HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-24 - Agenda Packet - HPC / PC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
L CALL TO ORDER
• Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Howdyshell _ Vice Chairman Fletcher
Munoz_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the
Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic
Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously
included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the
audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please
refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, orengaging in any activity
which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
• A. UPDATE ON THE MAIL BALLOT FOR VICTORIA NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND
LANDSCAPING NEEDS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
WNCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CMAMONGA Page 2
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Approval of regular meeting minutes dated April 10, 2013
C. Approval of adjourned (workshop) meeting minutes dated April 10, 2013
IE
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/orposted as public hearings as required by law.
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. •
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157 —
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD): A request to demolish "The
Chinatown House," a designated historic landmark, in the Mixed Use/Retail (MUR)
District located at 9591 San Bernardino Road that has been deemed unsafe for
occupancy by the City's Building and Safety Official and "red-tagged" on
December 6, 2012; APN: 0208-151-24. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
VL PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law.
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
E. MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00868-CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA — A request to modify the Engineering Conditions for previously
approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18. The modified condition will
require the receipt of an in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements
instead of the current requirement for the installation of the improvements located within
the General Industrial District, at 13249 Arrow Route —APN: 0229-171-15 and 0229-
171-16. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15301(n)(Class
1 Exemption— Existing Facilities) conversion of a single-family residence into an office •
use.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONGA Page 3
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2013-00034 (MODIFICATION) - VERIZON
WIRELESS-A request to modify a previous approval (DRC2011-00688)for the site and
architectural review of a 45 foot tall (top of branches at 50 feet) major wireless
communication facility on the site of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the
Regionally Related Commercial (RRC) Development District and the Medium (M)
Residential Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay)at 12676
Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-211-02, 24 and 25 and 0227-221-01 and 02. Planning
Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class
3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the installation of small
new equipment and facilities in small structures.
VII. COMMISSION CONCERNS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
• AND PLANNING COMMISSION
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, ormy designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 18, 2013, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
® If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
• TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given
the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you
may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
WNCHO APRIL 24, 2013
C1C MONGA Page 4
views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain
from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and
speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium.
It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are
generally limited to 5 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is
opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda.
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for
distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be
used for the official public record.
All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for
scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS •
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning
Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These
documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday,
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office
and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and
governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at
www.CityofRC.us
•
Vicinity Map
Historic Preservation and
Planning Commission Meeting
April 24, 2013
D E F
-------- - - - - - - -------- -----------------1
wr
a o c i
t
t > I
1 U Q Z S Y I
� U I _.
� c �
19th St—,i
Base Line Base Line
Church
1 Church
1
Foothil Foothill IJ
E c i
A m d
Arrow E i Arrow
—
Ji rsey 3 i
8th w w 1
» «
2 w c 8th W
0 8th _
41h�._.a _.._ .._ »_.._.._»�.._ »_.._«_.. 4th
* Meeting Location:
City Hall/Council Chambers
• 10500 Civic Center Drive
Item A: Presentation for Landscape Maintenance District (LIVID) 2
Item B: Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes dated April 10, 2013
Item C: Approval of Adjourned Workshop Meeting Minutes dated April 10, 2013
Important p t on " ' Mail Ballot
for Victoria Neighb ood Parks and
caping Needs
:.Spring 2013
r �
1r
♦ r
T
� r
r �.
What is the Victoria Neighborhood Parks
and Landscape Maintenance District?
■ Funds landscaping services in the
Victoria neighborhood to maintain
the safety, character, beauty of the
neighborhood
■ Has been in place for the past 30
years to maintain neighborhood
and parks landscaping 4
trict 2
Landscape a nonce Dis
IV
,.rte
xr-
- FLdltl r
Ne,fe:Y s 1. nna b
Vrlona �
r3elu Piy' r4
�rla,r.� -li.[I, _ p,1" .• rr I — 4C�e,r1Ye
' Vn IFY00f
r.. ✓ GirOd s r..A+,r r. FRR [ .a _ s --- t.
A~ rF
niRegpRi��P'n�A4ri�Ra I
(la'i�YRl1�PEY Rpr♦tlMrr6rn
r.ern PrA ..,R LlI
GREgwd'
A .�.�p[
e }}`\\
C.
R4p M ' .nic[r Rain "•ut
-
('aPn
bR rES,niIgPKb � I
r4 t rFgsirrFh6 rrrRPrv'P a avU,IMbtl�
Legend
ff ,:
f Rancho ^' M LMD 2 Boundary -��" r„Su+aa:6ri,Dame,NAV vnTvn,Inbqulp,Rwarlent PCvp GEBCO. SGS.FAO,NPS,
Culamnnga � C3 NRCAN.GeoBee.IGN,KetleftEr NL,Ordmrlte Su 6rIJ
Irrn cY• RpiRl.MEjI,6rICNlna(Hoop Konp),arld
Fe 61S lha CamRnity
R: ..'� W-
_.� ICL
CA � v
rD CL 00
�
� s r
�
. � � - r
i---+ � y , "a',•fes. � � 1/,�/U� •
(� cn
rD
` -w ~ •
O
cn
Impacts to Parks
■ Hundreds of children -
and families enjoy 6 �•
neighborhood parks .� •Ma'
/ U
Additional funds needed to ensure
-•----- ��-�- ■ Clean park bathrooms
■ Safe playgrounds
■ Well maintained park lighting
r1t ■ All park facilities can continue
to be enjoyed
Safety Considerations
■ Maintains 5.5 miles of paseos 4 a
for walking and biking
■ Provides kids safe paths to ,
school t
6 jam
■ Maintains lighting in parks
and along paseos
■ Maintains clean, safe
community trail connecting
multiple schools, parks, J f
and paseos
What is the Issue ?
A ■ Without additional funds, we can
no longer maintain quality of
neighborhood parks, recreation
'" - z. facilities, and landscaping
■ Rates to maintain local
landscaping in parks, common
MMWs areas have stayed the same since
1993 - for 20 years
■ Engineering report indicates rates
no longer sufficient to maintain
4 landscaping at existing levels
What can be done ?
--� ■ 800+ residents of the Victoria
neighborhood gave feedback
on their landscaping priorities
and how to address this
situation.
OF
a
Pr �-
■ Based on resident feedback a
.r• ' . :' r ballot initiative was developed
low . . to maintain the neighborhood's
I • '.� � ` green spaces, landscaping and
lighting n iarks and along
p g
trails, pathways, and paseos.
P
How would additional funds
maintain parks & landscaping?
■ Removing graffiti from park
�.. `i►I
buildings and along paseos
■ Maintaining lighting in parks/paseos
■ Maintaining common area
landscaping
■ Maintaining parks, playground
equipment and clean park restrooms
■ Fixing broken sprinklers
■ Cleaning up trashes r -
■ Planting drought-tolerant plants and
grasses to use less water and save
money
What will it cost?
■ Cost of the annual
r e 1
landscaping assessment
would be $462 dollars per
year for single-family homes
■ This is a $40 annual
increase over the current
rate, or $3.33 per month
■ Rates for condos,
apartments, and commercial
property vary.
Fiscal Accountability
■ All revenues are deposited
into a separate fund that, by ;,k
law, can only be spent on +"
neighborhood and park
landscaping 4 ��
■ Annual, independent audits _ r
published for public review
■ Citizens' Oversight now
Committee to monitor
expenditures and ensure all
funds spent as promised
Ballot Information
■ Ballots mailed to all District
property owners April 18th
z
■ Fill out your ballot and send
it back to ensure your vote
NEIGHBORHOODVICTORIA
PARKS AND LANDSCAPE will be counted
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
■ Ballots must be returned to
ENCLOSEDOFFICIAL BALLOT
the City and received by
June 5th , prior to close of
the public hearing
■ Public Hearing scheduled to
begin at 7 p.m. on June 51'
■ Postmarks don't count
4
For more information . . .
www.cityofrc.us/LMD2
LiAD (@citvofrc.us
Dean Rodia, Parks & Landscape
Maintenance Superintendent (909) 477-2730
For information on the mail ballot process, contact
the City Clerk's Office at (909) 477-2700.
a.�
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE MINUTES OF
AP4ANCHWO
CUCAMUNGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 10, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER 7:03PM
Pledge of Allegiance
• Roll Call
Chairman Howdyshell X Vice Chairman Fletcher X
Munoz X Wimberly X Oaxaca X
Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager,
Economic& Community Development;Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner;Lois Schrader,Planning
Commission Secretary;Donald Granger, Senior Planner;Mike Smith,Associate Planner;Betty Miller
Associate Engineer; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney.
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
None
III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AN
-11
PLANNING COMMISSION
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be
acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a
Commissioner for discussion.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 27, 2013
• Adopted 5-0
a.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
„o APRIL 10, 2013
C§=
°?40A Page 2
11 IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, announced that the month of May is the National
Historic Preservation Month which will include various activities noted on the flyer(copy on
file).
LOCAL HISTORY NIGHT - MAY 10, 2013
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, announced that Local History Night will take place on
May 10, 2013 at the Paul Biane Library. She said the public will receive notification of the
even via our website and various postings, it has activities for the whole family and its free.
, V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. •
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - DRC2013-
00053 - RANCHO TECH - A request to add a 16,616 square foot addition to an
existing 76,405 square foot office building located on the north side of 9th Street and
west of Archibald Avenue in the General Industrial Development District at 9518 9th
Street; APN: 0209-021-05. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
C. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2013-00134-RANCHO TECH-A request to remove
10 trees in order to construct a 16,616 square foot addition and realign a driveway
related to Development Review DRC2013-00053 located in the General Industrial
District at 9518 9th Street - APN: 0209-021-051.
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing.
Vicky Valenzuela of Thatcher Engineering stated they have reviewed the report and conditions
and concur with them. In response to Vice Chairman Fletcher, Ms. Valenzuela stated an
outdoor eating area is provided for the employees on the west side of the building.
Chairman Howdyshell closed the public hearing. •
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
� „o APRIL 10, 2013
UC"ONw
Page 3
Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, adopted Resolutions 13-18 and 13-19 with the
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. 5-0
VI. COMMISSION CONCERNS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
]
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT 7:15PM
The Planning Commission will immediately adjourn to a Planning Commission Workshop Training
conducted by staff. The Workshop will be held in the Rains Room. Those minutes are recorded
separately.
•
•
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE MINUTES OF
PR
CtxAMONOA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 10, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER 7:03PM
• Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Howdyshell X Vice Chairman Fletcher X
Munoz X . Wimberly X Oaxaca X
Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager,
Economic& Community Development;Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner;Lois Schrader, Planning
Commission Secretary;Donald Granger, Senior Planner;Mike Smith,Associate Planner;Betty Miller
Associate Engineer; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney.
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
None
III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AN
PLANNING COMMISSION
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be
acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a
Commissioner for discussion.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 27, 2013
• Adopted 5-0
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
�"o APRIL 10, 2013
°NCA Page 2
11 IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, announced that the month of May is the National
Historic Preservation Month which will include various activities noted on the flyer(copy on
file).
LOCAL HISTORY NIGHT- MAY 10, 2013
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, announced that Local History Night will take place on
May 10, 2013 at the Paul Biane Library. She said the public will receive notification of the
even via our website and various postings, it has activities for the whole family and its free.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/orposted as public hearings as required bylaw. •
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - DRC2013-
00053 - RANCHO TECH - A request to add a 16,616 square foot addition to an
existing 76,405 square foot office building located on the north side of 9th Street and
west of Archibald Avenue in the General Industrial Development District at 9518 9th
Street; APN: 0209-021-05. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
C. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2013-00134- RANCHO TECH -A request to remove
10 trees in order to construct a 16,616 square foot addition and realign a driveway
related to Development Review DRC2013-00053 located in the General Industrial
District at 9518 9th Street - APN: 0209-021-051.
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing.
Vicky Valenzuela of Thatcher Engineering stated they have reviewed the report and conditions
and concur with them. In response to Vice Chairman Fletcher, Ms. Valenzuela stated an
outdoor eating area is provided for the employees on the west side of the building.
Chairman Howdyshell closed the public hearing. •
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C a, APRIL 10, 2013
Page 3
Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, adopted Resolutions 13-18 and 13-19 with the
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. 5-0
VI. COMMISSION CONCERNS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT 7.15PM
The Planning Commission will immediately adjourn to a Planning Commission Workshop Training
conducted by staff. The Workshop will be held in the Rains Room. Those minutes are recorded
separately.
•
•
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WORKSHOP OF
;RANCHO
CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION-MINUTES
APRIL 10, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
L CALL TO ORDER 7:20PM
• Roll Call
Chairman Howdyshell X Vice Chairman Fletcher X
Munoz X Wimberly X Oaxaca X
Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager;Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager,
Economic and Community Development, Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Donald Granger,
Senior Planner; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary;
Dominick Perez, Planning Technician.
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or
the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the
Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not
previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning
Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be
addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the
members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are
expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or
engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
• None
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
°H° WORKSHOP MINUTES
CiJCA"'OXCa APRIL 10, 2013
Page 2
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP TRAINING DRC2013-00124 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A presentation by staff and workshop training on
Residential Development Design Standards, Guidelines and Policy Goals. The report
and workshop is exempt from CEQA review under State CEQA Guideline Section
15061(b)(3)because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an
intensification of environmental impacts.
Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager, made introductory remarks regarding the work that led
up to the development of the workshop presentation.
Mike Smith, Associate Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) and led the
discussion with Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner in assistance.
The discussion focused in general on the topics of how and where and when to get the most •
value using 360-degree architecture, current design standards; a desire for thorough DRC
comments from staff and communication; appropriate architectural elements for various
architectural styles; the role of staff in meetings with developers; DRC and Commission
support of staff.
The Planning Commissioners gave broad direction to staff and requested that another
workshop be held to continue the discussion.
IV. ADJOURNMENT 9:40PM
•
STAFF REPORT
V
• PLAP4NINGDEPARTMIIVT
Date: April 24, 2013 RANCHO
To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission C,UCAMONGA
From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager
By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRC2013-00157 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE
CHINATOWN HOUSE. THE CHINATOWN HOUSE IS LOCATED AT 9591 SAN
BERNARDINO ROAD - APN: 0208-151-24. STAFF HAS PREPARED A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR
CONSIDERATION.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the proposed demolition of the Chinatown House and
provide advice to the Building Official regarding the same through the adoption of the attached
Resolution.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The structure located at 9591 San Bernardino in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, which is commonly called "The Chinatown House" or sometimes just "the China
House," was designated as a "City Historic Landmark" in 1985. (See Mitigation
Architectural/Historical Recordation report for the China House prepared by CRM Tech for the
• CVWD dated December 24, 2012 for further historical background information.) It is currently
owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD).
The structure is constructed of unreinforced hollow clay tile walls and lime mortar with a partial
wood roof. Due to age and lack of maintenance, it has become structurally unsound. On
December 6, 2012, the City Building and Safety Official deemed the Chinatown House unsafe to
occupy and "red-tagged" the building. The CVWD was given notice by letter and ordered to
remediate the dangerous condition of the building.
The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code generally requires the Historic Preservation
Commission's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration or demolition of a
historic resource. This requirement does not apply where, as in this case, the Building and Safety
Official has declared the alteration or demolition necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous
conditions of any structure. Under such circumstances, the Historic Preservation Commission may
advise the Building and Safety Official of the historic significance of the building and recommend a
reasonable period of postponement for the purpose of arranging for rehabilitation, relocation, or
salvage of the historic resource. Accordingly, the Historic Preservation Commission is asked at
this time to consider the proposed demolition of the Chinatown House and make any
recommendations to the Building Official it deems appropriate regarding the rehabilitation,
relocation, or salvage of the Chinatown House.
BACKGROUND: The Chinatown House is the last remaining structure associated with the
Cucamonga Chinatown site, which was one of many rural enclaves of Chinese immigrants that
• sprang up in post-Gold Rush California. Real property tax assessment records indicate that the
Chinatown House was probably built in 1920 shortly after a catastrophic fire in 1919 that destroyed
all but four of the main buildings in the previously larger Chinatown site. Other records indicate
Item D
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CHINATOWN HOUSE DRC2013-00157
April 24, 2013
Page 2
that the property was possibly used as a grocery and that farm laborers might have been housed •
for a time in a separate building that sat directly to the rear of the Chinatown House. The last
Chinese resident of the Chinatown House died on the premises in 1944.
The Chinatown House was constructed of unreinforced hollow clay tile walls and lime mortar, and
light wooden frame and a partial wood roof. The impermanent nature of the construction began to
show as early as 1952, when the second floor was deemed unsafe and the stairway was removed
according to Building records.
In 1975, the California Department of Parks and Recreation designated the "Cucamonga
Chinatown Site," defined as the south side of San Bernardino Road between Klusman and
Hellman Avenues, as a California Point of Historical Interest. The statement of historical
significance at the time noted that the "1919 fire destroyed most of the buildings and spirit of
Chinatown," and that "Twenty years later the remaining, fragile houses were empty." There was no
specific mention of the Chinatown House, and the statement expressly provided that the
Chinatown site was "not a state registered local landmark."
The City incorporated in 1977 and adopted its first historic preservation ordinance in April 1979. In
December of that same year, the City Council designated the "Cucamonga Chinatown Site" as a
Historic Point of Interest of the City. The ordinance that effected the designation neither defined
the site nor specifically mentioned the Chinatown House.
In 1985, the City designated "the China Town House' as a City Historic Landmark. This appears to •
be the first and only recognition of the China House as a landmark apart from the general
Chinatown site.
The District acquired the property from its last private owner in 1988. The District has never used
the structure and only occasionally used the surrounding property for stockpiling equipment.
Currently, the District holds the site as surplus property and does not use it for any purpose.
The structure of the Chinatown House has deteriorated to an unstable condition due to age,
weathering, its method of construction, and lack of maintenance and upgrades. There are
significant gaps in the masonry caused by erosion of the mortar and substantial cracks in all walls
of the structure causing interior and exterior wall failure. Many sections of the walls are breaking
away from the light framework, and the porch roofs are collapsing. (See Building Survey Report
prepared for the site by Anderson Design Group dated October 1, 2010).
The City's Building and Safety Official reviewed the Building Survey Report and personally
conducted a field inspection of the property. The Building and Safety Official concurred with the
assessment that the structure is a "public hazard/nuisance" and that it should be demolished. On
December 6, 2012, the City Building & Safety Official posted the property with a red-tag indicating
that it is unsafe to occupy the Chinatown House. To protect the public, access to the Chinatown
House is currently blocked by a chain-link fence that encloses the property. The Building and
Safety Official will provide further information regarding the current condition of the structure during
the Commission's meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act •
("CEQX) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential
environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, Staff
a-a
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CHINATOWN HOUSE DRC2013-00157
April 24, 2013
• Page 3
determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures (related to, e.g., cultural resources and
air quality) there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect
on the environment. Based on that determination, City staff prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and provided notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to
ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project.
As discussed in the Initial Study, the structure of the Chinatown House has already lost its
historical significance due to its physical deterioration and no longer qualifies as a historic
landmark. Historic landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these
factors. A landmark need not retain all such original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to
convey its historic significance.
In this case, the Chinatown House will inevitably collapse if nothing is done, causing potential harm
to persons and property and destroying any vestige of site's historic integrity. At the same time,
the only method identified to preserve the original structure in situ given its condition and original
method of construction would be to dismantle the clay tile walls, brickwork, and other exterior
features and reinstall them as a fagade over a wholly new structure built within the footprint of the
original building. Not only would this be cost prohibitive, but it would disrupt the historic integrity of
the Chinatown House in a manner that would nullify its status as a historic landmark.
• Although the structure of the Chinatown House has lost its historical significance, any significant
impacts to the historical value of the site due to demolition of the structure can be mitigated
through the following measures.
1. Prior to demolition, the structure shall be cataloged and recorded through a Historic
American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (NABS/HAER).
2. During demolition, at least three pallets of salvageable materials shall be set aside on-site
for incorporation into a future development project.
3. After demolition, a monument shall be constructed on the corner of the site utilizing the
brick materials salvaged from the structure commemorating the Chinese laborers who once
occupied the Chinatown House.
CVWD has submitted a letter to the City indicating that they will comply with these requirements.
To date, staff has received three responses from the public regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
1. Brian Turner, an attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, submitted an
email in which he disagreed with the conclusions in the Initial Study regarding the
Chinatown House loss of historical significance and asserted that the Initial Study
inadequately addressed potential archaeological impacts, but the email did not provide any
evidence or factual basis for his conclusions.
•
p-3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CHINATOWN HOUSE DRC2013-00157
April 24, 2013
Page 4
2. Eugene Moy of the Chinese Historical Society of Southern California submitted several •
emails inquiring about procedural issues but not providing any evidence of possible
significant environmental impacts.
3. Jenan Saunders from the Office of Historic Preservation contacted Staff by telephone to
express concern regarding the findings for the Initial Study and stated her belief that the
City cannot mitigate the demolition of a historic resource to a level less than significant.
She did not provide any evidence or factual basis for her conclusions.
4. Munson A. Kwok, Ph.D. of Asian & Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation
submitted a letter to the City Council requesting an extension of the Building and Safety
Official's order and requesting preservation of the Chinatown House. The letter included no
evidence of possible significant environmental impacts.
CONCLUSION: Given the extent of the physical deterioration, the loss of historical significance,
the lack of any economically feasible rehabilitation of the structure, and the Building and Safety
Official's determination that the structure poses an immediate hazard to the public, the most
appropriate means of addressing the loss of the Chinatown House would be to document what
remains of the site and salvage material from the structure for reuse in an appropriate monument.
This would be accomplished through implementation of the mitigation measures identified above.
CORRESPONDENCE: In addition to the public notice required by CEQA, The City also advertised
this item as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, posted the property, and •
mailed notices to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site and to all interested
historic preservation groups.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission: (1) adopt the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and (2) recommend
that the Building and Safety Official implement the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study
prior to allowing the demolition of the Chinatown House. A resolution has been prepared to this
effect for the Commission's consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
eak-
Candyce eft
Planning Manager
CB:MN/Is
Attachments: Exhibit A - Initial Study Parts I and II
Exhibit B — Email correspondence and attachments dated April 9—April 16, 2013
Exhibit C — Letter dated April 2, 2013 from Munson A. Kwok, Ph, D.
Draft Resolution of Approval for DRC2013-00157
•
ENVIRONMENTAL
- INFORMATION FORM
(Part I - Initial Study)
RANCHO (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line)
CUCAMONGA
Planning Department
(909)477-2750
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed
project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City Policies,Ordinances,and
Guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and
Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this
application be provided in full.
Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application,
additional information such as, but not limited to,traffic, noise, biological,drainage,and
geological reports maybe required. The project application will not be deemed complete
unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as
complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees'
review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to
prepare the Initial Study Part II as required by CEQA. In addition to the filing fee, the
applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, its agents, officers, and/or
consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations,
mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports.
• GENERAL INFORMATION:
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that
the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing
information.
Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: DRC2013-00157
Project Title: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157
Name &Address of project owner(s):
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD)
10440 Ashford Street
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729
Name &Address of developer or project sponsor.
Same
• Contact Person &Address: John Bosler—Cucamonga Valley Water District
10440 Ashford Street
Ranrhn rncamnnnn r.A 91729
EXHIBIT A !013-00157 Initial Study Part�l doc Page 1 of 9
Name &Address of person preparing this form(if different from above):
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, Planning Department, City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 •
Telephone Number 909-477-2750
PROJECT • ' • DESCRIPTION:
Information indicated by an asterisk(')is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff.
'1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate
the site boundaries.
2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north, south, east, and
west; views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site;and representative views of
significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph.
3) Project Location
(describe):
9591 San Bernardino Road
Rancho Cucamonga 91730
4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): 0208-151-24
'5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 1,13 acres •
'6) Net Site Area(total site size minus area of public streets&proposed
dedications): n/a
7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site
(attach additional sheet if necessary):
None
8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and othergovemmental
agencies in order to fully implement the project:
Demolition permit
9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability,
plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing
structures on site(including age and condition)and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features
described. In addition,cite all sources of information(i.e.,geological and/or hydrologic studies,biotic and archeological
surveys, tragic studies): •
Topographically, the property is flat and devoid of any significant relief. Elevations range from a maximum
of 1225 feet above sea level in the northern portion of the property at a minimum of 1215 feet in the
I:\PLAN NINGWIayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial Study Partt.doc Page 2 of 9
i�>—(40
southern
Portion Drainage on the property is wholly to the south Vegetation is limited due to partial development of
• the northern section Vegetation includes sparse weeds a few trees such as loquat and eucalyptus trees
grape vines oleander, milkweed tumbleweed and non-native grasses. Fauna limited to numerous lizards
and a pair of doves Soils comprise sandy and rocky alluvium The structure fagade faces north 1.5 stories
front gamble roof with medium pitch and narrow eaves rectangular plan 1 vertical division hollow clay tile
and wood siding The structure was built around 1920 and is in deteriorating condition. The structure is
currently vacant
10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information(books,published reports
and oral history):
The Chinatown House is the last remaining structure associated with the Cucamonga Chinatown site,which was
one of many rural enclaves of Chinese immigrants that sprang up in post-Gold Rush California. Real property
tax assessment records indicate that the Chinatown House was probably built in 1920 shortly after a catastrophic
fire in 1919 that destroyed all but four of the main buildings in the previously larger Chinatown site. Other
records indicate that the property was possibly used as a grocery and that farm laborers might have been
• housed for a time in a separate building that sat directly to the rear of the Chinatown House. The last Chinese
resident of the Chinatown House died on the premises in 1944.
11) Describe any noise sources and theirlevels that now affect the site(aircraft,roadway noise,etc.)and howthey will affect
proposed uses:
The project is for demolition of the existing structure There is no proposed use at this time.
12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use
that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of
development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s)if
necessary:
The project is for demolition of the existing structure. There is no proposed use at this time. Should there
be a development proposal for the site at a future date it will be evaluated separately.
13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic
aspects. Indicate the type of land use(residential, commercial,etc.),intensity of land use(one-family,apartment houses,
shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development(height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.):
The site is an L-shaped parcel with dimensions of 312 feet(north to south) by 208 feet (east to west). The
• northern part of the site is partially developed with the Chinatown House The southern part of the site is
used by CVWD for storage To the north are single-family residences. To the south is commercial
I:\PIANNING\Mayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial Study Partt.doc Page 3 of 9
D=1
development while to the west is both commercial development and vacant land. To the east is the Chino
Basin Watermaster building
14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? •
The project proposes to demolish an existing structure which has occupied this site for many years. The
removal of the structure may change the character of the surrounding general area.
15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise
levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed?
Short term construction noise during demolition is anticipated Applicant will have to implement mitigation
measures noted under Noise section of Initial Study Part II.
`16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees:
None proposed for removal at this time
17) Indicate any bodies of water(including domestic water supplies)into which the site drains:
n/a
•
18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please
contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential(gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day)
b. CommercialAnd. (gal/day/ac) Peak use(gal/min/ac)
19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑ Septic Tank ❑ Sewer.
If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. /f discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate
expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification,please contact the
Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential(gal/day)
b. Commercial/Industrial(gal/day/ac) _
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
20) Number of residential units:
Detached(indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size:
n/a
•
1:\PLANNING\Mayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial StudyVyarll.doc Page 4 of 9
Q,v
Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units):
•
21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents:
Sale Price(s) $ to $
Rent(permonth) $ to $
22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type:
23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type:
• 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School
Districts as shown in Attachment B:
a. Elementary:
b. Junior High:
c. Senior High
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses:
26) Total Noor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type:
27) Indicate hours of operation:
•
I:\PLANNING\Mayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial Studdyy Partt.doc Page 5 of 9
28) Number of employees: Total:
Maximum Shift:
Time of Maximum Shift: •
29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications,including wage and salary ranges,as well as an indication of the rate of
hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary):
30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City.
'31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be
verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at(818) 572-6283):
•
ALL PROJECTS
32) Have the water, sewer, (re, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to
provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so,please indicate their response.
The project is for demolition of an existing structure No additional services are required at this time.
33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials?
Examples of hazardous and/ortoxic materials includg,but are not limited to PCB's;radioactive substances;pesticides and
herbicides;fuels,oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above.
Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, it
known.
None known.
•
I:\PLANNING\Mayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial Study Partl.doc Page 6 of 9
D-l0
34) Will the proposedproject involve the temporary or tong-term use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials,
including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes,provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and
proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and
labeled on the application plans.
• Building may contain asbestos and lead based paint Applicant will be required to implement mitigation
measures listed under Hazardous Materials in Initial Study Part 2.
35) The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fee. The project planner will confirm which fees
apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the
Planning Commission/Planning Director hearing:
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for
adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts,statements,and information presented are true and correct
tot he best of my knowledge and belief /further understand that additional information maybe required to be submitted before an
adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Date: Signature:
Title:
•
•
I:\PLANNINGWIayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial StudyPartl.doc Page 7 of 9
U—/ '
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT •
(Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003)
Water Usage
Single-Family 705 gallons per EDU per day
Multi-Family 256 gallons per EDU per day
Neighborhood Commercial 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant)
General Commercial 4082 gal/day/unit (tenant)
Office Professional 973 gal/day/unit (tenant)
Institutional/Government 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant)
Industrial Park 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant)
Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant)
Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant)
Sewer Flows
Single-Family 270 gallons per EDU per day •
Multi-Family 190 gallons per EDU per day
General Commercial 1900 gal/day/acre
Office Professional 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government
Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/acre
Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/acre
Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/acre
Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District
Engineering & Water Resources Departments,
Urban Water Management Plan 2000
•
I:\PLANNING\Mayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial Study Parti.doc Page 8 of 9
q-G;k
ATTACHMENT B
• Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees:
Elementary School Districts
Alta Loma
9350 Base Line Road, Suite F
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 987-0766
Central
10601 Church Street, Suite 112
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-8541
Cucamonga
8776 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 987-8942
Etiwanda
6061 East Avenue
P.O. Box 248
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
(909) 899-2451
High School
• Chaffey High School
211 West 5th Street
Ontario, CA 91762
(909) 988-8511
•
I:\PIANNING\Mayuko\CLERICAL\China\DRC2013-00157 Initial StudPartl.doc Page 9 of 9
(S- 3
i
I I
i
i
HILLS L RD
m WILSON AV
m m _
-- z r m
z y x BANYAN ST i
z i y o
y a a
< < J
19TH HIGHLANDS j
m
VICTORI A PARK LN a
17/7 z
� a
f� < BASE LINE RD
TE AVIST PK V
CHURCH ST / �
r k �
O
Project ite," FOO HILL m
S
h
n y a
a m < s
OW RT < a
m
a a
9TH ST
y JERSEY BL i/
8TH ST C /
— a
:L—L
<
�
6TH ST r
z
4TH ST
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157 — CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT (CVWD): A request to demolish "The Chinatown House," a designated historic
landmark, in the Mixed Use/Retail (MUR) District located at 9591 San Bernardino Road that has
been deemed unsafe for occupancy by the City's Building and Safety Official and "red-tagged" on
December B, 2012; APN: 0208-151-24.
2. Related Files: n/a
3. Description of Project: The project is the proposed demolition of the structure located at 9591
San Bernardino in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which is commonly called "The Chinatown
House." The structure is owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and was
designated as a "City Historic Landmark" in 1985. (See Mitigation Architectural/Historical
Recordation report for the China House prepared by CRM Tech for the CVWD dated
December 24, 2012 for further historical background information.) The structure is constructed of
unreinforced hollow clay tile walls and lime mortar with a light wooden frame and a partial wood
roof. Due to age and lack of maintenance, it has become structurally unsound. On
• December 6, 2012, the City Building and Safety Official deemed the Chinatown House unsafe to
occupy and "red-tagged' the building. The CVWD was given notice by letter and ordered to
remediate the dangerous condition of the building.
The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code generally requires the Historic Preservation
Commission's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration or demolition of a
historic resource. This requirement does not apply where, as in this case, the Building and Safety
Official declares the alteration or demolition necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous
conditions of any structure. Under such circumstances, the Historic Preservation Commission
may advise the Building and Safety Official of the historic significance of the building and
recommend a reasonable period of postponement for the purpose of arranging for rehabilitation,
relocation, or salvage of the Historic Resource or Contributing Resource. Accordingly, the Historic
Preservation Commission will consider the project at a future meeting and make
recommendations to the Building Official regarding possible means of mitigating any impacts from
the demolition of the Chinatown House.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Cucamonga Valley Water District(CVWD)
10440 Ashford Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
S. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use
6. Zoning: Mixed Use/Retail (MUR) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District
T. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is a parcel of approximately 1.13 acres.
• The site is an L-shaped parcel with dimensions of 312 feet (north to south) by 208 feet (east to
west). The northern part of the site is partially developed with the Chinatown House. The
southern part of the site is used by CVWD for storage. To the north are single-family residences.
To the south is commercial development while to the west is both commercial development and
vacant land. To the east is the Chino Basin Watermaster building.
D-15
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157 Page 2 •
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mayuko Nakajima
Assistant Planner
(909)477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None.
GLOSSARY-The following abbreviations are used in this report:
CVW D-Cucamonga Valley Water District
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
FOR- Final Environmental Impact Report
FPEIR- Final Program Environmental Impact Report
NPDES- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOx-Nitrogen Oxides
ROG- Reactive Organic Gases
PMio-Fine Particulate Matter
RWQCB-Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD- South Coast Air Quality Management District •
SWPPP- Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
URBEMIS7G-Urban Emissions Model 7G
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated,"or"Less Than-Sign cant-Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
( )Aesthetics ( )Agricultural Resources (x)Air Quality
( )Biological Resources (x)Cultural Resources ( )Geology&Soils
(x)Greenhouse Gas (x) Hazards&Waste Materials ( ) Hydrology&Water Quality
Emissions ( ) Mineral Resources (x) Noise
( )Land Use& Planning ( )Public Services ( )Recreation
( )Population&Housing ( ) Utilities &Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of
( )Transportationfrraffic Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(x) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or •
agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 3
• Prepared By: Date: March 28, 2013
Reviewed By: z Date: April 1 2013
•
•
Rev 10-9-12 D I
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 4 •
Less Thin
Significant Lasa
Potenuany wo Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SigrA cant Wfigeeon Signlaran, re
I aq Incorpffatac I act Im as
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Comments:
a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within
a view corridor according to General Plan Figure LU-6. Therefore, the proposed project
will not have an impact.
b) There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, •
the proposed project will not have an impact.
C) The project site is located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman
Avenue. It is characterized by residential development to the north and commercial
development to the south, east, and west. The visual quality of the area will not be
substantially degraded as a result of this project. The project is the demolition of a single-
story structure known as the Chinatown House, which is in a substandard aesthetic and
structural condition. New construction is not proposed at this time. Therefore, the
proposed project will not have an impact.
d) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize light and glare impacts. Therefore,the proposed project will not have an impact.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
a) Convert Prime Farland, Unique Farmland, or ( ) ( ) 0 V)
Farland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
•
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 5
Leas Than
.gr wm Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POB"aAY w9h Than
Significant 4 igatm Signifium No
ea Inco a Im am I==
C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re-zoning of, ( ) () ( ) (✓)
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Comments:
a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. The project site is located at the southwest comer of San
Bernardino Road and Klusman Avenue and is characterized by residential development to
the north. Commercial development exists at the south, east, and west of the site.
• Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no
Williamson Act contracts within the City. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an
impact.
C) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land or
timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the conversion of forest land to
non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are
zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed
project will not have an impact.
d) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or
timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga
that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, the
proposed project will not have an impact.
e) Refer to 2.a and 2.c above.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ( ) (✓) ( ) ( )
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
• violation?
b-41
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 6 •
LMa man
Significant Less
PotmUsly WM Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: $Ignific a WbPtion sig.flum a
I eq In Hea Im Im act
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. Heavy-duty equipment in the project
area during demolition and removal of debris will be the principal source of air pollutants.
Air pollutants from demolition vehicles/equipment anticipated on site and associated debris
transport would vary daily as demolition activity levels change. However, the use of such
vehicles/equipment would only result in localized air pollutants. Furthermore, the pollutants
would be short-term and cease after demolition of the building. The generation of
pollutants is not expected to conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan. •
Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact.
b) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. Heavy-duty equipment in the project
area during demolition and removal of debris will be the principal source of air pollutants.
Air pollutants, as described below, from demolition vehicles/equipment anticipated on site
and associated debris transport would vary daily as demolition activity levels change.
However, the use of such vehicles/equipment would only result in localized air pollutants.
Furthermore, the pollutants would be short-term and cease after demolition of the building.
To minimize impact to a level of less-than-significant, the mitigation measures listed below
will be required.
Short Term 1Constructlonl Impacts
Equipment Exhausts and Related Construction Activities
Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during demolition and removal of debris will be
the principal source of combustion emissions. Exhaust emissions from demolition
vehicles/equipment anticipated on site and associated debris transport would vary daily as
demolition activity levels change. However, the use of such vehicles/equipment would
only result in localized exhaust emissions. Furthermore, the emissions would be short-
term and cease after demolition of the building. No other sources of equipment exhaust
have been identified for the project and no mitigation measures are required.
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions are generally emissions that are generally associated with land •
clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations.
Dust generated during demolition varies substantially on a project-by project basis,
depending on the level of activity, the specific operation, and weather conditions at the
time of demolition. Demolition emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of
activity, the speck operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils,
Rev 10-9-12 1��
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 7
Lase man
S,gn unt Las
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: gnfi'�a°,Yt gabw �g a nt No
i as I
n antes tnVad a
weather conditions and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust.
Odors
Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during demolition and removal of debris would
be the principal source of odors. Odors from demolition vehicles/equipment anticipated
on site and associated debris transport would vary daily as demolition activity levels
change. However, the generation of odors would be short-term and cease after
demolition of the building. No other sources of equipment odors have been identified for
the project and no mitigation measures are required.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The proposed project is located in San Bernardino County, and it is not among the
counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. In addition,
there has been no serpentine or ultramafic rock found in the project area. Therefore, the
potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project demolition is small and
less than significant.
• 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures(short term)
Shat Term (Demolition) Emissions - During the demolition process, on-site stationary
sources, heavy-duty demolition vehicles, demolition worker vehicles, and energy use will
generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during demolition
activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles
would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area.
Construction and demolition is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area.
Demolition contractors and equipment work and operate at one development site until
their tasks are complete. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are
required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
on a project-specific basis and in conformance with the General Plan FPEIR. Therefore,
the following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented to
reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels:
1) All demolition equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so
as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all
demolition equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per
manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the
demolition site for City verification.
2) All demolition equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Additionally, contractors shall Include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the site through seeding and watering.
• • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
a1
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 8 •
L_.
men
Signincenl Lms
PMenusity wim Tnm
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Slgni WN Nugabm Signrflon, se
ImnAd Incetee Impact
m ed aQ
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of
hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of demolition.
• Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 244nch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover
payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
3) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved
by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to
reduce PMrg emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCS) shall be
applied to all inactive demolition areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or
more to reduce PM,g emissions.
5) The demolition contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel
powered equipment where feasible.
6) The demolition contractor shall ensure that demolition plans include a •
statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
C) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. Heavy-duty equipment in the project
area during demolition and removal of debris will be the principal source of air pollutants.
Air pollutants from demolition vehicles/equipment anticipated on site and associated
debris transport would vary daily as demolition activity levels change. However, the use
of such vehicles/equipment would only result in localized air pollutants. Furthermore, the
pollutants would be short-term and cease after demolition of the building. The generation
of pollutants is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable
Federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the project would not have a
significant impact.
d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of
pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive
receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers,
retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic
facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant
impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air
contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. There is residential development to the
north of the project site. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public
Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The
project is the demolition of an existing structure. Heavy-duty equipment in the project
area during demolition and removal of debris will be the principal source of air pollutants.
