The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/08/25 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY AUGUST 25, 1992 5:00 p.m. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ACTION 5:00 PM I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Arner X Commissioner Haskvitz A Commissioner Banks X Commissioner Schmidt x Commissioner Billings X_ Commissioner Tessier X Commissioner Cooper X III. Public Hearing The following item is a public hearing 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. Approved 6-0-1 A. CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE OF THE HISTORIC STATUS AND Rec. to Council APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST OR LANDMARK Landrnar_k Desionati.on DESIGNATION FILED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CONSIDERATION OF A DEMOLITION REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, Approved 6-0-1 AND THE POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF MITIGATION MEASURES Rec. to Council. delay THEREIN FOR THE PEARSON/STEVENS FILLING STATION AND GARAGE, of ultimate street sig- LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND nal pole location until. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 1100-161-02 - Consideration and develolxnent and orer�. of determination of the historic status, application for Point focused FIR c>ric>r to of Interest or Landmark Designation, range of appropriate any demolition or project alternatives, and level of appropriate mitigations relocation. for the partial demolition of the structure. The actions and recommendations include the following: Landmark status, Point of Interest status, other project alternatives, and/or mitigation measures prior to demolition. No Comments IV. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Adjourned V. Adjournment 6:20 T'11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY AUGUST 25, 1992 5:00 p.m. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Arner Commissioner Haskvitz Commissioner Banks Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Billings Commissioner Tessier Commissioner Cooper III. Public Hearing The following item is a public hearing 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. CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE OF THE HISTORIC STATUS AND APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST OR LANDMARK DESIGNATION FILED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CONSIDERATION OF A DEMOLITION REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF MITIGATION MEASURES THEREIN FOR THE PEARSON/STEVENS FILLING STATION AND GARAGE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 1100-161-02 - Consideration and determination of the historic status, application for Point of Interest or Landmark Designation, range of appropriate project alternatives, and level of appropriate mitigations for the partial demolition of the structure. The actions and recommendations include the following: Landmark status, Point of Interest status, other project alternatives, and/or mitigation measures prior to demolition. IV. Public Cosments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. V. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 25, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A CHANCE OF THE HISTORIC STATUS AND APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST OR LANDMARK DESIGNATION FILED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CONSIDERATION OF A DEMOLITION REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF MITIGATION MEASURES THEREIN FOR THE PEARSON FILLING STATION AND GARAGE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ;TIWANnA AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, 12912 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, RANCHO CU .AMONGA - APN: 1100-061-02 - Consideration and determination of the historic status, application for Point of Interest or Landmark Designation, range of appropriate project alternatives, and level of appropriate mitigations for the partial demolition of the structure. The actions and recommendations can include the following: Landmark status, Point of Interest status, other project alternatives, and/or mitigation measures prior to demolition. BACKGROUND: On July 30, 1992, Barry Vantiger, on behalf of his partners, requested the partial demolition of a building historically known as the Pearson Filling Station and Garage, located at 12912 Foothill Boulevard. Based upon Historic Preservation Commission policy, a Landmark/Point of Interest Designation application was initiated in order to establish a formal review procedure. After subsequent review, the structure was also added to the Historic Sites Survey as a Potential Local Landmark and Potential Listing on the National Register of Historic Places (at the current time, the status of the State Point of Interest program is suspended until a program initiating a State Register of Historic Places can be implemented) . At its meeting of August 6, 1992, the Historic Preservation Commission agreed to hold a special public hearing to determine the significance of the Pearson Station and to review the associated demolition request (the Landmark Designation application is included as Exhibit "HPC-1" and Site Plan Exhibit "HPC-2") . The process by which we have come to this review has been complicated and lengthy and it stems from the involved Foothill Marketplace project (site of the future Price Club and WalMart) . In approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Foothill Marketplace center, the City placed a condition on the project requiring the improvement of the Foothill Boulevard/Etiwanda Avenue intersection. The full extent of these improvements was not known at the time of project approval and at the time of this Commission' s review of the impacted cultural resources on the southwest corner because detailed plans were not available. It has only been through the review of the final street improvement plans that we have realized the full impact of the required changes . Based on the traffic study for the project and the City's