj[OwoXNMI./ifl� i I H mw.Dcn. lllj [/ • LM \ !/ / j I ��24 OwXMgsJxn E AN ^1'F.CIFIC PLA.v al o I Com�nt�i Cs CogmweeW r. I� I w• I I 1 L. FnewsY C[mmareW eA t �I •: t w.1.�... I , N04 Coetwood COemgedpl = t I I S• 1 : ,.o ity`-1 I : •a� I i t •: I ' II Ez I\VAND'1 SIIEL111C PLAN ===VX== Egaaapim Trivia M••••••••�•• ovw Team kt CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RIPAPORT ' c � IT DATE: February 22, 1982 F _z J > TO: members of the Planning Commission 15177 FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Commun- ty Development BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner ! SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR SATE APPROVAL NO. 79-07 - I BRETHREN IN CHRIST ACHURCH - A request for an extension of time to redesign or ramove an existing structure located at 9974 19th Street SUKIARY: The original Site Approval for the B,,eth^en in Christ Church included conditions for the substantial redesign or removal of an existing structure. The Church's master development plan includes -emoval of this structure. The. church is requesting a time extension for the -emovai of this building during Ji which time the church proposes to further upgr.Ae the exterior of the building to match tho present church facility. Staff h< s outlined several options available to the Commission regarding this regtest. BACKGROUND: The attached letter from Charles i . Engle, Chairman of the Board of rustees of the Brethren in Christ Church, req:ests a two year time extension in which to comply with Cinditions of Approval relative to the existing structure (referred to as the "annex"). The church was approved on March 28, 1979 with the adoption of the attached P.esoluti m of Approval 79-31. The three conditions in question are underlined and basically require_ (1) removal within two years from the building permit issuance; (2'o substantial redesign if the building is to remain as permanent; and (3) dense landscaping along the east face of the building, see Exhibit "A". Building permits were issued on June 20, 1979 wiich would require removal or redesign of the building by June 20, 1981. However, in an agreement with the City regarding completion of conditions of appm vil . the church agreed to remodel the annex puilding by March 9, 1981. Remodeling was to include an architectural wood screen, Exhibit "B", that was included in the development plans approved by the Planning Commission. A tine extension was granted by the Plarnir.; Commission to "larch 9, 1982. The church recently repainted the annex building . My. Engle states that the church proposes to add fascia boards and additioial trim to the front of the j building. Additionally the church plans to recover the annex roof with a new roof material matching the color of the existing church facility roof. . f ITEM G STAFF REPORT February 22, 1982 1. Page 2 OPTIONS: The following options are available to the Commission with regard to this request. 1. Approve a time extensior for a period of time the Commission deems appropriate. 2. Approve a time extension for a period of time the Commission deems appropriate and require exterior upgrading of the existing building. 