Air pollutants from demolition vehicles/equipment anticipated on site and associated •
debris transport would vary daily as demolition activity levels change. However, the use
of such vehicles/equipment would only result in localized air pollutants. Furthermore, the
pollutants would be short-term and cease after demolition of the building. The mitigation
measures listed under b)above will reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
D�-
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 9
Lest Then
S,gnigunt Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: S rd� Mugg�a"M Sgni�emM ro
act hwp=1W Myed I ed
e) Refer to 3.a above..
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
• filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize biological impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian
habitat exists on-site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
C) No wetland habitat is present on-site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an
impact.
• d) The City is primarily located in an urban area that does not contain large, contiguous
natural open space areas. Wildlife potentially may move through the north/south trending
tributaries in the northern portion of the City and within the Sphere of Influence. However,
the project site is located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 10 •
Less Tnen
SignMure Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ftenVeny WIN men
PPD 9 slgM,unt "bo"on Sign canl No
Impad I alw Im p Im C
Avenue and is surrounded by urban development. Therefore no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
e) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize biological impacts. All new projects would be required to comply with the Tree
Preservation Ordinance in Chapter 17.80 of the Development Code. Therefore, the
proposed project will not have an impact.
f) Neither the City nor the SOI are within an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved State
Habitat Conservation Plan area. The project site is not located within a local conservation
area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Figure RC-1.
No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. Therefore no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in •
§ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
a) The Chinatown House is the last remaining structure associated with the Cucamonga
Chinatown site, which was one of many rural enclaves of Chinese immigrants that sprang
up in post-Gold Rush California. Real property tax assessment records indicate that the
Chinatown House was probably built in 1920 shortly after a catastrophic fire in 1919 that
destroyed all but four of the main buildings in the previously larger Chinatown site. Other
records indicate that the property was possibly used as a grocery and that farm laborers
might have been housed for a time in a separate building that sat directly to the rear of the
Chinatown House. The last Chinese resident of the Chinatown House died on the
premises in 1944.
The Chinatown House was constructed of unreinforced hollow clay tile walls and lime
mortar, with a light wooden frame and a partial wood roof. The impermanent nature of the
construction began to show as early as 1952, when the second floor was deemed unsafe
and the stairway was removed according to Building records.
In 1975, the California Department of Parks and Recreation designated the "Cucamonga •
Chinatown Site,"defined as the south side of San Bernardino Road between Klusman and
Hellman Avenues, as a California Point of Historical Interest. The statement of historical
significance at the time noted that the "1919 fire destroyed most of the buildings and spirit
of Chinatown," and that "Twenty years later the remaining, fragile houses were empty."
Rev 10-9-12 b
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 11
Lev man
Significant Lase
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wan man
SignAmm Mggseon sgnfiwm W
Im w In oretee 1 eq as
There was no speck mention of the Chinatown House, and the statement expressly
provided that the Chinatown site was "not a state registered local landmark."
The City incorporated in 1977 and adopted its first historic preservation ordinance in April
1979. In December of that same year, the City Council designated the "Cucamonga
Chinatown Site" as a Historic Point of Interest.of the City. The ordinance that effected the
designation neither defined the site nor specifically mentioned the Chinatown House.
In 1985, the City designated "the China Town House" as a City Historic Landmark. This
appears to be the first and only recognition of the China House as a landmark apart from
the general Chinatown site.
The District acquired the property from its last private owner in 1988. The District has
never used the structure and only occasionally used the surrounding property for
stockpiling equipment. Currently, the District holds the site as surplus property and does
not use it for any purpose.
The structure of the Chinatown House has deteriorated to an unstable condition due to
age, weathering, its method of construction, and lack of maintenance and upgrades.
• There are significant gaps in the masonry caused by erosion of the mortar and substantial
cracks in all walls of the structure causing interior and exterior wall failure. Many sections
of the walls are breaking away from the light framework, and the porch roofs are
collapsing. (See Building Survey Report prepared for the site by Anderson Design Group
dated October 1, 2010). The City's Building and Safety Official reviewed the Building
Survey Report and personally conducted a field inspection of the property. The Building
and Safety Official concurred with the assessment that the structure is a "public
hazard/nuisance" and that it should be demolished. On December 8, 2012, the City
Building 6 Safety Official posted the property with a red-tag indicating that it is unsafe to
occupy the Chinatown House. To protect the public, access to the Chinatown House is
currently blocked by a chain-link fence that encloses the property.
Due to its deterioration, the structure of the Chinatown House has already lost its historical
significance and no longer qualifies as a historic landmark. Historic landmarks must retain
integrity from their period of significance with respect to location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these factors. A landmark need
not retain all such original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic
significance. The Chinatown House will inevitably collapse if nothing is done, causing
potential harm to persons and property and destroying any vestige of the site's historic
integrity. The only method that has been identified to preserve the original structure in situ
given its condition and original method of construction would be to dismantle the clay tile
walls, brickwork, and other exterior features and reinstall them as a facade over a wholly
new structure built within the footprint of the original building. Not only would this be cost
prohibitive, but it would disrupt the historic integrity of the Chinatown House in a manner
that would nullify its status as a historic landmark.
Although the structure of the Chinatown House has lost its historical significance,
•
significant impacts to the historical value of the site due to demolition of the structure can
be mitigated through the following measures.
Rev 10-9-12 ��
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 12 •
Sal Than
sipnif_m Lnn
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 'men0B11Y w� Than
pp g SignfiuM IAfigetlon sipnficam No
Im G I °teE Im — I aq
1) Prior to demolition, the structure shall be cataloged and recorded through a
Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record
(NABS/HAER).
2) During demolition, at least three pallets of salvageable materials shall be set
aside on-site for incorporation Into a future development project.
3) After demolition, a monument shall be constructed on the corner of the site
utilizing the brick materials salvaged from the structure commemorating the
Chinese laborers who once occupied the Chinatown House.
b) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an
impact.
C) Refer to 5.b above.
d) Refer to 5.b above. •
8. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (1)
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ( ) ( ) ( ) (1)
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (�) •
18-1-15 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
p a�
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 13
Leas Than
Signdcant Leas
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: a ° With n I,
Im ad lincorWateci ad I ad
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize impacts due to geology and soils. Therefore, the proposed project will not have
an impact.
b) Refer to e.a above.
C) Refer to O.a above.
d) Refer to e.a above.
e) Refer to O.a above.
• 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? ( ) (✓) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. The General Plan FPEIR(Section 4.5)indicates that GHG emissions result from
construction activities associated with diesel-powered construction equipment and other
combustion sources (i.e. Generators, workers vehicles, material delivery, etc.). The GHG
emitted by construction equipment is primarily carbon dioxide(CO2). The highest levels of
construction related GHG's occur during site preparation including demolition, grading,
and excavation. Construction related GHG's are also emitted from off-site haul trucks and
construction workers traveling to the job site. Exhaust emissions from construction
activities would vary each day with the changes in construction activity on site. The
combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHG's such as CO2, Cho, and N20. CH4 is
emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. When an application for future
development on the site is submitted for review, the project will be evaluated to determine
if any mitigation measures are necessary to minimize Greenhouse Gas impacts.
• Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions - The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.5)
indicates that GHG emissions result from construction activities associated with diesel-
powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e. Generators, workers
vehicles, material delivery, etc.). The GHG emitted by construction equipment is primarily
carbon dioxide (CO2). The highest levels of construction related GHG's occur during site
preparation including demolition, grading, and excavation. Construction related GHG's are
Rev 10-9-12 p-�1
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 14
Less Than •
Significant Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: seu"tmaRaficaMitigation sSignificant N.
IMP20 Inw aced Im act rnead
also emitted from off-site haul trucks and construction workers traveling to the job site.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities would vary each day with the changes in
construction activity on site. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHG's such as
CO2, Cha, and N2O. CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Therefore, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels:
1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air
pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive
dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice
daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
2) The demolition contractor shall select construction equipment based on low-
emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the
grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification.
3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes.
4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or
diesel-powered engines where feasible.
5) Demolition should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. •
6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the
demolition crew.
b) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize Greenhouse Gas impacts. No other applicable plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emission apply to the project. The 2010
General Plan Update included adopted policies and Standard Conditions that respond to
the Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA). The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions guide infill and
sustainable development reliant on pedestrian connections, re-use and rehabilitation of
existing structures, link transportation opportunities, promote development that is sensitive
to natural resources and incentivizes denser mixed use projects that maximizes diverse
opportunities. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR)
analyzed the impacts of GH G's and determined that GHG emissions would be
cumulatively considerable, which would be a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative
impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City
Council. The proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals
established by Assembly (AB).32 and therefore would be less than a significant impact.
Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
•
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 15
Lass Than
Significant Less
Pentially wan ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources:
Sipa SigniNo
ficant I.Pact Incorsta0 Ingipad Impa
c
S. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) (✓) ( ) 0
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) (✓) ( ) ( )
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
• where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ► (✓)
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
a) Development within the City may utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. This
is usually associated with individual households, small business operations, and
maintenance activities like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil or through
construction activities that would use paints, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease,
and oils. These materials would be stored and used at individual sites. The City
participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service
Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State.
The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements
and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and
handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant
impacts to a level less-than-significant. The project does not involve new construction at
this time. The Planning Department will review future projects related to the site on a
D-a5
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 16 •
Lass Than
Significant LM,
fen0ilywn '"a"
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: nt AfUgtlon
Significant No
Impad In "W Im ad I lrnpad
case-by-case basis related to hazardous materials when they are submitted for review. No
adverse impacts are expected.
b) The building that is proposed for demolition may contain asbestos and lead base paint.
The project will be required to comply with existing State and Federal standards on the use
and transport of hazardous materials. The project does not involve new construction at
this time. The Planning Department will review future projects related to the site on a case-
by-case basis related to hazardous materials when they are submitted for review. The
following mitigation measures shall be required:
1) Prior to the Issuance of the demolition permit from the City, the Building and
Safety Department will require evidence of AQMD permit for the asbestos
removal, final certification/report from the contractor who does the asbestos
removal to verify that the abatement work was done to meet AQMD's
regulations and procedures. The owner and contractor shall submit a report
outlining the process of abating and removing lead-based paint to the City for
review and approval.
C) There are schools located within 1/4 mile of the project site. The project site is located
within 0.16 miles of the nearest existing or proposed school. The building that is proposed -
for demolition may contain asbestos and lead base paint. The project will be required to
comply with existing State and Federal standards on the use and transport of hazardous
materials. See b above for mitigation.
d) The project site is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site
inspections did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of
hazardous materials. Therefore, the project will not have an impact.
e) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. Therefore, the project will not have an impact.
f) Refer to 8.e above.
g) Refer to 8.e above.
h) Refer to 8.e above.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would -
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
D-ao
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 17
Less Then
Stgnifiarn Leas
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: �•^fl•rr wm, Than
PP 9 Significant Aitigaeon IS
ignifleant !o
Im ecl In eted I act Im q
C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
• h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
that would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize water quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
b) Refer to 9.a above.
C) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize water quality impacts. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved for all
future projects by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading
permits.Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
d) Refer to 9.c above.
• e) Refer to 9.c above.
f) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize water quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
Rev 10-9-12 p-31
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 18 •
Less Then
SignifinM Leu
Po1MliaAy Wah
Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sgMfinm satigaeon SignifitaM No
Im aft In aratea Im ad I ad
g) The project area is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General
Plan Figure PS-5. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
h) Refer to g.g above.
i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system
designed to adequately convey floodwaters from a 100-year storm event. The system is
substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local
drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the
City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as
shown in General Plan Figure PS-e. The project area is not located within a 100-year
flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. Therefore, the proposed
project will not have an impact.
j) There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore impacts from
seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of
the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain
streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow
impacts to the level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes
several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and •
north of the City.Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) (01) ( ) ( )
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, a general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ( )
or natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
b) The project site land use designation is Mixed Use. The project is for the demolition of a
historic resource due to its dangerous condition. It is consistent with the General Plan and
Historic Preservation Ordinance because protecting the safety of the public shall take
priority. Although demolition of a "dangerous" building is exempt from standard demolition
procedures, mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce as much impacts as
possible. Refer to Cultural Resources 5.a.
C) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at •
this time. The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural
community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the
General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological
resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of
63a
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 19
Leu man
Significant Lees
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sslgrdw evgaoa, se°cant W
Impam llnatea I Irnpad I rnpss
plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land
uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. Therefore, the proposed
project will not have an impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
a) The project site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the
City General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1. Therefore, the proposed project will not
have an impact.
b) The project site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1, as a
• valuable mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an
impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ( ) (✓) ( ) ( )
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
would the project expose people residing or working in
• the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for
future development on the site is submitted for review,
Rev 10-9-12 33
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 20 •
Than
slgniG M Lms
hw
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POfensgronueruM w"n d
M geom Slertifiurh ra
I a In I as I a0.
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize noise impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an adverse impact.
b) Refer to 12.a above.
C) Refer to 12.a above.
d) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.12) indicates that during a construction phase, on-site
stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will
generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to
mitigate the short-term noise impacts from demolition of the structure:
1) Construction/demolition or grading shall not take place between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on
Sunday or a national holiday.
2) Construction/demolition or grading noise levels shall not exceed the
standards specified in Development Code Section 17.86.050., as measured at
the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise
level monitoring. as specified in Development Code Section 17.88.050. •
Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said
consultant shall report their findings to the Building official within 24 hours;
however, if noise levels exceed the above standards,then the consultant shall
Immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above
standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level
of compliance with above noise standards or halted.
The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site
construction equipment but do not address the potential impacts because of the transport
of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be
required:
3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
6:30 a.m. on weekdays, Including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. Additionally, H heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed
100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the
developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction
traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the
extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
e) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a
public airport. The site is located approximately 3.14 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport
and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated.
f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west
of the Citys westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. •
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 21
Leas Than
slgnlnwnt Lesa
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pdentsly Vim man
SlgnifiuM Mugabon IS
ignifimm No
an an lincorpmahaa i an en
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize population and housing impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not have
an adverse impact.
• b) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. The structure is not habitable and unsafe to occupy pursuant to the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Building (UCABD) Section 302 and Section
2.24.190 of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project
will not have an adverse impact.
C) Refer to 13.b above.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
C) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
Comments:
• a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an adverse impact.
b) Refer to 14.a above.
C) Refer to 14.a above. D_
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 22 •
Less Than
SipnlM1csM Leas
F�enbIssues and Supporting Information Sources: S49n,°'r wren °n
Sig Psd bippasl Sigmecam a
Im ed In rtaa Im cl I act
d) Refer to 14.a above.
e) Refer to 14.a above.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an adverse impact.
b) Refer to 15.a above. •
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to a level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that result in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? O O O (�) •
6-No
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 23
en Theo
SipnMcam Lns
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pole AwM1y wm Tian
siIMPO comoran Signfiunt No
IMPO Inco n01e0 ITh ad ITh ad
til Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities.
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize transportation/traffic impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an
adverse impact.
b) Refer to 16.a above.
C) Refer to 16.a above.
d) Refer to 16.a above..
e) Refer to 16.a above.
• f) Refer to 16.a above.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
• capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓)
regulations related to solid waste?
Rev 10-9-12 D��
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 24 •
Lea Than
Sgruhunt Lea
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pnlenu Sgnifiontalty uga Then
M LPogith Significant NO
ITh a In tad ITh ad I eGl
Comments:
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize impacts to utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed project will not
have an adverse impact.
b) Refer to 17.a above.
C) Refer to 17.a above.
d) Refer to 17.a above.
e) Refer to 17.a above.
f) Solid waste and construction/demolition debris disposal will be provided by the current
City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient
capacity to handle the Citys solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the proposed project
will not have an impact. •
g) Refer to 17.a above.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a 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 impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) ( ) H
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
C) Does the project have environmental effects that will ( ) ( ) ( ) H
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Comments: •
a) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified
on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Figure RC-4. Additionally, the area
surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street
b-3K
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 25
Less Than
SignlM1raM Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: aaenuauy V , Then
SiprYAum Aftlg'. SigMPrent W
Imps 1 1 "V eq
improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site.
Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact.
b) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if any mitigation measures are necessary to
minimize impacts to air quality, biological resources, water quality, and traffic caused by
construction and operational activities. If a future project is approved, then the applicant
would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan. The 2010 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a
Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
significant adverse environmental effects of build-out in the City and Sphere-of-Influence.
The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant
adverse effects to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate
Change and Mineral Resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these
resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As
such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of
development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse
impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less
• overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly
and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is
required.
C) The project is the demolition of an existing structure. New construction is not proposed at
this time. When an application for future development on the site is submitted for review,
the project will be evaluated to determine if there are any substantial adverse effects on
human beings. Impacts related to the construction and operation of new facilities will be
determined following the submittal of environmental analyses such as air quality,
biological, noise, and traffic studies. Mitigation measures, if necessary, will be required to
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project will not
have an impact.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier PEIR or Negative Declaration per Section
15063(cx3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses
were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, Planning Department offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(T) General Plan FPEIR
(SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010)
• (T) General Plan FEIR
(SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001)
Rev 10-9-12 6-31
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 26
(T) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH#88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
•
•
pfd
Rev 10-9-12
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
• DRC2013-00157-Chinatown House Page 27
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have
read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or
proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur.
Applicant's Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
•
•
D-y �
Rev 10-9-12
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above-listed project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
• 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management- The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the Planning Director, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action,what action will be taken and when, and
to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will
be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the
project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
• Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Mitigation Monitoring Program
DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157
Page 2 •
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as
determined by the project planner or responsible City department,to monitor specific mitigation
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written
notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the
authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached
hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to •
hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall
require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City.
These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to
monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
•
• •
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DRC2013-00157 Applicant:_ Cucamonga Valley Water District
Initial Study Prepared by: Mayuko Nakaiima Assistant Planner Date:
Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Actionfor Monitorin Fre uenc Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance
..S'eCtlOn 3—Air Quality . '^... i-.1+ •',.,. ,l_.- .':+Yx1°x. . -'c'`-^] "it s if. r x e .:�'. ;.. �-�.+ _
Short Term (Construction) Emissions
1) All demolition equipment shall be maintained in PD C Review of plans A1C 2/4
good operating condition so as to reduce
operational emissions. The contractor shall
ensure that all construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained as per
manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance
records shall be available at the construction
site for City verification.
p 2) All demolition equipment shall comply with BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally,
contractors shall include the following
provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the B0 C Review of plans A/C 2/4
construction site through seeding and
watering.
• Schedule activities to minimize the B0 C Review of plans A/C
2/4
amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in B0 C Review of plans A/C 2/4
accordance with local ordinances and
use sound engineering ractices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule B0 C Review of plans A/C 2/4
established by the City if silt is carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or
occurs as a result of hauling. Timing
may vary depending upon the time of
year of demolition.
• Suspend grading operations during high B0 C Review of plans q 4
winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding
25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403
Page 1 of 5
Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance
requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard gQ C During construction q 4
ratio on soils haul trucks or cover
payloads using tarps or other suitable
means.
3) The site shall be treated with water or other gQ C During construction A 4
soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD
and Regional Water Quality Control Board
[RWQCB]) daily to reduce Particulate Matter
(PM,o) emissions, in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403.
4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by gQ C During construction A 4
SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all
inactive construction areas that remain
inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o
emissions.
5) The demolition contractor shall utilize electric gQ C Review of plans A/C 4
or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment
Q where feasible.
6) The demolition contractor shall ensure that gQ C Review of plans A/C 2/4
construction-grading plans include a
statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use.
Section 5—Cultural'R(*ources
1) Prior to demolition, the structure shall be PD C Review of plans A 4
cataloged and recorded through a Historic
American Buildings Survey/Historic American
Engineering Record (HABS/HAER).
2) During demolition, at least three pallets of PD C Review of plans A -4
—
salvageable materials shall be set aside on-
site for incorporation into a future
development project.
3) After demolition, a monument shall be PD C Review of plans A 4
constructed on the corner of the site utilizing
the brick materials salvaged from the
structure commemorating the Chinese
laborers who once occupied the Chinatown
House.
Page 2 of 5
•
0 •
Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitorin Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance
Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions
1) The project must comply with all rules that BO C During construction A 4
assist in reducing short-term air pollutant
emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule
403 regarding fugitive dust including treating
the site with water or other soil-stabilizing
agent twice daily or replanting disturbed
areas as quickly as possible.
2) The demolition contactor shall select BO C During construction A 4
construction equipment based on low-
emission factors and high energy efficiency
and submit a statement on the grading plan
that ensures all construction equipment will
be tuned and maintained in accordance with
the manufactures' specification.
3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more BOC During construction A 4
than 5 minutes.
4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be BO C During construction A 4
S utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered
engines where feasible.
5) Demolition should be timed so as not to BO C During construction A 4
interfere with peak-hour traffic.
6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be BO C During construction A 4
supported and encouraged for construction
crew.
Section'8:4 Haiards'andFWaste Materials {
1) Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit BO B Prior to the issuance D 2
from the City, the Building and Safety of demolition permit
Department will require evidence of AQMD
permit for the asbestos removal, final
certification/report from the contractor who
does the asbestos removal to verify that the
abatement work was done to meet AQMD's
regulations and procedures. The owner and
contractor shall submit a report outlining the
process of abating and removing lead-based
paint to the City for review and approval.
Page 3 of 5
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible -Monitoring Timing of Method of —Verified —Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance
SebboniO-.LandiUsefand;p,iaimi�g :k,
1) See Section 5a—Cultural Resources
1 Construction/demolition or grading shall not BO
take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. During construction A 4
and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. or—
2) Construction/demolition grading noise _j�o_—15— During construction A—_
levels shall not exceed the standards
specified in Development Code Section
17.66.050, as measured at the property line.
The developer shall hire a consultant to
perform weekly noise level monitoring as
specified in Development Code
Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times
may be required by the Building Official. Said
consultant shall report their findings to the
Building Official within 24 hours; however, if
noise levels exceed the above standards,
then the consultant shall immediately notify
the Building Official. If noise levels exceed
the above standards, then construction
activities shall be reduced in intensity to a
level of compliance with above noise
standards or halted.
3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place—15-0—/60 _C_ —A --
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. During construction 4/7
on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any
time on Sunday or a national holiday.
Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling
would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to
and from the construction site), then the
developer shall prepare a noise mitigation
plan denoting any construction traffic haul
routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall
denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
Page 4 of 5
• •
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method-of Verification _ Sanctions
CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development A-On-site Inspection t -Withhold Recordation of Final Map
PD- Planning Director or designee B-Prior To Construction B-Other Agency Permit/Approval 2-Withhold Grading or Building Permit
CE-City Engineer or designee C-Throughout Construction C-Plan Check 3-Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
60-Building Official or designee D-On Completion D-Separate Submittal(Reports/Studies/Plans) 4-Stop Work Order
PO-Police Captain or designee E-Operating 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC-Fire Chief or designee 6-Revoke CUP
7-Citation
4
Page 5 of 5
It `f\
- City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157
Public Review Period Closes: April 24, 2013
Project Name: Project Applicant:Cucamonga Valley Water District
Project Location (also see attached map): Located within the Mixed Use/Retail (MUR) District,
9591 San Bernardino Road -APN: 0208-151-24.
Project Description: DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157 — CUCAMONGA VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT (CVWD)-A request to demolish"The Chinatown House,"a designated historic
landmark, that has been deemed unsafe for occupancy by the City's Building and Safety Official and
"red-tagged" on December 6, 2012.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,acting as the lead agency,has conducted an
• Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted,the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not
be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial
Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax
(909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the
review period.
April 24, 2013
• Date of Determination Adopted By
U1-u9
Page 1 of 1
Nakajima, Mayuko
• From: Nakajima, Mayuko
Sent: Tuesday, April 16,2013 5:10 PM
To: 'munsonak@aol.com'
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff
Subject: RE: submittal to RC Council meeting of 4/3
Tracking: Recipient Read
'munsonak@aol.com'
Burnett,Candyce
Bloom,Jeff Read:4/16/2013 5:30 PM
Hello Mr. Kwok,
We have received the letter and we thank you for your comments. It will be included as part
of the packet for our Planning/Historic Preservation Commission. The public hearing for this
item is scheduled for 4/24/13.
Regards,
MAVUKO NAKAJIMA 1 Assistant Planner I City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
V:909.477.2750 1 & 909.477.2847 1 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730
From: Gillison, John
Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:10 PM
To: 'munsonak@aol.com'
• Cc: Bloom, Jeff
Subject: FW: submittal to RC Council meeting of 4/3
Thank you Mr. Kwok. I am forwarding your email and attachments to Mr. Jeff Bloom, Deputy City
Manager Economic/Community Development. Mr. Bloom overseas the Planning Department which is the
responsible agency at the City for historic preservation issues. If you could please be sure, in the future,
to address items such as this directly to Mr. Bloom,with a CC to me, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for the communication and additional information.
7n"R. Qif&an
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
909-477-2700 ext. 2000
iohn.gillison(a)citvofrc.us
From: MAK fmailto:munsonak(a)aol.coml
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:28 AM
To: Gillison, John
Subject: submittal to RC Council meeting of 4/3
Dear Mr. Gillison:
Mr. Eugene Moy, speaking on the subject of China House, submitted a package to each council member
that night and took note of this letter. It is companion to the NTHP letter from Mr. Brian Turner.
However, copies of this letter were not included because I did not make copies, assuming Eugene would
simply discuss(subject not on Agenda). I was there, but chose not to speak, since all points were well
made by 5 speakers.
• Please disseminate as appropriate and thank you for your attention and consideration.
Munson Kwok
Chair, APIAHiP Endangered Sites Committee
t-SD
EXHIBIT B
c�
- = Asian 6 Pacific Islander Americans •
- _:+r�• c „ �' in Historic Preservation(APIAHiP)
kfPlr�4 1628 16th St NW M 4
Washington, DC 20009
preser�� tiff
- i a
April 2, 2013
Honorable L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
Re: China House, corner of San Bernadino Road and Klusman Avenue
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This letter is in strong support of the request for an extension as proposed by
Eugene Moy and the China House preservation committee. We support the request for
the deadline to be extended for 6 months to a year so that a proper study and plan can
be accomplished.
The China House preservation committee (within the Historical Preservation
Association of Rancho Cucamonga) is acting in good faith as they are currently lining up
preservation consultants, as well as, architectural and structural engineering expertise to
assist the City in a more in-depth assessment of the condition of China House (and
subsequently for the further preservation work and potential adaptive reuse).
Fundraising efforts are underway through China House preservation committee within •
the Historical Preservation Association of Rancho Cucamonga. With the various
structural and financial criteria needed to address in this situation, an extension of the
demolition order is crucial.
As we noted in a prior letter to you, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in
Historic Preservation (APIAHiP) s a national preservation group comprised of
preservationists, historians, and advocates of historic and cultural Asian and Pacific
Islander American (APIA) sites. We are partners with the National Trust for Historical
Preservation and National Park Service on APIA-related projects and programs. The
APIA Endangered Sites Committee within APIAHiP is newly formed to create an archival
database of APIA historical sites and recommend for active consideration of noteworthy
historic and cultural resources.
Rancho Cucamonga's China House is a significant heritage site for Chinese
Americans and other Asian and Pacific Islanders Americans. We advocate for the
preservation of the structure, as it is an important way to honor the history of Chinese
Americans laborers who were instrumental in the development of the Inland Empire as
an agricultural center.
We hope the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will give this request for an
extension the strongest consideration and we hope for a positive decision. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Munson A. Kwok, Ph.D.
Chair, APIAHiP Endangered Sites Committee •
fj-SI
Page 1 of 1
Nakajima, Mayuko
• From: ewmoy [ewmoy@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday,April 09, 2013 10:21 AM
To: Nakajima, Mayuko; LuanaY47@aol.com; neil.nisperos@inlandnewspapers.com; bturner@savingplaces.org
Cc: Schrader, Lois; Burnett, Candyce
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
Mayuko, what is the schedule for preparation of the mitigated negative declaration, or are you considering
this as the final document? Is there a planned date for certification? Also, I would like to request that the
following be included on the official notification list, by U.S. mail, for all notices and draft documents:
Historical Preservation Association of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 9543
Alta Loma CA 91701
Chinese Historical Society of Southern California
415 Bernard Street
Los Angeles CA 90012
Carol Roland-Nawi
State Historic Preservation Officer -
1725 231d Street, Suite 100
Sacramento CA 95816
Also, at the March 20 Route 66 gas station ceremony, I requested your assistance in obtaining a copy of
the 1987 survey which found the building and/or site to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Have you located that file yet? I would like to stop in and pick up as soon as possible.
Thank you for your assistance.
• <<<eugene moy 626-926-5705 cell
Eugene W.Moy
ewmov(aea nhlink.net
ewmov49(o).omail.com
From: Nakajima, Mayuko [mailto:Mayuko.Nakajima@cityofrc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 8:37 AM
To: ewmoy@earthlink.net; LuanaY47@aol.com; neil.nisperos@inlandnewspapers.com;
bturner@savingplaces.org
Cc: Schrader, Lois; Burnett, Candyce
Subject: Chinatown House Env Document
Hello all,
Please refer to the link below for the environmental documentation on the Chinatown House
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
http://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/planning/current projects/china house.asp
Thank you,
MAYUKO NAKARMA 1 Assistant Planner 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
• -2:909.477.2750 1 F: 909.477.2847 1 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730
4/18/2013
Page 1 of 1
Nakajima, Mayuko
From: Nakajima, Mayuko •
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:52 AM
To: 'Brian Turner'
Subject: RE: Chinatown House
Hello Mr Turner,
We have received and appreciate your comments. All comments are being forwarded to the
City attorney and will be responded to at the hearing scheduled for 4/24.
Regards,
MAVUKO NAKAJihtA I Assistant Planner I City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
0:909.477.2750 1 909.477.2847 1 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
From: Brian Turner [mailto:BTurner@savingplaces.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:48 AM
To: Nakajima, Mayuko
Subject: Chinatown House
Dear Ms. Nakajima,
I have reviewed the Initial Study for the proposed demolition of the Chinatown House located online at
the following website: http://www.cityofrc.us/cityhallZplanning/current projects/china house asp.
we strongly disagree with several of conclusions contained therein including its determination, contrary •
to information in the record, that the Chinatown House has lost its historic significance "due to
deterioration." (pg. 11). Correspondingly, the impact of demolition cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant level with the mitigation measures proposed. Further, we disagree with the view in the
assessment that no significant archaeological sites will be impacted by the demolition.
Our previous correspondence with the City of Rancho Cucamonga should confirm our interest in
receiving notifications regarding this project. However,this email is intended to reiterate this interest
and request that the City keep us informed of significant developments and hearing dates as this project
moves forward. In addition, we suggest that the City employ the guidance in CEQA Guideline 15083
"Early Public Consultation" in order to engage the very dedicated group of advocates who have rallied
around this resource in an attempt to prevent its needless demolition.
Sincerely,
Brian Roberts Turner I SENIOR FIELD OFFICER AND ATTORNEY
P 415.947.0692 M 415.683.8057
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
San Francisco Field Office
5 Third St.,Suite 707,San Francisco,CA 94103
www.PreservationNation.org
National Trust for •
Historic Preservation
Saw thr(poet Inn:h rhe futurr:
4/18/2013
Pagel of 3
Nakajima, Mayuko
• From: Nakajima, Mayuko
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:33 AM
To: ewmoy'
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff; 'Brian Turner'; 'Munson A Kwok'; 'Luana Hernandez
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
Mr. Moy,
I understand your concern. We will send a notice to the additional stakeholders you mentioned via mail
today. We have also advertised this item as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot
radius of the project site, and to all historic preservation groups within our distribution list. Hard copies of
the initial study is available at the Planning counter and City of RC Libraries, and the electronic version
available on our website.
On April 4, 2013 the Initial Study was released for the 20 day circulation period. The hearing will consider
the possible demolition of the Chinatown House by Resolution and Initial Study considered for
certification.
The hearing is scheduled for April 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm before the Historic Preservation Commission. Our
Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission are the same body. The City Council does
not fact on this item unless the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission is appealed.
• From: ewmoy [mailto:ewmoy@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:15 AM
To: Nakajima, Mayuko
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff; 'Brian Turner'; 'Munson A Kwok'; 'Luana Hernandez'
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
May:
Am concerned about lack of notice to interested/stakeholder parties. Have you sent notice of public
hearing on the Initial Study to the stakeholder organizations I requested in my April 9 email per attached?
What is being considered at the hearing? A resolution? What are you using as the statutory notice time
in setting the hearing? Who else is receiving notice and in what manner? U.S. Mail? What is the time
and place of the hearing and before what body? The Planning Commission? And does the City Council
act on it after that? Would appreciate comments back. Thank you.
<<< ewm 626-926-5705 cell
Eugene W.Moy
ewmoy(W ea rt h I in k.net
ewmoy49rolomai1.com
From: Nakajima, Mayuko [mai Ito:Mayuko.Nakajima@cityofrc.us]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 9:01 AM
To: ewmoy
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff; Brian Turner; Munson A Kwok; Luana Hernandez
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
• Hello Mr Moy,
The initial study will be considered for certification on 4/24. All comments are being
accepted now and responded to at the hearing scheduled for 4/24.
4/18/2013
Page 2 of 3
Thank you,
From: ewmoy [mailto:ewmoy@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:03 PM
To: Nakajima, Mayuko
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff; 'Brian Turner'; 'Munson A Kwok'; Luana Hernandez
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
Thank you for providing the 1987 forms. Is there any formal action to be taken for the Initial Study? And what is
the response to the recent letter from Brian Turner at the National Trust as well as the prior letter(s) regarding the
need for a full HABS report? We are greatly concerned that the City is rushing toward a needless demolition
when the building is presently unoccupied and fenced from the public.
We request that no demolition permit be issued while there are still many unresolved questions.
<<< Eugene Moy 626-926-5705
Chinatown House Preservation Coalition
Eugene W.Moy
ewmovAearthlink.net
ewmov49 a).gmaiLcom
From: Nakajima, Mayuko [mailto:Mayuko.Nakajima@cityofrc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:53 PM
To: ewmoy •
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
Hello Mr. Moy,
No, unfortunately I did not receive your email message attached. There is no Notice of Prep or
Notice of Availability for circulation of the Initial Study, only for EIR's. The below link is the Initial
Study for your review. I also located and scanned the 1987 survey (DPR form), which was in the
file. My apologies, I did not get this to you sooner. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
From: ewmoy [mailto:ewmoy@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:34 PM
To: Nakajima, Mayuko
Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Bloom, Jeff
Subject: RE: Chinatown House Env Document
May:
Did you receive my message from yesterday (attached)? I tried sending twice and got error message back.
Basically am requesting notification of any notice of prep or notice of availability. Also, please send us copy of
National Register eligibility determination. Apparently CRM Tech had found it. Thank you!
<<< ewm 626-926-5705 cell
Eugene W.Moy •
ewmovna earthlink.net
ewmov49(@gmail.com
4/18/2013
Page 3 of 3
• From: Nakajima, Mayuko [mailto:Mayuko.Nakajima@cityofrc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 8:37 AM
To: ewmoy@earthlink.net; LuanaY47@aol.com; neil.nisperos@inlandnewspapers.com; bturner@savingplaces.org
Cc: Schrader, Lois; Burnett, Candyce
Subject: Chinatown House Env Document
Hello all,
Please refer to the link below for the environmental documentation on the Chinatown House in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
http://www.cityofrc.us/citvhall/1)lannjhq/current projects/china house asp
Thank you,
MAYUKO NAKA31MA Assistant Planner I City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department
T:909.477.2750 1 & 909.477.2847 1 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
•
•
4/18/2013
v,
Asian 6 Pacific IslanderAmericars
-- '- '
in Historic Preservation(AF!ANiP)
_ •Mj�_�' 1628 1611) S;NYJP4
AE(A Washington. DC 20009
preserflzt gni.
April 2, 2013
Honorable L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
Re: China House, corner of San Bernadino Road and Klusman Avenue
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This letter is in strong support of the request for an extension as proposed by
Eugene Moy and the China House preservation committee. We support the request for
the deadline to be extended for 6 months to a year so that a proper study and plan can
be accomplished.
The China House preservation committee (within the Historical Preservation
Association of Rancho Cucamonga) is acting in good faith as they are currently lining up
preservation consultants, as well as, architectural and structural engineering expertise to
assist the City in a more in-depth assessment of the condition of China House (and
subsequently for the further preservation work and potential adaptive reuse).
• Fundraising efforts are underway through China House preservation committee within
the Historical Preservation Association of Rancho Cucamonga. With the various
structural and financial criteria needed to address in this situation, an extension of the
demolition order is crucial.
As we noted in a prior letter to you, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in
Historic Preservation (APIAHiP) s a national preservation group comprised of
preservationists, historians, and advocates of historic and cultural Asian and Pacific
Islander American (APIA) sites. We are partners with the National Trust for Historical
Preservation and National Park Service on APIA-related projects and programs. The
APIA Endangered Sites Committee within APIAHiP is newly formed to create an archival
database of APIA historical sites and recommend for active consideration of noteworthy
historic and cultural resources.
Rancho Cucamonga's China House is a significant heritage site for Chinese
Americans and other Asian and Pacific Islanders Americans. We advocate for the
preservation of the structure, as it is an important way to honor the history of Chinese
Americans laborers who were instrumental in the development of the Inland Empire as
an agricultural center,
We hope the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will give this request for an
extension the strongest consideration and we hope for a positive decision. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
l l ci_
Munson A. Kwok, Ph.D.
• Chair, APIAHiP Endangered Sites Committee
EXHIBIT C D-igq
RESOLUTION NO. 13-01
• A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ADVISING
THE BUILDING AND SAFETY OFFICIAL REGARDING THE
PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE CHINATOWN HOUSE LOCATED
AT 9591 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD - APN: 0208-151-24; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA HEREBY FINDS DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. On December 12, 2012, the City Building and Safety Official deemed the
Chinatown House, which is located at 9591 San Bernardino and currently owned by the
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), to be an unsafe structure and unsafe to occupy
pursuant to Section 302 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Building. The
CVWD was given notice by letter and ordered to remediate the dangerous condition of the
building by demolition if necessary. The proposed demolition is hereinafter referred to as "the
project."
2. The Chinatown House was designated a "City Historic Landmark" in 1985.
Section 2.24.190 (C) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code states in part: "If work
authorized by the Building and Safety official [on a designated historic resource] is not
• immediately necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition, the Commission may
advise the Building and Safety Official of' the historic significance of the building and
recommend a reasonable period of postponement for the purpose of arranging for
rehabilitation, relocation, or salvage of the Historic Resource or Contributing Resource." The
project was therefore referred to the Historic Preservation Commission so that it may provide
advice to the Building and Safety Official.
3. On the 24th day of April 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the project and concluded said hearing on that date. Based
on the record of the hearing, including all evidence and testimony presented, the historic
Preservation Commission hereby finds as follows:
a. The facts stated in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution are true and
correct.
b. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the
City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential
environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City
staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no
substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.
Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the
City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the
• Mitigated Negative Declaration.
C. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative
D�
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-01
DRC2013-00157
APRIL 24, 2013 •
Page 2
Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of
mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. The Historic Preservation Commission further finds that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
d. The Historic Preservation Commission has also reviewed and
considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant
to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program
is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project
implementation.
4. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring
Program is hereby incorporated by this reference
5. Based on entirety of the public record, including all evidence and testimony
presented, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby advises the Building and Safety
Official to delay the project for such time as is necessary to implement the following
measures: (1) prior to demolition, the structure shall be cataloged and recorded through a •
Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (NABS/HAER); (2)
during demolition, at least three pallets of salvageable materials shall be set aside on-site for
incorporation into a future development project; (3) after demolition, a monument shall be
constructed on the corner of the site utilizing the brick materials salvaged from the structure
commemorating the Chinese laborers who once occupied the Chinatown House.
6. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is based, is the
Planning Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These materials are available for
public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750.
•
P-�i
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-01
DRC2013-00157
• APRIL 24, 2013
Page 3
7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and forward a copy of the same to the Building and Safety Official.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2013.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
• Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on
the 24th day of April 2013.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
Cucamonga Valley
L1 w`atef District 10440 Ashford Street,Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730-2799
P.O.Box 638,Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729-0638
(909)987-2591 Fax(909)476-8032
Martin E.Zvirbulis
Secretary/General Manager/CEO
April 24, 2013
Planning Commission/Historic Preservation Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: Notice and Order for Property located at 9591 San Bernardino Road
Honorable Planning Commissioners and Historic Preservation Commissioners:
As you are aware, on December 6, 2012, the City Building and Safety Official deemed the property located
at 9591San Bernardino Road unsafe to occupy and "red-tagged" the building. The City then issued a
Notice and Order of Abatement for the property located at 9591 San Bernardino Road to the Cucamonga
Valley Water District ("District") on December 12, 2012 ("Order"). The Order required the District to
obtain a demolition permit from the City and to demolish the building within 60 days.. Due to public
concerns, the District requested a 60 day extension to fully understand those concerns.
The District is currently under the obligation to fully comply with the Order. The District has agreed to
assist with certain, limited actions as part of that compliance. Specifically, the District has agreed to work
with the City, per its request, to assure that:
• Prior to demolition, the structure shall be catalogued and recorded through a Historic American
Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER).
• During demolition, at least three pallets of salvageable materials shall be set aside on-site for
incorporation into a future development project.
• After demolition, a monument shall be constructed on the corner of the site utilizing brick materials
salvaged from the structure commemorating the Chinese laborers who once occupied the building.
Although the District understands that the City is undertaking a California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") review process in connection with the City's actions relative to the property, the District wishes
to clarify that its actions are limited to compliance with the City's Order. In that regard, the District wishes
to clarify that it agreed to assist with the above-noted actions in relation to the demolition permit required
by the Order, and not as mitigation measures for purposes of CEQA.
Oscar Gonzalez James V.Curatalo,Jr. Luis Cetina Randall James Reed Kathleen J.Tiegs
President Vice President Director Director Director
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT•P.O.BOX 638•RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91729-0638•(909)987-2591
We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the District's views, and please feel free to contact me with any
further questions.
Sincerely,
LWOW-----
Martin E. Zvirbulis
General Manager/CEO
cc: Board of Directors
File Copy
l
t
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DRC2013-00157 FOR THE DEMOLITION
OF THE CHINATOWN HOUSE
9591 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD
APN : 0208- 151 -24
Tfe� �
HILLS E RD
h
m WILSON AV
x �n a
y
x BANYAN ST
m
y a
z
N
y G <
1
19TH HIGHLAND y
y
viCTORI A PARK IN <
r
3
a
z
a
<
BASE LINE RD
TE VISTAK
PC
a
CHURCH ST n
m
a w
FOOl L BL
gr, y
7e a m
4 b7 p < X+
>T x a
O < A RROW RT �4p < >
a a a9TH ST > JERSEY BL < N
STH ST t
7TH ST
ST ST <
San Bernard,
i
' � ••ter
Background
• Constructed circa 1920 - Association with the
Cucamonga Chinatown
• Originally built as a store with upper-loft
dormitories for Chinese laborers . Later used
as a single-family residence
SAN BERNARDINO A•
N �--- � �iMCt[ _Oliotiewd ---- --� r - - --- -----=Q�--- - ------� - ---- ---
ti
Aw • '
NO
V,
s N O
♦
7 b, ♦
Background
• Used as single-family residence
• 1975 - California Department of Parks
and Recreation designated the site as a
Historical Point of Interest
• 1985 - Designated a City Historic
Landmark
• 1988 - Acquired by the Cucamonga
Valley Water District
j ►1 9'
l
San8amardirFo Road--
Pipe railing
Front porch
FloorShelves
fence Living room(former store) Steps
•
I
IIWindow
Kitchen•
Closet
Level St Irs IISink
Gas .:
Bath
.,.
Wash basin
sin
Back porch
Back steps
Pad
LL-
o —
�w •:
..ice{f•%
r
/ o
■
F � • J
t
Y
J
J .
J
� _ J
J
r 1,
�� 1
/ � r
I • I I 1
R-MAlft An
f«
ho , II1 � ' i 1 c'Pit
f
1._
AMMW
:few
i
i
� • �
� � �
i 4.
� !� f
g���� �►�
F `
7�` �.
�,.� �,��
,,a
��
— � � '
����
.�
� _ _
.., :� - .
-r1 _" i�� nl•
i
Western I I
der
a:+ „'^— �_�ter• ,
:4•
t �
I I
r / r
I
L � I
.paw=
i
slop • •
-J
V �1�
4
1
F
r; Update
• Due to its current condition ,
the CVWD is requesting to
demolish the structure
• City's Building & Safety
Official red-tagged building
on December 6 , 2012
• Unsafe to occupy
• Public hazard/nuisance
Environmental Assessment
- Initial Study
- Mitigated Negative Declaration
( MND )
- Notice of public comment period and
intent to adopt MND
- Mitigation Monitoring Program
I
Proposed Mitigations
1 . Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record ( HABS/HAER)
2 . Salvageable materials
3 . Commemorative Monument
Comments Received
• National Trust for Historic Preservation
• Office of Historic Preservation
• APIAHiP Endangered Sites Committee
• Chatten-Brown & Carstens Law Firm
representing the China House
Preservation Committee
• California Preservation Foundation
Structural onditi) ns of the
1! -. / 4-r- \\�
Building Located at
9591 San B.. mar i n-o Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
April 24, 2013
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Lam..
• The roof sheathing and framing
providing structural stability for
the building are badly damaged
and disconnected from the
exterior walls .
(Section 302 (4) , (5) , (6) , (8) of the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Building
RANCHO
QICAMONGA
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
00
ls`
f
D4122/2013
• Exterior bearing walls have signs
of major cracking , movement and
deterioration to the point that the
structural integrity is very unstable
and it is subject to a complete
collapse .
(Section 302 (7), ( 10) , ( 11 ) of UCABD ).
RnNcxo
CUCAMONGA
:.. � -.+1,� e
r
�1 _� �
�. � .
Y�. ,
t
1
��
t�
_. -, t�4 '
,t. �.
4� g '� E
' ��pl� ., 0. pii::w
1`�� �1
"r
1
0
A ���� N '
1 � •
• � � �
•i I►:� � W
�_
i
.c�
gra:-
_
"00 RANCHO
UCAMO
• The overall structural condition of the
building is unsafe , damaged , settled to the
extent that the structural strength and
stability is materially less than the
minimum requirements of the Building
Code . The footings are "rock" foundation
and they have no sign of steel
reinforcement.
(Section 302 (6) , (5), (4) , ( 11 ) of UCADB) .
j
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
• f ;,rte
•
•
y
t '
_.iCU
If
- T
F
9
:i
r
a '^
f 4
M
• �o
v
a. e
04122'12013
-Ts
.aK -
CHINATOWN HOUSE PRESERVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROGRAM
- - -- -
,Preliminaryscope—and budget(draft 2/21/13)
,Site: -9591 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga -- -------- -
IOwner: 'Cucamonga Valley Water District ---
Developer: tbd ---- - -- --
Program: Preservation and adaptive reuse of historic store and workers' housing
structure for classroom, exhibit, office, and flex space
rI
NO. I PROJECT NAME ' GENERAL SCOPE
1 'Secu • fencin� ;Install better fence to prevent trespassi�-_-__-
-
_ 2 Wamm notices !Install "no trespassing" signs all sides
-3'Securit cameras I(optional] Install and monitor cameras
-- -- - - -
- te-------
- - - - -
4Weed removal - ,Remove surface weeds to prevent fire -two
5 Sidewalk re air Temporary patch to prevent slip and fall —
-----------------
Temporary structural support, minor drainage modifications by engineering
Building and site 1contractor in conjunction with structural engineer. Archaeological
6 stabilization monitoring with temporary storage and curation if needed.
.NABS report and ; -
National Register Produce Historic American Buildings Survey report consistent with
7 Nomination requirements for National Register-eligible sites
Preliminary --- - -- - --- -
8 archaeolo !Conduct relimina site investigation
-- - --.
-- - -
9�Additional management, storage, and security, as needed and determined following
archaeolo - preliminary investigation.. -
Phase I Prepare Phase I report involving compilation o site and regulatory agency 1
environmental information, and testing for LBP and ACM. ACM and LBP clearance
10 assessment required b AQMD prior to issuance of demolition permits, or substantial
(Plan site development program and prepare building set (architectural,
,Architectural landscape, civil engineering), provide management during construction.
11 !mana ement Inte retive exhibit, school and classroom design within historic structure.
--- ----- --e------- --_-._.._.. -- -
(General civil ,In conjunction with architect, assess and design general-civil engineer-i-ng
12 en ineerin
!requirements, including mechanical, energy, utilities, parkin lot__
Structural ----------- --- - -
reinforcement & bevelop structural design, prepare plans for permit, monitor structural
13'desi n 'contractor
� -
repare environmental ocuments to support negative declaration or
14 CEQA compliance adaptive reuse ----- --t -
Zoning and
development
15 entitlements Prepare documentation and applications for cityzoningapprovals.
- Clean and waterproof exterior materials, waterproofing, reinforce walls,
install new roof framing and roof cover, build new foundations, install new
11
16 Building restoration utility services ---- —--- -
r17 Interior buildout Classrooms, meetin rooms, fixtures, finishes.
In conjunction with architect, design site improvements consistent with local
Landscape design landscaping olicies
Landscape
19 installation Soft and hard landscape features _..------i----
20 Li htin /si nae Prepare site identification plan, directional signs
21 Offsite construction Public sidewalks, utilities to site, street lighting, etc
22 Buildin rmka Pa development and rmR fees, secure rinds.
Interim Property maintenance, security oversight, construction insurance,
23 manage-nent accounting
24 Tax credit eli ibil' Establish budget, evaluate potential tax credit and grant sources
25 _Fi�nancing costs Interim loan fees and points @ 3% y
26 Fundraising Raise seed money, matching funds J—
CEQA and preservation knowledgeable attorney to advise, and file l
27 1 Legal advisor documents, as needed
Feng Shui
28 ceremony Ritual to bless site, re-construction and ribbon-cutting
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: 51,768,500
9591 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
As of the effective date of this report, March 8, 2013, I have estimated the "As Is" market value of the
subject property at
LAND VALUECALCVLATIOR I j
Size So Ft S/SaFt Val ue Conclusion
47,916 X 14.50 = $694,782
' ' �' r- NalueConclusion'Rourided c.; � 695,000_
This letter of transmittal, alone, is not an appraisal report and is only intended to summarize my analysis.
It must not be separated from the accompany pages where is set out the assumptions, limiting conditions,
descriptions, factual data, computations, photographs, analysis, and discussions from which my concluded
value was derived.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by James Green,
MAI
.)a4,1, Cy T �jl�CCw DN:cn=James Green,MAI,o,ou,
email=jim@greenra.com,c=US
Date:2013.03.21 10:24:09-07'00'
James T. Green,MAI, "-AC
Page 3
Progress Update
Historic Cucamonga Chinatown House Preservation and Adaptive Reuse
April 3, 2013
The Chinatown House, also known as the China House, was an integral part of a community of
Chinese laborers on San Bernardino Road from about 188o to 1944. Chinese workers constructed
water tunnels and other water facilities that made possible the development of the Cucamonga-Alta
Loma-Etiwanda area, and worked on the ranches, vineyards, and wineries that brought prosperity to
the region. The surviving building, which served as a store and rooming house, was constructed in
1919, and is the last remaining structure from all of the satellite Chinatowns, outside of Los Angeles
proper, that existed throughout Southern California. It is a California Point of Historical Interest, a
City of Rancho Cucamonga Point of Interest and Local Landmark, and has been determined to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The Chinatown House has been owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District since 1988. The
Chinese American heritage community became aware of the imminent threat to the Chinatown House
in late December 2012. Since that time, a number of interested persons and organizations have come
together and formed a Chinatown House Preservation Coalition. The Coalition has since been
researching and sharing the history of the building and the Chinatown community in order to
accurately establish its significance, and to begin the preparation of a preservation and adaptive reuse
plan.
We have prepared a preliminary preservation plan that was submitted to Cucamonga Valley Water
District staff in February 2013. That plan outlined the various components of the development
process for a preservation project. The estimated cost, for budgeting purposes, for the 28 components
identified at this time totals $1,768,5oo; a copy of the preliminary scope and budget is attached. The
time required to accomplish all of the preliminary work prior to construction may take 6 months to 1
year or more. To start the process, we have been seeking technical assistance from and have received
oral and written proposals or expressions of interest from qualified professionals.
We have a vision, that the Historic Cucamonga Chinatown House can once again become an activity
center within the community. It can provide educational and recreational space, and the grounds can
be developed with gardens that reflect Rancho Cucamonga's heritage. We have contacted prospective
tenants, including a private school, that may be interested as users and tenants. We are interesting in
networking with the whole community, but will require time to develop final plans and obtain
financing.
We therefore respeetftdly request that no demolition permits be issued and that
additional time a minimum of six months with extensions be given for us to
work with the Cucamon a 3Laflgy Water District and the cOmmunily toward a
final preservation vision. ###
1
1 )
CHINATOWN HOUSE PRESERVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROGRAM
_ Preliminaryscope and budget (draft 2/21/13)
(Site: 9591 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga .. i
(Owner:
per. _;Cucamonga Valley Water District
---
DeveloItbd — -- ---- —�—
F
gram: Preservation and adaptive reuse of historic store and workers'ucture for classroom, exhibit, office, and flex space
— ---- --.... -
I
NO. IPROJECT NAME ! GENERAL SCOPE
1 'Securi fencin rInstall better fence to prevent trespassin�c
--- — ' -- —
_ aurin notices !Install "no trespassing" signs, all sides
31Security cameras optional Install and monitor cameras
-----------------
_.
4� eed removal — i Remove surface weeds to prevent fire -two years _
5 Sidewalk re air Temporary patch to prevent slip and fall —_
Temporary structural support, minor drainage modifications by engineering �
Building and site (contractor in conjunction with structural engineer. Archaeological
stabilization monitoring with temporary stora a and curation if needed.
HABS reportand
71National Register !Produce Historic American Buildings Survey report consistent with
Nomination Irequirements for National Register-eligible sites
'Preliminary
_8 archaeology Conduct preliminary site investigation
--- ---- --- - - -._ -
Additional management, storage, and security, as needed—and determined- --followin-g
9+archaeology _ �pr� eliminary investigation..
---
'Phase I Prepare Phase I report involving compilation of site and regulatory agency
environmental information, and testing for LBP and ACM. ACM and LBP clearance
10 assessment required by AQMD prior to issuance of demolition permits, or substantial
Plan site development program and prepare building set (architectural,
Architectural landscape, civil engineering), provide management during construction.
11 managementI�rpretive exhibit, school and classroom design within historic structure_ 1
(General civil In conjunctionwitharchitect, assess and design general civil engineering
121engineering !requirements, including mechanical, enema, utilities, parking lot
(Structural
;reinforcement & Develop structural design, prepare plans for permit, monitor structural
13;desi n icontractor
- I )
repave environmental documents to support negative declarationor
14 CEQA corn liance adaptive reuse ----- --
!Zoning and
development
15 entitlements Prepare documentation and applications for city zoning approvals.
- Clean and waterproof exterior materials, waterproofing, reinforce walls,
install new roof framing and roof cover, build new foundations, install new
16 Buildin restoration utility services ----- -- --
17 Interior buildout Classrooms, meeting rooms, fixtures, finishes.
In conjunction with architect, design site improvements consistent with local
18 Landscape desi n landscaping policiLs,---
Landscape
s -Landscape
19 installation Soft and hard landscape features
20 Li htin /si nae Prepare site identification plan, directional signs
21 Offsite construction Public sidewalks, utilities to site, street lighting, etc
22 Buildin Dermits I Paydevelo ment and permit fees, secure permits. _
Interim Property maintenance, security oversight, construction insurance,
23
management accounting
24 Tax credit all ibilit Establish budget. evaluate potential tax credit and rant sources
25 Financin costs Interim loan fees and oints 3% — �
26 Fundraisin Raise seed money, matching funds _ _ �-
CEQA and preservation knowledgeable attorney to advise, and file
27 Legal advisor documents, as needed -- —
Feng Shui
28 ceremony Ritual to bless site, re-construction and ribbon-cuttingi—
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $1,768,500
-I --
National Trust for
Historic Preservation
S=dwpm El die jhnrtr.
April 23, 2013
Mayuko Nakajima
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga,CA. 91730
VIA Email to: Mayuko.Nakaiima(a cilyofi-c,us
Re: Proposed Demolition of the Chinatown House
Dear Ms. Nakajima:
On behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1 would like to express our
very serious concern with the proposed demolition of the Chinatown House at 9591
San Bernadino Road. We are particularly alarmed with the suggestion that the
permanent loss of this City Landmark and National Register-eligible structure can be
justified through a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City has no substantial
evidence that the structure has lost its historic significance,and the findings of its
Initial Study conflict with a litany of reports prepared by experts. As such, the
California Environmental Quality Act requires that an Environmental Impact Report
be prepared, and alternatives to demolition be considered.
We were particularly alarmed by the statement in the Initial Study that City staff has
taken the position that the Chinatown House has lost its historical significance as a
means to justify its demolition. The IS contains the highly erroneous conclusion on
page 11 that:
"Due to its deterioration,the structure of the Chinatown House has already
lost its historical significance and no longer qualifies as a historic landmark."
There is no credibility to its line of reasoning, nor has the City provided any evidence
to justify this remark. In fact, the applicant's own historic resources consultant
recited a litany of the property's designations without making any reference to its
loss of significance "due to deterioration" as the City now claims. Pages 21-22 of CRM
Tech's December 21, 2012 states:
Apart from being part of a California Point of Historical Interest...the China
House was individually nominated and designated a City of Rancho
San Francisco Field Office
The Hearst Building,5 Third Street,Suite 707 San Francisco,CA 94103
E info@ saving places.org P 415.947.0692 F 415.947.0699 v .Preservation Nation.org
N Pc, - -b
Cucamonga Point of Interest in 1979, followed by recognition as a Local
Landmark in 1985...Two years later,as a result of a citywide cultural
resources survey in 1987,the China House was found to be eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places...
Further, citations in the CRM Tech report indicate that as recently as 2007 a historic
resource consultant reaffirmed that the structure maintained its eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Under CEQA, an EIR is required if there is substantial evidence in the "whole record"
of proceedings that supports a "fair argument"that a project "may" have a significant
effect on the environment. Guideline § 15064(0(1). In League for Protection of
Oakland's Architectural etc. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896,the court
affirmed that the fair argument standard as to whether an impact"may" occur is a
low threshold test.
Further,both the CEQA Guidelines as well as case law are clear that a conflict in
expert opinion over the significance of an environmental impact normally requires
preparation of an EIR. Guideline § 15064(g). Sierra Club v. CDF(2007) 150
Cal.App.4th 370. The City cannot in good faith deny that its finding that the
Chinatown House is no longer historically significant conflicts with multiple sources
of public information prepared by experts in the field of historic preservation.
Finally,the proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce the impacts of
the proposed project to a level of"less than significant." As stated in the landmark
historic preservation case Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, [a]s drawing a chalk mark around a dead body is not
mitigation,so archival documentation cannot normally reduce destruction of an
historic resource to an insignificant level. Id. at 1119.
We urge you to honor the concerted effort of citizens to preserve this irreplaceable
part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's unique and diverse heritage.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Roberts Turner
Senior Field Officer/Attorney
2
CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS LLP
2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
TELEPHONE:(310)798-2400 SUITE 318 E-MAIL:
FACSIMILE: (310)798-2402 HERMOSA BEACH.CALIFORNIA 90254 ACM@CBCEARTHUW.COM
www.cbcearthlaw.com
April 23, 2013
Via Email (Mayuko.Nakajima@cityofrc.us) and Hand Delivery
Mayuko Nakajima
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Re: Opposition to Proposed Demolition of Chinatown House; Environmental
Assessment DRC2013-00157
Dear Ms. Nakajima:
On behalf of the Chinatown House Preservation Committee, we object to the use
of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the Cucamonga Valley Water District's
proposed demolition of the historically significant Chinatown House located at 9591 San
Bernardino Road. The Chinatown House is a significant historic resource due to its status
as the last surviving site associated with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Chinatown era,
which ended in 1939. Chinese residents living in the historic Chinatown contributed
greatly to the success of the City's local farms.
The City is considering whether to allow the demolition of the historic resource
based on a claim that the building is currently in an unsafe condition. The Chinatown
House is currently in a deteriorated condition, but that condition is due solely to the lack
of maintenance and upkeep that have been performed by Water District. The Water
District should not be allowed to demolish this important historic resource instead of
performing necessary repairs.
Approval of the proposed demolition and adoption of the MND would violate the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Municipal Code and would
be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. CEQA requires that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) be prepared and certified, rather than the proposed MND, to analyze
the impacts associated with demolishing this significant historic resource and to evaluate
whether there are feasible alternatives to demolition. The City's Municipal Code
prohibits owners of historic resources to neglect these buildings and also prohibits the
demolition of historic resources when there are feasible alternatives. The City's General
Plan seeks to preserve important historic resources such as the Chinatown House.
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 2 of 7
1. Preparation of EIR is Required Prior to Approval of the Proposed Project.
CEQA requires preparation of an EIR whenever a project may have a significant
adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) "If there is
substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does
not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project
may have a significant impact." (Friends of"B"Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106
Cal.App.3d 988, 1001.) Thus, a MND is appropriate only when, before the CEQA review
process begins, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. An EIR
must be prepared instead of a MND when there is substantial evidence to support a fair
argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. "The fair
argument standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR."
(Pocket Protectors v. City Of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 928.)
Public Resources Code section 21084.1 mandates that"[a] project that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that
may have a significant effect on the environment." "A project will normally have a
significant effect on the environment if it will ... [d]isrupt or adversely affect ... a property
of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group." (League for
Prot. of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland(1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 896, 905-
06.)
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Chinatown House qualifies
as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA, and as such, its demolition would be a
significant effect on the environment. That evidence includes:
1) The Chinatown House is listed as a Rancho Cucamonga Local Landmark
due to its status as "the last tangible relic associated with the Cucamonga
Chinatown, one of the many rural Chinese enclaves that sprang up in post-Gold
Rush California but have since vanished." (CRM TECH Report p. 1.)
"Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources...are
presumed to be historically or culturally significant" under CEQA. (Public
Resources Code § 21084.1.) As the Chinatown House is listed on Rancho
Cucamonga's local register of historic resources, it must be presumed to be a
significant historic resource for purposes of CEQA review.
2) The City's recently updated 2010 General Plan acknowledges the
importance of Chinese laborers in the City's history and identifies the
Chinatown House as an important historic resource listed as both a California
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 3 of 7
Point of Historical Interest and a local landmark.
3) The Chinatown House's designation as a California Point of Historical
Interest is substantial evidence it is a historical resource. To be eligible for
designation as a California Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at
least one of the following criteria: The first, last, only, or most significant of its
type within the local geographic region (City or County); Associated with an
individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local
area; A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural
movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best
surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer or master
builder. (Office of Historic Preservation website on California Points of
Historical Interest http://ohp.parks.ca.aov/?page id=21750, incorporated by
reference.)
4) The Chinatown House was also identified as a significant historic resource
in the recent 2011 Citywide historic resources survey as being a property
designated on the local register and as being eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.' (Found at:
http://www.cityofrc.us/civica/fi lebank/bl obdload.asp?B lobID=7739,
incorporated by reference.) "A resource ... identified as significant in an
historical resource survey" is also presumed to be an historical resource and the
City "must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of
evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant."
(CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)(2), emphasis added.)
5) The Chinatown House is listed in the City's 2011 Local Historic Landmarks
and Points of Interest Booklet. (Found at:
http://www.ci!yofrc.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BloblD=10247,
incorporated by reference.) The Booklet acknowledged the Chinatown House
was in need of repairs, but still found the site to be historically significant.
6) The attached Department of Parks and Recreation Inventory identifies the
Chinatown House as being eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
7) The expert opinion of Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Jenan
I Importantly,this survey was prepared after the 2010 Building Survey Report found the Chinatown House to be in a
deteriorated and unstable condition.
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Saunders is also substantial evidence the Chinatown House is a significant
historic resource.
The CRM TECH report "does not dispense with the need for an EIR" because
there is an extraordinary amount of evidence that the Chinatown House is a significant
historic resource. (Friends of"B"Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,
1001.) Additionally, the CRM TECH report does not find that the Chinatown House is
not a significant historic resource; it finds only that there are other more well-preserved
Chinatowns in northern California and that the architecture of the building is not
significant. These conclusions are not a preponderance of evidence that can overcome all
of the substantial evidence that the Chinatown House is a significant historic resource.
Moreover, the Chinatown House is a significant historic resource due to its "associat[ion]
with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's
history and cultural heritage", not due to its architectural significance. (Public Resources
Code § 5024.1.) The MND fails to consider this basis for the Chinatown House's historic
significance, instead considering only the condition of the building's architecture in
support of its claim that the building is no longer historically significant.
CEQA cases have routinely found historic resources remain significant despite the
neglect of their owners resulting in deteriorated conditions. In League for Prot. of
Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland(1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 896, the
Montgomery Ward Building in Oakland was found to be an historic resource for purposes
of CEQA even though it was in severe disrepair with numerous code violations because it
had been identified as a significant historic resource in a citywide historic resource
survey. In Architectural Heritage Assn v. Cnty. of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1095, the Monterey County's Old Jail was found to be a significant historic resource
despite the fact the roofs were in disrepair and there were high levels of mold spores and
lead dust in the building. The deteriorated condition of the resource did not overcome
evidence of its historic significance, in particular because the Old Jail was not significant
due to its architecture but instead because Cesar Chavez had been imprisoned there.
The mitigation measures included in the MND—preparation of a HABS survey,
collection of salvage material and the inclusion of a plaque on the site—are not adequate
to mitigate the impact of demolition of the Chinatown House. (League for Prot. of
Oakland's etc. Historic Res., 52 Cal. App. 4th at 909 ["Documentation of the historical
features of the building and exhibition of a plaque do not reasonably begin to alleviate the
impacts of its destruction."].)
The Planning Commission Staff Report also claims that demolition should be
allowed because rehabilitation would be prohibitively expensive. However, CEQA
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 5 of 7
requires claims of economic infeasibility to be supported by substantial evidence and to
be vetted as part of an EIR, not a MND.
Because there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that there may be
significant adverse impacts, even after mitigation, an EIR must be prepared, circulated,
and ultimately certified that assesses the significant impacts of demolition the historically
significant Chinatown House, identifies mitigation measures that can reduce those
impacts, and describes and compares the environmental impacts of potentially feasible
alternatives.
The Chinatown House Preservation Committee has been working diligently on
preparing an alternative that would allow for adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the
Chinatown House in an economically feasible manner. The analysis of the Chinatown
House demolition in an EIR would allow the City to carefully analyze this less impactful
alternative, which allow the preservation of this last remaining vestige of the a period of
the City's history.
II. Approval of the Demolition of the Chinatown House Would Violate the City's
Municipal Code and Would be Inconsistent with the City's General Plan.
The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requires the Cucamonga Valley Water
District to do the necessary repairs to bring the Chinatown House up to a stable condition.
"The owner, occupant, or other person having legal custody and control of a historic
landmark or contributing resource shall keep in good repair all exterior portions thereof,
all interior portions thereof regulated by the applicable designation statement or adopted
conservation plan, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to
prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature." (RCMC
2.24.110(A).) The Water District is not allowed to shirk this responsibility by
demolishing the historic building. "A certificate of appropriateness shall not be issued for
the demolition of a historic landmark or a contributing resource because of the failure of
the owner to" maintain the historic resource. (RCMC 2.24.110(C).)
The Planning Department Staff Report claims that a certificate of appropriateness
is not required for the demolition of the Chinatown House due to safety concerns.
However, the Municipal Code only allows for avoidance of this requirement when there
is imminent harm that could result. (RMC 2.24.190; see also RCMC 2.24.150(C)
[certificate of appropriateness is applicable "to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition
on the property"].) Here, the Chinatown House is fully secured to prevent the exposure of
anyone to unsafe conditions and has remained that way without incident since December
2012. The City is relying on a Building Survey Report from October 2010 as the basis for
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 6 of 7
its claim that the Chinatown House is in a dangerous condition. The fact that the study is
two and half years old belies claims of imminent harm. Moreover, the Municipal Code
allows "Only such work as is necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may
be performed" without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. (RCMC 2.24.190.)
There is no showing that demolition is the only way to rectify the safety concerns.
The City's Municipal Code sets out clear procedures that must be used in
determining whether an historic resource should be demolished. These procedures must
be used for the Chinatown House. Evidence must be submitted and findings must be
made regarding the feasibility of restoration and rehabilitation. The preparation of an EIR
to analyze the proposed demolition would provide the City with the analysis necessary to
determine whether demolition should be permitted under the Municipal Code
requirements.
The City's recently updated General Plan includes protection of historic resources
as an important goal. (RCGP Goal LU-16.) Policy LU-16.2 states that "demolition by
neglect" must be avoided. Allowing the demolition of the Chinatown House would be
inconsistent with this policy because the reason cited for needing to demolish this historic
resource is the unstable condition that has resulted from the site owner's lack of
maintenance. This is a classic example of demolition by neglect and should not be
allowed.
The General Plan also offers solutions to the expense associated with repairing historic
buildings. Because the Chinatown House is a City Landmark, it qualifies to use the flexible
Historical Building Code and the owners can apply for use of a Mills Act contract for lower
property taxes. (RCGP p. LUP-108.) The General Plan also provides means to help fund
restoration of historic resources in polices LU-17.1 through LU-17.12. These policies
include development of a preservation grant program (LU-17.3), facilitating the
acquisition of preservation loans (LU-17.4), Community Development Block Grant funds
(LU-17.6), and floor area incentives (LU-17.10). The City must investigate the economic
feasibility of restoration or rehabilitation in light of the assistance these available
incentives could provide.
CONCLUSION
CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact
on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21151.) A MND is appropriate only when there
is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an
inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence to support a fair
argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Moreover,
the City's Municipal Code and General Plan both include policies to prevent demolition
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
Page 7 of 7
due a site owner's neglect of an historic site.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Amy Minteer
i f
• State of California—The Resources AgencY Ser. No. 1730 — 49
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HABS_HAER_Loc X SHL No.-NR Status
UTM: A 11-445110-3775190 C
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY e D
IDENTIFICATION
1. Common name: China House
2. Historic name: China House - -
3. Street or rural address: 9591 San Bernardino Road
City
Rancho Cucamonga Zip 91730 County San Rprnardinn
a. Parcel number: 0208-151-24
5. Present Owner: Dolores Navarette Address: 9.9gl San Rprnarrlinn
City Rancho Cucamonga Zip 81730 Ownership is: Public Private X
5. Present use: Residence Original use: Residence
DESCRIPTION
7a. Architectural style: N/A
7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its
original condition:
A two Story rectangular structure of Concrete tile and wood construction. Roof
is low front gable with composite shingle. Eaves are exposed. Siding is concrete
tiles of various shades of reds and oranges. Tiling in gable ends are square
tiles approximately 12 inches by 12 inches . Windows are four panes with wood
lintel , molding and sill . Lower windows are multiple glass panes. There are
two separate entrance doors on the front, of mulitple wood and glass panels
with a wood screen door over each door. A covered porch extends the entire
length of the first floor, with concrete tile blocks as roof supports . Structure
is approximately 3 feet below street level, with concrete steps leading down.
There is extensive vines growing along front of structure and over the roof of
the porch. Several large trees to the rear and east side of the structure
complete the site.
r 7
bey
Construction date:
3� Estimated 1919 Factual
9. Architect Unknown
10. Builder Unknown
11. Approx.property size (in feet)
Frontage Depth
or approx. acreage 1. 13
12. Date(s) of enclosed photographs)
July 1987
iy
DPR 523 (Rev. 11/85)
I - I
13. Condition: Excellent _Good X Fair_ Deteriorated _ No longer in existence _
14. Alterations: Conversion of structure from store to residence.
15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings_Densely built-up x
Residential X Industrial _Commercial X Other:
16. Threats to site: None known_Private development_ Zoning x Vandalism
Public Works project _ Other:
17. Is the structure: On its original site? x Moved? Unknown?
18. Related features: None
SIGNIFICANCE -
19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site.)
This structure is significant, since it is the last surviving example of the Chinese
houses that were built within the Cucamonga area . Originally the Chinese area in
Cucamonga consisted of about twelve attached homes along the south side of San
Bernardino Road. This structure was the east end of the village and is built on
the site of one of Cucamonga' s two livery stables. In 1919, a fire started as
the result of one of the chinese putting gasoline into his stove. The resulting
explosion and fire killed the man and destroyed the settlement. The Chinese were
allowed to live in the old winery building until a vew settlement could be built.
This building is the last remaining example of the village. By 1939, the last of
Chinese, Ptah Wong died, and the end of the Chinese within Cucamonga had occured .
This particular structure was reportedly a store, and the current owner, Dolores
Navarette, recalls going in the store as a child. It currently is being used as the
current owner' s home.
Locational sketch map (draw and label site and
surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks):
20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH
checked, number in order of importance.)
Architecture Arts& Leisure
Economic/Industrial—Exploration/Settlement x
Government .Military
Religion Social/Education x
t.57rje
dtcr
rnar21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys, personal interviewsSAu 8b&AA)iUD
and their dates)."Light Over the Mountain:, Donald Clucas;
personal interview with Dolores NavaretteOctober 1, 1987; San Bernardino County
Assessor Records .
22. Date form prepared October 4, 1987 F'OOTNILL
By Lynn Merrill
Organization
Address:
City Zip
Phone:
State of California —The Resources Agency
EPARTM ENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER FILE HISIvRIC RESOURCES DATA ENCODING SHEET
NOTE: The numbers in parentheses indicate either the number of characters(letters,numbers,punctuation marks,spaces) that may
be entered or the ntmtbar of lines that may be checked.
1. Ser. No. 1730 — 49 10. . Registration Status (1):
City Zip (4) Form No, 11-4) Prop. No. (0-4) —1) listed —date (6) / / _4) may become eligible
X2) determined eligible - X 5) eligible local listing
USGS Quad Map No. 141 2452 year (2) 1985_6) ineligible for above
qq 6 g Z —3) appears eligible —7) undetermined
2. UTM li4491110 ne (2) Eas1NS�/Ili;U) .
A 11. Property Given Registration Status as (11:
B
C _1) part of district
D X2) individual property
_3) both of above
3. Property Name:
Common Name (30): 12. NR Class Category (i):
China House
_ 1) district— No, of properties (0-3)
Historic Name (40): _2) site
China House x.31 building
Parcel NQ (0-17) 0208-151-24 —4) structure
_5) object
4. Address:
9591 San Bernardino Road 73. Other Registration (0-9)
Number 0-5) Street Name (4-20) _1)Historic Am. Blg. Survey X-6) Cal. Historical Landmark
2) Historic Am. Eng. Rec. X7) County Pt. of Hist Interest
Nearest Cross Street (0.211) T-3) National Hist. Landmark X 8) Local Listing
_ Rancho Cucamonga _4) State Historic Park —9) County/Regional Park
City/Town (3.20) —5) other
91730 Vicinity of
Zip code (5) City/ own (,/1 14. Property Attributes:
County 3-letter designator (3) SBO --1) unknown —22) lake/river/reservoir
X 2) sing. family prop. —23) ship
5. Type of Ownership (1-7): —3) mutt.family prop. --24) lighthouse
—4)ancillary big, 9 5) amusement park
11 unknown X 4) private —5) hotel/motel _26) monument/mural/gravestone
2) federal _5) county .-6) comm. blg. 13 st. —27) folk art
3) state _6) city —7) comm. blg. over 3 st. —28) street furniture
7) special district _ 8) industrial blg. —29) landscape architr.
_ 9) public utility blg. —30) trees/vegetation
6. Present Use (1-6): _10) theatre _31) urban open space
_11) engineering struct. —32) rural open space
_1) unknown _4) private non-comm. —12) civic auditorium _33) farm/ranch
_2) commercial —5) public _13) cmnty cntr/soc. hall —34) military property
X 3) residential _6) none _14) government blg. 35) CCC/WPA structure
_15) educational big. 136) ethnic minority property
7. Year of Initial Construction: —16) religious blg. ethnic group (5-20)
Individual Property (4) 1919 —17) RIR depot—
18) train —37) highway/trail
District (8) — _19) bridge —38) women's property
—20) canal/aqueduct —40) cemetery
8. Architect(s) (0-25): _21) dam _39) other
Unknown
Builder(s)(0-25): - 15. Architectural Plans
Ilnknnwn and Specifications: Yes X No
9. Year of Survey (2): 1987
DPR 660 (Rev. 12/83)
Vic" .0#r]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN,JR.,Governor
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23i°Street,Suite 100
SACRAMENTO.CA 95816-7100
(916)445-7000 Fax:(916)445-7053
calshpooparks.ca.gov
w .ohp.parks.ca.gov
April 24, 2013 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Honorable L. Dennis Michael APR 24 2013
Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive RECEIVED - PLANNING
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: Chinatown House
Dear Mayor Michael:
I am writing to provide comments in regards to the impact of the proposed project on
historical resources. As the State Historic Preservation Officer, my responsibility is to
promote the protection of California's irreplaceable heritage resources which includes
encouraging the adaptive reuse of built environment resources. My comments are
provided in response to proposed demolition of Chinatown House.
The Chinatown House is the last remaining structure associated with the Cucamonga
Chinatown site, which was one of many Chinese immigrant communities that developed
in post-Gold Rush California. It was designated a City Historic Landmark in 1985. The
building has also been identified in two city surveys, one in 1987 and the other in a
citywide survey in 2011 as a property that meets the eligibility requirements for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with the
Rancho Cucamonga Chinatown. It is the last extant building associated with
Chinatown.
Currently, Cucamonga Valley Water District owns the Chinatown House and has no
proposed use for the building. The CVWD requested a permit to demolish the structure
because the City building inspector red-tagged the building and deemed it structurally
unsound
Pursuant to Section 15064.5(a)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines, a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or a historic
property survey shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant.
In the Initial Study for the project the City states that with mitigation the impacts will be
less than significant. The reason being the Chinatown House no longer has sufficient
integrity to qualify as a city historical landmark. I disagree with the statement the
structure has lost integrity and no longer conveys its significance. It is apparent the
Mayor Michael, pg. 2
building suffers from a lack of maintenance and has serious structural issues, but
historical integrity and structural integrity are not one and the same.
Guidance provided by the National Park Service in National Register Bulletin 15 states,
"The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to
convey its historical identity. The essential features are those features which that define
both why a property is significant(Applicable Criteria and Areas of Significance) and
when it was significant (Period of Significance)." Chinatown House does maintain the
majority of the seven aspects of integrity such as location, design, setting, feeling and
association. Because it still maintains its historical integrity, the building should remain a
City Landmark and as such, it is not appropriate to use a mitigated negative declaration
to comply with CEQA. Under CEQA it is not possible to mitigate the loss of a historical
resource to less than a significant adverse impact; an Environmental Impact Report
should be prepared to address a full range of alternatives and mitigations.