traffic model, it was determined that the developer needed to complete a range of ITEM A HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 2 improvements, including placement of the traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue, which is to be upgraded to handle the anticipated traffic. As is policy with the installation of traffic signals, the City requires the signal poles to be located in their ultimate location to avoid having to relocate the poles at a later date. In the specific instance at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, the pole will be located approximately 30 feet northeast of its current location, placing it in line with the canopy of the existing gas station on that corner. Initial plans for the northeast corner were approved by both Caltrans and the City with the pole in its ultimate location with temporary curbs and pavement proposed that would eliminate the need to alter the canopy. The developer then proceeded to work with the property owners to obtain the necessary right-of-way in order to install the signal. It seemed that agreement had been reached between the two parties until the property owners' insurance company threatened to cancel their insurance if the pole was placed in the approved location. The insurance company claimed that the proposed pole location would encourage more pedestrians to walk under the gas station canopy in order to access the crosswalk. This, in their opinion, places the station in a position of greater liability and, therefore, could not be supported. As a result, the property owner does feel it is in their best interest to provide the developer with the necessary street dedication. On July 29, 1992, City staff met with the developer of the center and the gas station property owners to discuss alternatives to placing the signal in the ultimate location. One suggestion called for the signal to be placed in an interim location, within the existing right-of-way, that would not impact the gas station canopy. This solution would require the pole to be relocated upon development of the northeast corner. Also, the interim location would be contrary to current City policy. The City has also pursued the possibility of installing a chain link fence around the canopy to prevent access under the canopy. According to the property owner, this alternative was not found to be acceptable by the property owners' insurance company. A third suggestion called for the removal of the canopy in order to eliminate the "liability" expressed by the property owner's insurance company. In that this solution would place the pole in the ultimate location and remove a potential liability, the property owner submitted a demolition permit requesting removal of the canopy. It should be noted that a written explanation of the insurance company's position has not been submitted. Following submittal of the demolition permit, staff also received correspondence from the developer that a substantial electrical utility line and pole at the northeast corner had to be relocated in order to widen the street as approved. By doing this, the utility pole would be located close to the proposed signal location. Because the power lines angle to the east, the relocation of the utility pole would place the lines over the existing canopy, contrary to the policy of Southern California Edison (SCE) . If left in the interim location, the lines would be away from the building a sufficient distance to satisfy SCE. � Z HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 3 STTF. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION_ A. Location: The structure lies in the northeast corner of the parcel at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue and the parcel is close to two acres in size. The site' s topography is relatively flat and other distinguishing features include a variety of mature trees. B. Sita Land Use, Zoning, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Designations : The parcel lies within Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and per Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 submitted by the same property owners, this corner parcel's land use designation was changed from Medium Residential to Community Commercial, and includes the requirement of a Master Plan for the site and surrounding area. C. Surrounding Land Uses, Zoningand Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Designations: As with the subject property, the parcels to the north, south, east, and west are also designated Community Commercial per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. D. Architectural Description: The structure is a former service station and garage. The large rectangular concrete, single-story building has a three-bay porte cochere. There are mature trees to the east of the structure. The roof is a flat hip with red barrel tile for both the building and porte cochere. The tile roof on the north elevation has been removed and replaced with asphalt shingles of a matching color. A skylight with six panes has also been added to the middle of the hip roof on the north elevation. The porte cochere bases are constructed of poured concrete. The north and south bases had two pumps each and the middle base had one pump, all of which have been removed. The columns are square and unadorned, with slightly flared capitals. The main garage is constructed of slip-form poured concrete and the porte cochere is of wood frame construction with thick cement stucco. The walls are currently painted white with red accent under the eaves. There is evidence that the walls were once painted red, mustard, and navy blue at different times. The fenestration pattern of the structure is as follows: North Elevation: The door (approximately 6 1/2 feet high) has been removed and the opening has been boarded up. There are two 20-paned windows side-by-side to the east of the door on the north elevation. A metal grate has been added to the windows. The six panes in the center of the windows open outward. South Elevation: The front door is under the porte cochere. It is a single door