3. Deny the request for a time extension, which would require removal of the existing annex building. ' RECOr-VENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission r--view all material and Input regarding this request. If the Commission desires options 3. or 2, it is recommended that a statement br to the applicant regarding Planning Commission's intent concerning the redesign c- eventual removal of the annex building, and set a time limit for the completion of landscaping in accordance with conditions of approval . Respectfully submitted, r JACK Lkll, AICP, Direc r of Community Development c . JL:DC: keo Attachments: Letter from Charles E. Engle March 11th Staff Report Resolution of Approval No. 79-31 r, Exhibit "A" - Approsed Landscape Plan Exhibit "3" - Approved Elevation S yt i .o:^...._...._oa, City of iAncno ,7accn? J _ ` Cr'1.�t 17c, i�ltfl Loma Bret^rer: Ohrist v111rcu. :iec+r sir, Co::...ittae avcio ^cnt .:ernrtaert L'laoning Coa.. is�:ion Siver. U3 3.=1 @Ct 2^.Si.(i+l iri r -ward to 4_-mrrovnent e Sf .i nex of our C:,urch 'o^ated a ;;75 =t' street, iilta soma. er •'i.:. _ .'. ��. .. _� - '.7?li t.:"zi re:rov'•.i. - �•f ,_ hri .�,i'i.:ice _ _ quert 7.OII r,Q. t^2 f'. n or cont.: '@7t �.. t�Ie "ltt: inC.:?^tiOn. ::0:�?V'_'r, .. .,_..'_n n `o . :r_o -:n;: :ovo _n t5:�t �_.. _ .-: cr. or V. ...__ aT •'rC , "e r:]`• C'SL ti:: i0^ni:-i n.t :1�.1 -_ ..S:t 1S c.:. .:'CtC n;:1:._. c o. . :e r.c f S ,; J. 'o7_rd3 to 'L': _font J: - G rrisent .,^-.G:ioC :'i1_11'1.C. .e _moo _..% to rur ..i�er tri or. ;!'. :•rir. :,,t.; :1nd •io". ';? al o n e; -natc- the a ec of c:la or !0.%tr to tr.,t ..-t•xC.' ^r;' _ "f t^.. ...�i71:1_ .'.L .R� �.. It .:oY i::. •.:e _ 9;j exte .-ton for t!e aer.t •C Sinccr_ly 3oar� of ^r.. -tcu v. lC Wei• CI ice' OF RANG -10 CLCG.. 3,NG,kGoo STAFF REPORT _< : , � r calms O - F DATE: March 11 , 1981 TO: Planning Commission Barry r.. Hogan, City Planner BY: Roger L. Lasby, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. 19-0 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST C'iURCH - A request for an extension of time to complete the redesign and alteration of an existing structure located at 9974 19th Street. BACKGROUND: The attached letter from Charles E. Engle, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church, requests a ore-year to 18-month time extension in which to comply with a condition of approval of the above-described project- Site Approval No_ 79-07 was approved on March 28, 1979 with a condition requiring substantial re- design of the existing residential structure if it is to be retained permanently as a church facility. Plans for this redesign are to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. On March 9, 1980 an Occupancy Permit was granted and the church was given one year, to March 9, 1981 , to complete the remodeling of this structure. Mr. Engle states that additional time is necessary to revise the ;Master Plan `or the future expanzion of the church facilities and to integrate the structure and complete the required physical alterations , 'I the church decides to retain the structure. With the exception of the re- design and remodeling of this structure, all conditions of approval have been met. RECOMrENDATION: It is recommended that a time extension be granted to March 9, T982, Respectfully submitted, AR?Y 'Ki HOGAN fit ?Tanner,! 1 �SKH:PLL:cd 1TEM 8 . ( r , RESOLUTION NO. 79-31 A RESOLUTION OF TEE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CO%24ISSIOS APPROVING SITE APPROVAL NO. 79-07 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH AND DAY CARE FACILITIES LOCATED AT 9974 19TH STREET IN THE R-1-R Sf1A �nvc WHEREAS, on February 13, 1979, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on March 2E, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COi94ISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: I. That the site is adequate in size and shape. 