Furthermore, a Historic Building Survey (HABS) record is insufficient to mitigate the
demolition of the building. This was established in League for Prot. of Oakland's
Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland, 52 Cal. App. 4th at 909.
Finally, there is a significant likelihood for the presence of historical archeological
deposits at and around the Chinatown House that the EIR should address.
I strongly suggest the City work with the Chinese Historical Society of Southern
California and other interested parties to develop meaningful alternatives and mitigation
measures.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project. If you have any
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Amanda Blosser, Historian II, CEQA
Coordinator, Local Government Unit at (916) 445-7048 or at
Amanda.Blossera()parks.ca.gov.
Sincerel ,
5.�.
Jenan Saunders
(for) Carol Roland-Nawi, PhD
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Chinese Historical Society of Southern California
National Trust for Historic Preservation
California Preservation Foundation
CHINATOWN HOUSE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
c/o Historic Preservation Association of Rancho Cucamonga, Inc.
P.O. Box 9543
Alta Loma CA 91701
April 9, 2013
Mr. Oscar Gonzalez
President, Board of Directors
Cucamonga Valley Water District
10440 Ashford Street
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730-2799
RE: Chinatown House Preservation and Adaptive Reuse
Dear Mr. Gonzalez:
We, the Chinatown House Preservation Coalition, are appearing today to request that the Water
District place an action item on the next agenda to consider the following:
1. determine that preservation of the Chinatown House is a worthy environmental option to
demolition, and
2. authorizing staff to commence formal planning discussions with the Chinatown House
Preservation Coalition toward the preservation and adaptive reuse of the building and
Una,i' property.
In the past three months, there has been ongoing activity and progress toward a preservation plan. A
coalition of community organizations has been created. Contacts have been made with structural
engineers, architects, and preservation consultants. A private school has been contacted which has
previously expressed interest in this location. A preliminary preservation plan, with 28 task items, and
estimated budget was submitted to your staff on February 21St. Funds have been donated to the
coalition in support of preservation activities L� SO114 2
In order to refine the plan and budget, we will need an opportunity for structural engineers and design
professionals that we select to examine the interior of the building in order to prepare concept plans.
But before funds can be expended for such work, it would be best if a formal agreement for
preliminary planning is implemented.
Preservation has been demonstrated to be an environmentally friendly alternative to demolition. The
Cucamonga Valley Water District has commendably implemented water conservation and education
programs, and this past weekend sponsored Earth Day at the Frontier Project. Preservation in other
parts of California has become an important priority; attached is a press announcement of the $5
million grant recently awarded toward the preservation of the historic Hay Barn on the UC Santa Cruz
campus. We hope that one day, the Cucamonga Valley Water District will also have a press release
announcing the preservation of the Chinatown House.
We therefore request that the District not demolish the historic Chinatown House, and direct that an
item be placed on the next agenda for consideration of a formal planning process.
Sincerely,
Eugene W. Moy Luana Hernandez
-)-chair Co-chair
UC S,—it? Cruz Nie;c'sletter April 2^1 's
"_� s" ._ r� .r _' i, F "' t Yj ,q �� -. r'•, r � •.. ia` c FmS '� !� `�� fi
� � � 4. � ��, � (` (�.�' E_� £,; € !•:.' « ��.�' �,� �., tl ��, t � ! �E 5�,. F t d. � 1,,i tib.
C,ry I_,itiniNi
ti
. .44
4
►. lam,, .
I
r. w
f
e �
Fp$.i
i
I
1
I'�:III)p!: od' 110.;i,: El Od ley,m_;o;$1,41 i1:.1 idC fl i[ !u:% 1101;.. LOW ;tt'I
:Il
s
io.,K illµ.
W17. see it as a place for people
to gather, celebrate, learn.'
The historic Cowell Ranch Hay Barn at UC Santa Cruz, dating back to the late 18COs, will be
reinvented as the centerpiece of a revived campus entrance and new home for many of
UCSC's innovative environmental sustainability programs.
The r-c-oFe ;!..n i_ part .Of a multi-year project made de possible by a $5 million gift from the
Helen and I.Vii! Webster Fohnd3tion to create a focal point for environmental prograrns
adjacent to the UCSC Farm on the southern portion of the campus.
"UC Santi Cr-,J is a p?orleer .'I the ficids of enrironinerrtal stewardship and agroecclogy,"
:aid Chancel!or George Blumenthal. "This very generous gift enables us to continue to build
on these orograms. Even the process of rehabilitation epitomizes UCSC's focus on
sustainability, environmental stewardship, and hands--on learning," Blumenthal said. 'r want
to thank the Webster Foundation for its vision and generositp."
The gift includes S2 million to support programs and activities in environmental studies.
Division of Social Sciences is incredibly grateful to the Webster Foundation," said Social
Sciences Dean Sheldon Kamieniecki. "The allocation of these funds, along with support from
the campus and the division, represents a major first step toward realizing the Webster
Foundation's vision for reviving the important historic area in the south campus. Man
faculty and students will significantly benefit from various academic programs funded by
this award as well."
Restoration will be a working history lesson and an example of UCSC's commitment to
sustainability, both in how the barn is redone - including reusing wood - and hove' it is put
to use.
Gem of the UC system
"The Farm and the entire south campus complex of historic buildings is the gem of the UC
system," said Webster Foundation trustee Alec Webster; a UCSC alumnus (College Eight,
2002, Environmental Studies). "lire see it as a place for people to gather, celebrate, learn,
and hope it will inspire other private donors to join the project."
The Webster Foundation gift is among the largest single gifts to UC Santa Cruz and is part
of a university-wide effort to increase investment in UCSC's people and programs.
The 4,800-square-foot hay barn first rose on the Henry Cowell Ranch in the late i 850s and
has suffered from the fates of time. Plans call for dismantling the structure and reusing as
much existing material as possible. Construction will begin in a year with occupancy
expected in September 2015 - during the campus's SOth anniversary year.
Mortise and tenon joinery
The barn is within the 32-acre Cokvell Lime Works Historic District listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Its massive timber ffdi1l01VOrk was CGnSirUCtEd nearly 1 5O yeaE"S _
ago by hand using the art of mortise and tenon joinery with wooden pegs, common in New
England but not in California. The barn's age makes it a rare survivor of this type and
vintage of construction. "It's incredible craftsmanship," Webster said.
"The hay barn renovation is an opportunity to do several things all at once," said Daniel
Press, UCSC en'vironmentai studies professor and executive director of the campus's Center
for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, who is overseeing the project.
"It's an 0 porturlty to honor a historir construction mesh. d and provide an attractive, well-
s1_ -d welco 'ie to the campus, Dhc farnin, and nlstcric district, he saaJd. "It Can becoGie a
focai point for file thousands of students who visit the farm ever, year."
UCSC's many outstanding environmental programs include CASFS, Life Lab for grade-school
cl'•ildre" Sustainable Living Center, Program In Commun t' and Agriculture, Environmental
Studies department, and Arboretum, each centered in different places on campus.
' There afro so man',' Lises, Wcbster said. "It's the biggest and best laboratory the _anlp!s
has. 'Wc. want the community to Join us to celebrate the history that is here and build for the
future."
runners held a workshop last summer to develop a shared vision for a newly rebuilt nay
l.arn to support CASFS operations including work spaces and meeting rooms, and allow for
use by Life Lab participants, farm visitors, and for events. included are large flexible spaces
for small conferences, lectures, or workshops that will allow the greater UCSC community io
use the space as we'.l.
Phased construction
A feasibility study by historic preservation specialists Garavagl;a Architecture of San
=rancisco suggested a phased arproach to reconstruction. The first stage would be to
deconstruct and Cc.talog h'stor c piece_ of the building and rebuild a aeather_.{_ight shall Cfi
the sarne site, using the vin age timber-joining techniques. A recommended second stage
will add interior improvements, making the structure suitable for exhibitions and meetings.
In the 860s an •70S, tine Coweil Ranch V✓as file Center 01 t1hE largest hrnE nianufacEur ing
operation, i±, California. i_ me was a vital building material at the tinge and played a key role
in the development of California cities after the Gold Rush.
"The barn was critical to shipping lime. tc market," said Frank Ferry, president of the Friends
of the Cowell Lime Works Historic District. "It sheltered the oxen that pulled the wagons of
lime to the wharf and stored fuel (in the form of hay) for the oxen."
"That's our history; that's the history of the campus;" Webster said. "if you don't know where
you came from; how are you going to know where you're going."
i l'n Helen dno' Mil,l% 14/ez Ss er Fol!17,/atica iS a baseol iii P6ssde,7m anc/
�D/?91"!!li'CEGl1"O ? �1C3?`1L'/?.
N
C A L I F O R N I A
P R E S E R V A T I O N
F O U N D A T 1 O N
5 3''e STREET,SUITE 424
April 24, 2013 SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA
94103-3205
415.495.0349 PHONE
Submitted Electronically VIA email to: Mayuko.Nakajima@cityofrc.us 415.495.0465 FAX
CPF®CALIFORNIAPRESER V ATION.ORG
Mayuko Nakajima WWW.CAIIFORNIAPRESERVAiION.ORG
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Charles Chase,AIA,Son Francisco
PRESIDENT
VICE-PRESIDENT,PROGRAMS
Robert Chollel,Alk Sherman Ocks
PMENT
RE: PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE CHINATOWN Vomars Noor,,
Santa onica
ThomOS Neary,Sonlo Monica
TREASURER
David Wilkinson,Woodland
Dear Mr. Nakajima, SECRETARY
Diane Kane,PhD,La Jolla
PAST PRESIDENT
On behalf of California Preservation Foundation (CPF), I am writing to express Chrishne Fedukowsh.Palade o
our concern over the proposed demolition of the Chinatown House at 9591
Ray Atlamyk,Pomona
San Bernardino Road. CPF is the only statewide nonprofit organization Robed lmber,Palm Soings
Lydidedicated to the reservation of California's diverse cultural and architectural Davi Kremer,Polm.Son Di
p David Marshall,AIA.Son Diego
heritage. Established in 1977, CPF works with its extensive network to provide Gil Mathew,Grass Valley
g P Amy Mlnteer,Esq.,Los Angeles
statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the protection of Deborah Rosenthal.Esq.,Costo Mesa
Kurt Schindler,AIA,Berkeley
California's diverse cultural heritage and historic places. Carolyn Searls,PE,San Francisco
Kelly Sulherin-Mcleotl.AIA,Long Beach
Julianne Polanco,San Francisco
The use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the CEQA document for the Rlchartl Sucre,San Francisco
g Sally Eamowllz,AIA.Berkeley
review of the demolition of the Chinatown House is inadequate and shortcuts
the legal process for analysis as set forth in state law. CEQA Guidelines Article
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
5, Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Cindy L.Hellunon
Archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 (a) defines 'historical resource'.
Chinatown House clearly meets the definition of a historical resource. Section
15064.5 (b) states that substantial change (demolition)to a historical
resource is a significant effect on the environment. Section 15065 states that an EIR is required
where there is substantial evidence of a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore,
Section 15070 states that a Negative Declaration may only be prepared when the initial study
shows that there is no evidence of a significant effect on the environment. It is very clear that a
negative declaration cannot be used for this project.
The demolition of the last remaining site of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Chinatown is a
troubling project that deserves full disclosure, discussion of impacts and vetting of alternatives.
The advantages of an EIR are that it requires the preparation of alternatives to the proposed
Page 2
project (Section 15126.6). Alternatives may show ways to renovate, retain and re-use the
Chinatown House.
The finding that a historic resource is beyond repair due to intentional or unintentional neglect
does not change the process for review. If an EIR finds that there are no feasible alternatives, the
process (Sections 15091 and 15093) allows for the approval of findings of overriding consideration
for impacts that are significant and unavoidable. Findings of overriding consideration may only be
used in the EIR process.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact me at cheitzman@californiapreservation.org or by phone at 415-495-0349.
Sincerely,
1�
Cindy Heitzman
Executive Director
SacrediTeart Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE(909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 11, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034— proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
On behalf of the Sacred Heart Parish Community I wish to express my support to the proposed
wireless site at Sacred Heart Church, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. As a Pastor, I have the
singular responsibility to care for the wellbeing of the members of my community including our
beloved Sacred Heart School. This responsibility is made more visible as I seek the better ways
to serve our community and I feel that having the cell tower will enhance the communication
opportunities for the parishioners and our school.
With regard to the cell tower, therefore, I have diligently studied the facts presented to us by
competent engineers from telecommunication departments. 1 agree wholeheartedly with the
decision to have the cell tower placed here since there are no known negative effects from the
emissions produced by the mechanisms of cell tower apparatus. I further believe there are no
health hazards to the children that attend our school, individuals who work at our facility or the
adults, youth and children that participate in the activities and functions held on the church
grounds.
I pray that our school parents will listen to the voice of reason as we continue our dialogue in
search of the best way to run our school and church. I pray that our good Lord, the Prince of
Peace, will grant us the peace and the joy we seek as we serve him in our beloved community
of Sacred Heart.
Thank you and God bless you,
Fr. Ben dic NWa u wuw-`Udaku CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Pastor
Sacred eart Church APR 2 4 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
April 22, 2013
Dear Father Ben,
I am a member of the Sacred Heart School Board and a parent at this school for the past eight
years. I support placing the Verizon cell tower on the north end of the rear parking lot. Thank
you for allowing me to express my opinion.
Sincerely,
Kevin Huff
April 23, 2013
Fr. Benedict Nwachukcu-Udaku
Sacred Heart Catholic Church
12704 Foothill Blvd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Subject: Proposed Location of Cell Tower
Dear Fr. Ben:
I am writing in response to the proposal to move the cell tower to the northern
most end of the school's rear parking. I want to let you know that I fully support this
move. This way, it is not as visible as it would be if it were to be placed right next to
the blue hall as originally planned.
I thank you for your patience and consideration.
Sincerely,
Meylin A. Parrales
School Board Member
Sacred Heart Parish School
April 23, 2013
To whom it may concern:
My name is Teddy Rawson and I am the current school board President. I have been a member of the
school board for over 8 years, serving under the late Cory Geiger for 3 years and now under Trenna
Meins for the last 5 years. My family and I have been members of this parish since 1999.Sacred Heart
has seen many changes over the years, some good and some more challenging than others. I have seen
this Parish grow and struggle in the past few years. Currently we have been working closely with Father
Ben on tough decisions about the Verizon Cell Tower.There have been many concerns brought to the
school board about the safety of our children in regards to the cell tower. Some are valid concerns;
however with further investigating into the matter,there has been no proof into the danger. I am a
parent who is concerned for the safety of mine and all children. I am also a parent who provides cell
phones to my kids and use one myself. I am confident that if there was overwhelming proof that cell
phones cause cancer or that cell towers cause cancer I would not be using cell phones. I'm not
convinced of the dangers.
I am in favor of the cell tower. I do not think there is a safety concern about having the tower on school
premises. We agreed that the location at the back of the parking lot was best for the school and the
parish. Sacred Heart parish will benefit financially each month and this will in turn help our school. If
people want to leave our school because of the cell tower, than let them leave.They will find that other
schools are putting up cell towers and eventually they might return. In the mean time let's fill our
classrooms with students and families that want a good Catholic education.They will come and the
classrooms will be filled. I have no doubt about this. I pray that God guides us all in the direction that is
right for us. I pray for Father Ben to continue to be diligent in his efforts to serve all of his parish. I pray
for all our students and parents that this will be finally decided and we can all move forward.
Thank you andel God Bless��
Teddy M Rawson
Sacred Heart School Board President
April 22, 2013
Dear Father Ben,
1 have been on the Sacred Heart School Board for the past ten years.As a long time
parent and school board member, l am in support of the cell tower project. I am also
in agreement with your plans to move the cell tower to the parking lot farthest
north. Building the cell tower in the back north parking lot will allow for future
school site expansion which will further support the needs of our community.
Please let me know if I could be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
eannette Martinez
4/19/2013
Dear Father Ben,
My name is Richard Assal. I am currently a school board member for Sacred Heart Parish
School. It has come to my attention that the plans for the cell tower has been designated
to be moved to the back of the school (where the back parking lot is located). I wanted to
let you know that I am in full agreement of having the cell tower moved to this location.
Please let me know if there is anything I can so to help.
Sincerely,
Richard Assal.
Sacred-9feart Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 23, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034— proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I would like to express to you my support of the proposed wireless site at Sacred Heart Church,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. t am an employee at the church and have been involved with the
process of having the cell tower placed on the church grounds.
Based on the facts and research that have been given to us, I agree wholeheartedly with the
decision to have the cell tower placed here. I believe there are no health hazards to the children
that attend our school, individuals who work at our facility or the adults, youth and children that
participate in the activities and functions held on the church grounds.
In our society today, each one of us is dependent on our own individual cell phones to
communicate and remain in touch with others in our daily lives. In order to accomplish this we
must have the cell towers that surround all of us in our community both at work and in our
homes. I trust in the knowledge of those who have the responsibility to make the decisions
regarding the safety of these types of issues and therefore with their guidance and
recommendations I fully support this decision to place the cell tower at Sacred Heart Church.
If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me at (909) 899-1049 ext
150
Sincerely yours,
ecilia Fornell
Director of Religious Education CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Sacred Heart Church
APR 2 4 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
April 18, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
The present is to express my support for the proposed Conditional Use Permit
DRC 2013-00034 proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill Boulevard.
A Verizon Wireless site here at our parish of Sacred Heart in Rancho Cucamonga.
I am aware that the installation of this tower will not harm the members of our
parish, instead it will bring helpful benefits to our parish.
If you have any questions regarding the above information, I'll be happy to assist
you in any way I can.
Sincerely,
Deacon Roberto Cardenas
Hispanf`ic Ministry Coordinator
Sacred Heart Catholic Church
Rancho Cucamonga
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 4 2013
RECEIVED -- PLANNING
STAFF REPORT -
• PLiNNING DEPARTDfENT
DATE: April 24, 2013 RANCHO
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Carlo Cambare, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00868 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA — A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-18. THE
MODIFIED CONDITION WILL REQUIRE THE RECEIPT OF AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR THE
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT
REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AT 13249 ARROW ROUTE — APN: 0229-171-15
AND 0229-171-16. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15301(N) (CLASS 1 EXEMPTION
- EXISTING FACILITIES) CONVERSION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO AN
OFFICE USE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to Development Review
• DRC2010-00868 through the adoption of the attached Resolution.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Pipe storage yard — Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
Etiwanda South Overlay of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
South - Storage Yard —General Industrial
East - Vacant parcel — General Industrial
West - Single-Family Residence—General Industrial
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
South - General Industrial
East - General Industrial
West - General Industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The project is located on the south side of Arrow Route between
Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue. The site is currently improved with a legal non-conforming
single-family residence. To the west, is a legal non-conforming single-family dwelling unit, to the
south is an industrial storage yard, to the north across Arrow Route is a large pipe storage yard,
and to the east is a vacant parcel.
• Item E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2010-00868 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
Page 2 •
ANALYSIS:
A. General: This project was a request to convert an existing non-conforming residential site into an
industrial use within the General Industrial (GI) District (Subarea 8) located at 13249 Arrow Route
(990 feet east of Pecan Avenue and 300 feet west of City limits). The Planning Commission
approved DRC2010-00868 through the adoption of its Resolution No. 12-18 on April 25, 2012.
In the original resolution on page 3, Engineering condition number 2 reads as follows:
Arrow Route frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Major Arterial" standards
as required and including 50 feet from centerline to ROW and 36 feet from centerline to curb
and gutter:
a. Provide curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approach as required
b. Proposed drive approach shall conform to City Standard Drawing No. 101, Type C
C. Provide (1) 9500 Lumen HPSV street light at Station 10+40
d. Provide traffic signing and striping, as required.
e. Provide R26 signs, or replace as required.
The condition requires the widening of Arrow Route, and the installation of the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk along 110 feet of the frontage of the property. Upon technical plan check, it was •
discovered that this particular section of Arrow Route is relatively flat; therefore, drainage flows are
minimal but flow westerly on Arrow Route. The closest street improvements exist approximately
350 feet west of the property. There are 4 parcels that are underdeveloped between the existing
improvements and the subject property. There are no existing improvements to the east of the
property and the likelihood of the entire block being developed is remote. Installing the frontage
improvements on Arrow Route at the subject property will concentrate flows in the gutter that will
discharge onto the property to the west. With the lack of curb and gutter at the adjacent properties
west of the subject property, it was determined that if the improvements are installed the drainage
will not flow efficiently. In addition, existing conditions will hinder the installation of the required
public frontage improvements as an existing block wall on the adjacent westerly parcel currently
lies in the ultimate right-of-way and in the area of the proposed widening improvements. As a
result, the required improvements can not be installed properly.
The Engineering Services Department has reviewed existing Condition number 2 on page 3 of
Resolution No. 12-18 and would like to delete it and replace it with the following condition:
"An in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements along the frontage
of 13249 Arrow Route must be paid prior to building permit issuance. Please see
Engineering Services Department for details."
The frontage improvements will still get installed with the new condition, just at a later time such as
when the surrounding properties install their frontage improvements. This will provide a more
logical and safer environment for the area.
•
E-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2010-00868 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
• Page 3
B. Environmental Assessment:
The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines.
The project qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(n)
(Existing Facility) conversion of a single-family residence to office use and there is no substantial
evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property
was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site.
Respectfully submitted,.
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
• DFJ:CCC/rlf
Attachments: Exhibit A— Planning Commission Resolution 12-18
Exhibit B—Vicinity Map
Draft Resolution
•
E-3
RESOLUTION NO.12-18
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2010-00868, A REQUEST TO CONVERT AN EXISTING NOW
CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL SITE INTO AN INDUSTRIAL USE ON
.7 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT 13249 ARROW ROUTE IN THE
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8); AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF—APN: 0229-171-15 and 16.
A. Recitals.
1. Gonzalo Mendez filed an application for the approval of Development Review
DRC2010-00868, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Development Review request is referred to as"the application."
2. On the 25th day of April 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
• 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on April 25, 2012, including written and oral staff reports', this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. . The application applies to the property located between Pecan Avenue and
Hickory Avenue on the south side of Arrow Route with a street frontage of approximately 110 feet
and a lot depth of approximately 300 feet, and is presently improved with a single-family residence
and detached garage; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is undeveloped land used as a pipe
storage yard and is zoned Low-Medium Residential; the property to the south is developed as a
storage yard with no buildings and is zoned General Industrial (Subarea 8) and;the property to the
east is vacant undeveloped land and is zoned General Industrial (Subarea 8); and the property to
the west is developed with a legal non-conforming single-family residence and is zoned General
Industrial (Subarea 8); and
C. The project consists of the conversion of an existing legal non-conforming single-
family residence into a an office and storage yard; and
d. The project conforms to the basic Development Standards of the Development
Code which requires screening for storage of work vehicles on site.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
• this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
EXHIBIT A
E-4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868— GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 2 •
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan by
encouraging uses that are compatible with the surrounding uses and activities that do not have a
negative impact on the surrounding area; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located by providing a mix of landscape and screen
walls to conceal outdoor operations and still adhering to setback and height regulations that govem
the area where this business will be conducted; and
C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code in that the conversion of a single-family residence into an office use must be
approved by a Development Review within the Industrial Zoned Districts; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity as masonry walls, landscaping and street improvements have been
proposed to minimize any impacts on the surrounding area.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (n) (Existing Facilities — Conversion of a single-family residence into an office)
because the applicant is converting a single-family residence into an office use. In addition,there is
no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and •
based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the conversion of a single-family residence into an
office use with the development of the yard into a parking lot for the
storage of fleet vehicles.
2) Outdoor storage of items on the property was not reviewed. Any future
outdoor storage other than vehicles parking in the parking lot is not
allowed.
3) Storage of vehicles on-site shall be stored in the parking area behind
the screening elements constructed for that purpose.
4) Free-standing light standards shall not exceed 25-feet or the height of
the shortest on-site building. All lighting shall be shielded to confine
the light spread to within the site's boundaries.
Engineering Department
1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the •
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except
E-5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 3
for the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Arrow Route shall be
paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall
be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project
frontage on Arrow Route.
2) Arrow Route frontage improvements to be in accordance with City
"Major Arterial"standards as required and including 50ftfrom centerline
to ROW and 36 feet from centerline to curb and gutter:
a. Provide curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approach as required.
b. Proposed drive approach shall conform to City Standard
Drawing No. 101, Type C.
C. Provide (1) 9500 Lumen HPSV street light at Station 10+40.
d. Provide traffic signing and striping, as required.
e. Provide R26 signs, or replace as required.
3) Transitions to existing curb and gutter(pavement)east and west of the
project boundary shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4) Installing frontage improvements on Arrow Route will concentrate flows
• in the gutter that discharges to the property to the west. This will need
to be mitigated on-site. Developer may stop the curb and gutter 10 feet
from westerly property line to allow surface drain on-site. Alternatively,
a curbside drain outlet modified with reverse flow may be installed to
allow surface drain on-site. A drainage acceptance agreement shall be
provided for acceptance of public water from the street prior to building
permit issuance.
5) Fees due prior to building permit issuance
Transportation fees: $5,138.20
Office/business park: $5,585 per square foot
(FEES SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Building and Safety:
Change of Occupancy Standard Conditions for Existing Structures
NOTE: STRUCTURES THAT CHANGE OCCUPANCY MUST
COMPLY WITH THE 2010 CBC CHAPTER 34 FOR A HIGHER
OCCUPANCY CATEGORY,ADA&TITLE 24 ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE
REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW (S)
1) Due to the scope of the project, an Occupancy Change review is
required. Upon approval of the Development Review, submit plans to
the Building and Safety Division to determine compliance for the
• proposed use.
E-6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 4 •
2) B&S requires that change of occupancy plans from a"R"occupancy to
a'B"occupancy be prepared by professional designer or architect or
engineer.
3) Provide compliance with the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) for
the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive
rating of existing buildings.
4) Provide required restroom facilities per the CBC.
5) All exiting must comply with the requirements of CBC Chapter 10
(type of hardware, door swings, etc.).
6) Accessibility for the disabled must be provided at the site and within
the building in accordance with the 2010 CA Building Code.
7) Due to the change in occupancy of the facility, the structure must be
reanalyzed for the current wind, seismic and vertical loads.
8) The facility must meet the State of California Energy Conservation
Standard regulations applicable to the new occupancy as presently
required.
9) Upon tenant improvement and/or change of occupancy plans review, •
additional analysis may be required.
Fire Services:
Change of Occupancy Fire Standard Conditions for a CUP Application
1) A change of occupancy plan is required to be submitted to Building &
Safety for the evaluation of the proposed use in the existing
commercial/industrial building. Some of the issues that must be
addressed include(but are not limited to):accessibility to the buildings
and facilities,floor loads,type of doors,swing of doors,seismic or wind
analysis for the current adopted codes and exiting criteria. If you have
any questions please contact Moises Eskenazi, Senior Fire Plans
Examiner at (909) 477-2710 ext. 4209.
Building and Safety (Grading):
1) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current
adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and
accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall
be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading
and Drainage Plan.
2) A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the
State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided
at Grading and Drainage Plan submittal for review. Plans shall .
implement design recommendations per said report.
E-7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868- GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 5
3) A Geologic Report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or
Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for
Grading and Drainage Plan review.
4) The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and
compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by
the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits.
5) A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for
all new construction projects and for existing buildings where
improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be
prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil
Engineer. ..
6) The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust
Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior
to the issuance of a grading permit.
7) If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the
Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate
plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.
8) A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for
• on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and
Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage
prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed
and sealed by the Engineer of Record.
9) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-
site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
10) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-
site drainage acceptance letter(s)from adjacent downstream property
owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows
are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a
drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing
flows prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
11) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission
from the adjacent property owner(s)to construct a wall on the property
line or provide detail(s)showing the perimeter wall(s)to be constructed
offset from the property line.
12) The Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path
from the public right-of-way and the accessibility parking stalls to the
building doors in conformance with the current adopted California
Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail
including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the
current adopted California Building Code.
•
E-8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 6 •
13) The Grading and Drainage Plan shall Implement City Standards for
on-site construction where possible,and provide details for all work not
covered by City Standard Drawings.
14) All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right-of-way
or adjacent private property.
15) Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed
per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code.
16) The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking
stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California
Building Code.
17) Roof storm water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and
shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho
Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit.
18) The final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show existing topography
with a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.
19) The applicant shall provide a Grading Agreement and Grading Bond
for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Grading Agreement and Bond shall
be approved by the Building and Safety Official. •
20) Provide documentation for C.V.W.D sewer offset program to the
Building and Safety Official for review prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
21) This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the
current adopted California Building Code.
22) The Precise Grading and Drainage Plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for
Grading Plans and Permit".
23) Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading
contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting
shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the
Grading Contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about
grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-
grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of
grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to
suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The Grading Contractor shall call into the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working
day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior
to continuing grading operations: •
E-9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 7
(i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
(ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of
the building permit;
(iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the Grading
Contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians(Building and Safety Front Counter)an
original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be
prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by
the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
(iv) The Rough Grading Certificates and the
Compaction Reports will be reviewed by the
Associate Engineer or a designated person and
approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
24) Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the Engineer of
record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality
management plan (WQMP) Best Management Practices (BMP)
devices.
25) It is the responsibility of the applicant to meet all accessibility
requirements.
• 26) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit a Water Quality Management
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official.
27) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a
drainage easement or letter from the adjacent and/or downstream
property owners accepting concentrated drainage flows. This condition
also includes concentrated flows from the sump area created on
Arrow Route.
28) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality
Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office.
29) For all storm water seepage pits and other storm water injection wells
over 10-feet deep, the applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form
7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number
assigned to the Building and Safety Official prior to issuance of the
grading permit.
30) If the depths of the seepage pits/infiltration wells is 10-feet or greater
below grade, the land owner shall provide an inspection report by a
qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the underground
infiltration pits to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental
Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis
all best management practices (BMPs) as described in the Storm
• Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All
E-10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 8 •
costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the
responsibility of the land owner.
31) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit,the Grading and Drainage Plan
shall show existing topography and planimetric features 100-feet south
of the property line/project boundary. This is to determine the flow path
of the storm water flows and their effect on the adjacent downstream
properties.
32) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, all developed storm water flows
shall be mitigated to the pre-developed storm water flow conditions.
33) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the permitted Grading and
Drainage Plan set shall include a demolition plan of the existing site
features to be removed.
34) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall record
easements for all work on adjacent private property(s).
35) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit,the Grading and Drainage Plans
shall show the location of the existing sewer lateral from the existing
building discharging to either a public sewer or a private sewage
disposal system. If necessary the existing sewage disposal system
shall be reconstructed to current adopted Plumbing Code requirements
at the direction of the Building and Safety Services Director. •
36) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Building and Safety Services Director, or his designee, a Soils
Infiltration/Percolation Report with recommendations for the
engineering of the proposed storm water seepage pit(s)/injection
well(s).
37) A Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be approved by the
Building and Safety Official and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
"Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be
recorded prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
•
E-11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012 7
• Page 9
BY:
Luis Munoz Jr., Chairmarf
ATTEST:
Candyc umett, Senior Planner
I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 25th day of April 2012, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
•
•
E-12
,
I
I. w
=��^^ A7r-rn+1Rl _Arrow.R2•id-e— ___. -- --
i
I I
a
it
44
i
N
r"
DRC2010-00868 N
13249 Arrow Route W*E
Y 8
RANCHO
UCA:.IONGA
EXHIBIT B
E-13
RESOLUTION NO. 13-21
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
AMMENDMENT OF ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. DRC2010-00868, LOCATED AT
13249 ARROW ROUTE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN 229-171-26
A. Recitals.
1. Gonzalo Mendez filed an application for the approval of Development Review
No. DRC2010-00$68, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the
subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 24th day of April 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
• NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on April 24, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located between Pecan and Hickory Avenues
on the south side of Arrow Route with a street frontage of approximately 110 feet and lot depth of
300 feet and is presently improved with a single-family residence and detached garage; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is undeveloped and used as a pipe
storage yard and is zoned Low-Medium Residential; the property to the south is developed as a
storage yard with no buildings and is zoned General Industrial and;the property to the east is vacant
undeveloped land and use is zoned General Industrial; and the property to the west is developed
with a legal non-conforming single-family residence and is zoned General Industrial; and
C. The project consists of the conversion of an existing legal non-conforming
single-family residence into an office and storage yard; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
• above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
E-14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-21
DRC2010-00868— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
Page 2
•
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan because
the required street improvements will be installed at sometime in the future; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located by bringing the site into compliance with
current code requirements; and
C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code because an office with a storage yard is a permitted use within the General
Industrial District; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity as the improvements will still be installed at sometime in the future.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (n) (Existing Facility) conversion of a single-family residence to office use. In
addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of
exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of
exemption. •
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and incorporated herein by this reference.
Engineering Department
1) Approval is for the deletion of Engineering Condition number 2 on page
3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18 and the addition of the
following condition:
"An in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements along
the frontage of 13249 Arrow Route must be paid prior to building permit
issuance."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
•
E-15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-21
DRC2010-00868—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
Page 3
• APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 24th day of April 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
• ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
E-16
STAFF REPORT -
• PUNNING DEPARTDIENT
DATE: April 24, 2013 RANCHO
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Carlo Cambare, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00868 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA — A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-18. THE
MODIFIED CONDITION WILL REQUIRE THE RECEIPT OF AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR THE
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT
REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AT 13249 ARROW ROUTE — APN: 0229-171-15
AND 0229-171-16. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15301(N) (CLASS 1 EXEMPTION
- EXISTING FACILITIES) CONVERSION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO AN
OFFICE USE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to Development Review
• DRC2010-00868 through the adoption of the attached Resolution.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Pipe storage yard — Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
Etiwanda South Overlay of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
South - Storage Yard —General Industrial
East - Vacant parcel —General Industrial
West - Single-Family Residence — General Industrial
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
South - General Industrial
East - General Industrial
West - General Industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The project is located on the south side of Arrow Route between
Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue. The site is currently improved with a legal non-conforming
single-family residence. To the west, is a legal non-conforming single-family dwelling unit, to the
south is an industrial storage yard, to the north across Arrow Route is a large pipe storage yard,
and to the east is a vacant parcel.
• Item E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2010-00868— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
Page 2 •
ANALYSIS:
A. General: This project was a request to convert an existing non-conforming residential site into an
industrial use within the General Industrial (GI) District (Subarea 8) located at 13249 Arrow Route
(990 feet east of Pecan Avenue and 300 feet west of City limits). The Planning Commission
approved DRC2010-00868 through the adoption of its Resolution No. 12-18 on April 25, 2012.
In the original resolution on page 3, Engineering condition number 2 reads as follows:
Arrow Route frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Major Arterial" standards
as required and including 50 feet from centerline to ROW and 36 feet from centerline to curb
and gutter:
a. Provide curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approach as required
b. Proposed drive approach shall conform to City Standard Drawing No. 101, Type C
C. Provide (1) 9500 Lumen HPSV street light at Station 10+40
d. Provide traffic signing and striping, as required.
e. Provide R26 signs, or replace as required.
The condition requires the widening of Arrow Route, and the installation of the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk along 110 feet of the frontage of the property. Upon technical plan check, it was •
discovered that this particular section of Arrow Route is relatively flat; therefore, drainage flows are
minimal but flow westerly on Arrow Route. The closest street improvements exist approximately
350 feet west of the property. There are 4 parcels that are underdeveloped between the existing
improvements and the subject property. There are no existing improvements to the east of the
property and the likelihood of the entire block being developed is remote. Installing the frontage
improvements on Arrow Route at the subject property will concentrate flows in the gutter that will
discharge onto the property to the west. With the lack of curb and gutter at the adjacent properties
west of the subject property, it was determined that if the improvements are installed the drainage
will not flow efficiently. In addition, existing conditions will hinder the installation of the required
public frontage improvements as an existing block wall on the adjacent westerly parcel currently
lies in the ultimate right-of-way and in the area of the proposed widening improvements. As a
result, the required improvements can not be installed properly.
The Engineering Services Department has reviewed existing Condition number 2 on page 3 of
Resolution No. 12-18 and would like to delete it and replace it with the following condition:
"An in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements along the frontage
of 13249 Arrow Route must be paid prior to building permit issuance. Please see
Engineering Services Department for details."
The frontage improvements will still get installed with the new condition, just at a later time such as
when the surrounding properties install their frontage improvements. This will provide a more
logical and safer environment for the area.
•
E-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2010-00868 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
• Page 3
B. Environmental Assessment:
The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines.
The project qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(n)
(Existing Facility) conversion of a single-family residence to office use and there is no substantial
evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property
was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan James
Senior Civil Engineer
• DFJ:CCC/rlf
Attachments: Exhibit A— Planning Commission Resolution 12-18
Exhibit B—Vicinity Map
Draft Resolution
•
E-3
RESOLUTION NO.12-18
. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2010-00868, A REQUEST TO CONVERT AN EXISTING NOW
CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL SITE INTO AN INDUSTRIAL USE ON
.7 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT 13249 ARROW ROUTE IN THE
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8); AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0229-171-15 and 16.
A. Recitals.
1. Gonzalo Mendez filed an application for the approval of Development Review
DRC2010-00868, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of April 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
• 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. i
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on April 25, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located between Pecan Avenue and
Hickory Avenue on the south side of Arrow Route with a street frontage of approximately 110 feet
and a lot depth of approximately 300 feet, and is presently improved with a single-family residence
and detached garage; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is undeveloped land used as a pipe
storage yard and is zoned Low-Medium Residential; the property to the south is developed as a
storage yard with no buildings and is zoned General Industrial (Subarea 8) and;the property to the
east is vacant undeveloped land and is zoned General Industrial (Subarea 8); and the property to
the west is developed with a legal non-conforming single-family residence and is zoned General
Industrial (Subarea 8); and
C. The project consists of the conversion of an existing legal non-conforming single-
family residence into a an office and storage yard; and
d. The project conforms to the basic Development Standards of the Development
Code which requires screening for storage of work vehicles on site.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
• this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
EXHIBIT A
E-4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 2 •
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan by
encouraging uses that are compatible with the surrounding uses and activities that do not have a
negative impact on the surrounding area; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located by providing a mix of landscape and screen
walls to conceal outdoor operations and still adhering to setback and height regulations that govem
the area where this business will be conducted; and
C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the appficable provisions of the
Development Code in that the conversion of a single-family residence into an office use must be
approved by a Development Review within the Industrial Zoned Districts; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity as masonry walls, landscaping and street improvements have been
proposed to minimize any impacts on the surrounding area.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (n) (Existing Facilities — Conversion of a single-family residence into an office)
because the applicant is converting a single-family residence into an office use. In addition,there is
no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and •
based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the conversion of a single-family residence into an
office use with the development of the yard into a parking lot for the
storage of fleet vehicles.
2) Outdoor storage of items on the property was not reviewed. Any future
outdoor storage other than vehicles parking in the parking lot is not
allowed.
3) Storage of vehicles on-site shall be stored in the parking area behind
the screening elements constructed for that purpose.
4) Free-standing light standards shall not exceed 25-feet or the height of
the shortest on-site building. All lighting shall be shielded to confine
the light spread to within the site's boundaries.
Engineering Department
1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the •
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except
E-5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 3
for the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Arrow Route shall be
paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall
be ane-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project
frontage on Arrow Route.
2) Arrow Route frontage improvements to be in accordance with City
"MajorArtedal"standards as required and including 50ftfrom centerline
to ROW and 36 feet from centerline to curb and gutter:
a. Provide curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approach as required.
b. Proposed drive approach shall conform to City Standard
Drawing No. 101, Type C.
