Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/06/08 - Agenda Packet r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY JUNE 8, 1993 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CSNTSR DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Rol]. Call Commissioner Arner Vice-Chair Haskvitz Chairman Banks ;R7 Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Billings Commissioner Tessier III. Approval of Minutes April 13, 1993 May 11 , 1993 IV. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. A. DEMOLITION REVIEW AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-04 - FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to demolish the Baird Barn, a potential Local Landmark and Unreinforced Masonry Building, located at 8619 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, and a proposal to designate it as a local Landmark or a Point of Historic Interest - APN: 207-132-53. (Continued from April 13, 1993) V. New Business VI. Commission Business B. REQUESTED RESEARCH ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UPDATES VII. Announcements VIII. Public Comments I%. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 13, 1993 Chairman Marsha Banks called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Banks then led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks, Alan Haskvitz, Bob Schmidt, Anne Tessier (arrived at 5:03 p.m. ) COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Gene Billings, Ada Cooper STAFF PRESENT: Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Schmidt, seconded by Haskvitz, carried 4-0-3 with Billings, Cooper, and Tessier absent, to approve the March 9, 1993, minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEMOLITION REVIEW AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-04�., FIRST. ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to demolish. the Baird Barn, a potential Local Landmark and Unreinforced Masonry Building, located at 8619 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, and a proposal to designate it as a local Landmark or a Point of Historic Interest '- APN: 207-132-53. (Continued from March 9, 1993) Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, affirmed that staff had met with the applicant and was requesting that the matter be continued for 60 days to allow the applicant time to reevaluate adaptive reuse possibilities. Chairman Banks opened the public hearing. HPC MINUTES -1- April 13, 1993 MOTION: Moved by Haskvitz, seconded by Arner, to continue the public hearing to the regularly scheduled HPC meeting of June 8, 1993. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, HASKVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS, COOPER -carried B. LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-01 - ETIWANDA COMMUNITY CHURCH - Consideration of the addition of a handicap ramp to the east (front) entrance of the building known historically as the Etiwanda Congregational Church, a designated Local Landmark, located at 7126 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-513-03. Anthea Hartig presented the staff report. Chairman Banks asked the distance between the ramp and the basement windows. Ms. Hartig responded that they are adjacent to each other according to the plans. Chairman Banks opened the public hearing. Joe Burt stated he represented the church. He said the windows will not be changed, but will be merely boarded up. He noted the windows are currently hidden by shrubs and the shrubs will be moved forward approximately 7 feet so the view from the street will remain the same. He described their plans for installing the sidewalk and ramp and indicated they would be using whitewashed block to match the existing materials. He requested clarification on Condition 2 of the resolution regarding the landscaping plans. Ms. Hartig stated that staff felt comfortable working with the applicant regarding details and would clarify landscaping issues. Chairman Banks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Schmidt, seconded by Arner, to accept staff's recommendation for approval of Landmark Alteration Permit 93-01 with modification to provide for staff review of plans prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, HASKVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS, COOPER -carried HPC MINUTES -2- April 13, 1993 i C. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-05 - GIL RODRIGUEZ, JR. A proposal to designate, as a local Landmark, the John Klusman House, a Potential Local Landmark, State Landmark, and potentially eligible for the National Register, located at 8841 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 207-211- 13. (Incorrectly advertised previously as project No. LD 93-04) Anthea Hartig presented the staff report. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, observed that the Planning Commission had scheduled a workshop at 9:00 P.M. on Wednesday, April 14, 1993, to discuss the overall site design on the project. He invited interested Historic Preservation Commissioners to attend. Chairman Banks opened the public hearing. Gilbert Rodriguez, Jr. , stated his family owns the property. He said they plan to incorporate the house into their plans and the development will be built around the house. Commissioner Haskvitz asked the plans for the house. Mr. Rodriguez replied they are in the process of trying to rehabilitate the house. He said they hope to have it painted and cleaned up within the next few months. Chairman Banks asked the ultimate use for the house. Mr. Rodriguez responded they had at one time thought about using the house as a restaurant but they now plan to make it into an office. Chairman Banks asked what steps are being taken to cut down on vandalism. She asked if they had considered fencing the house. Mr. Rodriguez said he had recently moved a homeless couple into the house. He did not feel fencing would help. He said they are planning to first develop the perimeter of the property and not the southern portion. He asked if it would be possible to move the house in the event that a user for the southern portion of the parcel would want better visibility to Foothill Boulevard. Ms. Hartig stated that, per the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, a Landmark Alteration Permit would be required to move the house. She did not know what effect moving the house would have upon the possibility of listing the house on the state or national historic registers, as generally moving such houses is not looked upon favorably. She said it would be best to review the matter with the State Historic Preservation Officer prior to any move, but she felt it may be workable if the house were to remain in the same orientation along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Rodriguez stated the house would remain on the same parcel. HPC MINUTES -3- April 13, 1993 Chairman Banks suggested that the matter be thoroughly investigated because it could have a financial impact if they ever applied for tax credits. She thought it might be workable since it would not make that big of a change. Mr. Henderson stated that from a local standpoint it would be critical that the orientation remain the same. He thought it might be better to move the house back from Foothill Boulevard to give more depth. Commissioner Haskvitz questioned if the widening of Foothill Boulevard might place the house in jeopardy, creating justification for moving the house. Mr. Rodriguez stated that when Foothill Boulevard is widened it will still be 40 to 60 feet from the front of the house. He remarked that the Klusmans had a son who is not mentioned in any of the City's historical documentation. Commissioner Tessier was surprised the house had not already been declared a Landmark. Chairman Banks stated that the house had previously been considered for historical listing, but at that time there were some Commissioners who felt the Klusmans were over-represented in the City. She fully supported the application. Commissioner Schmidt stated it was wonderful. Chairman Banks stated a number of people have questioned over the years why the structure is not a landmark. Mr. Rodriguez agreed that the structure sparks a lot of interest. As there was no further testimony, Chairman Banks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Haskvitz, seconded by Schmidt, to accept staff's recommendation for a Landmark designation for LD 93-05 and forward the application to City Council for final approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, HASKVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS, COOPER -carried NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Haskvitz requested that articles be collected from the opening of the baseball stadium for the City archives. Ms. Hartig stated she was collecting as much as possible for the archives. HPC MINUTES -4- April 13, 1991 Commissioner Haskvitz felt there was a possibility of periodically having an Historic Preservation information table at the complex. He thought it would be good public relations to have such a table annually. Chairman Banks stated that she and Commissioner Arner are on the public relations subcommittee. COMMISSION BUSINESS D. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF COMMISSIONS Chairman Banks stated she had met with Council Members Alexander and Gutierrez and they had expressed strong support for the Historic Preservation Commission. She said they stated they felt the Historic Preservation Commission would not be affected by any changes planned for the City's Commissions. She remarked they had observed that the Historic Preservation Commission has operated economically and they had indicated they hoped that some of the funding cut from other Commissions could be allocated to the Historic Preservation Commission for oral history purposes. Mr. Henderson stated the matter had been discussed at a full City Council workshop and Council Member Bouquet was the only City Council Member who expressed an opinion that perhaps the Historic Preservation Commission could be combined with the Planning Commission. He stated that Council Member Gutierrez felt the Historic Preservation Commission should be preserved in its present form, although he was not opposed to reducing its membership to five. He noted the matter had been scheduled for a future City Council meeting. He said the Council had indicated they would not fill any of the current vacancies until decisions had been made on the make up of the Commissions. He said the Council had also indicated they may ask all Commissioners to reapply. He said there had been some discussion about changing the meetings to quarterly, but Mayor Stout had commented that he did not want to have the meeting schedule interfere with development. Commissioner Arner thanked Chairman Banks for meeting with the City Council Subcommittee to express the Commission's concerns. Mr. Henderson noted that there had been preliminary discussions about scheduling a tour for Council Members Alexander and Gutierrez, but the tour had not been scheduled as yet. He said they would attempt to schedule it in late May. Chairman Banks expressed concerns about the deterioration of the Ross House at Highland and Etiwanda. She said the windows are broken and it did not appear the owner is trying to preserve the house. HPC MINUTES -5- April 13, 1993 Mr. Henderson showed pictures of the house. He stated that the Community Development Director had recently sent a Memorandum reporting that the Building Official had approved demolition because he felt there is a hazard as the building is not being kept secured. He noted the Building and Safety Division had been working with the property owners for two years in an attempt to have the property secured. He stated that unfortunately the Planning Division had not had an opportunity to talk with the property owners to discuss the property tax incentives available or to try to convince them to advertise to make the building available for moving. Chairman Banks said the community had lost a lot of homes that have been allowed to deteriorate to the point of becoming public hazards. Commissioner Haskvitz remarked the matter constituted a demolition by neglect. Chairman Banks felt the house should not be lost because of its proximity to Highland and Etiwanda Avenue. She felt it would be a great opportunity for a light office/professional use. Mr. Henderson noted the property owners are out-of-town investors. He thought there were many potential uses for the building and tax advantages for the building. Chairman Banks asked if the house was lost. Mr. Henderson stated the demolition permit had been issued but demolition had not started as yet. Chairman Banks asked how it could be stopped. Commissioner Arner asked if the building had been surveyed. Ms. Hartig confirmed it had. Mr. Henderson stated the Building Division was aware it is an historic building. Chairman Banks asked that the Commission's concerns be expressed to the Building Official. She requested that the demolition be delayed until Historic Preservation staff had an opportunity to meet with the owners. Mr. Henderson replied he would convey the Commission's concerns to the Building Official and also the Community Development Director. Commissioner Haskvitz asked if it would be possible to instigate landmark status proceedings. Mr. Henderson stated that the demolition permit had already been issued and conferring landmark status would not negate the permit. HPC MINUTES -6- April 13, 1993 Commissioner Tessier asked if there was not an Historic Preservation Commission resolution requiring that the Commission be advised before any structures on the potential list be slated for demolition. Mr. Henderson responded that it had been the working policy of the Commission that the Commission have an opportunity to review requests for demolition of any potentially historic buildings. He said the Building Official indicated the policy may not be valid and should be reconsidered by the City Council. Chairman Banks remarked that another house had been lost without Commission input. Commissioner Arner asked how the Building Official could determine the policy is no longer valid. Ms. Hartig responded that the Building Official