2. That the site has adequate access. 3. That the proposed use will have nc adverse effect on abutting property. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the pro- posed General Plan. 5_ That the conditions listed in =L-'.s report are necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 2E, 19i9_ SECTION 3. That Site Approval No. 79-07 is approved subject to the following conditions: Applicant shell contact the Planning Division for com- pliance with the following conditions: 1. Site Approval No. 79-07 is approved for the construc- tion of Phase 1, multi-purpose building in accordance with the plan on file in the Planning Division as may be amended by conditions herein. 62- The existing butidinz reyuested for temporary church operation is approved for two vears from the date of building perait issuance for the Phase I multi-purpose building. A C 3. The west driveway shall be posted for :exit only until total improvements are completed. G. The applicant shall submit orior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I, a precise landscape plan to the Planning Division for approval. it shall indicate the type, size, quantity and location of trees, Iu=' > -A ground cover in addition to all walls and fences. Plans for automatic irrigation systems shall also be submitted concurrently. 5. Parking lot lighting shall be a maximum of 12 feet from the finished grade of the parking lot. 6. All landscaped areas shall be separated from any parking area by a six inch high Portland concrete cement curb. C.! Dense landscaping shall be pro-Tided alonK the east elevation of the existing building. 8. This project shall become null and void if building permits are not issued within one year from the date of this approval. 9. All eucalyptus trees shall be topped at 30' and trimmed 15' from ground level. 10. All state requirements and licenses shall be obtained for the operation of the day care facility. The opera- tion shall be limited to a maximum of 96 children. 11. 1 If the existing structure is to be retained as a per- manent structure. then substantial redesign of the building is required and shall be reviewed and approved by the P:annir_2 Commission. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for com- pliance with the following conditions: 32. Dedication consisting of 11 feet along 19th Street is required. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following are required: a. Grading, drainage and street plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer, Sewer and water plans coordinated with the Cucamonga County Water District, r. ,: -��.��— 1�� ``` I' \� ,.�• �` • cam; [• J -may_ LAWDS;APik44 NORTH CITY Or rrE.M_ SA -fit -07 RANCHO CUCATMONGA •rrrL.E: LoAWp5c�Pt�tGt PLANNNI M DIVISION EXHiBCT= scALE- �•� CITY OF RANCHO CUC_4MONCA cam' �- STAFTF REPORT DATE: February 22, 1982 I TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: lack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Michael tiairin, Senior Planner I SUBJECT: TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY PUBLIC HEARING BACKGROUND: The Manning Commission continued the public hearing and discussion on