C. Provide (1) 9500 Lumen HPSV street light at Station 10+40.
d. Provide traffic signing and striping, as required.
e. Provide R26 signs, or replace as required.
3) Transitions to existing curb and gutter(pavement)east and west of the
project boundary shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4) Installing frontage improvements on Arrow Route will concentrate flows
• in the gutter that discharges to the property to the west. This will need
to be mitigated on-site. Developer may stop the curb and gutter 10 feet
from westerly property line to allow surface drain on-site. Alternatively,
a curbside drain outlet modified with reverse flow may be installed to
allow surface drain on-site. A drainage acceptance agreement shall be
provided for acceptance of public water from the street prior to building
permit issuance.
5) Fees due prior to building permit issuance
Transportation fees: $5,138.20
Office/business park: $5,585 per square foot
(FEES SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Building and Safety:
Change of Occupancy Standard Conditions for Existing Structures
NOTE: STRUCTURES THAT CHANGE OCCUPANCY MUST
COMPLY WITH THE 2010 CBC CHAPTER 34 FOR A HIGHER
OCCUPANCY CATEGORY,ADA&TITLE 24 ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE
REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW (S)
1) Due to the scope of the project, an Occupancy Change review is
required. Upon approval of the Development Review, submit plans to
the Building and Safety Division to determine compliance for the
. proposed use.
E-6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 4 •
2) B&S requires that change of occupancy plans from a"R"occupancy to
a'B"occupancy be prepared by professional designer or architect or
engineer.
3) Provide compliance with the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) for
the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive
rating of existing buildings.
4) Provide required restroom facilities per the CBC.
5) All exiting must comply with the requirements of CBC Chapter 10
of hardware door swings, etc.).
(type � 9 � )
6) Accessibility for the disabled must be provided at the site and within
the building in accordance with the 2010 CA Building Code.
7) Due to the change in occupancy of the facility, the structure must be
reanalyzed for the current wind, seismic and vertical loads.
8) The facility must meet the State of California Energy Conservation
Standard regulations applicable to the new occupancy as presently
required.
9) Upon tenant improvement and/or change of occupancy plans review, •
additional analysis may be required.
Fire Services:
Change of Occupancy Fire Standard Conditions for a CUP Application
1) A change of occupancy plan is required to be submitted to Building &
Safety for the evaluation of the proposed use in the existing
commercial/industrial building. Some of the issues that must be
addressed include(but are not limited to):accessibility to the buildings
and facilities,floor loads,type of doors, swing of doors,seismic orwind
analysis for the current adopted codes and exiting criteria. If you have
any questions please contact Moises Eskenazi, Senior Fire Plans
Examiner at (909)477-2710 ext.4209.
Building and Safety (Grading):
1) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current
adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and
accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall
be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading
and Drainage Plan.
2) A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the
State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided
at Grading and Drainage Plan submittal for review. Plans shall •
implement design recommendations per said report.
E-7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868- GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 5
3) A Geologic Report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or
Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for
Grading and Drainage Plan review.
4) The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and
compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by
the Building and Safety Official priorto the issuance of building permfts.
5) A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for
all new construction projects and for existing buildings where
improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be
prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil
Engineer.
6) The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust
Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior
to the issuance of a grading permit.
7) If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the
Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate
plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.
8) A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for
• on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and
Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage
prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed
and sealed by the Engineer of Record.
9) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-
site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
10) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-
site drainage acceptance letter(s)from adjacent downstream property
owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows
are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a
drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing
flows prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
11) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission
from the adjacent property owner(s)to construct a wall on the property
line or provide detail(s)showing the perimeter wall(s)to be constructed
offset from the property line.
12) The Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path
from the public right-of-way and the accessibility parking stalls to the
building doors in conformance with the current adopted California
Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail
including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the
current adopted California Building Code.
•
E-8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 6 •
13) The Grading and Drainage Plan shall Implement City Standards for
on-site construction where possible,and provide details for all work not
covered by City Standard Drawings.
14) All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right-of-way
or adjacent private property.
15) Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed
per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code.
16) The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking
stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California
Building Code.
17) Roof storm water is not permitted to Flow over the public parkway and
shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho
Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit.
18) The final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show existing topography
with a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.
19) The applicant shall provide a Grading Agreement and Grading Bond
for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Grading Agreement and Bond shall
be approved by the Building and Safety Official. •
20) Provide documentation for C.V.W.D sewer offset program to the
Building and Safety Official for review prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
21) This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the
current adopted California Building Code.
22) The Precise Grading and Drainage Plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for
Grading Plans and Permit".
23) Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading
contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting
shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the
Grading Contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about
grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-
grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of
grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to
suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The Grading Contractor shall call into the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working
day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior
to continuing grading operations: •
E-9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 7
(i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
(ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of
the building permit;
(iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the Grading
Contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians(Building and Safety Front Counter)an
original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be
prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by
the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
(iv) The Rough Grading Certificates and the
Compaction Reports will be reviewed by the
Associate Engineer or a designated person and
approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
24) Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the Engineer of
record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality
management plan (WQMP) Best Management Practices (BMP)
devices.
25) It is the responsibility of the applicant to meet all accessibility
requirements.
• 26) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit a Water Quality Management
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official.
27) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a
drainage easement or letter from the adjacent and/or downstream
property owners accepting concentrated drainage flows. This condition
also includes concentrated flows from the sump area created on
Arrow Route.
28) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality
Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office.
29) For all storm water seepage pits and other storm water injection wells
over 10-feet deep, the applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form
7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number
assigned to the Building and Safety Official prior to issuance of the
grading permit.
30) If the depths of the seepage pits/infiltration wells is 10-feet or greater
below grade, the land owner shall provide an inspection report by a
qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the underground
infiltration pits to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental
Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis
all best management practices (BMPs) as described in the Storm
• Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All
E-10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
Page 8 •
costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the
responsibility of the land owner.
31) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Grading and Drainage Plan
shall show existing topography and planimetric features 100-feet south
of the property line/project boundary. This is to determine the flow path
of the storm water flows and their effect on the adjacent downstream
properties.
32) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, all developed storm water flows
shall be mitigated to the pre-developed storm water flow conditions.
33) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the permitted Grading and
Drainage Plan set shall include a demolition plan of the existing site
features to be removed.
34) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall record
easements for all work on adjacent private property(s).
35) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit,the Grading and Drainage Plans
shall show the location of the existing sewer lateral from the existing
building discharging to either a public sewer or a private sewage
disposal system. If necessary the existing sewage disposal system
shall be reconstructed to current adopted Plumbing Code requirements
at the direction of the Building and Safety Services Director. •
36) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Building and Safety Services Director, or his designee, a Soils
Infiltration/Percolation Report with recommendations for the
engineering of the proposed storm water seepage pit(s)/injection
well(s).
37) A Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be approved by the
Building and Safety Official and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
"Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be
recorded prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012,
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
•
E-1 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.12-18
DRC2010-00868—GONZALO MENDEZ
April 25, 2012
• Page 9
BY:
Luis Munoz Jr., Chair
ATTEST: n, 1 -
Candyc uinett, Senior Planner
I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 25th day of April 2012, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
•
•
E-12
1� A
I !
I
I
�y�nrr'ov.1RP�T^+��• "�7r^"+.ir.�""�""''""�AirowJRl � i _ 'Arr�w".RBule—---: ---
w
^I +�
' _^�!- 1 •� � i �^� �'" X32 _ � i I ,
` I
i N ,j ;
s i i
--�----�I J�--LII; I - - - -----__-•--
it I
DRC2010-00868 N
.�, 13249 Arrow Route W*E
s
RnNcoo
UCAlC110
IOIJGA
EXHIBIT B
E-13
RESOLUTION NO. 13-21
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
AMMENDMENT OF ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. DRC2010-00868, LOCATED AT
13249 ARROW ROUTE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
-APN 229-171-26
A. Recitals.
1. Gonzalo Mendez filed an application for the approval of Development Review
No. DRC2010-00868, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the
subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 24th day of April 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
• Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on April 24, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located between Pecan and Hickory Avenues
on the south side of Arrow Route with a street frontage of approximately 110 feet and lot depth of
300 feet and is presently improved with a single-family residence and detached garage; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is undeveloped and used as a pipe
storage yard and is zoned Low-Medium Residential; the property to the south is developed as a
storage yard with no buildings and is zoned General Industrial and;the property to the east is vacant
undeveloped land and use is zoned General Industrial; and the property to the west is developed
with a legal non-conforming single-family residence and is zoned General Industrial; and
C. The project consists of the conversion of an existing legal non-conforming
single-family residence into an office and storage yard; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
• above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
E-14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-21
DRC2010-00868— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
Page 2
•
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan because
the required street improvements will be installed at sometime in the future; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located by bringing the site into compliance with
current code requirements; and
C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code because an office with a storage yard is a permitted use within the General
Industrial District; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity as the improvements will still be installed at sometime in the future.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (n) (Existing Facility) conversion of a single-family residence to office use. In
addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of
exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of
exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, •
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and incorporated herein by this reference.
Engineerinq Department
1) Approval is for the deletion of Engineering Condition number 2 on page
3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18 and the addition of the
following condition:
"An in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements along
the frontage of 13249 Arrow Route must be paid prior to building permit
issuance."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
•
E-15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-21
DRC2010-00868— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 24, 2013
Page 3
• APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 24th day of April 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
• ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
E-16
0
D R��C 2 01/0 010, - -8- - , 8
132491 rrow R o-ute
RANCHO
^7' CUCAMONGA
..jam
e ..Arrow Route_,
rr,
u L
At
11
EI
.-..
lw
��Awrriow.. RxouIt�e
rD C'9
i
AL
N M ti
Unqdo
t..
T
;..
Loso • .
e�
Rq�te
L �
CUCAMONGA
low
OMMMArrow
n. - >
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
sG
Y
0
e
e
Arrow Route
Arrow Rowe
yRANCHO
NCO
I
I r
Y
4�
L
PR°SRU
STAFF REPORT
• PUNNING DEPARTMENT
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
DATE: April 24, 2013
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager
BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2013-00034 (MODIFICATION) - VERIZON WIRELESS
- A request to modify a previous approval (DRC2011-00688) for the site and architectural
review of a 45-foot tall (top of branches at 50 feet) major wireless communication facility on
the site of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the Regionally Related Commercial
(RRC) Development District and the Medium (M) Residential Development District of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at 12676 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 0227-211-02, 24 and 25 and 0227-221-01 and 02. Planning Department staff has
determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 3 (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the installation of small new equipment
and facilities in small structures.
• RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-0034
through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - 1-15 Freeway and Apartments — Medium Residential Etiwanda Specific Plan
(South Overlay)
South - Foothill Marketplace Commercial Center — Regionally Related Commercial
(Foothill Boulevard District— Subarea 4)
East - Commercial Development and Apartments - Regionally Related Commercial
(Foothill Boulevard District — Subarea 4) and Medium Residential - Etiwanda Specific
Plan (South Overlay
West - 1-15 Freeway and Commercial Development Regionally Related Commercial
(Foothill Boulevard District— Subarea 4)
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Commercial and Medium Residential
North - 1-15 Freeway and Medium Residential
South - General Commercial
East - General Commercial and Medium Residential
West - 1-15 Freeway and General Commercial
C. Site Characteristics: The 11.31-acre site is developed with a Catholic church, school, and
related buildings.
• D. Background: Verizon Wireless submitted an application to the City on June 28, 2011, to
construct a wireless communication facility at Sacred Heart Church. The facility was
Item F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2013-00034 -VERIZON WIRELESS
April 24, 2013
Page 2 •
approved by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2012. Verizon pulled permits to
construct the facility and performed a pre-construction walk-through on October 17, 2012
with the church staff. The church subsequently informed the parents (whose children
attend the school at Sacred Heart Church) that construction would commence within
weeks. The parents voiced their concerns to the church regarding the wireless facility
being located next to the school. The church met with the parents and an alternate
location farther from the school was proposed, which Verizon subsequently submitted to
the City on January 14, 2013, as a modification to the original approval. After a second
meeting with the parents, Verizon .submitted a third location to the City on
February 21, 2013.
On February 21, 2013, the Mayor and Planning staff met with the parents who voiced their
concerns about the wireless communication facility being located near the school
classrooms. The parents acknowledged that they had met with the diocese regarding the
wireless facility, but maintained that because of health concerns they felt that it was
inappropriate to locate a wireless facility next to a school with young children. Staff
informed the parents that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminates a City's
ability to deny wireless communication facilities based on perceived health concerns.
The parents conceded this point but felt that the City should deny the facility based on
their belief that Verizon had not adequately demonstrated that they had a substantial
coverage gap. Verizon has provided the City with coverage maps demonstrating that they
do have a coverage gap in the area surrounding the church. The parents were informed •
that the City does not have speck regulations requiring that wireless carriers
demonstrate that they have a significant coverage gap; rather, the City limits their decision
making process to design, height, setback, and screening requirements outlined in the
Development Code.
On February 25, 2013, the Planning staff met with the representatives from the church. At
that meeting, the church outlined the history of the wireless facility and the outcome of the
three meetings they held with the parents. They informed staff that they had offered to
move the facility but could not reach a consensus with the parents on a new location, as a
number of the parents did not want the facility anywhere on the site.
Staff informed the church that the City had recently updated the Development Code,
which included changes to the regulations governing wireless facilities. The changes
make it permissible to locate a wireless facility within 300 feet of residentially zoned
property as long as the facility has the capability to be collocated with a second carrier;
previously the regulations required that the applicant have a second carrier ready to
collocate when the facility was submitted for approval.
This recent Development Code change opens up the possibility of moving the facility to
the fourth location at the northerly edge of the church property, which is adjacent to
apartments and the 1-15 Freeway. The church felt that this new location would be a good
compromise. Staff met with Verizon on February 28, 2013, to review the requirements for
this location. The applicant submitted updated plans to the City on March 13, 2013.
ANALYSIS:
A. Project Proposal: The proposed wireless communication facility is in the form of a 45-foot •
high monopine (top of branches at 50 feet). The facility will be located at the northern
edge of the property adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway sound wall, which is over 300 feet from
Fa
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2013-00034 -VERIZON WIRELESS
April 24, 2013
• Page 3
the classrooms on the site and 60 feet from the apartments on the property to the east.
The related control equipment, including a backup generator, will be housed within a 440
square foot open-walled equipment enclosure located adjacent to the monopine. The
applicant has submitted a Noise Impact Analysis (Eilar Associates, Inc.; March 20, 2013)
demonstrating that the support equipment and generator are in compliance with the City's
noise regulations. Verizon and the church have agreed repair or replace any landscaping
damaged during the installation of the facility and plant additional trees and shrubs in the
surrounding landscape planter.
B. Entitlement Requirements: The area on the site where the facility will be located is zoned
Medium (M) Residential, which has a height limit of 35 feet. Section 17.106.000 of the
Development Code permits wireless facilities to go over the maximum height limit when
approved by a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, Section 17.106.030.A.5.0 states that
major wireless communication facilities may only be located within 300 feet of a residential
development district when the facility is designed and constructed in a manner to allow for
future collocation of additional wireless communication carriers. The proposed facility
conforms to this requirement and the applicant has provided documentation that a more
suitable location is not available that meets their coverage requirements.
C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Fletcher and Oaxaca)
reviewed the project on April 2, 2013. The Committee approved the facility as presented.
• D. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the
project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3
exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the installation of
new equipment and facilities in small structures. Because the project only involves
installing a 45-foot high wireless communication facility along with related equipment, staff
concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
on the environment. The Planning Manager has reviewed the Planning Department's
determination of exemption, and based on his own independent judgment, concurs in the
staffs determination of exemption.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Staff has received several letters with respect to the
Conditional Use Permit application; two letters of support are from the Diocese of San
Bernardino; one letter is from an attorney representing several parents of students of the school
at Sacred Heart Church who are not in support of the project. Staff received one call requesting
general information about hearing procedure and the capacity of the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Candyce B ett
Planning Manager
• CB:TV/ge
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2013-00034 -VERIZON WIRELESS
April 24, 2013
Page 4 •
Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Plans
Exhibit B - Photo Simulation
Exhibit C - Signal Propagation Maps
Exhibit D - Alternative Site Analysis
Exhibit E - Design Review Committee Action Agenda, dated April 2, 2013
Exhibit F - Letter from the Diocese of San Bernardino dated April 3, 2013
Exhibit G - Letter from the Diocese of San Bernardino dated April 11, 2013
Exhibit H - Letter from Scott E. Nichols of Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, dated
April 16, 2013
Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034
•
•
F4
m
_x
JUNBERRY �
Jsws swnl uxrrw.pxm
wmwxr n. i
wc.[cT.rwrAn
JJNBERRY
V0/ir"i11wireless 12676 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
uw.JiJo cucwJwcA.
D RANCHO CUCAMONGA, "" X2;11
15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE CALIFORNIA 91739roNCON
ST ucnnN
BUILDING D, 1ST FLOOR r Y
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 �• ���'"'�°
SHEV oESOM71ON REV. ---
T1 RRa.. ]
PPS ro.n .TA F= _ T2 nrR ar mr an..�wwv ra
—
mia a.r.n.xJP.e 10°s '� Ax."'is"rP°n`�'�"° " TJ muv P rwPr s Q
u'+.a.: Al awn s
vw Jo P p..w��.JJov[a.r.,r-.w.n P.m.oRc twj w�wm wa PJr s.�:n«
A2
n arawr
A3 r mr ] Qx mn s
.wrw.v P.j w.rP wom'Ps w_w..J.....xP.oaI Mo ....
o.,.P[mw A{ Tar aJo.era rar•uRaTW[rwaw
R„.�.PR
: .srsrrwwr.�,xvo.P...uP.uTa,w..uJxon maJ.JV JRw,m P. ..m,-m_P CODE COiUANCE AS .wRr.aanv
uJr+RR v,...oJ,.0 xR wa.m.P Mr nn,P As v..W..PnrA.owom s mTrwm ec...
,o•
.n, N A7
o
m" aa'.JOJ`,Pu`ino+o AS m.J.w nrW mra ]
v m.emu,m wccJCR as ro ry Jm .w of
AS vviut w�
A10 m..s.r.,
111
,.Srl vR Tu,ml Rl
All nam un mra wJ.r(Ab61�v]�vse911
PROJECT DESCRIPTION mwnuca. .M Q SPECIAL RISPEC110NSn.a Al2 ma rR.r JaxaAT:
�^� A13 w.nP ar
`iw:s"oa`r a"�mw(a f aReru.a➢plL.nelM1 E1 wa.w vs wn m.c wv r rr.w ra
4 OM1 6.,0o pFwlp, .W[0.s.R�
E2
rry S •"�°:i•°°`•`•�•'••9„n ES oats.r m mrs s t0,
EI a s s %a�y�8K1 f.YtR
Si msaucv.eo s s sa,n
Y Kv� arty 52 w s wr.v wn r arr.
Pc s ti,a/wne
a w .rvR.iroxx Pr-,m SJ
11K
CAS
SHEET NDEx PERMIT
��i;e.i n�.�w MAR 20 2019
TITLE SIGNATURE DATE sjTEr nTL
w y v°Ces��w�[s�`Pi`P`wirr%�wrt�iiw �
W.TWAT TITLE SHEET
r T Y
NI
yy ry � xNPS.�lvn nr4,rt �0 2UM.YVIIOY4 SNEEi MPml:i••w�
Ju iii WT11xK119x OERCIO,
TAWTY MAP PROJECT AWAY PRPECT TEAM APPROVAL LIST
w-xsa
wwE sr4c.re N.T.4s :�N.E. M.EE,mn"I"I w.rsai.m...TE MA[[aN..�.ur E_:E_.I do— .esm 111 N.
�IRIlC_ q4�� ' Ar Pn rmr m[�YNI'.N..,E,[Ps4u[Nr•1 Imn[0 .NNE.uPPN..11II
err a Fs�.rg9 [u[re[4[aR .,M!P[RM rr4Pcd',Yc'b CO xF�ux.rz P rRO.Eci NOIIY,
ar w`Carn s 4�.FRriN•s sNN.�Tl Et :nmxsgr„NwNw uses a..•a PonR..INTI P
�r 4 4. wo2cu r'PNEum r s P w xA P/.[ss NNRvw�d.�s IIIb ,IUNBERRY
NEE w[v '[v Kn p.CWnrrar NsnLLP • ,N clvPn.crEN—
P A�a¢O4N N wRK NET NUFa r'O ° 9Wl a lNanNaa Nnyv nEM,T:[OO,Pr anP05[dM[N.
m, I 11.E IM."AL.I NC IV I
PVCarz P NMnFv ry TIF[R aMI W[NR,R ¢Mv R—Ill,E,�..Odw YaPi¢5 L RCNCNrj 11.1 WdI.A.
mryK rNl�[ ARunO[ .XcvLtl24R --
•.1i[o , [�ar^ ,o..O.a • EEF mr ll .,N, i59.0 ll ll9
P-�K.t4iN[P•r mna[[u P wptcr !0
RlaOli R9a WII
r� aa;�rT m rWarto cwn4,d x5r4IN P. nr 4�aw Hw[I[o.vq N•Rn45 NII—1.
x�Y'aMNF n,Rip r,Rvr F.wil•a[
_ Flt,,E1 ll omola4smc, s..I COR,sara am..��, 03/20/13
4G,FS NN w.vo. Yri E wr[N n v
w' 6 a,uuRS�r�=N fW.o AN NON LAI"',
[an,an Kwr' igr°
•"" RN N.<x as NEJEI.r.t.lN da,s¢ l2eM1.4' cP ao.°u'sr, r [d awl oN vwFa�[[d ssl.o rae
NT, aa.s !d n!N•N P N2Y""tI i`fa[P.c o. ..o� �.,w
4w11.1 rNas :O9 i�..1°`Nn 4w'xcILE[F.mRF .wow .Ma2 mm m
`.RL ..aR.R...P:tee¢ s' °'�µ�T.I,Jw,.�` � CONSTRUCTION
NP "` -^t yl: E�•• '" `4w;,T� _ Nm aRrms P 4.NaN
a2nElEN 1Nm.« .s N4,¢i r2v:asreaEVY.me=..:
�a I.,,P RN.4�Pn..d I a.d.X aN[,w.2N I—I m4,Nd.N.I.I
m.A:i<1's4 u.[o:'"2�"o<'lEN ":r[:s'a•�Ro.:a.z' —EI..lEI.Nar l 11., -
smRNa NVECT :lEoMM.N.CT.•w rtFP.dEN"rws - _ ____
.—NEVmi.4.rr.N.a,.n.m I.rnoas °rwa°r'"�o I w mm..N 11 EN.voter Ns"""1 ver a,
s. . TdrtwRP NP[�r _
Ix nN.N NI E .s NNNN.en4s: •'m.a.s.m N•Inlm w 'IINEI°EENI are c4.la., -rsxO'
F ^• .iss n ,FIi o,,: . w e ,n tP.,.vs.x2an mRn.[s P arz.N o
,m E..N, 4¢.is r I.r a aEl
.,°orzs"r.�.P°m E°4:I,+P"n.[ceam"`d vwanno m r.sr
w a1�1I�ns a.'i o. o°"PY..�•�I-C ' ..,r.x,�sa.rc mr F.w4 r..r•,..a z
myNw°bF [MnrWr'w[�IXRNS�W R,WAOdt4[P wR.w I¢4 N.xc sF�T..M1FNNH IY CRN'.wI...'.'Plr'NYlItt Q ,Nlrn a
.¢I:I.m�Nr"w a.°�O.wwvmNa.w [TEII1 TNT °"` In sof i,:%•1Cmao !v.o soo.��2.N[°Ss
.rPd.Ps.,„N d.Pw
NEI lIlIlIlEANI IN,
vRM o• M1 aI `' ¢F 40 Wor.F2.Rrs mYl!RIY6•5 oM[d .Iltl[T, IPII�4l—EIIII-'SN.L ~ 1..E.CIV
.�' 4`in°:�Nw wD0'. , ^ TI....E arid..dao—ICEE[Ell I'lAN [ wwa�IPNaRr.g: [n..crzl,o
LE, M.rolp vu nwvN a i wiC' utvP m,r{'y�Mwl a TNR NII°''
ur llE."I
SEHNCF�INC
F. WmAw EI"LLMil v4Ro
wa lYf
11 Ill 0Gu.a u wruo uFG uo Mvpt rt 4a , ,v nrOu9 Ns♦ n CNC.YT' A 91,q
PrbM�.a,erON E.ua4,E...1'EN•i 4 w IB66jS N-.iS.
A S .1 EIC . 1EI, N'wR N'O a�wW E.s.[tiu1 °rN.m Nr.v I..II66 .......
1.FON p.R p NEE 1 Ed[pulX . 2a,PAurP.m4 IICENSIR:
G Nn.4cnwmwA ol[lOF 4A52n Ps[.nY artA
AFIwwY¢°Rw'NIIN, Nduaxvv,m v n O • od4c ,. 'a
rmc4 m dnR — w NI
.aNvn d PNE m as.w'�o N Yt
,r w umroPIEI .vNht<ar'ert m w[P[uuc
aP.ncaswe 1. m...R .:Qodi E[:ms`Prz"Na`vE.Ei.wrs
—NIEN... w EE v`nsXo s__,lEE IN NNNTENI.1
l-EL oa/sons
m NEC_NN. cPr Ell. w.N°e4N.°�ir."•sN.a"°as nr LA'ss'� L9 2
m M1YNNNr,F m wP aFaN .lf;CIV\�pQj
p tom,..E •'atoF_CA�\�
."N"'.-EE
"
rc...a.,RPa MNI
r, MAR 20 2013
• w.Ell— [Ov.nP!¢av N N.o .s E.aa.2N[d NP s,axN,N un.c ss2ri nnc
p Y.•d.. �J¢[F FIaF .r:.r[ro m w eca°i.°rzrzii N,rsaMai.:acid.:wiiP.
wn 2sr sac.2.s.n.a_'e E,. .e ABBREVIATIONS,
LEGEND. GENERAL k
m a.eaNn —•—I[Pda4 mF.. °•'E,14O CONSTRUCTION NOTES
_______r,OI�cP.4<.0 v2tr mnern.�EVIyPE.
LEGM ==[N.4Iw.Ip mR He1n CM7RMTMN07M T2 5
JUNB,ERRY
r.�—ter•.+.-.-r...�— - _ +.�.-. — —� --....... q —.. rw:
Q _ - -
nvwm
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
.xcw�cxr.w.w..1l.�w
STANDARD CONDITIONS
CIV pP�i
MAR 20 2013
sin nnc
r RESOLUTION Of
APPROVAL
LWET.=;====.j
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL T3 -us-
ma`4r/.1 a 4`wr i M A
1 n\
W .sm.00n-Rp- m
^pc ru vnr yn R.(9LwYir / iti[ a, I ! Y.l.f. ',]05TIpmqAAAg95 Uxvp...(NVE
AT
AAAAA,CA TAT .1 AATT
CA Lln.a.RY.U�r,IY-OFR RLRPI 6R[�r / 1 ! _ _ _ _ �P WS.CKiGM.IMI!
ITT,AT
A`wR".omTA.1:Rte. I'� / \ : vsaa. JUNKRRY
vmriiAAr�r..��oii CA e:CIA, AT,
/ ��l ____ aeY1R Ya
mn�vm`.Rw RAs.4awa.tv�'.m / I Y I —�— YY+<m �Mp roollwE eauErum
/ 1 —.— PIf Y„Y-rEQ drq,O CVCYKRU.
/ �� IE yYO p.N—rpp MfR1...YrxA
.uAArlor .mn mr.AAAAAAA, �
1.
E
// ' slMl 1
rmN ws.Y�nw • Ri,. .1 9[G2
r 1.tR[t w CA.m..'IT � f•r nYY 1 1 ^^ d•� � Q.}/ZO/1S
NOTES R TIS 0RMTREYCEFIRMS do
AlA _ I j II .a.Nrra LMr CONSTRUCTIONOastOm�m iv n.a.a.4e nu..m. 'rR n :Pa an(wl 11�AAAI /• 1 ooa ..asr u.,lu w,
gr5♦nAs.awry r.wm mr.0.a wawa r1!' rfe0p.AAYs. j ' 0 nro
O
CAAAT.11 • 1 .YArIII qr[[
C,,
n
— m� R R . —al 111—
CA.
—1 s
4 �.R�l]YsaIYNaR
AAosar a
.....R...w..m An..—a.�....re—In.AAA...lnnn.a � 'oYaa-m1°" \ � •�����•
.--r m..n..f..l.r
0, - ®.AAA—saa—In a., n..l+,. 11 1v� .
Lmn d
AIAF—.AAAAAAAACl— —m
n+n
— ` v, .m... aRRt� mAAA,- �
APTATTT TA——T—TT .�' a 11 rO,lm lY�
AL
O_ r_t
_m• VACAsov.n N�I xom SENNCES MC
OMI rwO-nuR AA Y m4T4r —wr 11 1 "ITT..ME
.er r.rnr u w u mm AA Ao-N'9w4n+R-AAe ;; I W w NUYiO.0 C.9r xSl
AAA
ACAAAAAAAAAAPAAA1dc r tca®�3®®ni...®..p.AA�nn.s stun qRn. 1 r. IMI!Y-3E!
O
AT .—
AAAACATTIATTATTAT.
O mar. s — 11 rY9Ys 9R1 TI ;1 1
On-------=—AA—AAA.®..=9ar.AA,re WAA r�AA 11 AAOlY.-Q 11 1 .. Torc
11 t _.1 ATA
N.AAI->o. AAso� • 1 11 1 1 u�-®'m., . / diLL11Iiiacs- mu�;;�;pNR.n.rar,AARa..R.AA.� Nle
. III1-1 0 2
OM! 'wan R..n\ Am
iR
MAR 20 2019
IT ATA
r—a I,AT
1r i� 1 1 1
RrgN w.m.—1,,1 RIs R Wtr wn.n v I j� 11 I inn[.
s�e
.VO Y.M.fItY 1 Y Y
1 O' RN.R.OY r YQI YYST���w
_ __ I i0Y1ML WEVND I I..arl
STE PLAN
I
wEtoo w.r.
i / I ----
�/ 1� MNSERRY
+� Y . -------- --- C�I1X16 iW111g1 9pll[VIPp
�u.0 r• r Il ' 1 \1 nirV®Cu••r RufiOU A lllM.•.
T14�i�8!•�. "�tl V9 ; /' .`. LL• Iuow rrll / II 1 �'� I.f We ��� r IO(WL
........ Llac aw v 03/20/13
/ Y
CONSTRUCTION
S-r!, ', b. I 1 --2•L aM
.71
1�1M1•{YP�+plop tl I
•; wave tlma 4 II �
'j r''' �r : � ; • Tn as
1 T1' , � • 1 J NP ptw .
1
•
D _ 04
- / � \\\ \ /• 1.111 4( 1
..pppp 1 XRNCES NK.
/ I�.M�111p1a.i �, ` � 1 `■■t 1 •Mp9 Qa•IM,p4 fl)IIA
J
!e1-T1-• 1 1 __ � Y
•re0 1 1 .. � MMI,)� _`
mIW 1 �
J 1 ., �W/AAJ/AAJ
1 �
\ i i r i ENLARGED SITE PLAN
1 1 •
1 L—
lamrt 5
D LARM STE RAY
\ .. ' • Gd /*,I iaw°"e» �.v 'v ® 1, —_— m�wwr iem sexo cwmY..ewrc
L'7 1 ausaw a�. q.xY
_ .Yt.curwm. nie
JUNBERRY
/� , ..ao�ssa.mi i I _ r.soYo eww mn .xwo euexumw.
Al
�'�ww[•artmi'.w.s,.;,•, ' ia`�n.bn.e�I' - r wean oxYa[mu wrt.
woaio n� Wm I I •Y.YYY• [v..omv m
'�ieio.m ixn.v. 03/20/13
1' r nrt.w.Y,. ra
®�' �ev`�n�a woox w,uss II •o.o�..,ime s CONSTRUCTION
•`s aYo�ews m rt 1 i .aa..0..Y. .:axremmvnway.
ov waom.a..a.na.wL • L nan_.a. II
i i'oY�ws
L/L♦ '' `' a.uro.,Ya... �;#' � �I 181Y xx't..o-.�. ..-1°$ m K 0 xan
�RWES NC
nen q
YxRL0.M.Lxrt ilO
1
'�AA. ` �� �..oa�mYNw zm u.®ncvn.cvl 4I YmBxC
tj
F7 �� _ MAR 20 2013
f� `` n� aT'x � am nni:
'Iles .
`'`K `, /I WE DETNL
..a
sm DUAL A3 5
1 ux-xx
pl� xp W rm b �3!AM1 VM cwS AI.CNV[
4n: µ
n waR.
s�'• .r m x,.mro iu� JUNBERRY
.r n 1.]T[u q?-� INa]e raon.i rvxlv.wn
�6 eo•:rn...ns mrxw.]�.nM UNow...n.a..:]��ns..us..rr[3 03/20/13
Lissom ralE
Cl1NSiR11C TI(Nv
ANTENNA LAYMIT { AM Md AND CABLE S0EDLILE �— 2 ----_
4�
rr
• _ .. • I �....... e�ta� Awa norm .r
\ • • na RY.'w.
\ : : _
\� • O' • YRNIfS M`
• .....
�• f11CrfNt/.f
1
• `oa�Offf5lg4�
_ "y' • ' eta tigelllf�l�
- ______ _ • ___ ° : � �� won, iA���
3 F or
C;�\"q.
i
NAR 20 2019
SITE DETAIL WITH
_ [AND
MENSIONS. ANTENNA
_ – -- - • D CAME SCHEDULE
awR'WA• ANTENNA LAYOUT
5
ENLARGED EWIPYENT AREA DETAIL WITN DSENSIONS
.IOY.
JUNBERRY
arsn r,w cu a.uv.en
I rgR MR
' s,s.rsnrs wa
a.o a uao ei iso oanasl ,za�m roe
e :()NSIRIh Til N
Q sv.=wta[swtnran
w+i:a wnn
�GWyP..kr' ..
"4�f£•R'ee 9� Aen i_
t 4lY t".f�` v_van
Y �Milk
oaaK,an
c �
V Dunn,
+l C1 V IV 2
_ MAR 20 2013
__J t
1
-----------------
rtoa.
SOUTHEAST
ELEVATION
vatr annAre meson.
��__._ti_1ti�titi._��__ _ti� _,_ �Lw_ �„_ _�_�n✓_��titi�_ti.�ti.� ti_��ti__u_.�ti��_��.� A5 ; s
SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
xu
xu-.n 1
9d ...... ,.: :,, , WM z
1gLLYAa13 15311H1n05
�Md{N]Iti�YLIBW LI155
SNOILVA313
V I>.sv32uaoSV3 80
N
nu Lags
77A10,O.`e,�;
AOISS7S01
g
' ♦ nL +wf $ I
� ..... .- ✓a[h �s/ � ,y Fcrrr� L } � 7 1 L mw ��.
d �,r
55PY VY�eF JTAmr_ - — - �
LB—WYd01.�"J♦YR
x
aW mas�l
iU 1
vra rxv Lwry
1,77-77= 7777
n�.a w.� zdsn anmiF�..ia.F.mn'.]wm
'�.aa3eNnr
NdlrllpN 3]l WY
( rrno[n sawn
(, JUNG„ERRY
� amR»,assu o.rt
.[ffi� b.R—OLYR W na_Br
I
Q
l �. wfOfO gwR�in Z
ii+. w.., k wwuas
.rJ166
rm `
/ i..•�i.... ,<. A.. �'k-d< ��/ n�m g = ,7jf CIV\\'pQ`t
of CAV\(
NAR 20 201:1
v¢rnw
NORINIYEST
- t t ELEVATgN
I l__ — - _-----------------
J 1
NORINSM MVATM
� ♦ � .�( m�m�� �em�x-V - —/ RNN[.C4FiWlx.a}6�xu�
.0 NeEnar
ELEVATION 'C' a E m7m 'A' 3FFn
1¢v xn[�c3cR�RRw_R.
t�
I
v I A b R y jai 1 ....•,�
r
—gin' C S 8 4 x.Ri v}¢vurco er
-
.n
YY.[MR9KS IM s1 r•e..v.o-1 :.a i
CYO CABINET DETAe- 3 GZMTM *W P—q a JMMTM 'W Z uaRswx:
"Ir ,iE
.... 3
LOs.c/°'
�6 Naxx9� �•[u..uYE _ na r �s"•i Il y M.33111 '1�'.
\ f
Av
of CAl\f
ELEYAiKKI 'D' I - I BFIMTION •B• YAR 20 201:1
- pl r m wxu[a.uR. 1 •w an wan/o a-e .ro •a EOU P EW OETAILCAB NET
I -' OIY oR[m•ww
Y t
EOIAPYENT DETAIL -
,#
-Srwlol[.n I<M. [WWc W.I
: rt N� Waan, ..an-w.N
• Cud.rM �r ROD IY'W.1 R'S�¢V mFxR ,wn' two
4Ru Izl Nr4 uOrTi M=Z-6M
�({.i rpiy.i �i
j / vV¢I !.MiCVn M YO Of[fT�rlx n•�R�,R'
1�21irte`s.Wusr IIIIIr . NBERRY
'860. .r,. .r.
L vlo E�i9 Rn (I
T' nM '� WW w n •"�•xnwr n
� r _ CN Ran't.1tClY r IM [rW r4.IN v.Yr A I� r �MONV, WrWr CIVSMi R91E U.iR
`r v OrY1,M f NRO
w�yn. Ir
. >yprszWTn Mz rrI RP[w.R v Wx �W S ,Wry9V zL m L :)' ._11, 1
,.w°w.`ao.ru.mars � inN`,iFtLr➢i1N
. s.m�oalsnarz.=aY.
CONCRETE BOLLARD ,e 9 1 OENEMAY R RECEPTACLE B UBSTRUT B CARE TRAY e 7
it
vf0 ,�M O[AiuryPM.i 0=r®
r - i iN0 n � ^,trt4 it r,.r SwrY.o iM a J
HE
IIIaV,i�.f 4�'.San`N.'10 M �S R w r ¢xfN.f,IYW[w irtfr Yr c0lsr N 6nr M.i ,ir r r.
j Wr A nrw y'aI rW1
94IK_MNNYPaMr riM.sM F WO PniFO E41`9R:
f S`�[OrP ra YIONW,rz xW
OPS ANTENNA • CABMLET S CONWFE PAD v 2
i.0 saa,4I `IIt NIiy:rMCYr4 uFq,a WC(,,II
,iW,v x. 4.,� Mn.oWrWN�a.mr[r4aR�9YV Wr E±O III'
.aaw .mnn.nwraw
mR.F Wnr[.irM f VrW[Rnr[PMVW,r[��t�r 9 rSra H� .q� t W.tlN, ( 1
R4L SCrICDIIIF!OR W4L 1r CDCF r
1 4 aroo WebCIV1 p�
A ..,wR...W,., OF CAI\(
NAR 20 2013
a Y o 0 O U
r rw s.rNluW.rNw.N„Yrr.r N r¢.RrtO WwN
°01' �• CONSTRUCTION DETNLS
omcaa
s"°"' snu swE a sR NN o.a w rWs•,N..n
iFrr t✓ Y(Ex NnVO1.�RN9Or'.
BLACK WALL 7 COAX TIENCN 4 CONMEIE N07ES
Y Vf SPWt M1f 5 PUIb
'.y lrlf`Mrwr.wN Or.b xNM.. PHS.a
li^r Cl UNBEiKJNBE x.vroeiY
JRRY
-1 rnp r w,rr«u sour v.w
4,JL
_ wail nsR o.�
iil"arifu�`n
,I rpl iI4 Lli III iN
NOT USED a PINT NOT USED a'; B NOT USED �. B LMDE PT AT BOCK MALL "�„ 7 I-
E:,:
fa R.0.w
I/f gpyV11 0..4 u
1
rMiC rT
1�.1YlSMlI1 Qj p/r n +.