stated the City Council has taken a new direction and the policy is no longer valid. She suggested that staff prepare an issues paper to be presented to the City Council Subcommittee. Chairman Banks felt that needed to be done quickly. Ms. Hartig suggested that the ordinance be revised. She noted that the Building Official had cited a paragraph in the ordinance giving the Building Official the power to declare a building unsafe and dangerous and she felt that is contrary to CEQA. Chairman Banks stated that the windows on the Ross House are broken and the house looks bad but she had never seen anyone loitering around the building even though she drives by the house four times a day. Mr. Henderson said he understands there is a property maintenance ordinance in the City and there had recently been a hearing and the owners of the Stobie House had been informed they have a certain period of time to fix the building before the City will proceed using Community Development Block Grant money to fix the property and the City would then attempt legal action to have the money returned. He thought the same process could have been used on the Ross House. He stated that staff was concerned that property owners will feel that they can secure demolition permits for historic structures through benign neglect. He felt that City Council's direction had been to get people to maintain their property. Chairman Banks asked how quickly staff could prepare an issue paper. Mr. Henderson stated a meeting was being scheduled with the Community Development Director, Building Official, and City Planner to discuss the matter. He hoped he would be able to participate in the meeting. He was not sure anything could be done for the Ross House. Chairman Banks felt the City should be able to rescind the demolition permit. HPC MINUTES -7- April 13, 1993 Mr. Henderson stated he would convey the Commission's concerns to the Community Development Director. Commissioner Arner asked why there is an Historic Preservation Commission if they are not allowed to have input. Chairman Banks asked what criteria was used to determine the building is unsafe and dangerous. Mr. Henderson responded the Building Official stated he found the building to be unsafe and dangerous based on the housing code. He said in the past the Building and Safety Division has been conservative and buildings had to have been fire damaged or have obvious structural flaws perhaps creating an earthquake hazard. He said he had not seen the interior so he was not saying the Building and Safety Division was not correct, he was merely saying no evidence had been presented the Historic Preservation Commission staff. Ms. Hartig stated she would like to see a definition of what constitutes unsafe and dangerous and have actions closer to the CEQA definition of an emergency. She said the CEQA definition is very explicit. Commissioner Tessier felt the Commission should have been notified prior to issuance of the demolition permit. Ms. Hartig stated that the ordinance calls for informing the Historic Preservation Commission when the structure is a landmark. She said the Building Official indicated he did not feel he had an obligation to inform the Historic Preservation Commission because the building is not a landmark structure. She noted that the Ontario City codes address demolition through neglect and indicates all property owners are responsible for maintaining their property. Commissioner Tessier stated the Ross House is a potential landmark. Chairman Banks said she felt strongly that the Ross House should not be lost because it is in a group of historic structures along Etiwanda Avenue which is a potential district. She feared that removing one of the structures destroys the integrity of other structures along the street. Commissioner Haskvitz feared that it also sets a dangerous precedent for getting around the essence of historic preservation. ANNOUNCEMENTS Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, reported that the 1993 California Preservation Conference will be held in Long Beach from June 3 to June 6. She indicated there is no money in the budget for attendance; however, Commissioners could attend using personal funds and receive the membership discount. HPC MINUTES -8- April 13, 1993 Commissioner Haskvitz stated he had submitted the nomination papers for the Etiwanda Historical Society as discussed at the last Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Historic Preservation Commission adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gail Sanchez Secretary HPC MINUTES -9- April 13, 1933 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 11 , 1993 Chairman Marsha Banks called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks, Alan Haskvitz, Bob Schmidt, Anne Tessier COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Gene Billings STAFF PRESENT: Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Steve Hayes; Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Shelley Petrelli, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were available for approval; the minutes of April 13 and May 11 , 1993, will available at the June 8, 1993 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION 93-01 - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LABOR ASSOCIATION - A proposal to designate the Cucamonga Labor Camp, a site previously used as a World War II Italian Prisoner of War Labor Camp, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, as an Historic Point of Interest - APN: 207-211-01, 18-21 , 31 , 32, and 34. Related File: Tentative Tract 15540. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Arner pointed out that the camp was used for immigrant laborers from Mexico, known as Brasseros. For a short time Estonians stayed there also. Commissioner Tessier stated that her father lived there for a short time. She said he worked in the fields long enough to pay off his trip to the States and left. HPC MINUTES -1- May 11 , 1993 Chairman Banks thanked staff for initiating the process to designate the camp as an Historic Point of Interest. Chairman Banks opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present, but Mr. Hayes indicated that they are in favor of the action to designate the site. Chairman Banks closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Schmidt, seconded by Tessier, carried 5-0-1 , to accept staff's recommendation to designate the site as Historic Point of Interest 93- 01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, HASKVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS -carried OLD BUSINESS B. STATUS AND AFTERMATH OF DEMOLITION OF THE ROSS HOUSE, A POTENTIAL LOCAL LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 6527 ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND HIGHLAND Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the house had not yet been demolished. Chairman Banks questioned whether mandatory submission of items to the State Historic Preservation Office would only determine National Register eligibility. Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, informed her that the State has now established a State Register of Historic Places that emphasizes structures and sites that are locally important. Mr. Henderson added that the review of locally significant structures by the State came about because of the last series of earthquakes in Northern California as many historic buildings were demolished without proper review; the law was passed to give cities the ability to call in experts from the State to analyze these kinds of situations. He commented that this law had recently been expanded to include any kind of damage. Chairman Banks asked if it included benign neglect. Mr. Henderson replied affirmatively. He stated that this is done by a group of professionals who donate their time to check out damages to historic structures. Ms. Hartig added it is an opportunity to receive an objective opinion. HPC MINUTES -2- May 11 , 1993 Mr. Henderson stated that currently this is not mandatory, but in order to make it mandatory, the Commission would need to make an ordinance revision. He also mentioned that the Historic Preservation Commission Code (Ordinance 70) would need to be revised to include a Demolition Delay Provision if the Commission wished to do that. Commissioner Haskvitz asked about adding a section to Ordinance 70 regarding a mandatory press release with the background information on a property prior to demolition. Chairman Banks asked how the Commission could get the Ordinance amended by June 8. Ms. Hartig replied that the Commission would have to direct staff to rewrite and add portions to the Ordinance and send the Ordinance on to City Council for final approval. Chairman Banks asked if it was feasible to ask staff to come up with a draft of the revised Ordinance, including provisions for benign neglect and demolition delay, by June 8. Mr. Henderson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Haskvitz stated that he felt additional review should be done by another Commission or source prior to a demolition, rather than depending on one person's review and determination. He commented that the Building Official alone can order demolition of a structure without consulting another source. Commissioner Tessier requested that penalty fees for benign neglect also be added to the draft ordinance. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that he had an opportunity to meet with the Community Development Director and the Building Official to reiterate the Historic Preservation Commission's concerns and to discuss making changes to the Ordinance. He expressed that he did not know what direction this is headed at this point. He commented that to pull everything together before the June meeting would be difficult for staff. Commissioner Tessier commented that at last month's meeting she had mentioned the deterioration of the Lucas Land Company on Foothill Boulevard. She stated that since then the building has been boarded up and the graffiti removed and she wondered why. Mr. Buller responded that the City's Code Enforcement office was in the process of abating the property, because it is becoming an attractive nuisance, when the owner decided to resecure the building and paint out the graffiti on a daily basis, if necessary. Commissioner Tessier asked for confirmation that it was the property owner who had secured the building. HPC MINUTES -3- May 11 , 1993 Mr. Buller replied that there is someone interested in leasing the building to have an open-air, farmers' market and that individual, with the property owner's approval, is taking care of the building. Chairman Banks asked if the Commission felt it was reasonable to ask staff to have draft revisions of the Ordinance by the June 8 meeting. Commissioner Haskvitz replied affirmatively. Commissioner Tessier responded negatively. Chairman Banks stated that she felt the largest danger to local historic structures is the benign neglect from the property owners. She commented that she would like to formalize some type of action before the present Commission is relieved from their functions on July 1. She stated that she did not feel the of lines communication between City staff members and/or the Historic Preservation Commission could be trusted and she would feel more comfortable making steps toward formalizing the Ordinance prior to July 1 . Commissioner Tessier stated her main concern is that, in rushing the changes, things are forgotten or left out; however, she agreed that she did not want to leave the Ordinance as it currently stands. Commissioner Haskvitz commented that, in his experience on the Tree Ordinance Subcommittee, it is difficult to impose fines on absentee landlords and if they are determined to demolish, fines will not deter them. Chairman Banks asked if Ms. Hartig was aware of other cities with fines for benign neglect. Ms. Hartig stated that the City of Ontario does not have fines in place for benign neglect although such fines were discussed during the period in which their ordinance was drafted. She commented that Pasadena has very strict fines for demolition. Chairman Banks asked if Ms. Hartig could draft a couple of options for the Commission, both with and without fines. Ms. Hartig responded affirmatively. Motion: Moved by Arner, seconded by Schmidt, carried 5-0-1 , to direct staff to draft a revised Ordinance with provisions for benign neglect and to bring that draft back to the Commission by their June 8 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, HASKVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS -carried Chairman Banks asked Mr. Henderson to follow up with the owner of the Ross House regarding possible historic preservation incentives. HPC MINUTES -4- May 11 , 1993 Mr. Henderson agreed he would take care of that. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Banks addressed the following comments into the record regarding the recent City Council action dismissing the present Historic Preservation Commissioners from their terms and appointing the Planning Commission to assume those responsibilities: At the February 9, 1993 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, this body discussed the newspaper account of the Council's action to review all Commission's viability in the on-going budget crisis. Despite the assurances that staff had been given by their immediate supervisors that the Council review would not impact HPC, this Commission directed me to meet with our Council subcommittee. First the HPC staff, and subsequently my own office staff, attempted to set up this meeting. The meeting was finally scheduled for 3:30 PM on March 1. When I appeared at City Hall, I was met by Diane O'Neal of the City Manager's office and was told that the Councilmen would not be attending and that anything I had to say to them would be relayed by Ms. O'Neal. I declined to communicate this Commission's concerns in such a manner. I then set out to directly contact our Council subcommittee of Gutierrez and Alexander. I was able to establish a meeting date within two days, March 3, at 4:30 PM in my office. The meeting lasted exactly 30 minutes and both Councilman Alexander and Gutierrez attended. As I reported to this Commission on March 9, I was very pleased with the meeting and the Councilmen's comments. My agenda for the meeting consisted of outlining for the Councilmen the steps HPC had taken to cut costs: eliminate meetings, save staff time, increase volunteerism, and put projects on indefinite hold. Both Councilmen specifically indicated that: 1 . The current review by the Council would not significantly impact this Commission; 2. The thrust of the review was to eliminate Public Safety and the Environmental Management Commission; 3. The Council was well aware of the cost- saving measures HPC had initiated - that we had done more than our share and had done more than any other Commission; 4. In fact, no other Commission had attempted to respond to the budget crisis; 5. When the other two Commissions were eliminated, Councilman HPC MINUTES -5- May 11 , 1993 Gutierrez and Alexander indicated that they would see that some of the money saved would be redirected to HPC for Oral History funding; 6. The only changes they foresaw were perhaps reducing this Commission from seven to five people and my response to that suggestion was that I thought that was a totally workable solution. I concluded the meeting by .reiterating the HPC's concern for financial responsibility requesting of Councilman Gutierrez and Councilman Alexander that if there were any ideas on how we as a Commission could operate more efficiently and cost-effectively, we were open to the suggestion and to the changes. On May 6 this Commission was informed of its dismissal through an article in the morning newspaper. In the intervening 64 days neither I nor any other Commission member has been contacted by a Council member, by anyone from the City Manager's office, nor to my knowledge, has our staff been advised of any change in the circumstances since my meeting with the Councilmen. At this time I am making a formal request for a report, in detail, of the costs to be saved by dismissing this Commission. Since the staff report prepared for the Council was very generalized, and yet Councilman Buquet used a $500,000 figure, I assume there are supporting documents. I request that copies of these be presented to this Commission by the end of the week. Regarding the assumption of HPC duties by the Planning Commission, I have the following comments: 1. How will any significant money be saved by merely changing the faces of those who make the decisions; 2. If at this point the phantom savings are to be done by cutting staff, how can we have effective historic preservation? The program will be carried out at that point by an untrained Commission making decisions based on reports by untrained staff. If staff cuts are to occur, present Commission is needed more than ever. We have spent hours, days, and weeks at conferences and workshops, all on unpaid time, sometimes absorbing expenses of travel, food, and lodging to learn the law, to learn public safety, to learn public policy, to learn what has worked in other communities, and to learn how to judge a restoration project as not viable. The Planning Commission does not have this training. it will be costly to give it to them. We as a Commission volunteer our time. We have served selflessly. There are no egos on this Commission. No one has or expects to use the HPC for political advancement. We have worked for the best interests of the City. We have been dismissed based on an undocumented and on a specious argument. Thank you. HPC MINUTES -6- May 11 , 1993 Commissioner Haskvitz stated he had written a letter to the Editor of the Inland Daily Bulletin expressing his findings on the matter. He stated that he had gone through the minute notes and determined that the Commission had spent less than 36 hours in meetings this year and that the HPC staff members spent approximately 100 hours in meetings. He also stated that, if this community is built on volunteerism, and this is the way that volunteers are treated, that defeats their own credo. He expressed further disillusionment by stating that he found out he was no longer an HPC Commissioner through a phone call from a local newspaper reporter at 10 PM after the Council meeting. He said he felt that, because the current HPC was being replaced by another Commission, it had to be strictly a personal matter. He thought perhaps the $110,000 the Commission had required as mitigations for historical properties must have irritated people. Commissioner Haskvitz stated he also tried to reach the Mayor on three separate occasions and had not received a return call. Chairman Banks asked again for the documents reflecting the potential savings by eliminating City Commissions. Mr. Buller stated he would work through the Community Development Director to get the requested information. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Banks announced that, from 5:00 AM to 2:00 PM, on June 5, the annual fund raiser for the Etiwanda Historical Society is being held at the Chaffey- Garcia house. Ms. Hartig stated that is the same weekend as the California Preservation Foundation Conference at Long Beach. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Historic Preservation Commission adjourned at 6:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Shelley A. Petrelli Secretary HPC MINUTES -7- May 11 , 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 8, 1993 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEMOLITION REVIEW AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-04 - FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to demolish the Baird Barn, a potential Local Landmark and Unreinforced Masonry Building, located at 8619 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, and a proposal to designate it as a local Landmark or a Point of Historic Interest - APN: 207-132-53. (Continued from April 13, 1993) BACKGROUND: Since the April meeting, staff has met with representatives from the Church and prospective buyers of the property in order to encourage the retention and reuse of the barn. According to the owner, per a phone conversation on June 2, 1993, the First Assembly of God Church is in escrow with another church who is purchasing the property to hold services in the barn which was converted for use as a church. At this time, it seems likely that the future owners will withdraw the demolition request. Therefore, staff requests another 60 day continuance for this item. Respectfully submitted, 110, j a A 020&140� Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner LJH:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - HPC Staff Report dated April 13, 1993 I I I I ITEM A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: `arch 9, 1993 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEMOLITION REVIEW AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-04 - FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to demolish the Baird Barn, a potential Local Landmark and Unreinforced Masonry Building, located at 8619 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, and a proposal to designate it as a local Landmark or a Point of Historic Interest - APN: 207-132-53. BACKGROUND: The 1989 survey of unreinforced masonry buildings indicated that the home and barn on this site had been constructed in 1911 when George Baird owned the property. Because the First Assembly of God Church used the barn for their services, it came under the provisions of the City's URMB Ordinance. The Church has requested demolition of the barn, opting for that rather than retrofitting the building per the Ordinance's guidelines. Although some previous retrofitting work was undertaken in the early 1970s, the owner believes that completing the work would be cost-prohibitive. However, the owner has not completed the structural analysis required by the URMB Ordinance to determine what level of retrofitting is needed and to estimate related costs. A structural engineer performed a preliminary safety analysis of the barn building. In a letter to the Building and Safety Department, Runyan Engineering stated that the building's roof had been retrofitted to the point where structurally the building did not represent an immediate public safety threat (see Exhibit HPC-1 for Runyan letter and Building and Safety response) Upon receiving this data, the Building and Safety Department allowed the Church to continue a limited use of the building. It should be noted that the Church has also entered into escrow on the property with a prospective buyer who is looking to construct detached condominiums on the site. One of the contingencies of the close of escrow is the demolition of the barn structure, according to Pastor Wilson, who represents the Church. The proposed condominium project has been preliminarily reviewed by the Planning Department, although we have received no formal application yet. In the preliminary review process, staff suggested to the applicant a few of the barn's reuse possibilities; e.g. , a recreation building for the condo community. I HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-04 - BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN (FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH) March 9, 1993 Page 2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: Location: The parcel is a relatively flat piece of land located on the east side of Baker Avenue north of Sandalwood and south of Salina Streets. The site is 247 feet by 311 feet, totaling 1 .53 acres in size. Land Use, Zoning, and General Plan Designations: Per the General Plan, the site's land use is Medium Residential (8-14 units per acre) . The structure's historic use was probably that of a barn or stable in conjunction with the related residence. Surrounding Land Use, Zoning, and General Plan Designations : A Medium Residential land use applies to the properties to the north, east, and south of the said property while the Los Amigos Elementary School is located to the west. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: This single-storied, rectangularly shaped structure is constructed primarily of native field stones. A wood framed, front-gabled roof covers the buildings' four walls and extended eaves overhang the gable roof ends. Wood shingles cover the gable ends from the wall line to the ridge. The roof is currently covered with composition shingles and a small mock church steeple element sits atop the roof ridge just in from the north edge. A large, double door entrance on the south facade has been sealed as have the two windows which flank this opening. Tucked under the roofline on the west and east walls are two, small, rectangular wood-framed windows with aluminum sashes. The barn is approximately 2,900 square feet in size ( 50 'x581 ) . Mature trees dot the site (please refer to Exhibit HPC-1 for State Historic Resources Survey Form for further description) . SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS: Historical Significance: A part of western Cucamonga's agricultural community, this structure and the residence to which it relates, stand as very early examples of local construction utilizing native materials. Constructed while owned by George Baird, the site was owned by many individuals and does not seem to derive its significance from an association with important contributors to Cucamonga's past. Architectural Significance: while the integrity of both structures has been slightly lessened by minor, recent alterations, they derive .most of their overall significance from the architectural styling, construction materials, and retention of corresponding barn/stable building. Perhaps the only extant stone outbuilding of its size in the original three communities, the barn/stable of native field stone stands as an important contribution to the architectural legacy of the area. Together, the house and barn/stable represent one of very few stone residential complexes in the Cucamonga community; more exist in the Alta HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-04 - BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN (FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH) March 9, 1993 Page 3 Loma community along Hillside Avenue and are associated primarily with emigrant Russian families. ISSUES: URMB Ordinance: The property owner has yet to comply with the City's Ordinance which requires a structural analysis by a qualified engineer be performed. This study would assess the structural deficiencies of the barn/stable and provide the needed data to then estimate the costs of retrofitting. Since the Church has not completed this analysis, it is very difficult to judge whether or not the URMB Ordinance's requirements present the economic hardship that is claimed. Per the URMB Ordinance, the Commission may also require additional studies that examine a historically significant building's potential for re-use, and other options to demolition (Sect. 15.24.050.B3). The Ordinance specifies that such studies required by the Commission shall be financed by the applicant and undertaken by City-hired consultants. The requested demolition of the Baird Barn would have an impact on the environment if completed. Staff would recommend that before a mitigated Negative Declaration could be issued, the following requirements shall be completed per the URMB Ordinance: * Compliance with Ordinance's requirements to have a structural analysis performed to establish necessary seismic retrofitting and corresponding costs. * The undertaking of a feasibility study to determine alternatives to demolition which includes a cost benefit analysis, re-use analysis, and relocation/reconstruction feasibility to be completed by a City-hired consultant but financed by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permits. Owner Objection Policy: Per the Commission's policy, a designation application to which the owners of a potential local landmark object must be determined to have outstanding significance. This significance may be historical, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic. The Baird house and barn appears to qualify for this overriding significance because of its architectural integrity and extensive use and level of craftsmanship of native field stone and because the alterations and additions to the buildings appear to be reversible. Environmental Assessment: Landmark Designations are exempt under CEQA, per Article 19, Section 14308. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Per Section 2.24.090 of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, the following findings are made in support of this designation of the Baird House and Barn: A4 HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-04 - BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN (FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH) March 9, 1993 Page 4 Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1 : The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: Turn-of-the-century Cucamonga was a growing agricultural community in which houses and barns characterized the constructed landscape. Acres of citrus were tended and managed, their fruit picked, processed and packed in Cucamonga by men and women who built their homes and outbuildings in a scattered pattern around their groves. The Baird House and Barn stand as on of the few reminders of this historical and cultural way of existence. Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: Constructed in 1911 , the Baird House and Barn have been a part of the Cucamonga community for 82 years. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: Finding 1 : The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed Landmark are unusual or significant or uniquely effective. Fact/s: A select number of builders and owners employed the use of Cucamonga's building material, stones found concentrated in the wash areas and all throughout the alluvial soil. A handful of prominent commercial buildings boast of this native construction technique but only a few residential buildings were constructed of field stone in turn-of-the-century Cucamonga. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Finding 1 : . The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: A finely detailed set of buildings, the Baird House and Barn add an important varietal and historic flavor to Baker Avenue and the southwest section of Cucamonga. Finding 2: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city. A5_ HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-04 - BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN (FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH) March 9, 1993 Page 5 Fact/s: For 82 years, the Baird House and Barn have stood as an integral part of the community of Cucamonga, and of the immediate neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Commission should recommend to the City Council the approval of Landmark Designation 93-04, the Baird House and Barn. Furthermore, staff recommends that the demolition request shall be continued until such time the applicant has completed the required analyses on the barn building. Respectfully submitted, Larr Henderson, AICP Principal Planner LJH:AH:sp Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Letter from Runyan Engineering to Building Official Exhibit "HPC-2" - Resource Survey Form Exhibit "HPC-3" - Site Map Resolution of Approval A � RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC. R E C E I V E D I JAN 17 1991 BUiLDiNG DIVISION January 15 , 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gtr The City of Rancho Cucamonga Dept . of Building and Safety Attn: Jerry R. Grant 10500 Civic Cente Drive P . O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga , California 91729 Reference: Ordinance No . 417 , Section # 15 . 42 . 050 (c) Request for Extension of Time Dear Mr. Grant : Runyan Engineering , Inc . , has reviewed the one-story struc- ture located at 8619 Baker Avenue , Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 , and find it to qualify for an extension of time . The following observations are the basis for establishing "no immediate hazard to life safety" and "no adverse impact upon adjacent properties" . 1 . Risk Classification : Low to Medium , based on 20 to 50 occupants no more than 4 to 10 hours per week . 2 . Wall Construction : River rock with good mortar quality . A . This type of construction is known to have supe- rior strength relative to brick masonry due to its irregular shape . B . Wall openings in all four sides are a minor dimen- sion realtive to overall height . Also , remaining pier dimensions are typical - only 8 feet in height to 12 feet and greater in length, resulting in very high allowable rocking loads . C. Interior surface has been structural plaster with stucco . 3 . Roof Construction : The roof framing of this buildin4 was extensively modified and remodelled between 1950 and l ') 7() resulting in new truss framing supports on pipe columns and new foundations . AF 77 North Oak Knoll Avenue, Suite 102 Pasadena, CA 91101 . (818) 578- , µ_: RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC. Page Two If finished retrofit engineering was completed on this building, along with out-of-plane shear tests for river rock , we believe this building would be found delinquent only relative to wall-to-roof anchorage . Considering the above , we believe this building to qualify for an extension of time . The inspection consisted of visual observation only . No warranties , expressed or implied , are made or intended in con- junction with this report . The inspection was made only to the portions which were accessible . The specific items noted were those that were observable and there may be defects which are not observable , or are hidden by architectural and structural materials . Sincerely , RUNYAN ENGINEERING , INC . Wil am R. Runyan cc : Centro Cristiano Aq 77 North Oak Knoll Avenue, Suite 102 Pasadena, CA 91101 - (818) 57 T H E C I T Y O A N C ISO C UC A MONG A February 24, 1992 Southern California District Coy./ Assembly of God Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RE: URM Building at 8619 Baker APN #207-132-53 Regarding your building and your request for an extension of time in which to comply with the requirements of S.B. 547 and City Ordinance 417, the Building and Safety Division has agreed upon a one (1) year extension. This extension has been granted under the following conditions and understanding: 1 . The use of the structure is to comply with the criteria of a medium risk building as described in the City Ordinance regarding occupant loads. 2. The use of the structure shall be less than 20 hours a week as stated in your request letter. 3. With the time extension to February 1, 1993, one of the three options stated in the "Service of Order" and as stated in the City Ordinance must be completed. Therefore, we agree with the February 1, 1993 extension and thank you for your response and cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions in this matter, or if further information is required, please contact me at 989-1863, extension 2223. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Building and Safety Division Jerry R. Grant Building Official e —i 'eolf� We, Carlos H. Silva , Sr. Rehabilitation Specialist CS :dm Mayor Dennis L. Stout Councilmember Diane Williams Mayor Pro-Tem William J. Alexander „ _ Councilmember Pamela J. Wright Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Councilmember Charles J. Buclue1 10500 Civic Center Dive PO. Box 807 rancho Cucamonga.CA 91770 . (714)98^-1951 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY Ser. No. - IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION National Register Status• 1. Historic Name: Unknown Local Designation: 2. Common or Current Name: First Assembly of God Church 3. Number 8 Street: 8619 Baker Ave. City: Rancho Cucamonga Vicinity Only: Zip: County (3-Letter Designator): 4. Quad Map No:. UTM 2 A: B: C: D: 5. Parcel No: 0207-132-53 Other: DESCRIPTION 6. Property Category: If District, Number of Documented Resources: 7. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the property, including condition, boundaries, surroundings, and (if appropriate) architectural style: This will be two structures - STRUCTURE NUMBER ONE will be a rectangular shaped structure with side gable roof, asphalt shingling and shingles treatment in the gable ends. Structure appears to have been an old barn. There is a large centrally located entrance that has been sealed on the southside. Two smaller windows appear on either side of the door. There small rectangular windows are located along the west side of the structure and these are aluminum sash in wood frame. STRUCTURE NUMBER TWO will be a single story irregular shaped structure of stone construction in a simple Craftsman style. Low gable roof, with an extended porch roof. The porch has been enclosed with windows. Gable ends are shingled. The siding of the structure is stone and there is an external stone fireplace located on the west side. Windows are narrow, four over one over one, double hung of wood construction. It is not possible to see the front of the structure. There is a large rectangular louvered attic vent within the gable end. The front porch has a stone balustrade extending around it with stone piers. Front porch supports are square wood columns extending from the piers to the roof of the porch. There is a small shed addition to the rear of the structure covered in shingles with shed type roof extending off the main roof. S. Alterations 8 Date: 9. Related Features on Property: 10. Plaming Agency: �= City of Rancho Cucamonga 11. Owner 8 Address: So. Calif Dist. Cou/Assem 8619 Baker St. '= t Rancho Cucamonga, CA 12. Type of Ownership: Private ' 13. Present Use:Church W r 14. Zoning: Medium 15. Threats: URMB HISTORICAL INFORMATION 16. Constuction Date(s): 111 l Original Location: Yes Date Moved: 17. Architect: Unknown Builder: Unknown 18. Historic Attributes (With Number from List): SIGNIFICANCE AND EVALUATION 19. Context for Evaluation: Theme: Area: Period: Property Type: Context formally developed?: 20. Briefly discuss the property's importance within the context. Use historical and architectural analysis as appropriate. Compare with similar properties. This is an excellent example of a structure constructed using local materials. The residential structure has retained its original feeling and appears not to have been modified. The only notable exception is the addition of the windows in the front porch. The site is also notable, because it has retained a stone barn on the site. It appears that the structures were built while the property was under the ownership of George W. Baird. Baird owned the property until 1917. The property had two additional owners until it was acquired by Earl S. Marvin in 1923. At this same time, it appears that the property was planted in possibly citrus fruit, for an increase in valuation for trees and vines occurs in this year. The property changed hands again in 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1931 when it was purchased by Frederick and Augusta Fischer. The Fischer's owned the property until 1940 when it again changed hands two more times between 1940 and 1948. The structures appear to gain their entire significance through the use of native fieldstone snd have successfully retained their integrity, despite their current use as a First Assembly of God church, and parsonage. 21. Sources: San Bernardino County Lot Assessor Books Sketch map. Show location and boundaries of property in relation to nearby streets, railways, 22. Applicable National Register Criteria: natural landmarks, etc. Name each feature. 23. Other recognition: State Landmark Number: 1M+OAt woe0 24. Evaluator: Lynn Merritt Year of Evaluation: 1990 ��. 3 U9JCCT p'1'"1'y 25. Survey Type: S (C=Cosprehensive, t P=Project Related, S=Single Property 26. Survey Name: Rancho Cucaminga Update/URN Assessment 4 �T7QMt1� 27. Year Form Prepared: 1990 By (Name): Lynn Merrill Organization: Management Sciences Applications, Inc. Address: 123 East Ninth Street, Suite 204 City, State Zip: Uptand, California, 91786 Phone: (714) 981-ON4 0 w STc7n a W/crrtcr-- Y �Nb�k-WtaOD ITEM: C, •t c onga TI'T'LE: L. D q 3 -04- N i on EXHMITAFt-3SCALE: Nlh _- i �i�3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK 93-04 TO DESIGNATE THE BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN, LOCATED AT 8619 BAKER AVENUE, AS A LANDMARK - APN: 207-132- 53. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for a Landmark as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." (ii) On March 9, 1993, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Historic Preservation 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. The application applies to approximately 1 .35 acres of land, basically a square configuration,• located on the east side of Baker Avenue between 8th and 9th Streets. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on March 9, 1993 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1 : The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: Turn of the century Cucamonga was a growing agricultir3: community in which houses and barns characterized the constructed landscape. Acres of citrus were tended and managed, their fri . picked, processed and packed in Cucamonga by men and women who their homes and outbuildings in a scattered pattern around rh. : groves. The Baird House and Barn stand as on of the few remir:,!­r of this historical and cultural way of existence. The pr(-,,). landmark is connected with a business or use which was once c but is now rare. 14/4 i HPC RESOLUTION NO. LD 93-04 - BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN (FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD) March 9, 1993 Page 2 Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: Constructed in 1911 , the Baird House and Barn have been a part of the Cucamonga community for 82 years. B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance. Finding 1: The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed Landmark are unusual or significant or uniquely effective. Fact/s: A select number of builders and owners employed the use of Cucamonga's building material, stones found concentrated in the wash areas and all throughout the alluvial soil. A handful of prominent commercial buildings boast of this native construction technique but only a few residential buildings were constructed of field stone in turn-of-the-century Cucamonga. C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting. Finding 1 : The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: A finely detailed set of buildings, the Baird House and Barn add an important varietal and historic flavor to Baker Avenue and the southwest section of Cucamonga. Finding 2: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city. Fact/s: For 82 years, the Baird House and Barn have stood as an integral part of the community of Cucamonga, and of the immediate neighborhood. 4. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on March 9, 1993, including written an.j oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Secti,)n 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and pursuant to tlr,e Commission policy regarding Landmark designation over an owner's object-inn, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: A. It is the policy of the Historic Preservation Commission of City of Rancho Cucamonga to override the objection of an own. in recommending Landmark designation when: Finding 1 : The property is on the City's historical inventory. Fact/s: The property is listed as a Potential Local Landmark inventory. HPC RESOLUTION NO. LD 93-04 - BAIRD HOUSE AND BARN (FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD) March 9, 1993 Page 3 Finding 2: The property stands out as having outstanding historical, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic significance. Fact/s: Field stone construction and a level of fine detailing characterized the Baird House and Barn - the age of which also contributes to it significance. One of few, if not the only, stone barn standing in the City, the property is an extremely rare example of this engineering and architectural design. Finding 3: Designation could help protect it. Fact/s: Threatened by future development activities and by current owners who wish to demolish it, the Baird House and Barn could benefit from this designation; e.g. , by utilizing the Mills Act to reduce future property tax payments. 5. This Commission hereby finds that the designation has been reviewed and considered for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 6. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 , 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, that the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 9th day of March 1993, of Landmark Application. 7. The Chairman of this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 1993. Marsha Meek Banks, Chairman AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 8, 1993 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REQUESTED RESEARCH ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UPDATES BACKGROUND: At the meeting on May 11 , 1993, the Commission requested information from staff on the revising of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance to better protect the community's historic resources from benign neglect and needless demolition. Staff has researched how a few other cities have structured their ordinances to allow for a more thorough review of demolition requests and to provide enforcement measures for violators of City ordinances. Staff has also been working with, and will continue to work with, the Building Official and Community Development Director on developing ordinance amendments that would establish a staff and Commission review process for unsafe buildings. ANALYSIS: Due to available staff resources to work on this assignment since the May 11 meeting, staff was unable to have the actual ordinance revisions ready for the Commission's consideration. As of this report, we have compiled examples of Ordinances from Ontario and Upland for your consideration. If the provisions within the attached sample ordinances address the Commission's direction to strengthen our own City's ability to ensure the preservation of valuable resources, staff can prepare the necessary revisions for consideration. A. Benign Neglect: The State Office of Historic Preservation's Model Historic Preservation Ordinance and an ordinance based closely on that model, that of the City of Ontario, specify a historic property owners' "Duty to Keep in Good Repair." Ontario's Ordinance states that unless the Historic Preservation Commission issues a "Certificate of Economic Hardship" the owners of all historic resources - designated and potential landmarks alike - "must keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of such improvements, building, or structure and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature" (see Exhibit "HPC-1" for a copy of Ontario's Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance, note Section 15 in particular) . Section 13 of Ontario's Ordinance establishes clear procedures on the determination of what constitutes an "economic hardship." In short, hardship exists if it can be proven by the applicant that the HPC's action would deprive the property owner of "all reasonable use of, or economic return on, the property. " B. Demolition Review/Delay: While the City of Ontario handles proposed demolitions through a "Certificate of Appropriateness" procedure as outlined in Section 9 of their Ordinance, other cities, such as West Hollywood and most recently Upland, have passed or are in the process of passing, specific ITEM B HPC STAFF REPORT HP ORDINANCE UPDATE June 8, 1993 Page 2 ordinances governing the demolition of historic buildings. Upland's proposed Municipal Code Amendment is attached for your review as Exhibit "HPC-2." Like Ontario's Certificate of Appropriateness process, Upland requires a public hearing at which the Planning Commission (Upland does not have a Historic Preservation Commission) bases the granting or denying of demolition on a number of findings. Upland's Ordinance contains a number of important elements. First, it specifies that all proposed demolitions fall under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , Section 9500.1 . 100. Secondly, it calls out potential mitigations for demolition, such as HABS-level documentation, in Section 9500.1 . 110. Lastly, Upland's Code, like Ontario's, specifies that any person violating any of the chapter's provisions shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and moreover that any partial or complete demolition of a historic resource without obtaining prior City approval shall be rectified by the reconstruction of such destroyed architectural elements or structures (see Section 9500. 1 . 120) . In such cases, Upland's Code gives the property owner thirty days to let a contract for such necessary reconstruction and one year to begin reconstruction work; it also gives the City the power to contract for such reconstruction if the property owner does not comply and also to "seek civil injunctive remedies to include a temporary restraining order and injunctions as necessary." C. Building Official's Abatement of Dangerous Buildings: At this time, staff feels confident that a mutually satisfactory procedure, secured by amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, will be achieved with the Building Official regarding the matter of the abatement of dangerous buildings. Staff finds that stricter measures on benign neglect will also, in part, help ameliorate the kind of situations such as the Ross House, that arise from a property owner's outright abandonment of a building. Planning staff and the Building Official are currently drafting Ordinance revisions that clearly specify when and how staff and the Commission review the Building and Safety Division's abatement proceedings. These proposed revisions will be brought before the Commission and then taken to City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that pertinent examples exist locally showing ways to bolster the current Ordinance's protection of historic resources. If this is the direction the Commission desires, staff should be directed to prepare t'..e actual Ordinance revisions. Respectfully submitted, L Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner LJH:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Ontario's Historic Preservation Ordinance Exhibit "HPC-2" - Upland's Demolition Ordinance 466 ORDINANCE NO. 2gnq AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RELATIVE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN SAID CITY AND ADDING CHAPTER 14 TO TITLE 8 OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE 1. TITLE This chapter shall be known as the Historic Preservation Ordinance by the City of Ontario. 2. PURPOSE Whereas,the City Council of the City of Ontario has determined: A. That the character and history of the City are reflected in its cultural, historical, and architectural heritage,with emphasis on the "Model Colony" as presented at the St. Louis Worlds Fair in 1904 by an act of the U.S. Congress; B. That these historical foundations should be preserved as living parts of community life and development to build an understanding of the City's past so that future generations may have a genuine opportunity to appreciate,enjoy, and understand the rich heritage of the City, C. That in the face of ever increasing pressures of modernization and urbanization, City landmarks, neighborhoods, and other areas of historical interest are threatened with demolition, D. That pursuant to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,the City of Ontario joins with private concerns,the State of California, and the United States Congress to develop preservation programs and activities to give optimum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation of the City's unique historical heritage. E. Therefore,the purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and: 1. To safeguard the City's unique historical heritage as embodied and reflected in the City's architectural history and patterns of cultural development; 2. To encourage and facilitate public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the City's historic past and unique sense of place; 3. To foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of Historical Resources; 4. To promote the enjoyment,celebration,and use of Historical Resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City; 5. To preserve diverse architectural styles, patterns of development, and design preferences reflecting phases of the City's history and to encourage complementary contemporary design and construction and inspire a more livable urban environment; 6. To enhance property values and to provide possible added benefits to the City and its inhabitants through the exploration of creative financial incentives for preservation; 6ASX4I SI T 4Pc. - 7. To protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors; thereby stimulating business and industry; 8. To identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of Historical Resources and alternative land uses; 9. To integrate the preservation of Historical Resources into public and private land use management and development processes; 10. To conserve valuable material and energy resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment; 11. To stabilize neighborhoods through the preservation of Historical Resources and establishment of Historic Districts-and conservation zones; 12. To promote public awareness of the benefits of preservation; 13. To increase the economic benefits of preservation of Historical Resources to the City and its inhabitants; and 14. To encourage public participation in identifying and preserving Historical Resources,thereby increasing community pride in the City's heritage. 3. AREA OF APPLICATION This chapter shall apply to all Historical Resources within the City. 4. DEFINITIONS A. "Alteration" means any exterior change or modification,through public or private action,to the character-defining or significant physical features of properties affected by this chapter. Such changes may be changes to or modification of structure, architectural details or characteristics, rock curbs,the addition of new structures, cutting or removal of trees,and the placement or removal of significant ob1'ects such as signs, plaques,light fixtures,street furniture,walls,fences, or steps, affecting the significant historical qualities of the property. B. "Certificate of Appropriateness" is a certificate issued by the Historic Preservation Commission approving such plans,specifications,statements of work, and any other information which are reasonably required by the Commission to make a decision on any proposed alteration, restoration, rehabilitation, construction,removal,relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part,of or to a Designated Historical Resource,or to a building or structure within an Historic District. C. "Certificate of Economic Hardship' is a certificate authorizing work described in the accompanying Certificate of Appropriateness granted by the Commission because of extreme financial privation or adversity and in accordance with the procedures and findings of this ordinance. D. "Certified Local Government" (CLG) is a local government certified under a federal program by the state office of Historic Preservation for the purpose of more direct participation in federal and state historic preservation programs. Local governments become certified by demonstrating their ability to enforce national, state and local historic preservation laws and to provide for adequate public participation in the programs resulting from these. In addition,the CLG must have a qualified historic preservation review commission and must have completed or be in the process of completing a comprehensive historic inventory. If certification is granted,CLGs are eligible for special matching grants coming from a pool of money representing at least ten percent of the OHP's annual grant from the Federal Historic Preservation Fund. The kinds of projects for which CI-Gs can receive grants include: expansion of the historic resources survey, preparation of comprehensive historic preservation plans, administrative review of National Register nominations and rehabilitation plans for historic properties seeking federal tax benefits,development of public education programs, and other special projects furthering local historic preservation objectives. Certification is a way of making sure the historic preservation program in your community meets all federal standards. E. "Conservation Zone" means an area of the City,whether commercial or residential, a majority of whose buildings are 50 years old or older,which the City wishes to maintain and revitalize so as to emphasize their importance to the past, present, and future of the City. F. "Demolition' means any act or process that destroys in part or in whole an individual Historical Resource or a structure within an Historic District. G. "Design Guidelines' means the principles contained in a document which illustrate appropriate and inappropriate methods of rehabilitation and construction. The purpose of using design guidelines is to aid design and decision-making with regard to retaining the integrity of scale,design, intent, materials,feeling, patterns of development,and historical character of an Historical Resource or Historic District. H. "Designated Historical Resource' means any Historical Resource that has been designated pursuant to this ordinance or placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The designation shall specify the significant designation criteria which are expressly found by the Commission to meet one or more of the criteria in Section 7. I. "Designated Site' means a parcel or part thereof on which an Historical Resource is situated,and any abutting parcel or part thereof constituting part of the premises on which the Historical Resource is situated,and which has been designated an Historical Resource pursuant to this ordinance. J. 