the residential portion of the Terra Vista Planned Com- munity from the February 1, 1982 meeting to tonight's meeting. The intent of this continuar-ce was to allow the Applicant and their plan- n'ng consultant to prepare+ a detailed presentation on the issues which were raised at the February 1, 1982 meeting. Attached Is a packet from the Applicant which is meant to address these issues. The Applicant will be making a detdiied presentation at the meeting following the regular agenda items with the intent of resolving many of, the residential issues. On March 1, 1982, we will be holding the second regular monthly public hearing en Terra Vista and will be planning to finalize the residential issues, if needed, and begin the discussion on the community,facilities and ccamercial areas of the Planned Community. The agenda packets for the March 1 meeting will be completed by Tuesday, February 23, 1982. Res ctfuIl su itted, JACK AICP Director of Community Development JL:MV:j r Attachments :i ITEM H -7ex:ared stucco wood siding file root bermed amphitheater planters wood screen(existing stn—re) j .—e. �.. mow. \, •a %Zt I j f I PV ,9/14r V V CITY OF PLkLNt L\G DIVERO\ LXHIMT=, _SCAU: 0 ffi O « m O . pox « 1 0 0 Y L u "' 9 0.0 " m0 `tis � '�O� C 1t0. W miF vaQ3. a' am m "w O� � r.+ O, o > m — too oz Cw ..0 « � 0 ° « >.� 5 3r 0 to 0i+ '� m t 3 1w .'ti.lTi Gi Y L-'a DD r-f+ wi ul cis p O m i C p, 4,al mCmypc0 om 'c � 6 � o mm71W3. � u m « m y saatmuv :. Yo s. wmm zit >O . O t t ab t � OR y-Yy � ca " -Q. F " .a� a: u }. m . .0 "3 U ° s >,u go > M. a � - .a +m . y vm m w a1 O M V r.. E w m lr .'^., m `-7f C V .•L' t0.to 0. O « .Q R ti [st cola, m,r = 3 - ea'0 3°. }' m ¢ C d �. ZI m W m m m sm. w O ^`- .' m'E C " 43' U 5 C s°. C .TO. A ;r 0 -- 0 0t t Q a m £ A' o a o « o C �m^. �o m a. ..7 ° A v o E ti to to m m Z >� 0 0 Ia « tcc 04 0 _ .� ° ca it uw p n b 0w^ �.Y^ ,OC, m.0 •�•, p4 m -- m 'O m m 0 X '� ` Sa E'' Ssm. � m > m = may Aim ° < �as �°r.o '° `a Y Hea = uw 7= O.rOysm. o mXmo C4 ~ a � sr a � ivami W�m m C dam « m 0 � o b ° .�`ay 3 d m ° m A 3 s u t .- 0 t^n- « QH c e °. E ° F" ;° ao e m s R'm w0 W .0 .0 3 yYY'dH� rXo s >.w. o' m Y E+ 03 MIX m b aj t v e u y°�, Ia o c+. >. m m > C. � o m F t+. o � =' 0 m uH = —ciqu F r^' o m 0 tu m .= H O G 0 � C � m 0 m ~ .c Q t " pb m 3+ L a y F 01 0 0 3" Y ; (� a7 m O U m 'm Y N m C It w t �. 0 ,,, ca .. t m 3=. ' � 3°. ao : ^ mom 7Oc 1."j Yu to m s ma+ a� � Yu > �e •tas$. rot n E .0tm 3t' w « 7 soa « Emd o � r°..0 � Umsiia U 1 v ff� CL cmrlu \r fr�9 w 1 a a J / CL I r= a C4 c _ ! I 11 , - ^ r 94 g H � - S O� ad N J m A j a to rr — ! !� a 0 TAW Kr TM _ CL I: `a M t, 1L Js a � J c O p � i. E4 t0. C ami mom .- s. mm — 7 C _ ed m O r_ Z C m a map ?.� m 7tw o '' m O m w te a17 fl O '0 m to � mv W m $ 94 C13c c. . r ;c m mO 0. G = v � ., .. c d a o 3 35 � m.� . m .ram V O .Y M �. E .� O « ... L O „mom o . V OC .�`+ O m ` C 7O :E>tic U to d0 pp C p ~ O ti C m L CDN w�+ ~ .0 m cc � Y �a pit .