1«w..wun Plp/ap Pr'.
eu -
♦rw S
oNrni _ • /.SW OM[e `IPNt'IL N
1 M l� `rM .MCY11 f�Vf�xI
rrn rr .fw.n
aPvla:
NOT USED A 11 NOT USED A B NW "OLE BIACK e 5 SOLD METAL GTE AT BLOCK MNL 2
tO�ORILI �\F�i
V� IY.tllll
Op CA\\
MAR 20 2019
.T nw
CONSTRUCTION DETNLS
un wNo
5
NOT USED v 10 NOT USED 7 NOT USED ; 4 NOT USED - ; A10 w- ,
I dUNxBERRY
IIL .r,�r o.rt
�izv<o r�
Q ♦ O aE.=o.
O O
O —_
O
TIN,r'Ey
:mn e
In
�.ns PIONm�n�•
• • • • � �uutnNt LS M�
x•4n GVLWM'• rr`1
i lr IMM1
•� � .. UQNSIR: ffff�ffr
k�Irwbll, �1�
■ I0 cx�
' MAR 20 2019
II _
•.n #k - �:. — ___ TELCO CABINET DETALS
TELCO CAeNET ,
JUNBERRY
A
is G,
Z
W 11 WIN
A ELEVATION 8 ELEVATION C ELEVATION D FIFVA710 V DAm
ELEWAYMM 4 CMW MUD-AV MIEA 2
A
Q
F
<A)
�IWLSSJ4
* ul
r 1 .
R
0
�W.�,1,
Of' CA\_\E43
mnA.
--------- MAR 20 201:1
L
GENERATOR
DETAAL
.11 D 1- 1.1 1-1
ILI.
.LL;—
PLM VIEW 5 132 Q&LM QMMTM FM TAW s 3 =0 GU*FATM DUM �Al2:_rw
aW M� o��rraw w.u�.vim`
� s
aNa�no-rv.
re
ism �wrr. a•,nw�.:�
% 2. -//�) nnu[CT war.
/ / (�
JUNRERRY,r
zaro . •nn b L v
/ m CIAIFIII R91[01h
m r
/ �0pao a'.®ao sucn rP.
w yu®
DMMOND PUCARD — MM FM 9 UVAM KACAND — LEW ICD w.. 7 Fl ROW VENT DETAIL ]
�ir49:t��41Y:�1sLLSM Nci .
WR tl..n bW L
Wu{4,.Yx rM,v..A rl
fled P.PrI.it.pf '
LYQ.S1fS,rwtlrOr YP[ Mx.9 ntr fWr.n.. r .�. ..,
x.Ps=qs.f'a�wS549lO A.RVIwi,d O[ta Mru...,f..tln
' m.y».nn+.z.m luw..sr..run.oaa.m . ..."",.•• .•
® m • irl«.'r i.wrr,nn o a �n .r r.ati r�[rr[r[Ir nL4r5 PR[f IA[D BY.
lo[Cwu+rtl rr O'iI0 w n wrP R'„s�Y..[.v,..[r w -,w .0 rwu cuvrv,rrwr.
Inn
NIX USED o B Wft CNEYCIL WZ#M LABEL B BADMI CY VEMND C PAM - a CONCRETE C%ff** ENT CAPAWY 2
I
o
p �r� O/V0-Or CkO�
ems•
mx 4aW
• - - - Ara ur va.-r4e m W ar..rrm s__o MAR 20 2011
All. n«.r a b,n,a.00 «o. _rr
GENERATOR DEVIL
5
BATT RY CALCDu7D1G [M'5 JqM CDO MTOR BOL, LAYIM
x
nP®lad Av[s
® r. L bpp Y-0:,jt, Y/ nPDZO Yd e ® r5]p5 swo clN.d nNW1[a -... _ Wlmwc o. sr Roux
.rn®,u.mi el A'a"r mw[. xrmn♦sml[
_ Li MaYn1gN
91 1
mem 4on[
Y I]Rl6 1WMILL BWIIVNN
1 11�RIW,[uORa,awo •,\ RnMCIMO [CIl[W VIS.
D artl+nl r
l �L. 5 � � 11,`11 Cl,l101i®L MR
5xar lu[ oAc nu uoi[� ti l /`5� � i 03/20/13
r ll)r S�olowom[51 lA maces ,l.44 Qjgjiue=ruu�i.�l�u D [lam �, e , �V _ ; ; Sola
CON
_ aF4."'�.D[aF '�' •, @ - 1 � STRUCTION
w II
rm4a r mr...m 19.n mrcmrs 1 • — - I I
.M[4d�n4 5[Ir'4 P4..d ,S�V fPPnr.P R1a.rP dPR - 1 I
5 I..nMD 40 Mrud F 0�1 nPv.M.Ad r0® _ 1 I_
.n¢R M].w.P Yw l DR ♦i I,I,ID OXPD n� [... ♦rF•,A_o wn ,♦ _ { Z�
�RRyd[.w[�f4,[.F wn nr6 n[i,M'0'.bP♦r uo[vocA[ \`/ I I.. QS M/r M
♦ .x-nY-! P 4[fma.Pa.o T I(C PM[945 �M.VIn4 f, I I � Q
,5(Ysd•E.W/.4,ww,0 n♦.TO.P [OnG Ax10[P 4� 1 E /A/, P
5 nnrRi D Yelp rU[SS.[RR P aW M/�..yx �R� ; [APn
rt¢ir4-m YAi(.ltl/.iv.l.ut e u4PPOM Rd.WR
,a mpda
.m mnc aiv[fr'.v.T W-,ed�--K R Yor uv
ru Ywlm.9u,r pp4aR .♦ \ 44\� Qp /IMl v mnMcv s
<oatrer5 4e UI 1[PaM PY/A.-x mm.l rl 11 I\I ROnlm M
ELEC71ICAL SINGLE EYE DIAGRAM
ud ELSS
1 1 � SERNCE$INC.
1 1 1
S V a.[[u0�/,,pIWS 9w0 r 1 1 1 !]9D YVIF RINE.SR2„D
,MAu.r ro.ud _ 1 I x..xCM tlll.\YONLA Cn 9rl,p
M mud.T•.n ulun co.u..PDrM�d N.Or. 1 I I 1 I j. [na(,,,)F,-]SJ%
a%w�n4�o�r[m,R..l.A,S,nc. I I 1 fT♦
P,er..DON 44.. ml
tonal W.ir♦u 4l cwo[. lo[S tla[I.roNdi ; 1 Wx511T:
Yfsr.,P[m.rilrt.ao\ 1 1
`4'.�•,:]°fP.°"�"sia5 w"I.M�"".,x4ia.ixn. I i i ,,msµ, f�
UTILITY GENERAL NDTU "4. 3 IIEREK G.
rnlTlw .. .w,... Penes .omYrlNo,N Yod {I 1 u STEFUREAL
P.m.LA%Jai.ry ^ c o0�n'1.9r.: .rwe[ I i i I .9. [.R.oT-,e-1•
m. ... MAm 4 a w�.. .orld,r[..0 a Mfwll l'P.n R[u.-.w i i i °5♦y ELECTRICAL
WiD1y,M1r.SP WYcrLow ICV mpMl[IR Q 11 I
47� 11 1 I
{{ 1 I
NAR 20 2013
11 1 [4 RP d M 11 I /: SNEEI TTL
11�[.s,w dlo TL9 Aa i i I POWER A TELCO
l 1'4� ne�ad 11 1 1 ROUTING, PANEL
11111 j j { { SCHEDULE, SINGLE LINE
eawC II DIAGRAM AND NOTES
N r Sl.n uAea -
�� E1 5
PANEL SCHEDULE IM-zsx
RMNE.CAkWMNIA zme
■ r•oAn esar•
pl '1 JUNBERRY
•�
v.Ro uRPn. lu ewWo-n
rpwem'1. p-p.[p®Sg d / 1 1 _ __ • ,2616[COM,LL BWLCV.PJ
�[u,.wa[ss�o`M�'ss` an�imC'SR Stl4 eu[ixtt N0.. RSi LUV I 1 • FWpO CLCWdG..
• 4NVMu )9
nM ,o e.PL°A"°�Sw`w::i �wC.s�w i•.m E
03/20/13
:L:a: ` `o'w`ni . cwnnIeoR� b. �� —D*PIW VOWLLC N.•a.w,5 e 1 CONSTRUCTION� .m�ariwrca+:
c.rteu wv..w� ,�wr or.M TEST WELLS ♦ e ^�®Neuw wRSss i
.,YtV m5 L.a.,mlep 1
��
,a"'`u.L.ni cwuR sr s.•w.mew d lJ m 1"..o n
L.ne6.Nl Rev uv.3-.1 cnv�m ma.mS Pc.� 1 1
1 1 i i
°'°MD•,w.��L..,n><.
rc:'c'i a41pips`e�ow:aNi.,`Lo`naxce`Pc°".L"" N..cRo... 1 • mn >..
..o N.Lcrto s.N ruc 4 • f nen .1 EA
n.c y,[115)v I)LCGr4 Ie M 11—
.654,ID[r[,KAL'w I 1 I1 • Mn ,m
I I •
, .e N.RCN,S sw.:�•r I • Q en5w d NS
Ras��p.�9°°,tQAui RPOIOa NUPY.aWS. ��mroC'wM S� � 1 L\ � • o
1 l�l
1 • SEPNC.S INS.
a°ww uwcx cc, rz„
Sm..,v L•. 1 i p�wcWNu.a
II T : n.legubll f�6-ii)n
1 I1� � LISB.C.
1 •
GROINMG NOTES S GROUM ROD 3
EN(J`Nf,
III •
DE
•� RER G. L
1 , I I ; •'• STEFUREEAC n
en,m.xn°L.n.wPwe w�, ���o1O,N""o er Rm ®Rw Ravw i
EL b - - • w
.i� ELECTRICAL A=
__ I �N0.1TIph�
YAR 20 2019
GROUNDING UYOUT,
NOTES h DETNLS
a••w•e•rr■ �ovW°1O'°MSi P'.L .ai".af°iLv
wwcseeu
5 :,LaRww Psv r 5 a¢*.rol��1:
5
TOMER AREA GROUNDING LAYOUT ."r 2 EQB%E T AM COCRATOR AREA GROUNDMIC LAYOUT L" 1 LAY_33]
w[c1 °RM --L7' �• su°, fMsa a/•u
sl� „ ° ° ° �viV .w C•HStw
11 V\t O �SSDS 5 •KNUr
A 9NIIXN4 D rLM+
qy° ° iNNxC.4V ir�R
„ �� x;wi[ e•w�. ee°o °e°, o JUNBERRY
�).Nr.�xa.�l I Ie..R.rt., �— r.�.x.•,sx.e0p0°°`° .�.
'Dees°o o n ranrNiu 6wnn.Nn
w;:.uf,N�..
x i f:M ssw vM va•o w5s v. °
cam...srto w.n �w,ne•::r� issw raE
umf.o xxxa w n wnwr i14 :'c.• ON`:,TP[J(11r)N
In..rw r iiq cD•rz—xsnenna:�c
TOWER GROUND ,o-; n GROUND FM TRENCH ,e- e MASTER GROUND BM AND A WOK GROLM BAR — — -
LJAn
waf w •,xxrw�` w:i o-ao°i`.°"'0..ac �z n
. , L..
nvwe°BTa.:�
.eM tvxr[�iu .• � [apFN
MY
rp°`sa�ano �fua[�x m SENn`.1.
x cRR°Cxl4IM N)�R[supc[vgsi vao.m s u•x Uf•u
CNS f.
.wrs [niREo-- r•.1 s.. ..
tort°cwatm u¢,sxnF:
GATE GROUND w: 10 IELrD TRENCH .._. T GST SNB—UP 0 EQJFMEW 7 MMC. CAD✓D DUALS 2 �.�1u•.t}1Ij
14, .L ENC/N".gj
DEREK G.
' "_'M m4wV�`mL�MM1 �m�r v�Rs namoa. STEEUREAC
' wl'w°r uss'i•.� c si
Iw•.rsurt• W E.O.96-30
( _ .r r a xIN o-wol.wnlm m .cif spm..[wn ELECTRICAL
E..°°a� alrw) 4 xrt�pswMNO EM ��'t'o.IIBDh
_ rw
......�aan E MAR 20 201:7
iu...no , Iwo-.._ tE vm nnE:
ELECTRICAL AND
GROUNDING DETAILS
L rort.cwuer rr f srm v¢f Nuls.:�¢xscx:
NOT usEo a o Pornm TRENCH
E3 s womamff a CAnwete DETAIL 1 4 L.5
PJNBERRY
IIL �]F]6]MMD B GA
CA1 .M
PN: 11111
1i.' C CPxi
r0.MIEN,®I(DAN.
=,,.PO n
L ssuso ra
�]SPR TRUC TInN
=o.rz.�ewrnoean.
I � Qs Prmn of,;
Q. mn
Qi �mv�
rIKp.P6n e.
iuAING a rNGNI
wuAll N.ivHo mwIMMIGA.c
(.>,
r.,IPPS,S� _IV
uaxsEs:
DCREK G.
STENREAC n
W Elp.CL�E-L.
ELECTRIWL =
MAR 20 2019
IIrsEE,nnE' SCE DESIGN
LwI.IB[p—MN61CM�
SCE BESrN E4 ,.5„
r IERIS�OIFc. TRWWf 1111[RER1111[BEY MASONRY \ /
N�fY[ io YT•Tw.PN SnrO•rd(6[ rdw w M<fi[ SNf•`wf[<rM NR[°u•0K Ma x"M b•n(y PW x-�4p \✓✓/
IM4T O M Sawn nm r•mFR uwa•M41A•) `°Y°n•gC4°`FSpr°y51njrcn a I�mT w�ry M M�
�9W1 iY M PW Sr•IIr Y W•T14Np P•°ME•¢4[r.
s.en Y .O[YtlJY°Y.r x w��uK.�rY V0.•n46t.Rv�4 Y ♦ [M.o 19F N•a rd rw3(rt �]B S.SM CwYrm A.CNUE
4�uRF4 Y0.q•5 A-tYo•W 1°N`°uYH o�i°RISM�1 ix W. .4iITN•Y}��N
` �Soaxs�s M No A[•p m'YYC NPR x°w°T Lf vu li[�YW�WS Y6M[W°1iRx wrr SFRAN R°°°•fn•YaA°°P•Y W qq[[5[ipy.
.x9 a M.v5�9 Pus Sx.. or A AdA�r.�rP JUNBERRY
•rmr•al P.vv Wm N.R•.Y Yu aw NN Y.4(w
K.
S eua:`.oswi P•.�wx.�u r.ruTo P5. s�1"sY P , �rwuYO.5"0'iK`:e o n.�T wn`
> �"P A r .m awi�n4e:ro��P n(M`�:T1°IYNN
.e.Ya° r NY...brs v �x"Ye x u ] s wPpJ.e�.:'sow:n•`ar saRusP r N.�w i. P°w'm nlr•vrc..
s+Pv4� �.q°AFW( uKwF Tm.N.rTP.s ..
..w014ms.�onuWvi Y.on:iYYSs.Y�u(Pm M �•eei::o v. .o: Pwr�r wY ssiY w�°�YS"4°+••a•'•4nn mwc aaKxr RYc o•rt
u ro M eros.r..Ra.P•nNu4 F S.N'�3YYP A.� m��v�r:R.u'nN v o a onr9.4�•srFR.P.°w`,[P.r Y•[. Ir
.Miv.Nx°¢'u'i'i`.o w'NS4a n a'.[Y.W[YXj4y Aww<�Nur K•o T wa L 0•.:-
Wn•[Jr.9 rs°WX RM[0 WRT4•64Sw1 VYP vfPi°°°!°n a��)YMPtl °wi r nCIY°d•uSM�•°°n r Y�o4>F R r/i ra Pon r�SP.w LIAoc Y° i64[p Stl[
r MDdnr P° oo o�KK•�q elt�r r .o�.A prrlw>PI.ro 4a 4 r•v r
M �nma vnvrs�r auYrrR�w�P�rs Po[rYs . .P Pw�r P.[Pn°..crY..A.m ( �
CON'�iRU..Ill.tr
Lu.Nu°c"do i"`x4i[[wn.omal rP n�[ew°ApPw m c4`rwv ro f°Kwi•w.a w 4sffw° s w5is"wR4o
(WSNPNI WK Kw15.ROYiIt YNI[NRS 4°
4Y•R°R AN.1 Y�•5 Y9f[Mi¢.m[rtf PN °qF Yb��x eY1pY5 mr4YrFYP�vR�RS 4yn nbS L45 Y�A•Sw v9T b M 9° A`\U ° S�
�a YR[ YP M rTR(n[Y.VI]O M ,�°4.tL•�n�N RS�SpoY•f 9°[SRS•Co`•"Tr•m`�i xK�P4 P.Kci rP 9.Y•R W Apr P WR .
• I•rRK uw sr n[ I..
° ��RS MWv LOYAIiS•A�N IOxC n0`�` [SUYiol]T.RY6 W.y� S 5 wSY•Ir[PRE 0AV1irNPn 4n°°Ay V`4 P A=W �1
.Swi NY.�9n.r WRU n K W�ir[�•r MP Rx•nY Y�A�ar.n[s N orq Wp M�R P�-W oY[SR�W �
M 9R nVw so(TY.rwfY WY O.O�YY ioRp d p4i.�E qrr AAS
x A4a S M SVOdin o M(PIS4�P q�R•R [ f�.Y �8d5 �]Ao-wfµrAi i IY[•AY[Po•R.Yoe MV�a _ 1�.
RISS S(Mr 9li AS6 P.°r ( � y5N/Tw
YSnO��6Vv 9atl�[.4 MYfq .Oi N b�R N:1�fA >RYS 4[SON@ E�[[YS RZ Poit W.lam � /n/� n _ I�•
.w Ar1.5R 5 W IW W ` Yr' Yn nYPPi W�n.nRrR[.w 9[15[oR•0lxr i
R•R b SM.M nl Y rtt NA5 P NI:Y li Y5 P[yL 4 PW Rp wn5 R Yr rfyrlP
MmAYr qr 9Wa NR.M[Ai(P! •w r � �n °
Y[y�x.fRY^P°N[A.�5 o SM YNFiYLL p°N'r W W dSN4[9 g.F•pw410 r[oY�i45 yr�.P u
M RAS°�N r FRRCAFS 4No S(Ys [ °��WS`W r lYR ollH RPR4\r 41YP. QI /Tn qr
e_ra WN Fcnm RFOL A, T, Yin o°�OAr rYnmiiirox� rAPNI[N lea n
MS^(A1�a�5 N M AF c-Srt.N K Tlu f�R•1..SNOS W r T w(.
n•rP 5 dRS
M1•M wuYo�4f�`iY or M[d 9Ypa°9WiY°Nu�[w SWS NRD WRs d 4 SLNNCCS iNf
rP tA�4[YFP nYM Mr�w .a[P 9n4W[ •( i50
M 4M9 wy�3 PSrrN° .x(xp LlR•WNr�. 91)M
rnn• [ms• s • 9K QS�f�WrtO���rry`jW.w rrP MCA¢a r•.II Yt, ��.n
. rP F s SNi SRo4.a[W r NWr S mfwwA.4 M•. i AS� uQ•9/S:
•tlwro•iov.s r.[acrNR P WSdw RS•r SRolp�Yq N
w/N$iYT wY M Ar 9p°°Rlnq°•oLLR°MR'ORO.
•°°<u"'rP�`Rr RNnr:°jP°wrnw� m //;
u.R snY.r�".Yds9A"`:I:Ro mnu rw"H wn.-r uR \�. NOA521
13�M44rA w4ygPx0�M rP A[11rt W[55 \
n�vP� ♦ EXP
.1
5xn.wSYnn°�°�op•�Nw wTaA'. l �`�
T fMfO°lxN�
W.Y 1wr A. m9•[d1 j�j^Illrl�
Yl 4n v'm.d4 YR..ar.M1f°°r •�i•wi•
MAR 20 2019
r9 T..
CONSTRUCTION
L NOTES
v[[T AYRII-II[YNR•:
CONSTRUCTION NOTES5
S1 ,,,_�
;�N.I.N .. ...
.a_rW w
a„Pe aN.,...a.
•P' occ,lUrNBBERRYY,o
e � _ M r6�MMM1l MYAl vaq
PNP'e[1• O
)[ ___ 1i wv.�Yeif - O(ee WMT IS4S WR
1 Y .. rgaPD°.• %. w
VMOMmu Y ; �
fO!
IPtal �r•o 1
sm�.nW. L IRS'
Rry.T.h'—CESCRIPiIa—•V
NOT USED a; B SECTION AT EaEUATM (IST OPRON) ;.; S SECTION AT BEIM ,„ 2
-+-
1 ............... . ... ..... — ---
beay.o rhe vans 'F—� _____ _ • (��
01,
• / /
O Y S v 1./ 11 I I • �rry u 0.IM e11PM[O•!
je . . TN 1 � • nr ln.,fWOa s�'oa aw�r ..
• Nn wPuui
�Y-f� I wWUP•iv • e.Nrr.V
'SECTION AT BEIM 7 SECTION AT EOIBIDNION (2ND ORION) r--q4
c I 1 FES
INC
/
EXP_
� c N
MAR 20 201:7
ff
j °gym vm nn[:
/7
BLOCK WALL
1 i�,. _—_ • FOUNDATION PUN
, b 1 AND DETAILS
I 1 I I
� 1 .o.o.00 u% iMirJu va,.Il•A�l[.LP:
wAEE TO rMu SEC110N _- _ -6 secilON AT BEAM ti 3 TMLL 10 WISE'C110N ti - - - - 1 S2 ux-xu
my,l,n
R WA L.IK IYW�.•N.w
\ eYLEIF O,IST ILW.
iRW[.cnLsoRon nnie
. nlo•n ww.
JUNBERRY
lmRuu eouvuo
,eYo m WL Wul®u.u lW, we[o[lu YYa olwMf®R We
03/20/13
mm nx
�CONSTRUCTION
�
AT BEAN 3 MMM AT WAY 2
.r r
1
1 1 Qi nun aa.
� I '1 � =n•n Y.
II
'1
YRNQS MC
lm�No
n)9p YWf RK£WR SIO
a.xdJ RYJYaL4 U a�)R)
WWoan L•!W� 1 .ntlMlau-v»
1
1 I L�,W.•:
I Lam,,
80.152!
Sao. `:W
i • E�IRD�.
�.. .,, oru
• I 1 NAR 20 2013
1 •,Wn s¢,nu
11
SHADE COVER
1�
AND DETAILS
� 1
u[
SIMDE - _ S3 s
Fr 1 W-]S
11 vn.w t
—�`�`- ` Z1—F�e�-� __ � •� ^T�• ALJ._: �•r
x --
C
� t
VIER ?
i
r'
7 '
r
JUNBERRY12676 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91739
ED VERMIN W!RELESS
OPME
_O LOCA77ON
� M
MOPOSED
IPT�T' RUM
EXTS�G
. . FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA91739
vtr.w s
,.,144
SEDlW,aNWTkELESS
4
ATION
PROPOM
a
"PE
EXBTDM
II-+�•r '
IL
�'—%�i ��T• -_• i-�_ _moi
Awsk
. '. ..'• /
IL
r_ r
or'
Ilk
94
. r
IL 1:. y i ■'�
• ' W- -j
T
16 a.
z
1'I
• - r
or IAL
� 1 .a
0
Authorized Agent for Verizon Wireless
8390 Maple Pl. Suite 110
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: 909.944.5471 Fax: 909.944.5971
January 14, 2013
Tabe Van der Zwaag
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamong, CA 91730
Verizon Wireless Project Name: Junberry
Application for a Conditional Use Permit Modification to CUP DRC 2011-00688
Verizon Wireless is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit Modification for the construction and 24/7
operation of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility(cell site), and presents the following project
information for your consideration.
•Project Location
12676 Foothill Blvd
APN: 0227-211-25 and 0227-211-24-0000
Zoning: General Commercial
Project Representative
Fiona Hilyer
8390 Maple Place Suite 110
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-944-5471 ext. 20
fhilyer@spectrumse.com
Applicant
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bid. D, 1 s`Floor
Irvine, CA 92618
949-286-7000
Project Description
The proposed installation consists of a new Verizon Wireless 50' antenna support structure disguised as a
monopine. Included within the proposed project will be a three (3) sector antenna array. Equipment will be
stalled in an existing trash enclosure (to be relocated) and a permanent generator will be housed adjacent to
e enclosure and screened with a block wall. Supporting cables and utilities will be housed in the existing
enclosure as well (i.e. telco pedestals and electrical panels). Access will be via the existing vehicle entry to the
property from Foothill Boulevard. One unassigned parking space will be provided, but no existing parking will
be deleted.
EXHIBIT D F-33
Project Objectives
There are several reasons that a wireless carrier has the need to install a cell site at a specific location: •
Coverage—No service, or insufficient service, currently existing in the vicinity
Capacity—Service exists, but is currently overloaded or approaching overload, preventing successful call
completion during times of high usage.
Quality— Service exists, but signal strength is inadequate or inconsistent.
E911 —Effective site geometry within the overall network is needed to achieve accurate location information
for mobile users through triangulation with active cell sites. (Half of all 911 calls are made using mobile
phones.)
Enhanced Voice and Data services—Current service does not provide adequate radio-support for advanced
services.
This location was selected because Verizon Wireless radio-frequency engineers (RF) have identified a
significant gap in radio signal in the vicinity of the 1-15 freeway and Foothill Blvd. This site is also designed to
provide better coverage at Victoria Gardens and at the nearby shopping centers adjacent to Sacred Heard
Church. It is also designed to provide coverage for the surrounding residential and commercial neighborhoods
and offload traffic from the surrounding sites that are approaching capacity due to heavy call volume.
Alternative Site Analysis
There were no other locations that better met the City's residential separation requirement and also met
Verizon's coveraee objective in this area.
The surrounding retail candidates were considered as a part of this search ring. Due to the proximity to •
residential zones and a lack of landlord interest, Sacred Heart Church was deemed the best candidate.
Verizon Wireless Company Information
Verizon Wireless is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) to operate and is a state-
regulated Public Utility subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Verizon Wireless is one
of the fastest growing nationwide service providers to offer all digital voice, messaging and high-speed data
services to millions customers in the United States.
Verizon Wireless will operate this facility in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of
the FCC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the CPUC, as governed by the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, FCC Declaratory Ruling to Ensure Timely Siting Review, and other applicable laws. Copies of the
laws will be provided upon request.
The enclosed application is presented for your consideration, and Verizon Wireless requests a favorable
determination and approval of a(Conditional Use Permit) to build the proposed facility. Please contact me at
909-944-5471 if you have any questions or requests for additional information.
Respectfully submitted, `
Fiona Hilyer •
Authorized Ag2fornz He ess �J
F3
• ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR VERIZON SEARCH RING 1UNBERRY
This search ring is very specific as the main purpose of this site is to offload sites that are
overloaded in the area. Please refer to the propagation maps provided, it is clear where these
sites to be offloaded are in relation to the proposed candidate at Sacred Heart and why this
location was chosen. The three sites to be offloaded are" Rochester"at Quake Stadium, "Day
Creek" at Day Creek and Foothill and "Almond" on East Ave north of Foothill. The site is also to
provide coverage at Victoria Gardens, so has to be in close proximity to that area.
The retail center to the south of Sacred Heart on Foothill was contacted and the property
owners were not interested in entering into a lease with Verizon. The retail center to the east
would not work as there is only frontage available there and Verizon would not be allowed to
place a site there. Placing the site to the north of Sacred Heart would put them too close to
existing Verizon sites in the area and to residential neighborhoods.
Given the Archdiocese's interest in leasing space to Verizon at Sacred Heart and it's suitability
to meet the objectives of the search ring, this candidate was chosen.
•
•
F-�
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
AGENDA
C�ONGA APRIL 2, 2013 - 7:00 P.M.
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Rains Room
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER ACTION
Roll Call TOO P.M.
Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca _
Candyce Burnett _ Mike Smith X
• Alternates: Frances Howdyshell_ Ray Wimberly
Lou Munoz
II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives.
Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to
20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues
and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design
Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission.
Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as
applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although
the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
A. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00108 - M & A GABAEE, LP C/O A. The Committee
VINCENT ACUNA-A request to subdivide an existing 57,500 square foot approved the project
single-tenant building into three separate units and to make minor exterior as presented. The
modifications to the building within the Community Commercial (CC) Committee supported
District of the Terra Vista CommunityPlan, located at staff's
recommendation
11098 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-422-71. This project is regarding the
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental wrapping of the
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 proposed precast onto
(Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). the main tower around
all visible sides.
•
1 of 2
EXHIBIT E F-3(o
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA •
APRIL 2, 2013
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00688 (MODIFICATION) - B. The project was
VERIZON WIRELESS - A request to modify a previous approval approved as
(DRC2011-00688)for site and architectural review of a 45-foot tall (top of presented.
branches at 50 feet) major wireless communication facility on the site of
the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the Regionally Related
Commercial (RRC) Development District and the Medium (M) Residential
Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay),
located at 12676 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-211-02, 24 and 25 and
0227-221-01 and 02. Planning Department staff has determined that the
project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 3 (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303)exemption which covers the installation of small
new equipment and facilities in small structures.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. •
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law
prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the
Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent
meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
IV. ADJOURNMENT 7:30 P.M.
The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with
the consent of the Committee.
•
2 of 2
F-59
Diocese of San Bernardino
• �s PASTORAL PLANNING
April 3,2013
Mr.Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga,California 91729
Re:Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034—proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr.Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you on behalf of Bishop Gerald R.Barnes,to express the Diocese's support for the
proposed Verizon Wireless site at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga. Cell towers are an allowable use on
• our facilities,and the Diocese has over a decade of partnership with wireless providers at our school and parish sites.
We are aware of the various opinions on the safety of cell towers,and thus we have regularly refreshed our
understanding of this technology and the federal regulations which govern then use. We are confident,based on this
governing data,that these installations do not pose a hazard to our communities of faith. The proposed placement of
this tower is in the least intrusive location on the parish site,and should address the concerns of all partes.
I wish to express our thanks for the diligence,professionalism,and cooperation that the departments at the
City of Rancho Cucamonga have shown to the parish and to our supporting diocesan staff on this issue. If you have
any questions regarding our position on this matter,please contact me at your convenience. I hope attend the
planning meeting and look forward to meeting you.
Best, /�—
v `
Th ore Furlow
Director of planning
Diocese of San Bernardino CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 0 8 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
EXHIBIT F SanBemning ,California92404 • Phone p://%475-51 re • Fax rg 475-5109
toralplanningCsbdioceserorg • website: http://www.Polureofhope.org
—3a
Diocese of San Bernardino
• 4 OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE
April 11, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013000034—proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard.
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
•
I am writing to you on behalf of Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, to express the Diocese's
support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The parish has already been granted approval and has secured the required permitting for
the Wireless Tower on the site and this is only a request to locate it in a more remote area of the
site. It was decided to request this alternate location after consultation with the City, Diocese,
Verizon, Parish and School after discovering that the approved location would interfere with a
future school building proposed on the site.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude for your involvement throughout this process and
the help of the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga If you have any questions regarding
our position on this matter, please contact me at your convenience. I will be attending the
planning meeting to support the project.
Thank you CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
David Mei APR 15 2013
Director
Office of Construction and Real Estate
is
Diocese of San Bernardino RECEIVED - PLANNING
1201 E.Highland Ave.,San Bernardino,California 92404-Phone:(909)475-5305-Fax:(909)475-5319-e-mail dmeier@sbdiocese.org
w .sbdiocese.org
EXHIBIT G F E59-
ViiALVAREZ-GLASMAN & COLVIN 13181 Crossroads Parkway North
• �� "' Suite 400-West Tower
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Cdy of Industry,CA 91746
Tel:562.699.5500
Fax:562.692.2244
April 16. 2013
TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Re: OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for
construction of a Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church
at 12676 Foothill Boulevard.
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Our office represents several parents of young children who attend the Sacred Heart Roman
Catholic Church School where the proposed Verizon cell tower is to be located.
SUMMARY
• It is our position that the CUP for the proposed cell tower should be denied because it is
aesthetically incompatible with the beauty of the church, school and surrounding residential and
upscale commercial properties. Further the proposed cell tower is not necessary to fill a
"significant gap" in coverage to allow Verizon to maintain reasonable cell phone service. The
City has legal grounds to deny the CUP for these two reasons alone.
There has been substantial controversy. dialogue, and citizen opposition to the cell tower based
on the potential adverse effects of radio frequency emissions (RFE) on the health of young
children attending the Sacred Heart School. However. we recognize that the federal
Telecommunications .Act (TCA) prohibits the Planning Commission from denying the CUP if
the proposed cell tower meets the federal regulations for RFE. Nonetheless. the Planning
Commission may deny the permit based on aesthetics or the lack of a "significant gap" in
coverage. (Aferro PCS. Inc. v. .San Francisco. 400 Fad 715, 736). In other words. if the
Planning Commission finds reasonable evidence that the cell tower is aesthetically incompatible
with the church, school or surrounding properties or that the applicant has not demonstrated a
significant gap in coverage, the CUP may be denied.
AESTHETICS DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission may consider aesthetics as the basis for denial of a CUP for a cell
tower. The federal Circuit Court of Appeals in California has stated:
•
EXHIBITH Northern Callf rls• Napa ValloylYountvllle Southern California. City of Industry
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard •
April 16. 2013
Page 2 of 6
"California law does not prohibit local governments from taking into account aesthetic
considerations in deciding whether to permit the development of WCF's [cell towers] within their
jurisdictions." (Sprint,4ssets. LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F3d 716, 725).
Denial of a cell tower permit was upheld by the court where the city determined that the
proposed cell tower would have a commercial appearance, would detract from the residential
character of the neighborhood. would be incompatible with the existing development and would
impact the views of the neighboring residents. (T-Mohile LSA, Inc. v. City of.4nacortes, 572
F3d 987. 994-995). The regulation of cell towers based on aesthetic considerations such as
height. proximity to residential structures. nature of nearby uses, surrounding topography and
impact on views are permissible bases for denial of a cell tower CUP. (Sprint PC Assets, LLC v.
City of Palos Ferdes Estates, 583 F3d 716, 725).
The Rancho Cucamonga City Code regulates cell towers in several ways, including the following
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Sections.
1. The purpose and intent of the cell tower regulations is "to allow for the
development of wireless communication facilities where needed..." Section •
17.106.010
The Planning Commission, based on the above policy of the City, may deny a cell tower CUP
permit if the cell tower is not needed to fill a significant gap in coverage. In this case the cell
tower is not needed to fill a "significant gap" in service coverage. The proposed cell tower does
not meet this criterion as discussed in the section below entitled Significant Gap Discussion.
2. "Stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred." Section
17.106.030.A.1
The proposed cell tower does not meet this criterion because the antennae are exposed on the
perimeter of the "stealth" tree. Despite efforts to disguise the antennae, they are obvious and
obtrusive. Like many so-called "stealth trees." this effort is obviously a cell tower which detracts
from the aesthetics of the surrounding foliage. church and school. The "stealth" tree is out-of-
place with the existing foliage in kind and size.
3. "Wireless communication facilities shall be located where the existing
topography. vegetation, buildings or other structures provide the greatest amount
of screening. ..." Section 17.106.030.A.2
The topography in this area is flat, and does not allow for the concealment of the cell tower by
hills or valleys.
•
F 4(
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
• Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
.April 16. 2013
Page 3 of 6
4. Cell towers should be located "in areas where they will not detract from the
appearance of the City." Section 17.106.030.A.3
Despite its "stealth tree" disguise, the cell tower is obvious because of its protruding antennae, its
obvious difference from surrounding foliage and its obvious size difference from the existing
cypress trees. It is aesthetically detrimental to the surrounding foliage and the substantial beauty
of the church and school.
5. "Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the following order of
preference:
a. Collocated with existing wireless communication facilities.
b. On existing structures such as buildings, communication towers. or utility
facilities.
C. On an existing signal, power, light. or similar kinds of poles.
d. In industrial districts.
e. In commercial districts.
• f. In residential districts, subject to additional restrictions set forth herein." Section
17.106.030.A.4
The location of the cell tower is within the lowest preferred area, a residentially zoned property.
located adjacent to multi-family structures, and near a school and church. Further, the proposed
cell tower does not meet any of the preferences of the first three categories since it is not an
existing structure.
6. Cell towers are not permitted within 300 feet of a residential structure or in any
residential district unless it is designed in a manner to allow future collocation
provided the applicant submits written documentation that shows that a more
preferable location cannot be reasonably accommodated. Section
17.106.030.A.5.c
7. The Planning Director may require the applicant to provide written documentation
of good faith efforts to locate alternate more preferable sites for the cell tower.
Section 17.106.13.1
Paragraphs 6 and 7 are similar. They require the applicant to provide written proof that it has
made a reasonable search and a more preferable site cannot be located. See Significant Gap
Discussion below at page five of this letter.
•
F-44a
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard •
April 16, 2013
Page 4 of 6
"SIGNIFICANT GAP" DISCUSSION
The applicant must show by competent evidence that it has a "significant gap" in cell phone
coverage, that it has explored alternate facilities or locations, and that the requested location is
the least intrusive to the community. (Metro PCS, Inc. v. San Francisco, 400 Fad 715, 732-735).
This rule derives from Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11) of the federal TCA which provides that a city's
denial of a cell tower permit application "shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services." (Sprint PCS Asseis, 583 F3d at 726). A city effectively
prohibits the provision of cell phone service in violation of the TCA if it prevents a cell phone
provider from tilling a "significant gap" in service coverage. (Metro PCS, 400 F3d at 731).
WHAT IS A "SIGNIFICANT GAP" IN COVERAGE?
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed cell phone provider has a "significant gap" in
coverage. There is no set rule as to what constitutes a "significant gap" in coverage. Federal
courts have established the following guidelines: (.Sprint PCSAssets, 583 FM at 727):
1. The mere presentation of radio frequency maps showing a Pap in coverage is not •
sufficient to prove a "significant gap." (.Sprint PC.SAssets, 583 F3d at 727).
2. Showing that a gap in coverage exists is not sufficient to demonstrate that the gap
is a "significant gap" in coverage. (Vetro PCS. 400 F3d at 733, n. 10).
3. "The relevant service gap must be truly 'significant' and not merely individual
'dead spots' within a greater service area." (Wetro PCS, 400 F3d at 733).
4. The "TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small '
dead spots'...(Sprint PCSAssets, 583 F3d at 727).
5. The need to update old equipment or boost a weak signal is not a "significant gap"
in coverage. (.Sprint PC'SAsset.s, 583 F3d at 728).
The courts have suggested several factors to consider in evaluating whether the applicant has
proven the existence of a significant gap in coverage. (Sprint PGS:isseis. 583 F3d at 727).
1. Whether the gap affected significant commuter highway or railway.
2. The nature and character of the area or the number of potential users in the area
who may be affected by the alleged lack of service.
•
F-43
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
• Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
April 16. 2013
Page 5 of 6
3. Whether the cell tower was needed to improve a weak signal or to fill a complete
void in coverage.
4. Consideration of "drive tests" (persons drive around the area of the alleged gap
and evaluate the continuity and strength of the reception).