with a single-pane window. Above the door is a single-paned window and there are single-paned, wood-framed windows to the left and right of the doors. The window to the left is boarded over with metal grates. The six panes in the center of the windows open outward. �3 HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 4 East Elevation: There are two windows, spaced approximately 10 feet apart, that have 20 panes. Both windows are covered with metal grates. The six panes in the center of the windows open outward. West Elevation: There is a 20-paned window on the south side covered with a metal grate. The six panes in the center of the window open outward. There is a small service bay on the west elevation and a larger service bay on the south elevation. The service bay doors on the south elevation are constructed of 2 1/2-inch vertical siding with 5 1/2-inch boards spaced 4 1/2 feet apart. There are three decorative hinges on the top of each of the sliding doors and the 5 1/2-inch boards are cut to a point on the base board. The sliding doors are on a track mechanism that is still in place. There are two 18-inch concrete buttresses, one on each side of the service bay doors. There is one gooseneck light above the right service bay door and there is one gooseneck light to the right of the service bay doors. The small service bay on the west elevation has double wooded doors and is constructed of 2 1/2-inch vertical siding on the top and 6-inch horizontal siding on the bottom. There are small wooden decorations on the top corners. The door corners are rounded. There are also two 18- inch concrete buttresses, one on each side of the service bay doors. Centered above the doors is a gooseneck light. ANALYSTS--LANDMARK DESIGNATION__ A. HiRt.nrical Background: The service station was built in 1928-1929 by an important local contractor, Henry Klusman the renowned concrete man, for John "Doc" Pearson and Lee Stevens who were brothers-in-law. They sold gas for automobiles as well as distributing it to the local citrus ranchers. After a short time, Mr. Pearson alone owned the station and provided a full complement of automobile-related services. Located along Route 66 which had been completed in 1926, the station was a frequent stop of Depression-era immigrants who would spend the night in their cars on the site because they had no other place to stay. Also at that time, Doc Pearson gave gas away to travellers who simply could not pay. P.J. Pearson Clark, Doc's niece, recalls one of the more outstanding humanitarian efforts exhibited by her uncle. A "Dust Bowl" family had completely run out of money when they reached Etiwanda. It seems one of their sons had a lovely voice, so lovely in fact that the family was moving from Oklahoma to Hollywood so he could be "discovered. " Mr. Pearson, after hearing the boy sing, organized a community concert at the Pearson's family packing house and raised enough money for the young boy and his family to continue their travels. The station also served for many decades as a gathering place for local residents. Grove owners would come to the station when it was cold and together would wait and wonder if temperatures would drop below freezing. While they waited they would gather around the radio for entertainment. Residents of Etiwanda had only three places to purchases HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 5 their gasoline and of them, Pearson's was the most modern and full- serviced. Highway Patrol officers assigned to the local stretch of Route 66 also congregated at the service station, in particular Frank Freeman and "Two-Gun" Louis, who spent many hours with their friend Doc Pearson. An episode retold by Mr. James Clark is particularly revealing of the role the service station played in decades gone by; namely, of the races that would be held along Route 66, Foothill Boulevard, from the border of Upland to Doc Pearson' s garage. The two officers would station themselves at either end to stop traffic on the two-lane road and allow the motorcycle races to proceed. Mr. Pearson eventually sold the station to the Myers family, who continued to operate in the same community-based spirit. The station and garage also represent a basically intact example of a local, vernacular expression of the very popular Spanish Revival architectural style constructed by the foremost concrete contractor of the day, Henry Klusman. As such, it is the only example of its building type to have retained as much of its original appearance and one of a handful of rapidly disappearing Klusman structures. Along the regional stretch of Foothill Boulevard, the roadside vernacular that characterized the physical landscape of Route 66 is rapidly being replaced. The Pearson Filling Station and Garage remains, however, as a testament to this important stylistic and cultural period of American history. B. Facts for Findings : Per the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, Section 2.24 . 090, the following findings are made per the landmark review criteria specified in that section. 1. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding: The proposed landmark/point of interest is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact: Representing both the Etiwanda citrus community and the importance of Route 66 to American culture and folklore, the structure harkens back to an era of agricultural growth and mass western migration. Offering fuel, mechanical services, and often a helping hand, the station and its owners were an important part of the local area. Finding: The proposed landmark/point of interest is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare. The proposed landmark/point of interest is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Fact: Gas stations and garages from the early age of the automobile were a prominent feature of many local landscapes, including the Etiwanda area. Most of these roadside stations and garages have fallen out of use or been abandoned or demolished. With their loss, physical reminders of the everyday patterns that characterized community life sixty years ago are fading. A5 HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 6 Finding: The proposed landmark/point of interest is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact: Opening shortly after the completion of Route 66 in 1926, the Pearson Filling Station and Garage is one of the oldest such structures extant. Finding: The proposed landmark/point of interest was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact: The Pearson family was and is deeply connected with the cultural and familial fabric of Etiwanda history. Finding: The architect or builder was important. Fact: Builder Henry Klusman was one of the more talent and significant local builders to mark the pages of the area's history books. 2. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance Finding: The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed landmark/point of interest are unusual or significant or uniquely effective. Fact: The reserved, vernacular expression of the very popular Spanish Revival architectural style demonstrates local interest in broader stylistic trends. 3. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting Finding: The proposed landmark/point of interest materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact: At the Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue intersection, the station is the only remaining link to an important element of local history and to an epoch of our national experience. Without it, all physical traces of that portion of Route 66 will be lost. Finding: The proposed landmark/point of interest in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact: For over 65 years, the Pearson Filling Station and Garage has been a community resource and its owners, the Pearsons, Stevens, and Myers to name a few, added to the communal experience of the Etiwanda area. C. Review for Determination of National Register of Historic Places Eligibility: Only the National Park Service in collaboration with the State Historic Preservation Officer can formally list a structure on the Register. But as a part of this review, staff has reviewed the Pearson Filling Station and Garage per the Register Criteria. Staff finds the structure eligible under sections A and C of the fact that "The quality A � HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 7 of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; and. . . C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction." D. Issues: The property owners requested the immediate demolition of the canopy of the Pearson Filling Station and Garage due to the purported demands placed upon them by their insurance company in light of the street improvements required by the Foothill Marketplace project . In a letter sent to the City, attached as Exhibit "HPC-3, " the owners expressed that in their opinion, the structure lacked any "historical value." It appears then that the owners would object to staff's findings in support of a landmark designation. Thus, in accordance with the Commission's policy on owner objection, staff has reviewed the structure based on the policy's three necessary findings, that the structure is: listed on the City' s inventory, stands out as having outstanding historical architectural, and cultural significance; and that designation as a landmark could help protect it through the environmental review process required under CEQA. E. Environmental Assessment: Any future landmark designation would be exempt from CEQA under Article 19. Section 15380. ANALYSIS - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DEMOLITION REQUEST If the Commission concurs with staff that the structure is significant to the community's heritage, then the proposed demolition as requested negatively impacts this resource. The demolition permit request can be considered a project under CEQA because it is an activity involving an action, issuance of the demolition permit, by a public agency. l Staff has evaluated the structure per the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and on National Register criteria. After completing the Initial Study, staff has found that the proposed project will have an adverse impact on identified cultural resources that cannot be mitigated fully (please see attached Exhibit "HPC-5," Initial Study, Parts I & II) . Although only an application for a permit to demolish the canopy of the structure has been submitted at this time, staff asserts that this act would adversely impact the structure for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the porte cochere (canopy) acts as the major architectural element that announces the building's use--that of a gas station. Even without the pumps, there is little mistaking the statement that the canopy makes architecturally and functionally. With the removal of the canopy, the structure would lose its 1Please refer to Code, Section 21065 and Guidelines, Sections 15378 (a) and 15352. HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 8 most distinguishing and prominent feature. Secondly, if permission were granted to demolish only the canopy and since such an undertaking would reduce dramatically the structure's significance, there would be little impetus to preserve the remainder of the structure. Moreover, such a partial demolition-- literally chipping away at a building's significance--goes against the intent of our City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and CEQA and potential national register eligibility. Although this demolition permit has been requested separately, the structure's proposed destruction could be seen as being tied to future development plans. Case law pertaining to what is known as "splitting" a project under CEQA has created a significant precedence for reviewing the potential negative effects of a proposed project with the project itself.2 Therefore, to conform to legal procedures, the preferred course of action would be to wait until a commercial project was submitted for this site and then to review any and all environmental impact, including those to cultural resources, as part of that project. Since the property