��. C"OJ ".. m A � y � � A*_ cis S. aE .0 d 0S "a .fl C �O m « d C m m om„ O m m y ...0 .. p to /° 'CS E p m m to 7� D C 3 m m " ry 3 o C to � C to . N H ,. a C. C o � ~O m 6 � L m C M tp 7+ CdC 'T 9d dtO s�m � C 'C m �m T 'rG m dR bmn m Sy'i pm �^. d cl u r « a cm in � mU3C ai a �.; N e•f d' � r0 t0 �C A m m v v a ¢ a a a o v a m m m m Y u O U O U U m t. ' r-' i J k aCc s d'� 6 m 00 o � OCC � E 3 . cam^ u d v o to m s_ m 4)> E 4 c'fa d ^ W'"" y " 3c ,� ym o3Q V d _ m d v d 3 m w O Ry.W 3 p T.. " sd•. S. m X U W R e W m w C7 « � Ts. O >. E ^^ C W A W w m d d m d Y. OG C aL O 10 a.s V= tvd to o m m A = m c « " 3 0 g m c c Oc °O-' 'bs°. v =� cdi svm sX, w o �=o R m is °a`o 0o V-% ac. a W-j O °s,,a > d� e • • • ci ^ U 3 d O M ZI woa m _ attri OM VA a a cn tz d flC Z CO ..,e �c) m cc Z .0 A ?. �� OI Z. o a G o ^ y E+ 'any UOAeH V G YI xr� cd m m C Q m 0 m¢ C o gym. �m m E 3 -0 > o c u@ cc in o e w a� °.a > �' >•� Q1 � A 3 io 3 -+ ram, so. at Y 1. C;ca aEi m to c m m F oa P ram.. " 00 • 00 i v r7 w ►7 m 1 a0. to R 3 .4C cc • • • m .Ti ; d O - • L Q m m cc Z 0 V Da 0 Tr U 'a m ^ to [[5 F O .�•. �'w N u w m C) O t0 m C 3. O E .�+ cc 0 3 0 C O tC w � � y N m w cEI Ay a t03> 0 d m II oUaG �. _ 7 s. 1, 0 t° J -�.- g m a'd A. o -O •— o Q MlaAV CL 04 2 Ply o > = 3Y ° m cc N .0 C u. w N '8Ab iJ2A2 F Y to C w % Y �Y V �. O t0 C C E m C7 N r N M Y m E m m V 'r 1; fj 1' m I m mm� o « n d minas. c m^ msB' w 'L' > � O -yin• (D 01 OO .00 m EW m:.7=�, I ti Y. ja. = O LOmrQ m„•� 14 m r.� 7r CL H^ m V .t. m 07 m OD ra �. +�' A E fu 4S to 10 s0. 7 = O -O > m = C Otin w cc as f1L ^ p t: y ec to V d « L C a5 � m � Q m «s > oL m � _ � ... o E E ccd m' a c.m m a � Ca m 0 y 'u E E O m E o m o 'm' o m W U 'C3vv V > 71 'O AL. c 0 L -Z 9L.—O. mri -+ c E a BE o Eoo i aRy i�sey�o m aL VY O �'' •• d awjy u�neH I I i i, i I. i l p � Jill � = u> > ' , 11111 CHO! 1 41jl� MBE, �? a .� b 0 il_ ji _ lit e � y� f • , cg [O a VE } V !0 ". 1 �" m 1 O Cwt m E a m ca .. A m cQi m tcc o ^' 3 .'d. r .�.^ '414t7: .ru.m V ID c m e �: 03 0 3 cc R ` d C m� coso. 'p C:t 3 ; a mC C = O � rz p « C vme ly c m «m o ? " COpo � `°„ ..aiomu � pom aooy � � m '•aflm . O r s. m -%4 1 .0 4.w i0 C .0 1 .J � y 04 � 1 C; .O. to O N�V +' C. m a m m O O 1 J•^^ m .� O « Xai �' %+ m p m v m y ;. m y o o ° 0. m f° m o OD m 2� m Ca « = c o m >, ly m y mm c Or am a = y '� O�O w A r sO. p „m„ mom ,$ •� L � v « C ..J. �O/ — J « F! .0 K M «'� « tD t4 w t4 m m V .�i .D « ¢ a H z c s=: cc , c ca U Z Y ¢ c U m O z .4 05 o :• v p wzo a� w 1 0 m V� 00 zl �_ ala n, e 9 o c 00 9 l�g,� = UVOUa Ozmomim2uf ��a • o'e3 m a buts a t o c O. �•o V' ioa c J i us _ a =c CO a Ira 1 �� = � ' 1L r�. .� 1 n a ]fsEd�a�1 s�np� c....... �.a.w• m a _ .. p, m m m v d O C m m yam, ml � o ,m, m m W e` m aoC�+ • s. 3 m 7 �e o v E —= ly � Lm C tic m> uy CL.R = 12 MAo m� O ' X 'X L. m ..di M r 1. L t7 1 O O > O w .� R'..0.. O O ... Y ; U 3. jE U ^I O O •E laY�j)jI Ys. c,ei Ca I 0 IV m I N° iCtto ^ k E3° ° Cm + Vm C v m cc o �0 C to ,°a « o � f0 to a ^ � O ,c c +N �'aetJ SalLatt�O .xC . m Q H � i f0 m a l , M d Q an I Uaney Nr, y 4 Y IDmOo�S1 a btu r� m � �� x cVaVzc{Oa�� li�'tupyll �i= ;Q � I =1_ 1 S{! a�r�atzaMxr fl I L • . • . .�� I J � a i j I I tluJi � 7 o { :s: " y I1 JS • J � p Ir yyp�- L m a7 so mY t=0 0 II. 0 u = y, � v u n O C .+ .O.. < m CL fa C,_. a 0 y0, OD u ° m m m o m c A M O S m o m m d o ° u 3 m _ m ia� m m a'« n .. x L sm. aZ.4 = to MCA rs -- um 6 n � a�{Y. °i - Eco E � on c� n � � cEtc � 00 O m 2mm «... Y « Caw °� « mm GMm V� ° a O.m a� ° O Qv.. a n3 ° m ° v ., to p t4z '_ « w n m x .. o o « rs a 3 m O i ppm w i oS a o 0 o ma a 3 « 3L e « No e�f :.m:. .. :; � C �nm s. C ° vm La oa ' 1^ = m@m 4) T� ^� n O A,O "Zv cc ' n C O G n � OiO m9 G :Q a) pp ODD C-1 mY Firm ... � 3 « rF.' tom en�q" rss. n 'eo �e �nu n e m7+ ems. m E ems. 7+ � ^ m w O G ' t m 0�m r+1 .:. m rs �O O V to ax E :. > c m u rs o� m Iol' ml�l^Iml > 7 3 >ICL > i7< C > m w 3 M Y C m V m r� « M C m Z _m Z M e � �4 - 6j� ca uj 9cn + C7 ii o o PaG —1 ,L Ip 7.vuatsfl7orJ1_J�L iii os UA CL LU aa•Kax+w Q � 1 I. _ - :., f - - =' Qjs I dc CL c a c + � a mi IraC cc C sY � � Eo �L on° Xno _ � � ` am C vv °i C) : 7 O s ba _ v i0i O « y m a '3 .mom C W v.