5. Whether the gap affects a commercial area.
6. Whether the gap poses a public safety risk.
Verizon has not established a "significant" gap in coverage. The radio frequency coverage
propagation maps supplied by the applicant merely show a weakness in signal and potential
spotty coverage in limited areas north and south of Foothill Boulevard. Verizon asserts in a
letter dated January 14. 2013 to Tabe Van der Zwagg of the City Planning Department that there
is "a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of the 1-15 freeway and Foothill Blvd." However.
the mere submission of a propagation map or the plain assertion of the existence of a coverage
gap is not sufficient. The applicant must present actual evidence of a "significant" gap in terms
• of no signal, persistent dropped calls or total lack of coverage. Small dead spots in a larger
coverage area do not demonstrate a "significant gap." (Metro PCS, 400 F3d at 734).
Once the applicant has established the existence of a truly "significant gap" in coverage. it must
demonstrate that it has made a reasonable investigation of alternative sites. and that the requested
location is the least intrusive means of fill the cap. (Metro PCS, 400 F3d at 734).
"Under all existing versions of the "significant gap" test. once a wireless service provider has
demonstrated that the requisite significant gap in coverage exists, it must then make some
showing as to the intrusiveness or necessity of its proposed means of closing that gap." (:1ferro
PCS, 400 F3d at 733).
Likewise. the CitN of Rancho Cucamonga City Code requires an evaluation of whether the cell
tower is truly needed at that location (Rancho Cucamonga Code Section 17.106.010) and an
evaluation of alternative sites which would be less intrusive and more preferable locations.
The current application fails to demonstrate a reasonable investigation of alternative locations
which would be more preferable pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Code Section
17.106.030.A.5.c.i and 17.106.030.A.4. Those sections require the applicant to demonstrate that
more preferable sites such as existing facilities and commercial areas are not reasonably
available.
• In its letter of January 14. 2013 Verizon submits a mere two sentences to support its contention
that there were no alternative locations. Their letter states: "The surrounding retail candidates
F-44
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard •
April 16. 2013
Page 6 of 6
were considered as a part of this search ring. Due to the proximity to residential zones and a lack
of landlord interest. Sacred Heart Church was deemed the best candidate." This statement defies
common sense logic. What residential properties are in the area? The Church is nearly the only
residential property in the middle of hundreds of acres of commercial development. The Church
propem. is literally surrounded by a sea of commercial and retail property which are more
preferable locations for the cell tower.
Lastly. after Verizon has proven the existence of a significant cap and a reasonable search for
more preferable locations. it must demonstrate that the current location and facility is the least
intrusive means of tilling the alleged gap in coverage. (Metro PCS, 400 Fad at 734) Verizon
has made no analysis and present absolutely no evidence on this issue.
Listen to the voices of your citizens. constituents and the parents. Do the right thing. Deny the
application for CUP DRC2013-00034. There are ample legal grounds for denial of CUP
DRC2013-00034.
Thank you for%our thoughtful consideration of our position. •
Very truly yours.
ALVAREZ-GLASMAN & COLVIN
�f—�Ld ��« '�lc�� _c c1-'I
Scott E. Nichols
Partner
SEN/cy
•
F�5
• RESOLUTION NO. 13-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (MODIFICATION) DRC2013-00034 -A REQUEST TO MODIFY A
PREVIOUS APPROVAL (DRC2011-00688) FOR THE SITE AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OFA 45-FOOT TALL(TOP OF BRANCHESAT
50 FEET)MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON THE SITE
OF THE SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH WITHIN THE REGIONALLY
RELATED COMMERCIAL (RRC) DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE
MEDIUM (M) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN (SOUTH OVERLAY), LOCATED AT
12676 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0227-211-02. 24 AND 25 AND 0227-221-01 AND 02.
A. Recitals.
1. Spectrum, for Verizon Wireless, filed an application for Conditional Use Permit
(Modification) DRC2013-00034, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 24, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
• B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on April 24, 2013, including written and oral staff reports,together
with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The 11.31-acre site is developed with a catholic church, school, and related
buildings; and
b. The subject property is within the Regional Related Commercial District of the
Foothill Boulevard Districts(Subarea 4)and the Medium Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan (south overlay); and
C. The properties to the north are developed with the 1-15 Freeway and a multi-family
residential development,which is within the Medium (M)Development District of the Etiwanda Spec
Plan(south overlay);the properties to the south are developed with a commercial development,which
is within the Regionally Related Commercial(Foothill Boulevard District—Subarea 4);the properties to
the east are developed with a multi-family development and a commercial development, which are
within the Medium (M) Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (south overlay) and the
• Regionally Related Commercial (Foothill Boulevard District — Subarea 4), respectively; and, the
properties to the west are developed with the 1-15 Freeway and a commercial development, which is
within the Regionally Related Commercial (Foothill Boulevard District—Subarea 4).
t--4�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-20
DRC2013-00034 —VERIZON WIRELESS
April 24, 2013
Page 2 •
d. The proposed wireless communication facility is in the form of a 45-foot high
monopine (top of branches at 50 feet). The facility will be located at the northern edge of the
property adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway sound wall,which is over 300 feet from the classrooms on the
site and 60 feet from the apartments on the property to the east. The related control equipment,
including a backup generator, will be housed within a 440 square foot, open-walled equipment
enclosure located adjacent to the monopine. Verizon and the church will repair or replace any
landscaping damaged during the installation of the facility and plant additional trees and shrubs in
the surrounding landscape planter; and
e. The area on the site where the facility will be located is zoned Medium (M)
Residential, which has a height limit of 35 feet. Section 17.106.000 of the Development Code
permits wireless facilities to go over the maximum height limit when approved by a Conditional Use
Permit. Additionally, Section 17.106.030.A.5.0 states that major wireless communication facilities
may only be located within 300 feet of a residential development district when the facility is designed
and constructed in a manner to allow for future collocation of additional wireless communication
carriers. The proposed facility conforms to this requirement and the applicant has provided
documentation that a more suitable location is not available that meets their coverage requirements.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the •
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that a major
wireless communication facility is permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the
improvements in the vicinity; and
C. The application,which contemplates operation of the proposed use,complies with
each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303, which covers the installation of new equipment and facilities in small structures.
Because the project only involves installing a 45-foot high wireless communication facility along with
related equipment, staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning
Department's determination of exemption, and based on his independent judgment, concurs in the
staffs determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application, subject to each and every
condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference.
•
r—'r�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-20
DRC2013-00034—VERIZON WIRELESS
April 24, 2013
• Page 3
Planning Department:
1) Approval is granted to construct a 45-foot tall monopine (top of
branches at 50 feet) major wireless communication facility, backup
generator, and related equipment on the site of the Sacred Heart
Catholic Church located at 12676 Foothill Boulevard.
2) The equipment for the wireless communication facility shall be
completely housed inside and screened by an open-walled equipment
enclosure.
3) The equipment enclosure shall have a stucco finish and overhead
trellis structure to match the existing on-site trash enclosures.
4) The monopine shall have a life-like appearance with the branches
starting no higher than 15 feet above the finished grade, adjacent to
the facility with the final design of the facility to be approved by the
Planning Manager.
5) The antennas, mounting brackets and related equipment mounted to
the facility shall be painted to match the monopine.
• 6) Any damage to the landscaping and irrigation system shall be repaired
or replaced. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to the
satisfaction of the Planning Manager.
7) Print a copy of this Resolution of Approval on the plans when they are
submitted for Plan Check.
8) The facility shall be maintained at all times,including making necessary
repairs as needed, and keeping the site free from trash and debris. In
no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.
9) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
10) All appurtenant equipment shall be maintained in good condition at all
times.
11) No wireless telecommunications facility shall interfere with any public
safety radio communications system including, but not limited to, the
800 MHz trunking system. The applicant shall comply with all FCC
rules and regulations regarding the avoidance, mitigation, and
abatement of any such interference.
12) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building
and Safety Services Department.
• 13) Signs or advertising are not permitted on the wireless communication
facility.
F-�8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-20
DRC2013-00034 –VERIZON WIRELESS
April 24, 2013
Page 4 •
14) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Conditions,
Health Departments, Uniform Building Code, or any other City
Ordinances.
6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 24th day of April 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
H— 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DRC2013-00034
SUBJECT: CUP (MODIFICATION)
APPLICANT: SPECTRUM
LOCATION: 12676 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD-APN: 0227-211-02, 24, 25 AND 0227-221-01 AND 02.
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
•. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents,officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 13-20 orApproval Letter,
Standard Conditions,and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans(full size).
The sheet(s)are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities
and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The
project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to
the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to
the Planning Commission or Planning Manager hearing:
a) Notice of Exemption -$50 X
B. Time Limits
1. Any approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced
within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
•
1__rO1
Project No.DRC2013-00034 '
Completion Date
C. Site Development •
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and
grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the
Development Code regulations.
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be —/—/—
submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all —/_/—
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/Oor Master
Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be —/—/—
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming,and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. For
single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
D. CELL SITE FIRE STANDARD CONDITIONS
Fire Construction Services will review the construction plans when submitted to the Building and Safety
Services Department for plan check. •
THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT
FCS-5 Entitlement fees —/—/-
1. The $110.00 Fire Entitlement Fee is to be collected at Plan Check. Fee payment must be
processed at the Building and Safety Services Department. The case tag will be removed from
the parcel by the public service technician upon payment of fees.
FSC-6 Fire District Site Access —/—/-
1. Access Doorways: Approved doorways,accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be provided
in accordance with the California Building Code, Fire and/or any other applicable standards. A
Knox box must be installed in Accordance with RCFPD Standards.
2. CommerciaVlnclustrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be —/—/—
in accordance with the RCFPD Standard.
3. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site plan —/—/—
illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be
included in the architectural plans submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department for
approval.
4. Roof access shall be provided when the building meets the criteria of the RCFPD Standard.
•
__C' 2
Project No. DRC2013-00034
Completion Date
FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits —/—/—
Oisted are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or building
construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application for approval of the permit; field
inspection is required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit may be required for any activity or
operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce
conditions that may be hazardous to life or property.
• Battery Systems
• Generators
• Compressed Gases
• Flammable and Combustible Liquids
• Hazardous Materials
• Liquefied Petroleum Gases
FSC-12 Hazardous Materials -Submittal to Fire Construction Services
Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of buildings and/or the installation of equipment
designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the California Building, Fire,
Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances FD50 and other implemented and/or adopted
standards.
PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER ---
The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction
Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures".
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION - Please complete the following: —/—/-
1. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,vehicular gates must
• be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards by Fire Construction
Services.
2. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the approved fire
access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to
FCS.
The CCBR's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and
contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the
method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and
the maintenance of all required fire access roadways.
3. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and multi-
family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background,
visible from the street and electrically illuminated during periods of darkness.
4. Hazardous Materials: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must
demonstrate (in writing from the County) that the facility has met or is meeting the Business
Emergency/Contingency Plan with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous
Materials/Emergency Response and Enforcement Division. The applicant must also obtain
inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services.
5. Confidential Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire District"Confidential Business Occupancy Information"form.This form provides
contact information for Fire District use in the event of an emergency at the subject building or
property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector.
•
F sa 3
Project No.DRC2013-00034
Completion Date
6. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 W x 11"or 11"x 17
site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standards shall be revised by the applicant to •
reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as required in the standard. The
site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Inspector.
7. The Knox box must be installed and the owner or contractor must provide the Key to the building
and/or gates to the fire inspector for locking up in the Knox box.
•
•
F s3 4
�s
or
x£000-£ 4OZo21a
( UOIIB311! pow )
li. wJOd asn ieuol. ii. puoo
3
f
l'1 l
A
' J ,
i
s pY
- i
k,
v :.
MENEM
9hronology
• 1 /11 /12 Original CUP approved
• 10/17/12 Preconstruction walk with church staff
• School parents voice concerns
• Church meets with parents
•
1 /14/13 Verizon submits modification request
• Staff holds a meeting with the parents
• Staff holds a meeting with Diocese representative
• Verizon submits final location for review
.Y`.. F.
J f
kI
_ t
r
I S
■ ■
s� t
Y
I . i� a,�i•• ��_ . 9g0.SY ,e 4
•
�rV
-va.'rP. @IAv•Mf c-u n:w:"1( ,:Iq��t>_. .
irri nova."r6 rRrw,•u•:rK 'prpus +�.:..;_
Ri9]G 812GY•YL)a IMIY.IK rr(1DN.
>4�
IIaII ikill
4 A
1 y E aha
A -
j
11 � rf
I
q w�
L In
Qui
Photo . •
.. . a1 ,. ,
� •4
jV
� �s�aa�Y,r •.
H�
m
o -�
o
3 " F 0
CD
CD
oilaF � •\ � r
S, _
1 ..-
J 'i! 4 �'
logo
Screening and
Site Selection Guidelines
• Stealth facilities and concealed antennas are
preferred
• Commercial and residential locations are on the lower
end of a list of preferable site locations in order to
minimize public view of wireless facilities
• Major wireless facilities only permitted within 300 feet
of residential when collocatable and when a more
preferable location cannot be located due to technical
requirements or other factor beyond applicants
control
Arguments in Oppositioon4l
• Aesthetically incompatible with church ,
school and surrounding residential
development
• Not necessary to fill significant coverage
gap
od
Response
• The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminates a
City's ability to deny wireless communication facilities based on
perceived health concerns.
• The proposed monopine is stealth and designed to blend in
with the existing pine and eucalyptus trees on project site
• The Development Code does not require proof of a significant
coverage gap, only documentation that a more preferable
location is not available due to coverage requirements or other
factors beyond applicant's control
Alternative Site Analysis
• Main purpose of facility is to offload sites in
surrounding area that are over capacity
• Three nearest antennas are over capacity
• Facility will provide coverage to Victoria
Gardens and surrounding area
• Foothill Crossing commercial center not
interested in entering lease agreement
• Commercial center to east did not have a
location to place the facility
r � _
• • I • I 1
T {I L
1
. 7 � `TL*�
jig
J -�
1'
Project
Site
r
� _
Bibb
row -6
a
r w,, -
1-
Im
15 .'�
�• J r 1
rojec
inn
T
l
r .
f. , v3 i •'. . 4.. ��
ter f� AWSite
`V"
' :�`,'����]ItQ ;.• � � 4_ • +-fit. �+ �/ � ._ _
Conclusions
• The proposed modification adheres to all City requirements
including having a stealth design and being collocatable.
Additionally, there are many other churches with schools in the
City with wireless facilities
• Federal Telecommunications Act restricts the a city's ability to
deny wireless facility based on health concerns
• Development Code does not require proof of significant
coverage gap
• Church may build facility in previously approved location
Sacred-ifeart Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CUC.AMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE(909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 11, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034— proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I would like to express to you my support of the proposed wireless site at Sacred Heart Church,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. I am an employee at the church and have been involved with the
process of having the cell tower placed on the church grounds.
Based on the facts and research that have been given to us, I agree wholeheartedly with the
decision to have the cell tower placed here. I believe there are no health hazards to the children
that attend our school, individuals who work at our facility or the adults, youth and children that
participate in the activities and functions held on the church grounds.
In our society today, each one of us is dependent on our own individual cell phones to
communicate and remain in touch with others in our daily lives. In order to accomplish this we
must have the cell towers that surround all of us in our community both at work and in our
homes. I trust in the knowledge of those who have the responsibility to make the decisions
regarding the safety of these types of issues and therefore with their guidance and
recommendations I fully support this decision to place the cell tower at Sacred Heart Church.
If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me at (909) 803-1411.
Sincerely
�yours,
Debbie Fanzo (/
Director of Community Life
Sacred Heart Church C Ty OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
SacredYfeart CathoCu Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE(909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 11, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034—proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing this letter to express my utmost support of the placement of a cell tower at Sacred
Heart Catholic Church. I am an employee at the church and have been a member of this parish
for more than 18 years. After hearing from both the supporters and non-supporters, I have found
that there is no reason why Sacred Heart should not go through with this decision.
Working in Youth Ministry has given me an opportunity to truly utilize technology. We use our
phones as a way to communicate with our core team, as well as send out any and all reminders
we may have for the youth of our Parish. I trust that those who have chosen to undergo and
support this project believe that this will bring no harm to any of our parishioners. I support this
decision wholeheartedly and encourage all I encounter to do the same.
If I can help in any other way, please feel free to contact me at (909) 803-1421.
Sincerely yours,
G 16,
Melissa Taylor CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Administrative Assistant to the Youth Ministry office
Sacred Heart Church APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2O13-00034— proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I would like to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site at Sacred
Heart Parish in Rancho Cucamonga. I am confident the cell tower will be a great benefit to our
parish, and poses no danger to the parishioners, employees, or school children at our site.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact me at your
convenience. I am accessible by email at: IlemasterO1 @yahoo.com or by phone at: 909-319-
7708.
Sincerely,
Laurie Hicks
Pastoral Council Facilitator
6749 Sunridge Ct.
CITY OF RANCHO CtJCQM4NGA
Fontana, CA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
Sacredyfeart Cathofic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. * RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 11, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034— proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
This letter is to inform you of my support for the proposed wireless site at Sacred Heart Church,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. I am currently an employee at Sacred Heart and have been part of
the Parish for more than three years. As a parishioner and a staff member, I greatly accept the
decisions the Parish has made for the betterment of our community.
I do not feel the cell tower is in any way hazardous to the children at Sacred Heart School. I
know with certainty that our Pastor and staff have done all that we can do to assure parents that
their children will remain safe. Again, I reassure you that I support the decision of the cell tower
for Sacred Heart.
If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me at (909) 803-1423.
Sincerely yours,
E lyn Marquez
onfirmation Coordinator
Sacred Heart Church
CITY OF fjAPiCHO CUCRMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
Sacred 7eart Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. - RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909)899-1049
April 11, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034— proposed wireless site at 12676 Foothill
Boulevard.
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I would like to express my support of the proposed Verizon Wireless site at Sacred Heart Parish
in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. I am an employee of this parish and have been involved with the
process of having the cell tower placed on the church grounds.
It is my understanding that the proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to any individual,
rather I am looking forward to enjoy about the wireless benefits it can offer. Based on the facts
and research that have been given to us, I agree wholeheartedly with the decision to have the
cell tower placed here. I believe there are no health hazards to individuals who work at our
facility, volunteers or children that attend our school.
Now days, each one of us dependent on our own cell phones to communicate and remain in
touch with others in our daily basis life. In order to accomplish this, we must have the cell
towers that surround all of us in our community both at work and in our homes. I trust in the
knowledge of those who have the responsibility to make the decisions regarding the safety of
these types of issues and therefore with their guidance and recommendations I fully support this
decision to place the cell tower at Sacred Heart Church.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any question.
]Z;
rs,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Teresa Orozco APR 2 2 2013
Pastor's Admin. Assistant
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
RECEIVED(909) 803-1433 -
PLANNING
Sacred gfeart CatfMic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CLICA\TONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tim Wy nt
Security Coordinator
5131 Sunstone Avenue CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Alta Loma, CA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
April 8, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034—proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am in full support of the proposed wireless tower to be erected at Sacred Heart
Church where I work. I do not believe that this will be harmful to me or anyone
else here on the property. It would greatly benefit the reception to our cell
phones and would benefit the parish greatly.
Sincerely,
Mary Dias
Coordinator of Liturgical Ministries
Sacred Heart Catholic Church
909-899-1049 #701
Or 909-803-1471
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
Sacredgfeart Catfwtzc Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. * RANCHO CLICAMONG.A, CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Luis Torres
Lectores (Espanol) Coordinator CITI'OFRANCHO CUC;4MONGA
15600 Eastwind Ave.
Fontana, CA
APR 2 2 2013
d� RECEIVED - PLANNING
SacredMeart Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILI- BL\D. * RAL\'CHO COCAD1pNGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
<V � t�
Raul Lozano
Encuentro Matrimonial Coordinator
14040 Mountain High Dr. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Fontana, CA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
Sacred gleart Catho& Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CLICA.MONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE(909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Rudy Rios
Grief Ministry Coordinator
14042 Ticonderoga Ct. CITYOFIR,gHCHO
Fontana, CA CUCAMONGA
APR 222013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
SacredMeart Catholk Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE(909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
i
Francisco Hassin /
Monaguillos Coordinator
8919 Summerwood Way
Fontana, CA CIT(OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
Sacred Meant Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. * RANCHO CLICAMONG.A, CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE(909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
LJ
Henry Gonzalez
Parish Council Member
13539 Burnside PI.
Fontana, CA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
SacrediTeart Cathofic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD.* RANCHO CLICAAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Mary Otduno
Coffee & Donut Coordinator
15012 Mustang Ln.
Fontana, CA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
0 Sacred Y eai t Catho& Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. " RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact _
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
CcL�:�t_l T
Albert Fertal
Finance Council Member
5090 Sanchez Ct.
Etiwanda, CA
aTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PL I KING
SacrediTeart Cathofic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. * RANCHO CLICA,MONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
�Christopos
Parish Council Member
12880 Silver Rose Ct
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
CrN OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED e PLMMING
. 0Sacred gfeart Catholic Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. * RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
SinwCouncil
PaPar
16273 Sun Glory Way
Fontana, CA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 2013
RECEIVED - PLANNING
Sacred Heart CathoCu Church
12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. ' RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91739-9764
PHONE (909) 899-1049 FAX (909) 899-3229
April 9, 2013
Mr. Tabe Van Der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 — proposed wireless site at 12676
Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr. Van Der Zwaag,
I am writing to you to express my support for the proposed Verizon Wireless site
at Sacred Heart parish in Rancho Cucamonga.
The proposed placement of this tower is not harmful to our parish, rather we are
excited about the benefits it offers.
If you have any questions regarding my position on this matter, please contact
me at your convenience.
Y
y,
Rick Strack
Blood Drive Coordinator
12921 Arapaho
Etiwanda, CA
MY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
APR 2 2 211:3
RECEIVED - PU�KtlgiNG
lit
Ik
>- ,,t
�S
4,1
Irw
• 4
A14
n t
These signs should never be placed near a playground or school. These signs are
meant to be present in locations where persons who can read these signs
understand what the risks are. Children ages 4-14 do not understand what's at
stake here. Some can't even pronounce these words let alone comprehend what
they mean.
THIS FACILITY CONTAINS
ONE OR MORE N�
CHEMICALS KNOWN TO TRESPASSI
THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TOCAUSE siT
CANCER,BIRTH
ENTRY ONLY
DEFECTS OR
Oa
OO NOT CLIMB
REPRODUCTIVE HARM-_ ' ANTENNAS TOWER WITHOUT
MAY RE OWNER WRITTEN.,
ACTIVE AUTHOAIZATIONI .
i ' : t
P i NOME f
GUIDELINES FOR VMO#[KJhG rx
NOTICELRadio-frequ#ency
NALDIO FREQUENCY EWRO#OAENT6
A:A►rswr�"v""V tnt rIt MM. '`nt n.-i t"t"01®tI[
nwu.m+wa k+a+sng
TIC
• A...rs aE m�sanrat taa acs,.
.s�xeq o+a�w,�+ch atnaers r*e p�fi toa+wtir
• rrwn a asRer t rl�stct►sra
ooracre�a yyw0Ono, t,.
energy a"a.swis W"+smear�mftm..r
posure 6mtsr .e�rrct J,[ulifl OKnr »OP-4 Rp' a 00 ~
.• ♦ Ot'Uh' 1isM SK*i ".pAlt4!ll 3wNt POpTe
Cell Phone Towers are not appropriate in schools or near playgrounds
• Have the Sacred Heart Parish Grounds been tested for current radio frequency radiation
readings from the current cell phone tower across the street and the Wi-Fi already
installed in the school?
• Has anyone thought of a potential fire hazard? These cell phone towers have been
known to self ignite. What about the children's safety?
f'
r
µ ,
• What about an earthquake? We're still waiting on "the big one" what if our children are
out on the field during recess when this occurs and are crushed by this giant cell phone
tower?
• What about high winds? Rancho Cucamonga is a high wind area. The Santa Ana winds
start in the fall when school is in session. The high winds have uprooted large trees.
What if an antenna or the cell phone tower itself is blown over and hits a child on the
way down?
• Verizon requires 24/7 365 days a year access to the cell phone tower locations. Parents
can not be on school grounds once the tardy bell rings unless they've been background
cleared. Parents are not comfortable knowing possible child abusers will be allowed on
campus at any given time. Who will make sure these workers are cleared to be around
children?
American Cancer Society
Studies in people
Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk.
In one large study, British researchers compared a group of more than 1,000 families of young children
with cancer against a similar group of families of children without cancer. They found no link between a
mother's exposure to the towers during pregnancy (based on the distance from the home to the nearest
tower and on the amount of energy given off by nearby towers) and the risk of early childhood cancer.
In another study, researchers compared a group of more than 2,600 children with cancer to a group of
similar children without cancer. They found that those who lived in a town that could have exposed them
to higher than average RF radiation from cellular phone towers in the previous 5 years had a slightly
higher risk of cancer, although not of any certain type of cancer(like leukemia or brain tumors). This study
estimated'the children's possible exposure based on the number of towers in,their-town and how strong
the signals were from the towers. It did not look at actual exposure of any individual child based on how
far their home or school was from a tower.
About RF radiation
Some of the agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures have, however, made statements about
radiofrequency radiation.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) has classified RF fields as "possibly
carcinogenic to humans," based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among
cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC
classification system, see our document, Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) IARC also noted
that exposure to the brain from RF fields from cell phone base stations (mounted on roofs or towers) is
less than 1/100th the exposure to the brain from mobile devices such as cell phones.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states:
"Exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation has climbed rapidly with the advent of cell phones and other
wireless technologies. Studies of the link between exposure to RF and to electric and magnetic frequency
(EMF) radiation have found RF and EMF to be 'potential carcinogens,' but the data linking RF and EMF to
cancer is not conclusive. World wide, health physicists (scientists who study the biological effects of
radiation) continue to-study the issue."...
} Los Angeles Unified School District
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
333 S. Beaudry Ave., 24th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 241-6766
FAX: (213) 241-8952
www.lausd.net
News Release
For Immediate Release,May 29, 2009
#08/09-340
LOS ANGELES BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS VOTE TO
PROHIBIT CELL PHONE TOWERS NEAR SCHOOLS
Los Angeles —The "Wireless Telecommunication Installations" resolution, which opposes the
location of cell phone towers in close proximity to schools, was introduced by Los Angeles
Unified School District Board Member Julie Korenstein and adopted earlier this week by the Los
Angeles Board of Education.
This resolution will ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential
health effects associated with exposures to extremely low frequency electromagnetic and
radiofrequency
radiation.
"With this resolution, we will continue to protect our children by working with cities, counties, and
local municipalities regarding cell phone towers," said Korenstein. "With their help, we will
provide safer schools for many generations to come."
In an effort to combat this critical issue, the Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS)
has requested cities, counties, and local municipalities responsible for zoning approval to
provide timely notification when new cellular permit applications are filed.
One of many new roles of the OEHS will be to challenge these municipalities to show that the
proposed cellular installations are in compliance with Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regulations. In the event FCC compliance has not been demonstrated, OEHS will take
appropriate and reasonable action to appeal proposed installations.
The debate over the safety of school-based towers has been going on for many years. There is
growing scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is
dangerous to human health. In 2000, the Board of Education passed a resolution authored by
Board Member Korenstein restrictingcell phone.towers on its school sites. Recently, an Oregon. _-
district also banned them on school grounds.
Interim Director of the OEHS, Yi Hwa Kim said, 'To ensure the health and safety of our
students, it is critical that the District receive timely notification of•these;projects:and.is given
ample opportunity to evaluate compliance with federal guidelines."
International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, CLC:
"Note: A pilot study was conducted in 2004 of six California fire fighters working and sleeping
in stations with towers. The study, conducted by Gunnar Heuser, M.D., PhD. of Agoura Hills,
CA, focused on neurological symptoms of six fire fighters who had been working for up to five
years in stations with cell towers. Those symptoms included slowed reaction time, lack of focus,
lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesia-like sleep, sleep deprivation, depression,
and tremors. Dr. Heuser used functional brain scans- SPECT scans -to assess any changes in the
brains of the six fire fighters as compared to healthy brains of men of the same age.
Computerized psychological testing known as TOVA was used to study reaction time,impulse
control, and attention span. The SPECT scans revealed a pattern of abnormal change which was
concentrated over a wider area than would normally be seen in brains of individuals exposed to
toxic inhalation, as might be expected from fighting fires. Dr. Heuser concluded the only
plausible explanation at this time would be RF radiation exposure. Additionally,the TOVA
testing revealed among the six fire fighters delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and
difficulty in maintaining mental focus...
Cell tower debate rages on in Oakville
"Studies show that people who live near�ce'll phone antennas have a greater risk of developing
certain types of cancers and of suffering from symptoms called electrosensitivity (sleep
disorders, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, depression, anxiety, dizziness, nausea, and cognitive
disfunction). Firemen are already exposed to cancer-causing agents in the line of duty. The
smoke they inhale is carcinogenic so they need to pay particular attention to their health. These
chemicals and the radiation from cell towers can interact to be even more powerful carcinogens.
Studies with rats show that microwave radiation promotes growth of cancer cells at levels below
Heath Canada's Safety Code 6 Guidelines.
Studies of fire fighters, from a fire hall in California that had cell antennas installed on the
roof 5-years earlier,showed that these fire fighters had abnormal brain activity based on
SPECT scans,which the doctor in charge of the study attributed to microwave radiation.
For these reasons fire fighters should not be exposed to radiation from cell phone antennas
and the related power transformers that are placed on fire hall property.
Mobile phone tower radiation a cause of concern:Recently new radiation norms were adopted by
India and the Department of Telecommunication(DoT) had set September 1 as the deadline for
the telecom operators to adhere to them. As per the new norms,the operators were mandated to
reduce the radiation levels by 1/10th of the current levels,thus making it 0.9 watt/m2.
Furthennore, it was announced that operators who are found flouting these rules would be
heavily penalised. While many welcomed this news,the critics were quick to point out that even
this was not safe... Even with the absence of scientific data to determine their role, there are
many who are convinced that these towers are indeed death traps. And their belief is backed by
the instances that have been witnessed in the country, be it the Kaiswal family from Jaipur
where three family members were.detected with.cancer after.installation-ofmobile phone . .
towers five metres away from their house, or the Usha Kiran building in Mumbai that cited
three cases of brain tumour that were attributed to the mobile phone towers installed on
the'rooftop of an adjacenfbmi mg.'While some may'shruk these off ks meie:comcidences, t,12 ."
several housing societies have now come forward to protest against these towers...
...vocal amongst them is Prof. Girish Kumar, Electrical Engineering Department,IIT Bombay.
He has conducted extensive research in the field and has presented his findings to DoT, but his
suggestions have so far been ignored. He opines that the current radiation levels, even after
being reduced, are high and can cause health troubles in the long run. Having himself
experienced the ill effects of radiation owing to the nature of his work, he warns others of
the ill effects. He is quite critical when voicing his opinion. He says, "I have met with
industry bodies and even government officials with my research. Earlier I used to think
that these people were not knowledgeable,so I thought let me make them aware about the
health problems, but now I know better. They are akin to the cigarette industry and are
waiting for millions of people to die. They will keep denying that there are any health
problems. Now they have stopped saying that there is no evidence,what they are saying
instead is that there are no concrete evidence."
• Los Angeles Board of Education formally condemns the placement of Cell Towers near
schools, and requests that the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors demand that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 be revised to allow local governments to consider the
potential adverse health impacts upon children. December 8, 2009 - Full Resolution
"There is no safe level of microwave radiation for children"RadiationEducation.com-
Video
• Canadian School District votes to oppose all Cell Towers within 305 Meters of its
schools.
"When it comes to protecting children, you take as few chances as possible."
• Citing Health Concerns,European Parlament Adopts Resolution to Keep Cell Towers a
Safe Distance From Schools April 2, 2009 - Full Resolution
• New Ruling Supports School Cell tower Ban in Maryland
• "Radio Frequencies emitted from mobile phone towers will have deleterious medical
effects to people within the near vicinity according to a large body of scientific literature.
Babies and children will be particularly sensitive to the mutagenic and carcenogenic
effects of the radio frequency radiation. It is therefore criminal to place one of these
aerials on or near a school" -Helen Caldicott,MD,Pediatrician and co-founder of
Physicians For Social Responsibility
MEDICAL STUDY: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted
by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays By B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai.
"Abstract: The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as
roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in
land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on
fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers
that international exposure standards will be followed. Both anecdotal reports and some
epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression,
decreased,libido,,increased.rates of suicide,..concentration problems,.dizziness,.memory.changes,. ..., ,... ........,,._
increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base
stations. The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working
neaz:cellular;infrastructure and.other perEinentestndies thafcould apply to.long-tenn,aow-level ,a:�.t s .' u
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures.
News Release - May 29, 2009 LOS ANGELES BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS VOTE
TO PROHIBIT CELL PHONE TOWERS NEAR SCHOOLS #08/09-340
Los Angeles - The "Wireless Telecommunication Installations" resolution, which opposes the
location of cell phone towers in close proximity to schools, was introduced by Los Angeles
Unified School District Board Member Julie Korenstein and adopted earlier this week by the Los
Angeles Board of Education. This resolution will ensure individuals,especially children, are
protected from the potential health effects associated with exposures to extremely low frequency
electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation. "With this resolution,we will continue to protect
our children by working with cities, counties, and local municipalities regarding cell phone
towers," said Korenstein. "With their help, we will provide safer schools for many generations to
come."
Mount Tabor Middle School PTA (Oregon) passes resolution opposing proposed cell tower
"Please see the attached resolution opposing siting of that cell tower passed by a vote of the PTA
general membership on September 13,2010.
'There continues�to'lie considerable debate and uncertainty within the scientific community asto
the potential health effects to individuals, especially children, from exposure to extremely low
frequency electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation. The National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences/National Institutes of Health recently concluded that enough
evidence exists to support the classification of electromagnetic fields as a possible human
carcinogen. In California,the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling for a
1500 ft. distance between a cell tower and a school or day care center. Therefore, we request the
Portland City Council and the Office of Cable Communications& Franchise Management to
reject Clearwire's cellular tower application. And, we petition the City Council to revise city
policy to explicitly prevent the location of cellular telecommunication towers within 1500 ft. of
sensitive communities such as schools, day care centers, and residential neighborhoods."
° is., ..^'X,�.. 4 a7�'.:•�.. ,.. -.+ . �.ax..xY:{".1 +lit, 1 `:1.>m .�. l.ectl .�. '..:,h �'' ' � . . 'i`+ ... f ,r. +.
ALVAREZ-GLASMAN & COLVIN 13181 Crossroads Parkway North
Suite 400-West Tower
ATTORNEYS AT LAW City of Industry,CA 91746
Tel:552.699.5500
Fax:552.692.2244
April 16. 2013
TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Re: OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for
construction of a Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church
at 12676 Foothill Boulevard.
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Our office represents-several parents of young children who attend the-Sacred-Heart.-Roman „aa:
Catholic Church School where the proposed Verizon cell tower is to be located.
SUMMARY
It is our position that the CUP for the proposed cell tower should be denied because it is
aesthetically incompatible with the beauty of the church, school and surrounding residential and
upscale commercial properties. Further the proposed cell tower is not necessary to fill a
"significant gap" in coverage to allow Verizon to maintain reasonable cell phone service. The
City has legal grounds to deny the CUP for these two reasons alone.
There has been substantial controversy, dialogue, and citizen opposition to the cell tower based
on the potential adverse effects of radio frequency emissions (RFE) on the health of young
children attending the Sacred Heart School. However, we recognize that the federal
Telecommunications Act (TCA) prohibits the Planning Commission from denying the CUP if
the proposed cell tower meets the federal regulations for RFE. Nonetheless, the Planning
Commission may deny the permit based on aesthetics or the lack of a "significant gap" in
coverage. (Mehra PCS, Inc. v. ,San Francisco, 400 F3d 715. 736). In other words, if the
Planning Commission finds reasonable evidence that the cell tower is aesthetically incompatible
with the church. school or surrounding properties or that the applicant has not demonstrated a
significant gap in coverage. the CUP may be denied.
AESTHETICS DISCUSSION
The Planning Commissionsi
mac consider aesthetics as the basis for denial of a CUP for a cell
tower. The federal Circuit Court of Appeals in California has stated:
Northern California• Napa Valley/Yountville Southern California• Cityof Industry
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
April 16, 201
Page 2 of 6
"California law does not prohibit local governments from taking into account aesthetic
considerations in deciding whether to permit the development of WCF's [cell towers] within their
jurisdictions." (Sprint Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 Fid 716. 725).
Denial of a cell tower permit was upheld by the court where the city determined that the
proposed cell tower would have a commercial appearance, would detract from the residential
character of the neighborhood, would be incompatible with the existing development and would
impact the views of the neighboring residents. (T-ALobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572
1`3d 987. 994-995). The regulation of cell towers based on aesthetic considerations such as
height, proximity to residential structures, nature of nearby uses, surrounding topography and
impact on views are permissible bases for denial of a cell tower CUP. (Sprint PC Assets, LLC v.
City ojPalos I%erdes Estates, 583 173d 716, 725). ._
The Rancho Cucamonga City Code regulates cell towers in several ways, including the following
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Sections.
1. The purpose and intent of the cell tower regulations is "to allow for the
development of wireless communication facilities where needed..." Section
17.106.010
The Planning Commission. based on the above policy of the City, may deny a cell tower CUP
permit if the cell tower is not needed to fill a significant gap in coverage. In this case the cell
tower is not needed to fill a "significant gap" in service coverage. The proposed cell tower does
not meet this criterion as discussed in the section below entitled Significant Gap Discussion.
2. "Stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred." Section
17.106.030.A.I
The proposed cell tower does not meet this criterion because the antennae are exposed on the
perimeter of the "stealth" tree. Despite efforts to disguise the antennae, they are obvious and
obtrusive. Like many so-called "stealth trees," this effort is obviously a cell tower which detracts
from the aesthetics of the surrounding foliage. church and school. The "stealth" tree is out-of-
place with the existing foliage in kind and size.
3. "Wireless communication facilities shall be located where the existing
topography..vegetation. buildings or other structures,provide the greatest amount,
of screening. ..." Section 17.106.030.A.2
Thetopography in..this%area is flat, and does not allow for the concealment of;the'cell to"ei
hills or valleys.
Rancho Cucamonsa Planning Commission'
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell toter located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
April 16. 2013
Page 3 of 6
4. Cell towers should be located "in areas where they will not detract from the
appearance of the City." Section 17.106.030.A.3
Despite its "stealth tree" disguise, the cell tourer is obvious because of its protruding antennae, its
obvious difference from surrounding foliage and its obvious size difference from the existing
cypress trees. It is aesthetically detrimental to the surrounding foliage and the substantial beauty
of the church and school.
6. "Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the following order of
preference:
a. .Collocated with existing wireless communication facilities.
b. On existing structures such as buildings, communication'toWdrs"or utility
facilities.
C. On an existing signal, pourer, light, or similar kinds of poles.
d. In industrial districts.
e. In commercial districts.
f In residential districts, subject to additional restrictions set forth herein." Section
17.106.030.A.4
The location of the cell tower is within the lowest preferred area. a residentially zoned property.
located adjacent to multi-family structures, and near a school and church. Further, the proposed
cell tower does not meet any of the preferences of the first three categories since it is not an
existing structure.
6. Cell towers are not permitted within 300 feet of a residential structure or in any
residential district unless it is designed in a manner to allow future collocation
provided the applicant submits written documentation that shows that a more
preferable location cannot be reasonably accommodated. Section
17.106.030.A.5.c
7. The Planning Director may require the applicant to provide written documentation
of good faith efforts to locate alternate more preferable sites for the cell tower.
Section 17.106.13.1
Paragraphs 6 and 7.are similar.,,;.Ther;,require:.the. applicant to provide NNritten.proof that%it.has —
made a reasonable search and a more preferable site cannot be located. See Significant Gap
Discussion below at page fn of this letter.
