Loading...
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