• �' C 'O m �33� 67 to `� m-oEr >, ° , osa. � _ � cmi �' ^ oj > m �° C Ems > m, � W m m 's C 'O p pp A = > v w 1 1 .�'i CO S. o m W O A co o W m ,� 0 u e� � o� C f° 3 T �'I% > a m o0L O C o R W ' ° .° ,,,a ... O m o ° mW N r t]. m m W V= « .43 dJ E mO =° CD °rR Nm -0 k s, ; lmRd>E� Ei° `I� cc > ° '�� m 3 > 3 « °m m C C >fto �> o R. °1 R:iR RS> cif« ev�.:i t � .— F yty C m Oco •�•• C O O GOl S•. « V R 67 IV % a m T � tl 2 M _ C Amcf°im0 CD E � M w tQ tz Oq d W 0� 30 W ° �n " 'O W'L7ws m m m t0e m to 7 > m = r- ,c •' ... .0 r+ IV O W totic 0 R O o E a o = % R c6 C� `a w Ob lob < J 6 l :Do 45 t�iv1z¢o�� m�uspo • �X Oc i :- - :- CL o0 u' bE. us ® � . . - ,a . r•:::t :•�:-:'; 4 :fie_ I .� : . U3. C. CL Jr' .� • a } i p CL �:- - C. O CL - * ::. . . •. . _ CL ,ii m 'O m , v O � m � M 1. C7 f SIC W ti -D O O zcc 0 - m I O a H ao r .. k.l E .a t°i MIV %+ - rl C Y r] z U `" Co ' C O t6 m O x N O m ro w z ;1° � r: o e� a > z w a a � - _ Y� 1N' t o � 2x cvivzavco �a-is "'��xc- . m i i x iI C i I I W W UA g JS TJ x a {{ �Ti•� a � IL CL 1 • L o�omo�j,e. ) .o EL nonnm li ZG m Z C w C Y N M n M Y • E r � iom - o.onoon s E Y�� PNO.OIm F O ya O/F =Q.:J NNNpp 0 7 y C m� Y Q <�<< 0000? ap ! W •a u w c ^� O�••�FOa��11FF ^OONOn'+? OONN nT��O �+ `� ./ O WV �NVIa mH Y'�.r.OF ? OWN I =OPPna'N� a' ^ c V U< N N E ^ p a • Z � uNo ^s � me • q U a d d G v .0 ; :`V i w a c • Cf O r Y mTs mm0 c CC = �� 7 r u u u— • � a me.c�9 ari E E� �._ E < w • cue : w u . �Q�p v Y • � U I 1 I � � w L L q... p 2 O < .T. EC�� .<. V �Y w� • m Y f•' e�CS C� V �i°wA oao a'a y ^ 'T'�C� Cis � �Y�tr3 w u oEEa•$ c .u.�a �»>° S • c wY^L�g tz '� E oc 9 1] p`s »L? Ec ma+Yi iu+d u7 < cLoE a,�y9= F �ca...:i c y 3 39'O �y E �+ X X x I2 iA t r Y 863 < O • W Q p Y Y- O a G� d.�-+ O Y o.to• ¢ 1� F =vrUV /r I r m m C « U 1.. O > `° y V 9. m >. m 7 ... «y R - m = m s m m L. s4 croi m •C « _ m is co= E m .0 7 " O '� O - tl �+a vp s. a E � tm OD t3n to cc to m V « a m " dV mw O b O O CD Y j O L• ! « O « in 0 N„ C m m U « CO v0 ^ 46 to 7 m O V] o .:r tl •�- m ..tl. O L' 7) e+f A~ C a) 'o go 1. m ,;.: m 2' m ..e°. „—to : O m.. p' s. d °0 .tl. m cc m }. .�. d In =� m m tl m w m Y tl ?. � tl O. tl ... X � .0 C k � s. ma m ,� a a) s. Q d . Y « E H ? cc m m 00.0 tr cc 0 m m o p0 co to °C� v `° my ° c � v mm 2 >. 0 c d s. ° m C , 0 ! m o ^ -- m v u ,a mz O m J mCA: Cu cts vpp Cl) fu �W = � 'O Jd cctl am. m s. C7, o � o wu w my cam and .na cc tlyy w Om O b m o 3 m « }• dto Z 0 co jcn stl. ami tl o a r C a 3. ma' m m m =v] C � Ca m ©bmia � u to o m 7 .... ¢i m C .a i6 . O p m M « a� m O Y A O O i o O R E 7. p �, 16 i. ,o m 7 .«. •� ^ V w m 3 �� m W CL. E m m O 6 .' a C m � RN u m m C w « C m `�^ 14P. � � 0 m � Gm 3 ..m m. m to y .`-a a 'O 3 m � 0 to cc T3a 0 � m m � C > a ' � 0 or- aoM m om _ 3 Co n o, L' .� ,� mLis. E �,� m Um pm ,,; wRS CX� " ,. avmc m ,m, m cc . (a. O 7 a«i tiZ u"' ,y C �. � « A. 0 `� � y .a y aa ..034 cc m o H O m E L to m 7 -^' «m !. c 9 3. s. .'_+ ti t0 w m m u Cca m u .0. w W �` O s- ". '� m m «+ a C 9 au a m �.d 3 C ctli .�.. L tl `D m �° tl da .0 61 O .E .� s > O X U .0 C C ti y. X to m > > s.'=.,� E .