Rancho Cucamonga Planting Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
April 16. 2013
Page 4 of 6
"SIGNIFICANT GAP" DISCUSSION
The applicant must shod' by competent evidence that it has a "significant gap" in cell phone
coverage, that it has explored alternate facilities or locations, and that the requested location is
the least intrusive to the community. (Metro PCS 117C. v. San Francisco. 400 Fad 715. 732-735).
This rule derives from Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1I) of the federal TCA which provides that a city's
denial of a cell tower permit application "shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services." (Sprint PC.S Assets. 583 Fad at 726). A city effectively
prohibits the provision of cell phone service in violation of the TCA if it prevents a cell phone
provider from filling a "significant gap" in service coverage. (rLiet•o PCS. 400 Fad at 731).
WHAT IS A "SIGNIFICANT GAP" IN COVERAGE?
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed cell phone provider has a "significant gap" in
coverage. There is no set rule as to what constitutes a "significant gap" in coverage. Federal
courts have established the following guidelines: (Sprint PCSAssets. 583 Fad at 727):
1. The mere presentation of radio frequency maps showing a gap in coverage is not
sufficient to prove a "significant gap." (Sprint PCSAssets. 583 Fad at 727).
2. Showing that a gap in coverage exists is not sufficient to demonstrate that the gap
is a "significant gap" in coverage. (Metro PCS, 400 Fad at 733. n. 10).
3. "The relevant service gap must be truly 'significant' and not merely individual
'dead spots' within a greater service area." (Metro PCS. 400 Fad at 733).
4. The "TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small '
dead spots'...(Sprint PCSAssets, 583 Fad at 727).
5. The need to update old equipment or boost a weak signal is not a "significant gap"
in coverage. (Sprint PCSAssets. 583 F3d at 728).
The courts have suggested several factors to consider in evaluating whether the applicant has
proven the existence of a significant gap in coverage. (Sprint PCSAssets. 583 F3d at 727).
1. _ Whether the gap affected.signi ficant,comntuter highway or railway. ..-
2. The nature and character of the area or the number of potential users in the area
who may be affected by the-alleged lack of service.
Rancho"CucamongaPlannine Commission
OPPOSITION toConditionalUse Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
April 16. 2013
Page 5 of 6
;. Whether the cell tower was needed to improve a weak signal or to fill a complete
void in coverage.
4. Consideration of "drive tests" (persons drive around the area of the alleged gap
and evaluate the continuity and strength of the reception).
5. Whether the gap affects a commercial area.
6. Whether the gap poses a public safety risk.
Verizon has not established a "significant" sap in coverage. The radio frequency coverage
propagation maps supplied by the applicant merely show a weakness in signal and potential
spotty coverage in limited areas,n.orth and south of Foothill Boulevard. Verizon asserts in a
letter dated January 14, 2013 to Tabe Van der Z\vagg of the City Planning Department that there
is "a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of the I-15 freeway and Foothill Blvd." However.
the mere submission of a propagation map or the plain assertion of the existence of a coverage
gap is not sufficient. The applicant must present actual evidence of a "significant" gap in terms
of no signal, persistent dropped calls or total lack of coverage. Small dead spots in a larger
coverage area do not demonstrate a "significant gap." (Metro PCS, 400 Fad at 734).
Once the applicant has established the existence of a truly "significant gap" in coverage, it must
demonstrate that it has made a reasonable investigation of alternative sites. and that the requested
location is the least intrusive means of fill the gap. (D4enro PCS. 400 Fad at 734).
"Under all existing versions of the "significant gap" test, once a wireless service provider has
demonstrated that the requisite significant gap in coverage exists. it must then make some
showing as to the intrusiveness or necessity of its proposed means of closing that gap." (dletro"
PCS, 400 Fad at 733).
Likewise. the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Code requires an evaluation of whether the cell
tower is truly needed at that location (Rancho Cucamonga Code Section 17.106.010) and an
evaluation of alternative sites which would be less intrusive and more preferable locations.
The current application fails to demonstrate a reasonable investigation of alternative locations
which would be more preferable pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Code Section
17.106.030.A:5.c:i and 1-7.106.030.A.4. Those sections require the'applicant,to demonstrate that.
more preferable sites such as existing facilities and commercial areas are not reasonably
available.
In its letter of January 14. 2013 Verizon submits a mere two sentences to support its contention
that there were no alternative locations. Their letter states: "The surrounding retail candidates
Rancho CucamonLa Planning Commission
OPPOSITION to Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00034 an application for construction of a
Verizon cell tower located on the property of the Sacred Heart Church at 12676 Foothill Boulevard
April 16, 2013
Page 6 of 6
were considered as a part of this search ring. Due to the proximih to residential zones and a lack
of landlord interest. Sacred Heart Church \vas deemed the best candidate." This statement defies
common sense logic. What residential properties are in the area? The Church is nearly the only
residential property in the middle of hundreds of acres of commercial development. The Church
property is literally surrounded by a sea of commercial and retail property Nyhich are more
preferable locations for the cell tower.
Lastly. after Verizon has proven the existence of a significant gap and a reasonable search for
more preferable locations. it must demonstrate that the current location and facility is the least
intrusive means of filling the alleged gap in coverage. (:4fetro PCS. 400 Fad at 734) Verizon
has made no analysis and present absolutely no evidence on this issue.
Listen to the voices of your citizens. constituents and the parents. Do the right thing. Deny the
application for CUP DRC2013-0003=3. There are ample legal grounds for denial of CUP
DRC2013-00034.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our position.
Very truly yours.
ALVAREZ-GLASMAN R COLV"IN
n� i
,
Scott E. Nichols
Partner
SEN/cy
OPPOSITION TO CELL TOWER ON SACRED HEART CHURCH
PROPERTY AT 12676 FOOTHILL BLVD.
The undersigned persons are opposed to the construction of a cell tower on the
church property at 12676 Foothill Boulevard because the cell tower is aesthetically
incompatible with the surrounding church, residential and commercial properties;
because it is not necessary to provide good cell phone coverage in the area; and because it
poses potential health risks to the children at the church school.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
12 y7 S 1r, ✓i 11C4 tyl 91734117 !3
t C
w b s'
113 A/
4/, 75 ,E
f, �; y
OPPOSITION TO CELL TOWER ON SACRED HEART CHURCH
PROPERTY AT 12676 FOOTHILL BLVD.
The undersigned persons are opposed to the construction of a cell tower on the
church property at 12676 Foothill Boulevard because the cell tower is aesthetically
incompatible with the surrounding church, residential and commercial properties;
because it is not necessary to provide good cell phone coverage in the area; and because it
poses potential health risks to the children at the church school.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
` -i % r `' `1 �i'OgG v��po�� �'�. `7/330 `=f --i,'- 1
T
S53 J �� , ` j "��i-,(?
13
-e _ne I K. Z •o C_ ,004 ' 'i, Lij C'?3
" r`i i3
lqlfil/
W k n p e °I ° - -13
S - Cts V1`& )C.
ctk .0I-/3
� l4cc,awnl
OPPOSITION TO CELL TOWER ON SACRED HEART CHURCH
PROPERTY AT 12676 FOOTHILL BLVD.
The undersigned persons are opposed to the construction of a cell tower on the
church property at 12676 Foothill Boulevard because the cell tower is aesthetically
incompatible with the surrounding church, residential and commercial properties;
because it is not necessary to provide good cell phone coverage in the area; and because it
poses potential health risks to the children at the church school.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
e - uiSt 917 ? 0 ZIII113
0<
- hi � M 4 -
72-qp W- qPQ1 y - )-I
5 C o Kern 11 4001 - 7-I
3 l -o v r l e ct I ler -9-( - 1'13 -1
1 ileqlMl - -1
' 61-jeb )eC -i fV 9(, q f (-1-7041
�2
01 qjI3�-
2- ill era °117j� y l�
1 av co rc u -13
OPPOSITION TO CELL TOWER ON SACRED HEART CHURCH
PROPERTY AT 12676 FOOTHILL BLVD.
The undersigned persons are opposed to the construction of a cell tower on the
church property at 12676 Foothill Boulevard because the cell tower is aesthetically
incompatible with the surrounding church, residential and commercial properties;
because it is not necessary to provide good cell phone coverage in the area; and because it
poses potential health risks to the children at the church school.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
bGl
#Og�-44C4�ay'ij-Zjr(
.0c.
2 3 s /
Won57-
1 o�SC 1Q�emo �n
oQ0 hcs 11830 -0 r 'v.o nCti.O
L e L&4
7 7-
OPPOSITION TO CELL TOWER ON SACRED HEART CHURCH
PROPERTY AT 12676 FOOTHILL BLVD.
The undersigned persons are opposed to the construction of a cell tower on the
church property at 12676 Foothill Boulevard because the cell tower is aesthetically
incompatible with the surrounding church, residential and commercial properties;
because it is not necessary to provide good cell phone coverage in the area; and because it
poses potential health risks to the children at the church school.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
lyk-
3c'
i e'er CvS0— C X173 -c-/- 7
S, [�er L . I1�3� y'7L3_
(� CKccZ Z S ; 61� -� " T-13 --7 r- �3
l J2 r S -)qo ELI in 71
� �
. I
log in
care2 petitionsite
• Care2
• petitionsite
• browse petitions
• start a petition
• my petitionsite
• help
Stop Verizon Cell Tower at Sacred Heart
Parish School
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Print
• E-Mail
11-Phnnes &Cell-Phone Towers Ei
Deadly (EMR) Radio Active waves
r �
r Receiving
:ing Calls
signatures: -Seq
• signature goal: 300
• post to facebook
• tweet this
• email your friends
• get the widget
• Target: BISHOP DEL RIEGO
• Sponsored by: Sacredheart Parent
PARENTS OF SACRED HEART PARISH SCHOOL CHILDREN - PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME DOWN
ON SITE, PLEASE ALSO MENTION THAT YOU ARE THE PARENT, since we cannot come from one
house to another to collect your signatures,we are doing it online.
2012-October-Two years ago it was parents in Oakland Emeryville -- now, the
protest is coming out of San Marino. As reported last week in the Pasadena Sun,
parents and residents in the area of Valentine Elementary School or Huntington
Middle School, and San Marino High School are calling for the removal of new
cell towers owned by Verizon.
2012 - Georgia is trying to stop cell towers on school grounds on all schools in the state.
2012 -Connecticut is trying to outlaw cell towers close to schools or day care centers.
2012 April - Arizona parents fight cell phone tower. Cell tower built, but because of parent
objections not turned on. April 2012 Scottsdale School board, "cell phone tower, not turned
on yet, and district is looking for... more
c.'f in,r_e*,-}�'ta
! or s�gn4 u'pa to start eaming Butterfly Credits today!
Sign Petition!
Prefix(optional)
First Name
F
(Last—Namee
I
r don't display my name
Email
F—
Country
United States
Street Address
City
State
#309
08:07,Feb 21, Rhea Espinosa, CA
#308
19:01, Feb 17,Name not displayed,CA
#307
20:37, Feb 15,Alma Alluin,CA
I am a grandmother of a student at the school and I do not want my 6 year old grandchild to get affected by this tower, I do
not want to risk her health.
#306
15:03, Feb 11, Evaristo C. De Vaca,CA
#305
06:50,Feb 11, Mrs. ELENA PALMIERI,CA
#304
12:40, Feb 10,Arlette Garibay, CA
#303
08:28,Feb 10, Karla Smith,CA
#302
15:25, Feb 09,Mrs.Lauren Rout,CA
#301
12:03, Feb 08, Ms. Maria Garcia,CA
If this cell tower is built 1 will have my daughter attend a different school. Parent of 4th grader
#300
08:21, Feb 08, Nicanor Lontok,CA
#298
08:09,Feb 07, Ms.Anita Krulik,ON
#297
06:11, Feb 07, Tiana Vallan,CA
' #296
11:33, Feb 06, Name not displayed,CA
#294
22:41, Feb 05, Kendra Wright, CA
#293
21:54,Feb 05,Name not displayed,CA
I'm a parent of student at the school. .1 would really like the school/church to reconsider and not put a cell tower.
#292
21:39, Feb 06,Mina de la Torre, CA
#291
19:20, Feb 05, Mrs. conception guerrero, CA
#290
18:10,Feb 05,Anna Currie,CA
#289
09:31, Feb 05, Deanna Gurango,CA
#288
06:31, Feb 05, Ernesto Mayagoitia,CA
#287
01:11, Feb 05,Myla Malaluan, CA
#286
19:51, Feb 04, Nancy Yutuc,CA
#285
19:28, Feb 04,Jomar Cabuena,CA
#284
12:52, Feb 04, Donna Vanderpool, CA
Parent of 2 students. A cell tower on the school!parish grounds should have never been a consideration.. ..It's unacceptable.
#283
10:27, Feb 04,EJ Ramos,CA
#282
t 08:49, Feb 04, Kenneth Kiley, CA
Don't Subject the Children to unknown risk!
#281
08:35, Feb 04,MARLA COTTIER,CA
I have a friend whose son attends there. -
#279
08:27, Feb 04,arlene garcia,CA
#278
08:23, Feb 04, Rochelle Lontok,CA
#277
07:41, Feb 04, MARIA GONZALEZ,CA
I am a parent of a SH student and I feel that if my sons health is not taken into consideration than why should I send him
there?
#276
00:13, Feb 04, bernadine flores,CA
#275
19:39, Feb 03, Lizett Barragan,CA
Please think of the innocent children who think they are spending their school days in a safe environment. Let's keep in mind
why all these parents enroll their children in private school.....to keep them safe, innocent.. healthy and happy! How can this
even be up for debate. This is so unfair to all the students of Sacred Heart!
#274
02:59, Feb 03, Christian Ramos,CA
#273
20:10, Feb 02, Cathy Kniffin,CA
Health and safety of our children is first and foremost in our hearts as parents.
#272
19:46, Feb 02,John Kniffin, CA
'- One of the main reasons we enrolled our son at Sacred Heart Parish School is because we believe that health and safety of
the students is their utmost concern. -
#271
13:01, Feb 02,James Cantarero,CA
#270
06:40, Feb 02, Edward Bennett,CA
#269
06:35, Feb 02, Marieta Bennett,CA
#268
01:05, Feb 02,darlene nelson,CA
#267
21:48,Feb 01, Ms.Barbara Robertson, CA
I am aparent.
#266
21:25, Feb 01, Liliana Villarreal, CA
#265
21:24, Feb 01,Terrie Ochoa,CA
#264
20:40, Feb 01,Mr.lorenzo cordero,Philippines
#263
18:39, Feb 01, Melissa Ramirez,CA
#262
15:54, Feb 01,Ms.Vanessa Cortez, CA
#261
14:06, Feb 01,Name not displayed,CA
#260
11:47,Feb 01,suzanne aranda,CA
#259
11:05,Feb 01, Nathan Tecson,CA
#258
10:24,Feb 01,Mr. Peter Teodoro,CA
My children go to Sacred Heart school and spend most of their time in the area.
#257
10:17, Feb 01,Dominick Mumolo,CA
#256
09:16,Feb 01, Lisette Ornelas,CA
#255
09:16, Feb 01, Gerardo Ornelas, CA
#254
09:15, Feb 01, Bianca Morales,CA
#253
09:13, Feb 01, GEORGINA ESPINOZA,CA
Yo soy madrina de una estudiante de esa escuela y no me parece correcto que por beneficio economico ponga en riesgo la
salud de los ninos.
#252
09:06, Feb 01, leticia anguiano,CA
#251
09:03, Feb 01, Paul Morales MD, CA
#250
05:25, Feb 01, Rogelio Hernandez,CA
#249
22:45,Jan 31, Rue] Santos,CA
#248
21:52,Jan 31, Cecilia Arbaiza, CA
#247
21:27,Jan 31,Angela Armado, CA
#246
20:14,Jan 31,Tania Kiley,CA
#245
19:46,Jan 31,sa]vador alvarez,CA
#244
19:24,Jan 31, Name not displayed,CA
We need to protect our children the school is not taking in consideration the health of our children,
#243
18:46,Jan 31, Mr.Tommy Tran,CA
We have to save our children from disasters in the future
#242
18:23,Jan 31,Amanda Santos. CA
#241
18:19,Jan 31, Mrs.Vivian Santos,CA
My nieces and nephews who are dear to my heart attend this school. Please, for the sake of the children, they do not need
to be exposed or close to radiation. STOP THE CELL TOWER!
#240
17:46,Jan 31,Mrs. Emily Galvan, CA
Lets protect our children from harm...it's what great parents do. Cell-Phone towers emit deadly(EMR)radio active waves
and our children are going to be exposed to 6 hours or more for those in after school day care/sports. Our children are going
to be like lab mice, unless we stop the tower from going up. Sacred Heart is a great school with an amazing staff of
teachers but if the tower goes up we'll find another great school without a cell-phone tower, problem solved.
#239
17:46,Jan 31, Erika Teodoro,CA
#238
16:54,Jan 31, Melinda Sandoval,CA
#237
I 16:21,Jan 31,Mrs.elizabeth canete,CA
#236
15:33,Jan 31,Mrs. Irza Benavides,CA
Please protect our children from risk of harmful radiation from these power lines! This is not a place to pit those towers.
#235
14:52,Jan 31,Mr.Vero Agbayani, CA
#234
09:50,Jan 31, Erika Ramos,CA
#233
08:26,Jan 31, Ginny Petrilla,CA
#232
08:16,Jan 31, Lesly Arellano,CA
#231
07:47,Jan 31,janet Arquillano,CA
#230
06:09,Jan 31, Mrs. Monica Robles,CA
REALLY?!?!Why would a petition even be necessary?As Catholics we are raised to love one another. This Tower is
showing absolutely NO love(care or concern, for that matter)for children. Seriously...don't allow this Tower to go up! Many
people believe Catholics are hypocrite, please prove them wrong.
#228
04:01,Jan 31, Fina Lu,OH
#227
00:55,Jan 31,Ms. Hoa Vuong, CA
#226
23:53,Jan 30, George P.Litiatco, CA
#225
23:37,Jan 30, Elmer Ramos,CA
#223
23:01,Jan 30,Avee Dulay,CA
#222
22:52,Jan 30,Alaida Navarro,CA
#221
22:44,Jan 30, Roselle Maniago,CA
#220
22:35,Jan 30, Candace Chang, CA
Care for the children wat will happen to THEM
#219
22:35,Jan 30,Mr.carl francisco, CA
#218
22:18,Jan 30, Margaret Lopez,CA
#217
22:03,Jan 30, Sandra Zamora,CA
#216
21:57,Jan 30,amanda piper,CA
#215
21:01,Jan 30, Liza Cantabrana, CA
Please think of the children they are our future!
#213
20:26,Jan 30, Bobbi Hernandez,CA
#212
20:20,Jan 30,Mr.Elias Villasenor,CA
Sacred Heart Parent
#211
20:03,Jan 30, Angel Banuelos, CA
#210
t 19:46,Jan 30,Silvano Berard,CA
#209
19:33,Jan 30,Name not displayed,MS
#208
19:10,Jan 30,Jordan Lemus, CA
STOP THE CELL TOWER!!' IT CAUSES BRAIN CANCER"'
#207
19:05,Jan 30,Ashley lemus, CA
#206
19:05,Jan 30, Marcia Lemus,CA
#205
18:46,Jan 30,Astrid Lemus,CA
I am a parent of 2 children that attend sacred heart. I am very concerned with this proposed building of this cell tower that
can serious health pblm to all the children attending school at SH . Cancer already runs in my family and exposing my
children to this cell tower would definitely increase the chances of them contracting cancer. No cell tower should be built on
school grounds where our children play and attend classes.
#204
18:44,Jan 30,virginia arreola, NV
#203
17:59,Jan 30,Christine Rodriguez,CA
#202
17:54,Jan 30, Brenda Castanon,CA
#201
17:05,Jan 30,Mrs.Michelle Escobedo,CA
I am very concerned for my godson that attends school at Sacred Heart School. Decades of studies have demonstrated that
artificial frequencies higher than 10 hertz can create stress and serious health problems. Cell tower radiation has been
linked to many health risks. One of the problems is that this damage is cumulative in the tissues, and can take years,even
' decades to show up.
#200
16:25,Jan 30, Bernadette Advincula Atienza,CA
I am a parent of one of the students in SH Catholic School. I'm happy having by child attending the said school due to
several factors positive for my child, and I convey this freely to all whom I know. I love this school,the staff, the teachers and
the students. The Cell Tower is something that I will be so concern about and I will not be comfortable having that situation
in my child's school due to health risks.
#199
15:26,Jan 30,emmanuel paja,CA
#198
14:17,Jan 30,Jesus Ramirez,CA
#197
12:48,Jan 30,Annette Mumolo,CA
#196
09:22,Jan 30, Mr.Chris Garcia,CA
2 nephews currently attend at Sacred Heart Parish school and my niece this August.
#195
08:49,Jan 30,Shawna Felt, CA
#194
07:47,Jan 30, Karen Ballesteros,CA
#193
22:27,Jan 29, Ruben Mckinnon,CA
#192
22:25,Jan 29, Richard Canete, CA
Twenty some years ago there were no concrete evidence that second hand smoke can cause cancer. People hate the fact
when a smoker pass by blowing second hand smoke for just a minute.lmagine our young growing children expose to EMR
for an average of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week which the World Health Organization classify EMR as a class 2B
carcinogen. It's no rocket science, even how low the radiation they say it emits(which is untrue for they measure it in pito
watts per cm squared to make it look minimal )continuous exposure is accumulative.
#191
I 21:35,Jan 29,Sarahlee Manguiat, CA
#190
21:25,Jan 29, Robert Ina de Belen, CA
#189
21:24,Jan 29, Brenda Petrucelli,CA
#188
20:23,Jan 29,Catherine Armijo,CA
#187
19:08,Jan 29, Mr.Armando Ochoa,CA
I WILL BE TAKING MY TWO KIDS OUT OF THIS SCHOOL. PUT THE TOWER IN THIER BACK YARD WHO EVER
APPROVES THIS
#186
18:28,Jan 29, Mr.Daniel Ortiz,CA
#185
16:25,Jan 29, Grace Ibanez,CA
#184
15:16,Jan 29, katie bragg, MO
#183
15:15,Jan 29, natacha veloz,CA
#182
15:04,Jan 29,michelle ramos, CA
#181
14:48,Jan 29,Jackie Granda, CA
#180
14:40,Jan 29,Kristal Quast,CA
#179
j 14:37,Jan 29,olinda fish, CA
#178
14:32,Jan 29, Brandon Viveros,CA
#177
14:31,Jan 29, heather hunsaker,CA
#176
14:19,Jan 29,Rusey Hamilton,CA
#175
14:19,Jan 29, Name not displayed,CA
#174
14:17, Jan 29,Ana Arias, CA
#173
14:11,Jan 29,Mary Calvillo,CA
#172
14:04,Jan 29,Jesse Trejo,CA
#171
14:01,Jan 29,Mr. Michael Jaramillo,CA
Parent
#170
11:43,Jan 29, Isabel montanez,CA
#169
09:39,Jan 29, Denise Herrera,CA
#168
08:06,Jan 29,Mr.Kris German,CA
As the father of 5 children, two of which attend Sacred Heart school at the present time, the Church's final decision with
regards to the cell tower will have impact whether or not my current 2 daughters will stay enrolled in the school and if my
other 3 children will attend the parish school. I hope the administration and church officials look past the monetary gain they
will see from this cell tower and listen to the voices of the parents.
#167
! 22:19,Jan 28,Tanya German,CA
#166
20:10,Jan 28,Grant Hoyle,CA
#165
18:46,Jan 28,Joyce Villanueva,CA
#163
12:23,Jan 28, Nancy Rabadan, CA
#162
12:16,Jan 28, Mr.joseph harvey,CA
#161
12:14,Jan 28, Mr.David Villanueva,CA
Sacred Heart parent of 2nd grader
#160
11:36,Jan 28,Miguel Gonzale, CA
#159
10:38,Jan 28,Jasmin Rabadan,CA
#158
10:27,Jan 28, Ms. Maria Estrada,CA
#157
09:46,Jan 28,Yuliana Sada,CA
#156
09:18,Jan 28, nathan strahan, CA
#155
05:26,Jan 28,marilu Gonzalez, CA
#154
22:33,Jan 27, Daniel Fish,CA
#153
16:03,Jan 27, Isela McConnell, CA
#152
11:47,Jan 27, Paolo Nario, CA
#151
00:18,Jan 27,Name not displayed, Romania
#150
23:25, Jan 26, Melissa Saucedo,CA
#148
19:50,Jan 26,ARLYN Vergara,CA
#147
19:46,Jan 26, RESTY Vergara,CA
#146
16:25,Jan 26, Katrina Nario,CA
#145
16:17,Jan 26, Emilyn Alcantara,CA
#144
15:44,Jan 26,Myra Maico, CA
#143
15:12,Jan 26, Lizzete lopez, CA
#142
15:10,Jan 26,janice pido,CA
#140
10:46,Jan 26, Celina Rivera,CA
#139
I 09:42,Jan 26, Nancy Sanchez,CA
#138
i 09:27,Jan 26,Monica Castillo,CA
#137
09:26,Jan 26,Jenny Sanchez,CA
#136
08:68,Jan 26,Samanthali Hernandez,CA
03:03,Jan 26, Mrs.J Payge, United Kingdom
#134
00:39,Jan 26, Diana Estrada,CA
#133
19:05,Jan 25, Dr. Edobor Gbenoba, CA
One would think that following the recent massive Child Abuse Catholic Church scandal nationwide, in
which the lives of so many faithful church members and their families were permanently damaged, the
church would be dedicated to a renewed vow to protect the integrity of the lives of its members!.
Rather,they are now doing something that would result in a much more disastrous and horrific
outcome. I am completely shocked to see the Church leaders once again actively involved in planning
another deadly assault on innocent, defenseless children (ages 5-13), by conspiring with Verizon
Wireless to place highly dangerous radiation emitting Cell Towers right on the Children's School
playground'Why?All because of desperate,corrupt minded persons willing to sacrifice the lives of
these innocent and defenseless Children for Verizon'dollars?Money cannot substitute for the health
and life of any child. Those involved in taking this egrregious and unconscionable decision to place the
Cell Towers on the School ground do not have any single child or family member attending the Sacred
Heart Parish School. Yet without any conscience and caring, they want to sacrife the lives of other
people's children. On what can they peg their claim to the moral leadership of the Church now that
they are behaving more like an extremely greedy and brutal Corporate Entity that worships money
rather than care for mankind?What happened to the Oath of Poverty that they took prior to their entry
into the Church Ministry?
#132
16:08.Jan 25, Karla Lopez,CA
#131
15:09,Jan 25, Lena Colin,CA
#130
13:58,Jan 25,Victoria Bernal,CA
#129
13:19,Jan 25, Onofre Benard,CA
13:10,Jan 25, Mr. Michael Camacho, CA
Grandparent
#127
"( 13:05,Jan 25, Brenda Hernandez, CA
� #126
11:45,Jan 25,Anna Lopez-Perez,CA
#125
23:39,Jan 24,Sakura Mireles,CA
#124
+ 23:35,Jan 24,Jenny Castro(parent),CA
#123
23:31,Jan 24,Andrea Mezquita(parent), CA
V
22:55,Jan 24,Cynthia Cabrera,CA
#121'
22:54,Jan 24,Jesus Cabrera,CA
#120'
22:46,Jan 24,Alejandra Cabrera,CA
#119
21:53,Jan 24,Jennifer Ankele, CA
#118
21:44,Jan 24, Claudia Saldivar,CA
#117
19:54,Jan 24,Rafael Perez,CA
016r
19:07,Jan 24, Dr. ruben garcia,TX
#115
Stop Verizon Cell Tower at Sacred Heart Parish School - The Petition Site Page 2 of 3
,(
9114 19:03,Jan 14,brands toguAl,CA
%-41 13 18:49,Jan 24,Gabby Romero,CA
1�
111112 18:49,Jan 24,Rationality Pineal CA
#111 18:33,Jan 24,Maria Perez,CA
#110 18:27,Jan 24,Steven Chavez,CA
My would you want to put our children at risk by placing the cell tower on campus!Shame on youil!
#109 18:01,Jan 24,clear chavez,CA
#108 17:56,Jan 24,Gracious Tapia,CA
Cell tower is not in the best interest of our kids.SAFETY FIRST OVER MONEY!11 In'Mother of 7th and 2nd grader
#107 17:51,Jan 24,Michelle Brambila,CA
#'166 17:39,Jan 24,Jeffrey Beck,CA
I thought that if the church accepts money Imm tuition paying parents then they are responsible for the safety and sordidly of the children that attend the school on
church grounds.t would be extremely angry as are most of the parents of the children of that attend me school.I believe they have a right o be angry about this.This
whale thing could have been avoided had all 3 padyt sat down and talked it all out.That is the church the parents antl the company starling the project.
#105 16:21,Jan 24,Gabriela Torres,CA
#104 15:37,Jan 24,Antonio Gonzalez,CA
Please do not allow cell tower to go up on school grounds,why would you risk endangering children?
-939S- 15:35,Jan 24,Ms.madceta duarte,T%
#102 n 14:31,Jan 24,Sabrina rived,CA
#101',,0
i` (L10:23,Jan 24,Ms.Anatole Calderon,CA
'y///�� Parent of 2 students at Sacred Head Parish School
#99(�* 09:45,Jan 24,Mrs.Vanessa Rivas,CA
Parent of student at Sacred Heart Parish School in Rancho Cucamonga
#98 09:40,Jan 24,darm Amezcua,CA
#97 08:41,Jan 24,Mc Ricky Dela Cruz,CA
is6 05:01,Jan 24,Libby Padilla,CA
#95 04:01,Jan 24,John Pian,CA
Parent of 2 kids whose kids goes to Sacred Head Parish school in RC add will be 3 kids if cell tower will not push tom.
#94 MST Jan 24,Teresa Ramirez,CA -
00:38,Jan 24,Mrs.Palo Boland,GA
#92 23:01,Jan 23,Erick Castoremi CA
, #91 22:48,Jan 23,Mr.Michael SLOnge.CA,//�#
��`" 90 21:17,Jan 23,Jocelyn San Pablo,CA
!/ Jvse� 21:10,Jan 23,Valletta Sanchez,CA
#88 //A"lift 20:33,Jan 23,beth francBco,CA
#87 19:08,Jan 23,Kayle Sicaizos,CA
#86 1814,Jan 23,Market Romero,CA
#85 18:21,Jan 23,Martha Tore,CA
#84 16:49,Jan 23,Fernando Rojas,CA
16:48.Jan 23,mayra sandoval,CA
t #82 16:27,Jan 23,lure game,CA
#81 15:48,Jan 23,Joliette Cunanan,CA
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/513/3 00/737/stop-verizon-cell-tower-at-sacred-heart-parish... 1/25/2013
Stop Verizon Cell Tower at Sacred Heart Parish School - The Petition Site Page 3 of 3
Al 79 14:20,Jan 23,Name not displayed,CA
#78 14:19,Jan 23,Jose Perez,CA
13:09,Jan 23,Lourdes Ruiz,CA
12:43,Jan 23,child alcantara,CA
parent
#75 12:23,Jan 23,Evelyn Alvarez,CA
is 74 10:43,Jan 23,Lucia Lopez,CA
#73 10:33,Jan 23,Lorena Flores,CA
'-�F-
972 10:23,Jan 23,Jorge Br imblla,CA
971 10:23,Jan 23,Denise Soto,CA
1i1 10:19,Jan 23,Ms.Maribel Aguirre,CA
!'J 10:18,Jan 23,Ms.Guadalupe Palmer CA
Shame on youl
IN 68 09:24,Jan 23,Mc Brendan Miller,CA
IN 67 09:22,Jan 23,elena trujlllp,CA
p 66 09:11,Jan 23,Mrs.Venerise Jaramlllo,CA
Parent
#65 08:41,Jan 23,Retain Skaggs CA
#64 -Y't O8:39,Jan 23,Gloria Quilling,CA
#63 O6:37,Jan 23,Lily Sherri CA
f #62 O8:26,Jan 23,Monica St.Onge,CA
#61 07:04,Jan 23,Name not displayed,CA
Aet- 06:23,Jan 23,Betty Castillo,CA
#SB 23:01,Jan 22,Leslie Katiyap CA
IN 67 22:57,Jan 22,cristhlan moreno,CA
�1 bS 22:23,Jan 22,Angelina Chaldez,CA
pF4� 21:56,Jan 22,Ricardo Rubio,AZ
21:51,Jan 22,Elizabeth Rubio-Llamas AZ
Do not expose all these children to radiation..Do not build this towerlill
IN 62 21:31,Jan 22,Flor Saucedo,CA
fi.61l' 21:31,Jan 22,Judith Barrels,Mexico
PICVIOUS 1 2 next
See rtlons petitions:
Health
about us I advertise 1 pannersnips I careers I press 1 Contact us r terms or service;privacy 1 subscription center l help I its Nada
COW RIGHT C 2013 CARE2 COM,INC.AND ITS LICENSORS.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Like 840,909 people like this.Sign Up to see what your friends like.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/513/300/737/stop-verizon-cell-tower-at-sacred-heart-parish... 1/25/2013
--select--
fZip
I
(optional)
For more impact,add a persona ..
i
sign now
r
Share my signature on Facebook
By signing, you accept Care2's terms of service.
Your email and postal address will remain private
Having problems signing this? Let us know.
we signed "Stop Verizon Cell Tower at Sacred Heart Parish School"
#Ac--
21:22,Jan 22,Alejandro Cabrera,CA
#49
21:20,Jan 22, Denise Gomez,CA
20:53,Jan 22, Barbara Salazar, CA
#47
20:42,Jan 22, Name not displayed, CA
20:08,Jan 22, Alejandra Santin, CA
#45
19:53,Jan 22, Michelle Thomas,CA
T'
19:32,Jan 22, Bryanna Parra, CA
19:27,Jan 22,Leo Mendez, CA
18:40,Jan 22,Sandy Acosta, CA
18:29,Jan 22, Gladys Madrigal, CA
#40
18:29,Jan 22, Name not displayed,CA
#39
18:03,Jan 22, Mechelle Ramirez,CA
#3
17:55,Jan 22, Mr. Frank Brito,CA
Parent
7J'
17:51,Jan 22, Celia Lizama, CA
$3(i
t 16:35,Jan 22, Perla Benard,CA
35
16:03,Jan 22,Sandra Diaz,CA
Sacred Heart Parent
34
15:43,Jan 22, Yvania Roybal, CA
15:33,Jan 22, Lorena Moreno, CO
15:03,Jan 22, Paul Cabrera, CA
#31
15:01,Jan 22,Deanna Fish, CA
#30
14:43,Jan 22,sandra ramos,CA
#29
14:18,Jan 22, guadalupe olvera, CA
#28
y 14:14,Jan 22, Name not displayed,CA
14:07,Jan 22,Adriana Banuelos, CA
14:03,Jan 22, alondra yniguez, CA
#25
13:57,Jan 22,Jennifer Thornton,CA
Not safe for children to be exposed to such harmful waves.
#24
13:56,Jan 22,cristina fernandez,CA
#23
13:42,Jan 22, Mrs. Kiera Hoyle, CA
We need to do what is "In the best interest of the children."
13:38,Jan 22, Hugo Sanchez, CA
_iL2Y'
13:27,Jan 22,Mr. Pablo Cabrera,CA
Grandfather of 2 students
#20
13:24,Jan 22,Ms. Lourdes Gomez,CA
#19
12:23,Jan 22,Edith Gurrola, CA
11:50,Jan 22,elizabeth paez,CA
11:36,Jan 22, Mrs. Olga Cabrera,CA
Grandmother of 2nd grade student and 1st grade student and family friend of 4th grade student with 4
other grandchildren potentially students 1 K 2013 2 K 2014 1 K 2016
#16
*� 11:17,Jan 22, Alejandra Berard, CA
y'V
08:23, Jan 22, Angie Sanche,CA
08:20, Jan 22, Diana Gomez, CA
05:05,Jan 22, Nancy Garcia, CA
#12
00:20,Jan 22, antonia gutierrez,CA
#11
0 f_
23:01,Jan 21, Melina Ramirez,CA
22:50,Jan 21, Celia Hernandez,CA
22:41,Jan 21, Marisol Cabrera,CA
0
SOA` 22:39,Jan 21, Mrs. Elizette Cabrera,CA
It is difficult to get an individual to understand something when his salary depends on him not
understanding it...
7
21:33,Jan 21,Mr. Felipe Olague, CA
#6
Vl!` 21:11,Jan 21,gabriel parisi,CA
#5
,_7b' 20:19,Jan 21, maria parisi, CA
#4
17:49,Jan 21, Name not displayed, CA
Mr. and Mrs. Olague sign this petition as parents of a Sacred Heart Parish School First Grader.
07:36,Jan 21, Ms.Jelena Skipina,Bosnia And Herzegovina
07:19,Jan 21, Mr. Fred Hoekstra,WA
SIGN-IN SHEET
Planning Commission Meeting
April 24, 2013
Jolynne Russo Perms 10440 Ashford Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Luona Hernandez 6797 Hellman Avenue, rancho Cucamonga, CA
91730
pr.41 Paul G. Perez 7576 EI Arco, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
j Eugene Moy 415 Bernad Street Los Angeles, CA 90012
- ,Sandra Dietl 8653 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
%ha Gonzalo Mendez 13249 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
—� Scott Nichols 13181 Crossroads Parkway Suite #400, City of
Industry CA 91746
Yesenia Olague 11432 Via Monte Fontana, CA 92337
Kurt Kumar 16583 Coriander Place, Fontana, CA 92337
Armando Ocha 5358 Grand Prix Court, Fontana, CA 92336
Derek Robertson 12223 Highland Avenue #106-4443, Rancho
Cucamonga, CA 91739
Gabriel Parisi 8897 Hamilton Street, Alta Loma, CA 91710
Jackie Alkhouri 14182 San Antonio Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
Wael Alkhouri 14182 San Antonio Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
Richard Canets 1075 N. Smiderle Loop, Ontario, CA 91764
Arlyn Vergara 13193 River Oaks Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
Natzllely C. de Vaca 10769 Saffron Street, Fontana, CA 92337
Kiera Hoyle 12334 Bellflower Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
Joe Kuskie 15326 River Rock Drive, Fontana, CA 92336
Larry Meyer 5136 Brunswick Drive, Fontana, CA 92336
Agnes Morales 5736 Fox Count, Alta Loma, CA 91701
Father Benedict 12704 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
Sandra Diaz 9405 Homestead, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Maria Montanez 7815 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Tony Morales 12711 Mediterranean Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
Emilyn Alcantara 6858 Beechcraft Avenue, Fontana CA 92336
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
?L EA5 E 7i�>R ' N 1 APRIL 24, 2013
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS
J hne SSon CI UW 16uL(a S et
44
7 �-741, �o / 3,4�>
MbGN/Nff7-O /L/ He C Y77
-S�
�N/ l1/s C�9 L s�JC/� ¢ BE/ZNO%Z� S
z Go/I z4 ,7ellc�� 132 qq' r��v
Z o.
r( UV2� k UItU IGSS Co7iaNdR� Dl ,,, GE q23�}
o, . r-o„/rP.�A qZVf.
1;2-2-3 P77F
mr-,
V"welt Arie r ra, 6iq3 LN&K 0AX-f
ren a -A*son/ q CH q
`-- -... --- IoWoi StwrdG+.
axe h X334 1 el I U. K c
o I� l tauPfVfe 2VW k
c n °T V10
o"e1, LV.�►.o�. tea,, l X918 2 Sc.H IR�n o��o
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PLEAS RIL 24, 2013
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS
e cj- 12 a-r oI k ;,G! �tvj, 7L,4"440, Ccc
1 l W(iko cwu0
ore, /671/ Mgd j rr ,n"r, O{- 9L. q 173
Ncat (vAr a Cr( G