'Historic District' means any area containing a concentration of improvements which have a special historical interest or value,which possess integrity of location,design,setting, materials,workmanship,feeling, and association,or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles typical to the history of the City,and that has been designated an Historic District pursuant to this ordinance or nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. K. 'Historical Resource' means improvements, buildings,structures, signs, features, Historic Districts, conservation zones,trees, or other objects of cultural, architectural,or historical significance to the citizens of the City and the State of California,the Southern California region,or the nation which may be eligible for designation or designated and determined to be appropriate for historic preservation by the Historic Preservation Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 3,_.... 6b 0 L. "Improvement" means any building,structure, fence, gate,tree,wall, or other specified object constituting an historical physical feature o real property, or any part of such feature. M. "Nominated Historical Resource" means any Historical Resource that has been nominated pursuant to this ordinance. N. "Object" means a material thing of historical, cultural, or architectural value. O. "Ordinary maintenance and Repair" means any work, for which a building permit is not required by law,where the purpose and effect of such work is to correct any deterioration of or damage to a structure or any part thereof and to restore the same,to its condition prior to the occurrence of such deterioration or damage. P. "Preservation' means the identification,study, protection, restoration, rehabilitation,or acquisition of Historical Resources. Q. "Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation' means the guidelines prepared by the National Park Service for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the Standards for Historic Preservation Projects prepared by the National Park Service with Guidelines for Applying the Standards. R. "Sinificant Feature' means the man-made elements embodying style or components of an improvement,including but not limited to,the kind, and texture of the building materials,and the type and style of all windows,doors, lights,signs, and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement. S. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION A. There is hereby established in the City an Historic Preservation Commission,hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission,' consisting of five unpaid members appointed by the City Council. All members of the Commission shall have a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and the cultural resources of the City. B. A quorum of the Commission shall be defined as three voting members. C. The Commission shall develop and adopt its own operating rules and bylaws with the approval of the City Council,thereafter having the power and authority to perform all of the duties hereinafter enumerated and provided. D. The initial appointment of the members of the Commission shall be as follows: two for two years and three for four years. Thereafter,appointments shall be made for a four-year term. E. Any vacancy in the office of any member of the Commission shall be filled in like manner for the unexpired term of such office. As the term of any member of the Commission expires, his successor shall be appointed in like manner as such member. Commissioners shall continue to serve until their successors are appointed. A commissioner may be removed by a majority vote of the entire City Council at any time either with or without cause. 4 6. POWERS AND DUTIES The Commission shall have the following powers and duties: A. Adopt procedural rules for the conduct of its business in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. B. Establish criteria for and conduct or cause to be conducted a comprehensive survey in conformance with state survey standards and guidelines of Historical Resources within the boundaries of the City. Publicize and periodically update the survey results. C. Recommend the designation of Historical Resources in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 7. D. Maintain a local register of Designated Historical Resources consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria including all information required for each designation. E. Review and comment upon the conduct of land use, housing and redevelopment, municipal improvement,and other types of planning and programs undertaken by any agency of the City,the County, or State, as they relate to the survey results and the Historical Resources of the community. F. Recommend to the City Council standards to be used by the Commission in reviewing applications for permits to construct,change,alter, modify, remodel, remove, or significantly affect any Historical Resource. G. Conduct negotiations on behalf of the City Council regarding recommendations for the purchase by the City of fee or less-than-fee interests in property,transfer of development rights,easements,or other mechanisms for purposes of Historical Resources preservation. H. Investigate and make recommendations to the City Council on the use of various federal,state, local,or private funding sources and mechanisms available to promote Historical preservation in the City. I. Approve or disapprove, in whole or in part,or approve with conditions, applications for permits pursuant to Section 9 of this chapter. J. Review all applications for permits pertaining to Designated Historical Resources. The Planning Department shall forward all such documents to the Commission for review and comment, prior to review and approval by the Development Advisory Board or the Planning Commission, whichever shall first occur. K. Review the actions and proposed actions and advise environmental review processes of all City departments and public agencies concerning the effects of their actions, programs, capital improvements, or activities on Historical Resources. L. Consider whether denial of Certificates of Appropriateness(permits) affecting Historical Resources results in economic hardship to the property owner according to the procedures outlined in Section 9. M. Recommend hiring staff, retaining consultants and conducting studies,as the Commission deems desirable or necessary,to the City Council. N. Cooperate with local, county, state,and federal governments in the pursuit of the objectives of Historical Resource preservation. O. Consider assuming whatever responsibilities and duties may be assigned to it by the state under the Certified Local Government Provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended. P. Keep minutes and records of all meetings and proceedings including voting records,attendance, resolutions,findings,determinations,and decisions. All such material shall be public record. Q. Provide opportunity for direct public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the Certified Local Government including the survey and National Register nomination process. Commission meetings shall be open to the public with published agenda and minutes in accordance with the California Open Meeting Act. The published agenda shall be mailed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen organizations interested in the Commission's activities. R. Render advice and guidance, upon the request of the property owner or occupant, on the restoration, alteration,decoration, landscaping,or maintenance of any Historical Resource, Potential Historical Resource,or Conservation Zone. S. Encourage and render advice and guidance to property owners or occupants on procedures for inclusion of an Historical Resource on the National Register of Historic Places. T. Participate in, promote, and conduct public information,educational, and interpretive programs pertaining to the preservation of Historical Resources. U. Confer recognition upon the owners of Designated Historical Resources and structures within Historic Districts by means of certificates, plaques,or markers, and from time to time issue commendations to owners of Historical Resources who have preserved, restored, or rehabilitated their property in a noteworthy manner. V. Undertake any other action or activity necessary or appropriate to the implementation of its powers or duties to fulfill the objectives of Historical Resource preservation. W. Review,and make recommendations to the City Council regarding application for,and the administration of, historical property contracts submitted, or entered into, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 commencing with Section 50280), Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 1,Title 5, of the Government Code (the Mills Act). 7. HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION CRITERIA For the purposes of this chapter, an improvement may be designated an Historical Resource by the Historic Preservation Commission and any area within the City may be designated an Historic District pursuant to Section 8 if it: A. Meets the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; or B. Is at least 50 years old or, if less than 50 years old, is of exceptional importance; and, is one or more of the following: 1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's history; 2. It is identified with persons or events significant in local,state, or national history; 3. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction,or is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; 4. It is representative of the work of a notable builder,designer, or architect; S. It contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic resources or thematically related grouping of structures which contribute to each other and are unified by plan,style, or physical development; 6. It embodies elements of architectural design,detail, materials,or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural,engineering,or architectural achievement or innovation; 7. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes,or distinctive examples of park or community planning; or, 8. It is one of the few remaining example in the City, region,state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen. S. HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION PROCEDURES Historical Resources and Historic Districts shall be established by the City Council in the following manner: A. Any person or group may request the designation of an improvement as an Historical Resource or the designation of an Historic District by submitting an application for such designation to the Commission. The nomination application shall contain sufficient documentation and information indicating how the nominated resource meets the criteria for designation as indicated in this ordinance. The Commission or City Council may also initiate such proceedings on their own motion. Notification of the nomination shall be delivered to the Director of Development and the property owner(s) address of public record by registered mail within fifteen (15)days of the receipt of the nomination,but in any case prior to the Commission's preliminary determination below. B. The Commission shall make a preliminary determination within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application based on the documentation required as to whether the nomination application is appropriate for consideration. If the Commission determines that the application merits consideration, but only if it so 7 �1 C determines, it shall schedule a public hearing at its next meeting, but in any case not later than twenty-one(2 1) days from the Commission's preliminary determination. C. The Commission's decision to schedule or not to schedule a public hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director of Development and the City Clerk. Notice of a decision not to schedule a public hearing shall be given by mail to the applicant. D. At the conclusion of the public hearing, but in no event more than thirty (30) days from the date set for the initial public hearing for the designation of a proposed Historical Resource or Historic District, the Commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part, or disapproval in whole or in part, of the application in writing. The Commission's recommendation shall include findings of fact relating to the criteria for designation in Section 7 that constitute the basis for its decision and shall transmit its recommendation to the City Council,the property owner(s), and the applicant. E. The City Council,within thirty(30)days of receipt of the recommen- dations from the Commission,shall by ordinance approve the application in whole or in part,or shall by motion disapprove it in its entirety. Recommendations by the Commission for designations shall be acted on by the City Council within thirty(30) days. if the Council fails to act within the thirty(30)day period,the-recommen- dation of the Commission for designation shall be deemed approved. F. In the case of a proposed Historical Resource, notice of the date, place, time,and purpose of the hearing shall be given either personally or by mail to each owner and occupant of the improvement, and to the applicant,if any,at least ten (10)days prior to the date of hearing. Notice of the dateplace,time and purpose of the hearing shall also be published once in the Inland Vailev Dailv Bulletin, at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. G. In the case of a proposed Historic District, notice of the date, place,time, and purpose of the hearing shall be given either personally or by mail to each owner and occupant of all properties within the proposed district,and to the applicant, if any, at least ten (10)days prior to the date of hearing. Notice of the date, place,time and purpose of the hearing shall also be published once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. H. Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. The Commission and Council may also give such other notice as they may deem desirable and practicable. I. No building,alteration,demolition, or removal permits for any improvement, building,or structure within the proposed Historic District or relative to a nominated Historical Resource shall be issued after its nomination while the public hearing or any appeal related thereto is pending. J. Designations must be recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County of San Bernardino. K. The Commission shall not recommend that a resource be removed from the City's list of Designated Historical Resources unless it is discovered that the information relied on by the Commission and the City Council in making the original 8 1C) 1 designation was erroneous or false,or that circumstances wholly beyond the owner's control have rendered the resource ineligible for designation based on the criteria listed in Section 7 and it would be infeasible to restore the resource. 9. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (PERMITS) A. All permits for alteration, restoration, rehabilitation, remodeling, addition, demolition or relocation for Designated Historical Resources and for structures located in Historic Districts shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission prior to issuance of said permit(s) by the Building and/or any other City Department. B. If no building or other permit is required to pursue work on a designated resource,whoever is responsible for the work,whether it is the tenant, resident, or property owner,shall nevertheless apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Commission's designated staff directly. C. Such applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be accompanied by such materials as are required by the Commission's designated staff and are reasonably necessary for the proper review of the proposed project. D. Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness shall be filed with the City's Director of Development for processing. Applications shall include plans and specifications showing the proposed exterior appearance and texture of materials and the proposed architecture design of the exterior of the structure. Where appropriate and required by the Commission's designated staff, applications shall also show the relationship of the proposed work to the surrounding environs. Applications for new construction in Historic Districts shall also include such relevant information as how the new improvement relates to existing architectural style, scale, massing,site and streetscape, landscaping, and signage. The application shall be accompanied by any other information that the Commission 's designated staff determines is required for them to make an informed judgment of the proposed work according to the standards of review in Section 9. E. All applications for Certificates of Appropriateness shall be submitted to the Commission for approval. The Director of Development shall report any application for a permit to work on a nominated or Designated Historical Resource to the Commission and its designated staff. The applicant is encouraged to confer with Commission's designated staff prior to submitting an application. F. All permits for work on a Designated Historical Resource or structure within an Historic District shall follow the procedures listed below in processing applications for obtaining Certificates of Appropriateness and approval of work covered by this chapter. G. No alterations,demolition or relocation for work on a nominated Historical Resource shall be awarded until eligibility for designation has been determined,or the designation process has been initiated in accordance with this section and a Certificate of Appropriateness,if applicable, has been secured. H. Any work or project by the City of Ontario or its agents that can result in changes to the character or use of nominated or designated Historical Resources or Historic Districts shall follow procedures outlined below for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. The proposed work or project shall follow the Secretary of the 4 � Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the Standards for Historic Preservation Projects where those Standards are applicable. I. The Commission shall after public hearing and review promulgate and publish such standards as are a necessary supplement to the provisions of this article to inform property owners and the general public of those standards of review by which applications of Certificates of Appropriateness are to be judged. J. In evaluating applications for Certificates of Appropriateness, the Commission or the City Council upon appeal shall consider the existing and proposed architectural style,design, arrangement,texture, materials, and any other factors with regard to the original distinguishing architectural characteristics of the designated resource. Using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects as a guide,the Commission or City Council upon appeal shall. approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for any proposed work if and only if it makes one of the following findings: 1. With regard to a designated resource,the proposed work will neither adversely affect the significant architectural features of the designated resource nor adversely affect the character of historical interest or value of the designated resource. 2. With regard to any property located within an Historic District,the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards or design guidelines for the district adopted by the Commission,and does not adversely affect the character of the district. 3. In the case of construction of a new improvement,addition, building,or structure upon the same parcel or a Designated Historical Resource, the use and exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the use and exterior of the existing Designated Historical Resource. K. The Commission shall in public hearing establish guidelines for determining which types of applications for Certificates of Appropriateness should be set for public hearing. L. if a public hearing is held, it shall be scheduled not more than sixty (60) days from the date of application. Notice of the hearing shall be given by Bending wntten notice to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the property for which application has been made. Notices shall be mailed no less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner or resident where the address of such owner is not a matter ofublic record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. M. Public testimony shall betaken on any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for due Commission consideration. N. If the Commission fails to consider an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness within ninety (90) days of the date of submission of the application, the Director of Development shall issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. If an appeal to the City Council is filed within ten (10)calendar days from the date of a Commission decision on an application, no Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued until the outcome of the appeal is determined by the City Council. 10 ^ O. After the permit has been issued,the Director of Development or his/her designee shall, from time to time, inspect the work approved by the Commission in order to assure compliance. If the work is not being performed in accordance with the Certificate of Appropriateness, a stop work order shall be issued and all work shall cease until work can be performed or corrected in accordance with the Certificate of Appropriateness and the stop work order can therefore be removed. P. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall become void unless construction is commenced within 18 months of the date of issuance. If the project is not completed within 36 months after the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness, renewal of the Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required to complete work. Q. The Commission may incorporate in any Certificate of Appropriateness such conditions as the Commission may find necessary or desirable to effect the purposes of this ordinance and may specify that certain of such conditions shall be covenants running with the land to be recorded prior to issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. R. When the Commission has approved a plan for the preservation of an Historical Resource or Historic District which sets forth particular development standards or design guidelines, an application to do work which is consistent with the approved plan development standards may be approved by the Director of Development by issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. If the Director does not approve the application, it shall be processed as set forth in this chapter. 10. STATE HISTORIC BUILDING CODE The California State Historic Building Code(SHBC) provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration,or relocation of structures designated as Historical Resources, The SHBC shall be used for any Designated Historical Resource in the City's building permit procedure. 11. PRESERVATION EASEMENTS Preservation easements on the facades of buildings designated as an Historical Resource may be acquired by the City,or on the City's behalf, by a nonprofit group designated by the City through purchase,donation,or condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code 81 S. 12. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (SECTION RESERVED) 13. CERTIFICATE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP A. Application of a Certificate of Economic Hardship shall be made on a form prepared by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission shall schedule a public hearing concerning the application and provide notice in the same manner as in Section 8 of this ordinance, and any person may testify at the hearing concerning economic hardship in the same manner as provided in Section 8 of this ordinance. B. The Commission shall review all the evidence and information required of an applicant for a Certificate of Economic Hardship and make a determination within forty-five(45)days of receipt of the application whether the denial of a 11 Certificate of Appropriateness has deprived,or will deprive,the owner of the property of all reasonable use of, or economic return on,the property. Written notice of the determination shall be provided in the same manner as required by Section 8. C. If the applicant presents facts and clear evidence demonstrating to the Commission that failure to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriate- ness will cause an immediate extreme hardship because of conditions peculiar to the particular structure or other feature involved, and the damage to the owner of the property is unreasonable in comparison to the benefit conferred to the community, the Commission may approve or conditionally approve such certificate even though it does not meet the standards set forth herein. The Commission shall hold a public hearing in order to determine whether a Certificate of Appropriateness will be approved or denied. A Certificate of Economic Hardship shall be accompanied by a written determination, based on one or more of the following findings: 1. Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject property so as to leave substantially no value, 2. Sale or rental of the property is impractical,when compared to the cost of holding such property for uses permitted in this zone, 3. An adaptive reuse study has been conducted and found that utilization of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or impractical, 4. Rental at a reasonable rate of return is not feasible, 5. Denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness would damage the owner of the property unreasonably in comparison to the benefit conferred on the community,or 6. All means involving City sponsored incentives,such as transfer of development rights,tax abatements,financial assistance, building code modifications,changes in the zoning ordinance, loans,grants,and reimbursements, have been explored to relieve possible economic disincentives. D. The Commission shall be authorized to request the applicant to furnish material evidence supporting his request for a Certificate of Economic Hardship or shall furnish evidence or testimony to complete the application for Certificate of Economic Hardship including, but not limited to,any or all of the following: 1. Cost estimates of the proposed construction, alteration,demolition, or removal,and an estimate of the additional cost(s)that would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the Commission for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 2. A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation. 3. Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; estimated market value after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal; after any change recommended by the Commission; and, in 12 -;�' 14 the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use. 4. In the case of a proposed demolition, an estimate from an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property and its market value for continued use after rehabilitation. 5. For income-producing properties, information on annual gross income, operating and maintenance expenses,depreciation deductions and annual cash flow after debt service,current property value appraisals,assessed property valuations, real estate taxes,and any other information considered necessary by the Commission to determine whether substantial evidence of economic hardship exists. 6. Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years. 7. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase,financing,or ownership of the property. 8. Amount paid for the property, if purchased within prior thirty-six (36) months,the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the property is purchased,and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer; any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any,within the previous two years. 9. Form of ownership or operation of the property,whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or nonprofit corporation, limited partnership,joint venture,or other. 10. Any other information considered necessary by the Commission to a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners. E. In considering an application for a Certification of Economic Hardship, the Commission must make a finding that without approval of the proposed demolition, alteration,remodeling, removal,or construction, all reasonable use of or return from a Designated Historical Resource or property within an Historic District will be denied a property owner. In this context, personal,family, or financial difficulties,loss of prospective profits,and neighboring violations are not justifiable hardships. In the case of a proposed demolition,the Commission must make a finding that the Designated Historical Resource cannot be remodeled or rehabilitated in a manner which would allow a reasonable use of or return from the property to the property owner. F. In the case of a finding of economic hardship,this finding shall be accompanied by a plan developed by the City and/or applicant to relieve economic hardship. This plan may include, but is not limited to, property tax relief, loans or grants from the City or other private sources,acquisition by fee purchase or eminent domain, use of the State Historic Building Code, redevelopment funds,development fees for historic preservation, changes in applicable zoning regulations,transfer of f unused development rights, or relaxation of the provisions of this ordinance sufficient to allow reasonable beneficial use or return from the property. The Commission and the City shall have a period not to exceed ninety (90)days to make recommendations and develop and adopt a plan in order to relieve economic hardship and to allow the applicant a reasonable use of, and economic return from, the property or otherwise preserve the subject property. G. If, by the end of this ninety (90)day period,the Commission has found that without approval of the proposed work,the property cannot be put to a reasonable economic return therefrom,then the Commission shall issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship approving the proposed work. If the Commission finds otherwise, it shall deny the application for a Certificate of Economic Hardship and notify the applicant by mail of the final denial. H. If approval of a Certificate of Economic Hardship will result in the demolition of a nominated or designated Historical Resource,the applicant shall be required to provide reasonable access to the interior and exterior of the structure for documentation of the resource proposed for demolition to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey. Such documentation may include photographs, floor plans, measured drawings, archaeological survey,or other documentation stipulated by the Commission. 1. No action shall be taken to demolish or otherwise alter a designated Historical Resource for a period of fourteen (14)days following the issuance of a Certificate of Economic Hardship. 14. APPEALS Any action by the commission may be appealed by an interested party to the City Council. Any interested party may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the City Council not later than ten (10)days after the Commission's decision is made. Said appeal shall state the grounds upon which the appeal is made. Said notice shall be accompanied by a set fee in an amount to be determined by the City Council. The City Council shall schedule a rublic hearing to be held no later than thirty (30) days after the notice of appeal is filed, and shall render its decision within thirty (30)days of said hearing date. 15. DUTY TO KEEP IN GOOD REPAIR The owner,occupant,or other person in actual charge of an Historical Resource or an improvement,building, or structure in an Historic District shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of such improvement, building,or structure, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary toprevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature unless a Certificate of Economic Hardship is approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 13 hereof. It shall be the duty of the Building Official to enforce this section with guidance from the Commission. 4 16. ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any property covered by this chapter that does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance thereof, nor does this ordinance prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any such external architectural feature when the Director of Development certifies to the Commission that such action is required for the public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Building Code and when such architectural feature can be replaced according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 17. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES A. Any person who violates a requirement of this ordinance or fails to obey an order issued by the Commission or comply with a condition of approval of any certificate or permit issued under this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. B. Any person who constructs, alters, removes,or demolishes an Historical Resource in violation of this chapter shall be required to restore the building,or structure to its appearance or setting prior to the violation. Any action to enforce this provision may be brought by the City of Ontario. This civil remedy shall be in addition to,and not in lieu of,any criminal prosecution and penalty and other remedy provided by law. 18. SEVERABILITY If any section,sentence, clause,or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and adopted this chapter,and each section,sentence.clause,or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fad that any one or more sections,subsections,sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July , 19sL '- ayor ATTEST: • FON "•: City Clerk = :z�° DECEMBER • 1891 '••..;�� !FG kr 15 ZA-150-B EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF UPLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 9500.1 PERTAINING TO THE DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS. Add Chapter 9500.1 to read as follows: CHAPTER 9500.1. DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUELDINGS SEC.9500.1.010. PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review process for proposed demolition requests for buildings, structures, or objects which reflect special elements of the City's architectural, cultural and historic past. SEC.9500.1.030. DEFINITIONS. .010 Co.Wkve Des&udiom Any act or process that results in fifty percent (50'/0) or greater destruction to the structure of a cultural resource. .020 Cukural Resowea. Any building, structure or object possessing cultural, historical or architectural significance included in the City of Upland's historic resources survey. .030 Dtmolitfom Any act or process that in pert or in whole destrays a building, structure object or cultural resource. SEC. 9500.1.040. APPLICABUXff. Review under this'Chapter shall be required for the proposed demolition of any Cultural ResourM in the City of Upland Historic Reno ma Survey, National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Categories 1 through 513 inclusive. SEC. 9500.1.050. RZVIZW PROCESS. .010 Application Requirements. An applicant proposing to demolish a cultural resource shall subrrut an application to the Community Development Department for review,as may be required by the Community Development Director or designee. .011 Application Materials. Information submitted for review may include plans and specifications for the existing and replacement structure. Additional informauon Page t { ZA-150-B pursuant to Sec. 9500.070.030. Support materials, may also be required by the Community Development Director and/or the Planning Commission. .020 Administrative Review. All proposed demolitions that will not result in the complete destruction of a cultural resource shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director or designee. Such demolitions are not subject to review by the Planning Commission unless on appeal. .030 Planning Commission Review. All proposed demolitions which will result in the complete destruction of a cultural resource shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. .031 Public Hearing, A public hearing to review the demolition request shall be scheduled with the Planning Commission at the next available meeting date in accordance with the filing schedule as established by the Community Development Director. .032 NotiAcatioo. The applicant and, or property owner shall be notdod of she public hearing by mail a minimum of ten(10)days prior to the bearing data A public notice shall be given pursuant to Upland Municipal Code Sec. 9403.202.020. SEC. 9500.1.060. FINDINGS. After a public hearing and consideration, a demolition request may be approved based on the following considerations: .010 it is not economically feasible to rehabilitate or reuse the building or structure. .020 For income producing properties.rental at a reasonable rate of return,is not feasible. .030 The applicant demonstrates that financial incentives have been investigated to relieve possible economic hardship. .040 Building Code violations are not in and of themselves,justifiable hardships, but may be taken into consideration in determining the propriety of approving a request for demolition. SEC. 9500.1.070. STAY OF DEMOLITION. Based on the results of the evideaoe presented for the proposed demolition, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, or continue the demolition request for further study. During any continuance of the procedures by the Planning Commission, the issuance of a demolition permit shall be stayed The continuance shall not exceed a nine(9) month time period Prior to the expiration of the nine (9) month time period.the Commission may extend the continuance for an additional time(9)month period SEC. 9500.1.080. EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT. Demolition permits shall become effective ten (10) working days after the approval by the Community Development Director, or designee, or Planning Commission uniess.an appeal has been filed pursuant to Sec. 9403.205 of the Upland Municipal Code. P3 ge ZA-150-B SEC. 9500.1.090. APPEALS. Any decision of the Community Development Department or Planning Commission regarding a partial or complete demolition request may be appealed pursuant to Sec. 9403.205 of the Upland Municipal Code. SEC. 9500.1.100. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The proposed demolition of a cultural resource shall be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). SEC. 9500.1.110 EFFECTS OF DEMOLITION. If a proposed demolition has bees approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant may be required to document the building according to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey. Such documentation may include photographs, floor plans, measured drawings, or other documentation required by the Planning Commission or designee. SEC. 9500.1.120. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any partial or complete demolition of a cultural resooroe without Obtaining prior approval of the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, if applicable, shall be declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by restoring the property to its appe etanee prior to performance of work without required approval. The owner of the property, within thirty(30)days from notice by the City of Upland that demolition has been performed in violation of this Chapter, shall voecnte and record a contract in favor of the City to commence such reconstruction within one(1)year of the date of notice. If the owner refuses to execute and record such an amt,then the City may cause such reconstruction to be done and the owner shall reimburse the City for any and all costa incurred in doing such work. The City may also seek civil injunctive remedies to include a temporary restraining order and injunctions as necessary. SEC. 9500.1.130. UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS. No part of this Chapter shall apply to buildings or structures subject to the provisions Chapter 8104 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings of the provisions of the Upland Municipal Coda IDS SS S S S S, Add subsecdon 070 to Section 9107 030 [PLANNITIG D1REM R—POWERS AND DUTIES)to read as follows: .070 Demwii = Review. All proposed demolition that will rexnit in the partial destruction of a building, saucdrro or object possessing cultural, histroci mi or architectural significance, shall be reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9300.1 Demolition. � ►Zi ►Ti � ►Ii ►j1 ►j1 � Page 3