owners applied for and received a received a zoning change on this parcel, from Medium Residential to Community Commercial, and considering the future draw of the Foothill Marketplace project, it seems highly likely the site will be redeveloped in the near future. Staff would thus recommend two options at this time: that 1) either the approved portion of the improvements in their ultimate location be installed or 2) that the City Council accept interim improvements and thus not alter the current configuration of the northeast side of the intersection until the time when the respective property owners are ready to submit a project on the site (please see Exhibit "HPC-4" for diagrams) . With both options, staff feels that if the structure will be vacant, a security fence should be installed around it and the building should be secured to the highest standards. The City Engineer has indicated this exception to the City's improvement policy is acceptable because installing only a portion of the curb return and the signal in their ultimate location will not necessarily make the intersection any more viable at this time. If the applicant still desires to demolish the canopy portion of the structure, staff finds that the only way to perhaps mitigate the impact would be to relocate the entire structure safely inside the right-of-way and in correspondence to City setbacks and to maintain its current configuration and relationship to the streetscape. This move would be in coordination with the the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to ensure that the structure's National Register eligibility would not be compromised. If this relocation were not contemplated, staff feels that the demolition request would require the completion of a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , refer to the Code, Section 15063(c) (3) . In order to best analyze the potential of adaptively reusing and thus preserving the structure, this EIR would include a feasibility study whose recommendations would be implemented per CEQA. This Feasibility Study would be monitored and approved by the City but paid for by the applicant. The only way to allow for demolition of a part 2Please refer to Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1145 (1986) , Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1988) , Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Biship Area v. County of Invo, supra, 172 Cal. Pll. 3d (1985) , and City of Antioch v. City Council, 187 Cal. App. 3d (1986) . A9 HPC STAFF REPORT PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 9 or the whole of the structure would then be for the City Council to make a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" after their review of the EIR. The Council would have to find that the benefits of the demolition project outweighed the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and thus finds these adverse effects "acceptable, " (Code, Section 15093 (a) ) . CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Inland Valley Dail} Bulletin, property owners within 300 feet of the project site have been notified, staff has inspected the property, and the property' s owners are aware of this review process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation for landmark designation for the Pearson Filling Station and Garage. Staff also recommends that the application to demolish partially the structure be denied and that the Commission recommend that the City Council direct staff to continue to work with the applicant in order to secure the site without any demolition and/or waive the ultimate traffic signal location policy in this unique case. If however, the applicant still desires to demolish the canopy and thus seriously and irrevocably reduce the significance of the structure as it has been presented to you in this report, staff recommends the preparation of a Focused EIR. Respectfully sub 'tted, Larry`Henderson, AICP Principal Planner BB:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Landmark Application with Photographs Exhibit "HPC-2" - Site Plan Exhibit "HPC-3" - Letter from Barry Vantiger, et. al. Exhibit "HPC-4" - Curb & Signal Diagrams Exhibit "HPC-5" - Initial Study, Parts I & II Resolution Recommending Approval City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION X Historic Landmark Historic Point of Interest IDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name: Duane's Service Garaqe 2. Historic Name, if known: Pearson Garage & Fillinq Station 3. Street or Rural Address: 12912 Foothill Boulevard City: Rancho Cucamonqa Zip: 91739 County: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel No. 1100-161-02 Zone: Commercial Legal Description: S 1/2 SN? 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC 4 TP 1S 4. Present Owner, if known-Charles V. Cummin!Address: 1645 N. Laurel Ave. City: Upland Zip 91786 Ownership is: Public private 5. Present Use: Vacant Original Use: Fillinq Station & Carage Other past uses: None DESCRIPTION 6. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: The structure is a former service station & garage. The large rectangular, concrete, single story building has a three-bay porte cochere. There are mature trees to the east of the structure. The roof is flat hip 7. Location sketch map (draw & label 8. Approximate property size: site and surrounding streets, Lot Size (in feet) roads, and prominent landmarks): Frontage Depth or approx. acreage 2 9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent b. Good c. Fair X d. Deteriorated e. No longer in existence Q 10. Is the feature: a. Altered? b. Unaltered? X 11. Surroundings: (check more than Q A one if necessary) �• a. Open land fCr b. Residential X f c. Scattered bu__dings X d. Densely built-up e. Commercial X w I n '� SLED f. Industrial g. Other IV n 12. Threats to Site: a. None known b. Private development X c. Zoning d. Public Works Project X e. Vandalism X f. Other 13. Dates of enclosed photograph(s) Mav 19?1 NOTE: The following ( Items 14-19) are for structures only. 14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone b. Brick c. Stucco X d. Adobe e. Wood X f. Other C"- -rete 15. Is the Structure: a. On its original site? X b. Moved? c. Unknown? 