�-, VS '. m O ". U 3 Goma s. m mw . .0. $ U 'a .O.,Z Q `• .`O+ s m O O.-a W m M p m Wm TmCD O v � mE w > ctli HC _ a � � Caa a! yC � ovL7 :: `.'°. mi. m .0 o m S m i° to m� Otli m -a t^ m w X o o m c � s u s. m �. E Coz7 - O a C = m m u bola e H m w m m 7 Colo H u m II 0.a a w 4" v1, Jr, .f 2 s Y.- .. V �• V Y \Y y Y.Y ^!� .. \9 C . C M Y♦ V V� � � V V Y T CV A•r y + a 6 L09]\ 9�9 9_ prO 1 yS ` C + � N N L L y Y M 9N Oei Ly k YL \Y uViY V N O GC L C �C =Z^JLf 26 a w. ZSF Y Y VC CV C Y I• r; V C w ' w yCr yC 9 O 9 L C= 'JN �� '�� a 4 x CG x w +• x r r r r + • L L L L Y A �i S 3 s = r3 x x = < r � �� G V` N N• f N ��p 6 N A d O• Y W i� ^ � � � � � � N � .• ,L . 7 �i � i i z i6ae r. I m --y � a LU J O CL Sip 4 It CL an 0 �, a I fie+ g � v S «iTSi L - � Ls p w sin QJ yy �O r�- • a �b qt ?yry st 1476 � S -> =a i sir W a � 1 Y 1 r m ti m � m > CO 34 .. .r. a ° 7 U > ea 'C O U O r0 is 0 tx a m >` C0= .•. m lr L• �+ �+ f.. O O N C d Y. .'Z. rj > Y C OZ 7 �1 W .L O .0 Y Y v;. m m > 3. .Y.... C O c m m A. ° O E m 0 o o � s w E ac 0 ° p• .• cc o o c m ,Fa ^ ^ O W U m A- O T m G7 O O U .0 O .Y- 'O E96 Y f6cc O Y C r 7. C i m �'V ^' ai O 'm' C L — ^ m m Y U y v O C r O O C m + T U a. O 00ami m Y W . C O t0 'C m ^ A m� 0 r .LCC `r Y SOi p - a h ^a tim C C cc m 0 0 '% 3 o m Wai W O m tO m In 7 a O co nYp C « l~4 w .m-r O ••, .°N m U m.m.. .U„ to O 0 3eor ° ^u m nL7 % � vr— Aca � ta�i S 7 V N wo O m O A Y ff� O O � C G C O C' M ¢ O O O . ^ C � ,C to WO i U A A• .Q �' r cc >1 A. m m 7 T+R Y _ cOi G cC. ec pan•. m C N a O A. !' ' 7 C O 'S7':' C .ry. .. 'C C csi 3 tm ym, U a�i oo Cco ci _ mt X " ° o m R a ,n dI XY •O ^_ .Y. d = " Cwx m ya3 my^ ems= � ma°i as. «:. o .I E A � 3 .0 rn � Qo A C • • • • • p H Tm a � .C. MrCC !1 w w to to 0 `•� w y O .'.� i. E m C O O > o ms y c •° m 1 q ' 'Cu3m � m 4 .;' y1 W `wad �� W'• �r • . '4T•�7:C { ' ' .•ifS r Y y } . % \ � a kt 2_ {� I /�_ Cw } /JQ ƒ d}32 cc 0 � / — t _ R 7 . § k � � § \ \\ D J ƒ\ LU \ _ ^ k Ch Ze < �2 � cLLS =E � � \� (A 0 �. � M � m C � ` r C O OZ E c� � r qqtt � w C Q m� .Q QZS ~r.. . �N v lq� Y.Ys rn t 4 m m ► Q M CD E m Q N m m Q e � L�— w -� Q —1 I[E to m m Q ca ILL ~ or� � i •`4. 1� m tO m us m a 3 to - 0 o 4 -- \ r a m -o C E.x %E m m~Q� vtu 3t Lu mu+am m o ioCta =z¢ .w. O 4W ►r V. cc Z �m i d _m cY c �o-0 5 m � = >o pC o m — m OOtO' �' cm MCC-A r- co 04 3 m` ro= � W m m � m 0 03 a " y o � o O` ' i— Q a 0 o S a y a j Z< .•; =cc W F _F 1 S ..Q s CC r... Q t r.0 • r A M � C • C .. Q �...O .O C a ca co O }m O O) �• r� ¢uj Oi0° a Z.G� J lu lu P� y w Q H a O A m r 2�3 1 w9t N T T O .0 Jgg cm m �4 a S = 'm _ S2 F O T CS w c `o a o- i • o . 8 c o € m 0 c o E X c $'- , CDc .0 O Qo o w qE — cC CL � CL ._ o G� fD Ham ;.rO. C�. S J � � F h S w rdytC y smw w 92 C L - I. �. �•. \yfiJ5l.I��1i'.n � ' 4 �✓ Off. ' i Iy:•c;w . r� . ' 4 ca —01 cm CD CO cm cc ID us 0 cm rA CL co E a d" N ` ��Y� - use�.�' � •• a •;mac c JJ� 1 1 y Y lyJ .ii I -r, m 0 0 c m s a it c� _ — o W 3 ` \\ 'f M CD h .r J a U a t^ Lu co s. `LU r 1 > + != y LL A ca �0w W 2p 80 z271 us a c c i j I.— W >_ W J C m (•j UJ Qry L6 C 0 3 W xmr 1. y j.. M10 rr� • i lw ,, � � . �: _ �. .ems �-�;�- �ay� �. - ��, -1 ��nii'' 't. ,. �NGU� �.• i�5 ��--_ , :.:_y... ,:; � �^- ��`"�r' 7 ,..,�„ �.- � . : . _ :,;,, ^� - ,�� •,, m i~� p d 0 E c m c C) 7, C.; 2 � mZS Irc =a a m m o� � Y o� m osm a "v #' Y Z -! w V v F o mE 'F- P uj `� O 0 ui ui W ,•,,i�. �} N C TL tL ,c m � U. E E� 3 U.tl ` C Y 'mO o c y. m O .