16. Year of Initial Construction: 1928 This Date is: a. Factual b. Estimated X 17. Architect (if known): 9"f�� iunknownvl 18. Builder (if known): ¢KrM KtUtA&AM 19. Related Features: a. Barn b. Carriage house c. Outhouse d. Shed(s) e. Formal Garden(s) f. Windmill g. Watertower/tankhouse h. Other Trees i. None SIGNIFICANCE 20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): The service station was originally owned by John "Doc" Pearson & Lee Stevens who were brothers-in-law & sold gas for automobiles & also distributed gas to the local farmers. The station is located along the former Route 66 & during the 21. Main theme of the historic resource: (check only one) : a. Architecture X b. Arts & Leisure c. Economic/Industrial 3 d. Government e. Exploration/Settlement f. Military g. Religion h. Social/Education 1 22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Hickcox, Etiwanda; The Fi = 100 Years 1981. Interview: Bob Hickcox, March 26, 1992. Mrs. James Clark, March 26, 1992 & August 17 1992. 23. Date form prepared August 1992 By name): Vince Bertoni/Anthea HartiR Address: 10500 Civic Center Dr. City: Rancho Cucamonga Zip: 91729 Phone: (714) 989-1861 Organization: City of Rancho Cucamonqa City Use Only AllrT r- L_�- ib ADDENDUM - DUANE'S SERVICE STATION Description #6 with red, barrel tile for both the building & porte cochere. The tile roof on the north elevation has been removed & replaced with asphalt shingles of a matching color. A skylight with six panes has also been added to the middle of the hip roof on the north elevation. The Porte cochere bases are constructed of poured concrete. The north & south bases had two pumps each & the middle base had one pump, which all have been removed. The columns are square & unadorned with slightly flared capitals. The main garage is constructed of slip-form poured concrete & the porte cochere is of wood frame construction with thick cement stucco. The walls are currently painted white with red accent under the eaves. There is evidence that the walls were once painted red, mustard & navy blue at different times. The fenestration pattern of the structure is as follows: North Elevation: The door (approximately 6 1/. 2 feet high) has been removed and the opening has been boarded up. There are two - 20 paned windows side-bv-side to the east of the door on the north elevation. A metal grate has been added to the windows. The six panes in the center of the windows open outward. South Elevation: The door is under the porte cochere. It is a single door with a single-pane window. Above the door is a sinqle-pane window and there are single-paned, wood framed windows to the left and right of the doors. The window to the left is boarded over with metal grates. The six panes in the center of the windows open outward. East Elevation: There are two windows, spaced approximately ten feet apart, that have 20 panes. Both windows are covered with metal grates. The six panes in the center of the windows open outward. West Elevation: There is a 20-paned window on the south side covered with a metal grate. The six panes in the center of the window open outward. There is a small service bay on the west elevation and a larger service bay on the south elevation. The service bay doors on the south elevation are constructed of 2 1/2 inch vertical siding with 5 1/2 inch boards spaced 4 1/2 feet apart. There are three decorative hinges on the top of each of the sliding doors and the 5 1/2 inch boards are cut to a point on the base board. The sliding doors are on a track mechanism that is still in place. There are two - 18 inch concrete buttresses, one on each side of the service bay doors. There is one gooseneck light above the right service bay door and there is one Gooseneck light to the right of the service bav doors. The small service bay on the west elevation has double wooded doors is constructed of 2 1/2 inch vertical siding on the top and 6 inch horizontal siding on the bottom. There are small wooden decorations on the ton corners. The door corners are rounded. There are also two - 18 inch concrete buttresses, one on each side of the service bav doors. Centered above the doors is a gooseneck light. �l �. C. - ADDENDUM - DUANE'S SERVICE STATION Description #20 Depression, immigrants would spend the night in their cars on the site because they had no other place to stay. The station also served as a gathering place for local residents. Local citrus grove owners would come to the station when it was cold & would wait for the thermometer to drop below freezing & return to the groves to take care of the freezing crops. While they waited they would gather around the radio for entertainment. Highway patrol officers would also gather at the service station.- Pearson & Stevens eventually sold the station to the Meyers family. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: 12912 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AP# 1100-161-02 1 View Looking NORTH Date of Photo MAY 1991 View Looking EAST Date of Photo MAY 1991 hilf )(WBIT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Ad&eSS: 12912 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AP# 1100-161-02 i t View Looking SOUTH Date of Photo MAY 1991 6 View Looking NnRTH Date of Photo MAY ,ag� ■ r • WO• • • 1'u Ammar •• A � . • • • • u a w t. y7f t - s a: _Ail: M ' r 4 V: r ... goo ,... - .�.' '•'sem.-'-..'- I ' IN-v 7L— > 0 CHAR cs X 1201.5 10 yk � _ _ _ _, 1 p X 119 OPP OPP 06.5 c Zopp ITEM: KXlc;T- ,%jd TITLE: LD on EXHFB IT:-9ft-ZS CALE: July 'u . iJ`dC. City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 1O500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga , CA . 