+ m c � a tl ui m OII ~ c c : 0 y � C� ep� o tt c= Ire m E en � a o' �-ur Om ae u • v Jy��r�S�'wry S i .'•Y' ��iwT�T - . Y • 'I ,1 1 0 a 1 I 1 'L 1. {{{lll i M m a � i � a = Q M r � ` ?? m ..m, C 0 M O w V�� .2 _ g « = y m � s � m 0 TL ., J ?�. C. V L. Q � M A uj low 0 � 00 .t S �:$ oZ � 42 12 a `o � oai Q : o e i 3 L m= 1 u s� 3.5 z'� 8 c � ui L •�f':. cr W GHQ U. 0 ImQ i M C m C r 'r I 3 F L AL VF r LU r. P _ Ta C d M w � V r r moo � —� > r� io «Sm3 uj L cm cc £ E Q c s $ E J .0 W r W c W :pa.•,.. qnq�U. F N CO t v. 1 .yam r 1' rY Ar 4. f \ ' • .yp - rl I ' i . fbve r — 11. tf i , ••,II ri l r -j 1 1.. i s"i i 4 y G M Q S . I� I P.r o b � _ C �+ r >+ O W a Alm j . Y � N � N b v J CD UJ U, O p p W iyLI Q Q � p � Q F J � F m H� C m � y � � N W ui C) NJ C = LU W `. M N ZLt PB.Epp I;..x N+ r Al a w w U Sa +/ G w m . +i y O U a >. o o O $4 a .+ w1-0 so m a y Y T 04 aF .y a a aA m r.' .4 y Q m m 0 -C• $+ Y 0 a a m -0 S $4 .0 010 >. a s -0 lad Aj L a+ a S- 3 w u r4 k W Qp a 0 C .0 o a 0 +A A� O a E F C a $4 m a �7 m F U U A s. E 3 N O -0 O �. a -0 14 a y H O. O +1 -4 w a C o� E m s. u .m m m e a C a a 0 .D $4 a 7 E+ w O m O w a w M a U E a u a a O m w M a 3 a o m u li T m - m a L F N. m .0 4J 4J m 0 +j 3 c -0 ++ w 043 '441 Ti' 0 m >. 14 oo ^ a a m - a -0 cc -4 C O a ++ -C C m C m ..i .+ .� 0- >1 w .0 a w U 3 -n + .0 F C C y y 3 a m 0 .0 a e t Cw m e m aw m o-w $ s m +: a c + ar 0 a o m C O +) C +) E >. a >. 74 G %O O > O a .ti a 4Y a .4 a u m O a 0 M m a a3 C �4 -4 a ++ 0. tw O :1 .0 -0 R .0 -1 -C aJ tt L.. -.4 1.. -O w -0 0% w myOm m 0 m 2 a s $ -O a° sT .` c mOG '' mF $4 h a x O -O 1' a+ m '' o ' 4J m o > m O-m C 0 to m i u 3 F 43 U m a .0 a C C a .0 a >.-0 s+ O .a l+ a.) ++ a a+ E - .+ ++ a sa c n �+ O m -4 m 0 m .+ sa a a 0 m m M+ W 41 3 C JJ -O '0 -0 m m N O O-.0 m -0 >. O 41 Y S m a C 0 -4 a AJ 4 +1 4.) L a m 4.110 a+ +j -o 3 y a F m m m y .q c a .0 s+ o a .c C a+ � s� .4 c -.+ 9 s. D a b 0.0 O a > m S .0+� l� Ti O y ro C 3 D+ ^4 w a C C a 41 m s. m a w o s+ o —+ ono « 1 a 3+ m -O m 0 a -+ -0 c S Tj - si a a0 mmmoE -G wca r-Tt m a43 45t m - m -6 O Gw 0 - a 0 0 c m $ 0 s. m aE• � 1 m ,� c C o (� m no - a m a t -- C a m W a Y a 0 74 U C a C C .4 m 0 w F + c 34 0 ro e a my a C o o n � a aa+ m Q 3ROW w 1 - 3 � 3 0 A a> : 0 41 M 4J0 a c ti a a u 11 m > 0 -0 -at + q a .4 +� Cp0�Y ate+ 7 m L C AJ £ a H m +4 m 0 0 r C Z C .0+ EE W O 0 y m m = V m co -..4 w 4 w-0 -0 0 -0 N� a F G O O O c'- .o '>� '. �•; � , (' .� . ' :� � � , � ... . s ..,��. i } ♦ .., �+ v.... � t �� S oa! a �'t � ` � .. }�`'� �1� '.{„ivy � �f}fc. r, e►•4'� �a. �. . �, ,. � �-.5 - ,, , � : . :, s � � � ,. =� ,. -� . , � �. ' � �� - K � � � . � '�✓.� \ ��h �,� � �1 . . .f, �'�+-•Y� �'... '. ;^� ' � (� �.�' '�J�.: •. .y ��' . ® ° = 3 ISi ` °L :i 1H rt� as- LID to � � � � iN 1 � \ � 1 , 1 ♦ 1 ♦ d x CAN � ►� ,. � , ter WIN E `.'y�i` 'may✓ - 6}• v 1 i , r .. •ti` zw .I a � �f;l r � r � � I „ L I IL , im ,I f I, 1. I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 r I y _C u y 7 M O CI m •� IL 43 CS .Lc U ' Colo N Wig L) KMI • o � ti. pyres 9 �F 6 Oct i A4 7E ', F x Q t \ y� a � - o a � � E d � E .z I r Y� e.1 . i C+ �r E c x a � ' C:, 1 C, +. � . .. � - � '. � a 1 � �I ,� '� .. `5 � J�� .� 1 �;� . • A,' .. �( �, _ , . �' .,, F :. `, ... 7 .,�;_ .,r .� � ,. �,. 1 ` �` 1 ". ` �� r � �4 , -.�. .� .. � ` � ='. . �� ' / .� r ' •. 1 _ III . ' I'/I _ I/i • iY r t . . . � .. 1 k ' � . -. .?.:,, ,_ > \ , 1 I• r