91730 Re: 3033 W . Foothill ( NE Corner of Etiwanda & Foothill) The purpose of this letter is to request a determination of the lack of any significant historical value with regards to the structure located at the above r of vrenc6d addrese . This request is made in conjunction with application for demolition of the existing canopy in order to accommodate the widening of the intersection and placement of new traffic lights . If there is any additional information required or any questions concerning this request , please contact Barry Vantiger at 983-4321 . Mr. Vantiger is authorized to represent all owners with regards to this matter . A complete title and vesting is attached for your reference . 1 Respectfully , William Oberhauser , Trustee Barry antige rustee 1648 Laurel Ave . 2177 N . First Ave . Upland , CA . 91786 Upland , CA . 91768 C�iarles V .'� Cummins 1645 N . Laurel Ave . Upland , CA . 91736 representing John Rohal , Trustee 17331 Fine Upland , CA . 91786 attachment Title and vesting for : 8033 W . Foothill Blvd , Fontana , CA . Rancho Cucamonga , CA . 91739 Assesor " s parcel number 1100 161 02 Portion S 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC 4 TP 1S Census Tract : 6 71 2000 1 ) BARRY VANTIGER. , WILLIAM OBERHAUSER and CORAL L . STRATTON , as Trustees of the Gemmel Pharmacy Group, Inc . Shareholders " Trust , dated ,June 22 , 1990 as to an undivided one-third interest , 2) JOHN ROHAL and JACQUETTA LOUISE ROHAL , as Trustees of the ROHAL FAMILY TRUST , established by Declaration of Trust dated April 5 , 1983 as to an undivided one-third interest , 3 ) WILLIAM J . OBERHAUSER and CARRON SUE OBERHAUSER , Co-Trustees of the OBERHAUSER FAMILY TRUST dated June 19 , 1977 , as to an undivided one-third interest . AP,D 3� r �PORAMIYO' � MgpT� �1h�T�iZ' rlF.ars�N U � ��jtON ITEM: 1 i c c oaga TITLE: EXHIBIT: a,SCALE: �v � f Q 3 To Be ,4/G RI*R" PE.M 6F7tonl 2 / M POOPMON GF Be-VP Gam *S " 44R is ITEM: G- D . G12 -D 2- City City f c c on(a TITLE: �X l rS71 LZa A/AAA� on uc128 EXHIBIT; jSCALE: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) fo The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. GENERAL INFORMATION Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: DE Mo z4 - 77ON P-58ZHIT- IN W/711-4 Z-At4x* FRK DEs✓bi• 9a02 Project Title: G4rd0 FAL w NCi Sia AikA Sr E, Name & Address of project owner(s) : SAc�C / VAt47-16YO-A ! Zt-a L 14.3 IV- +E tc-LJTD AVX Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: 669 M4?, 016 C3le- Contact Person & Address: same Telephone Number: Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above) : Ar. M • f,6A-Fi77ls� , 4�OMI4LIN T Df^T. �-r1Y OF FLAPgUf V C-44C.4MQgdn4-_ P.D. $DX SOT R,4w600 Guc-rain ON6yA , c r 917 29 Telephone Number: 7121 qB9— I E%oI C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: F.3�lilIGDrN6c p��4Nt+T �R. D�n�tD��Trorl; rF L�Si�.. NATOD A C-0:4 I..AN Ld,+2'.K , LAl.1 D►v ARX p(-TOWR4-PoAl 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e. , geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies) : pG014S-ff ,SeE A L> S TA P91C ReY12A r FM �a Sa 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history) : L . D • 9z -off 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc. ) and how they will affect proposed uses: 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: �L s� R 6F K Tb S`D'• �Fi�A2T' F l2-• 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc. ) , intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc. ) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc. ) : PL Cor %_E ,2 p= R212.� G•.b �T 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? vis . 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? "0666 . *16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates) . For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. „ //� a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates) . For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PRO.TEC'TS 20) Number of residential+units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units) : AP� �s� 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: C. Senior High: CONMRCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INS'TITUTIOKAL PRWBCTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary) : 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: *31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283) : ALL PSS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 1 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. A&2L% F::;7 A:Z&l JArA/ I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: !.y�� Signature: h A adT2 Title: A3D �9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (Part II - Initial Study) I. BACKGROUND 1 ) Project Name: pA=,M0 7Z Dl.J OE or=THE sc> / 2) Related file No- (s) : G •D, C�Z -Q 3) Applicant: B4RJ2Y VAN77&SR , E_!_'-a— Address: 1413 N. L-UGLIPAVE D�tD, e.4 9/-T(vZ Telephone No. : A95-4 32/ 4) Representative: Address: Telephone No. : 5) Project accepted as complete (date) : II. ENVIRONNE"AL DCPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential project impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" are required on attached sheets. Explanation shall also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not _to be significant and is marked "No". Yes Maybe No 1 . EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures (including slope failures, subsidence, falling rock, etc. )? b) Substantial disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c) Major change in topography or ground surface relief features, so that the general slope and lay of land will be / significantly modified? ✓ C I T Y 0 f R A N C31 C U C A M 0 N G A Yes Maybe No d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either or off the site? ✓ f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, ✓. or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposed result in: a) An increase in air pollution levels in the area in excess of existing air pollution standards? (Particulate matter (dust) as well as chemical pollutants should be considered. ) b) The creation of objectionable odors? c) The alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) The possibility of contaminating a public water supply system or adversely affecting ground water? b) The construction of structures or disturbance of a flood plain, marsh or watercourse? c) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? d) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? V111- e) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawls, or through / interceptions of an aquifer by cuts ✓ or excavations? Yes Maybe No g) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for / public water supplies? V h) Exposure of people or property to / water related hazards such as ✓ flooding? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) A substantial change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plans (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic plants)? b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or results in a barrier the normal replenishment of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any / agricultural crop? ✓/ e) The removal of any trees? V S. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) A significant change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or / insects)? b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d) Deterioration to the existing fish or wildlife habitat? X33 Yes Maybe No 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Significant increase in ambient noise levels for adjoining areas? b) The creation of dwelling units for which the interior and/or exterior ambient noise levels exceed Federal, State or City noise guidelines? c) Exposure of people to serve noise ✓ levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal result in: a) The generation of light or thermal pollution detectable from adjacent properties? ✓ b) The generation of new light or glare? ✓ 8. LAND USE. Will the project result in: a) A disruption in the orderly, planned / development of the area? ✓ b) An inconsistency with the plans and goals that have been adopted by the City? ✓ c) A significant change in the present land use, pattern, scale or character of the general area? ✓ 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) The displacement or alteration of any unique natural or man-made / feature? b) An alteration in the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce or unique natural resource? c) Increase in the rate of use of any f natural resources? / d) Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resources? A34 Yes Maybe No 10. COMMUNITY. Will the project result in: a) The displacement of community residents? b) Opposition or controversy within the neighborhood or the community as a whole? c) A detrimental effect on the community / due to an insufficient market? ✓ d) An undesirable precedent which would promote or facilitate other projects that would create significant impacts on the environment? e) An alteration in the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? f) A detrimental effect on the existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 11. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional / vehicular movement? ✓ b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c) Substantial impact -upon existing / transportation systems? ✓ d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air / traffic? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor �V vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Yes Maybe No 12. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the project result in: a) The premature provision of public services to the extent that service costs exceed benefits derived from the project? l/ b) An alteration in existing and/or proposed services for any section of the City? c) The on-site disposal of solid or liquid wastes? d) A change in or a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: / 1) Fire Protection? 2) Police Protection? 3) Schools? __Z 4) Parks/recreational facilities? 5) Maintenance of public facilities, / including roads? 6) Other governmental services? 13. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a) The use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require / the development of new sources of energy? 14. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in: a) A need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: / 1 ) Power or natural gas? ✓ 2) Communications systems? V 3) Water? 4) Sewer and sewage treatment? A 5� Yes Maybe No Stern,w"er drainage2. 6) Solid waste disposal? 15. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE. Will the project result in: a) An encroachment into any recreational area or an area proposed as open space by the City or any other jurisdiction? b) An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing or planned recreational opportunities? 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Adverse physical or aesthetic Effects to a historic building, structure, or object? ✓ c) The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique / ethnic cultural values? ✓ d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact areas? _ C 17. AESTHETICS. Will the pfoposal result in: a) The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 18. SAFETY. Will the proposed project result in: a) The creation of an adverse or hazardous conditions should a landslide, earthquake, ✓ flood, or other natural disaster occur? b) The application, use or disposal of V/ potentially hazardous materials? A37 s� Yes Maybe No c) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event / of an accident or upset conditions? d) Exposure of people to potential health ✓ hazards? e) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict -the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will dndure well into the V future. ) c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is / significant. ) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A347 �a III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONNIKNTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of environmental impacts. ) P IV. DETE104INATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency. ) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirgnment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. Zo AMusf R2 J. bake Signat Are For Qalkfn A ?O RESOLUTION NO. 92-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION NO. 90-02 TO DESIGNATE THE PEARSON/STEVENS FILLING STATION AND GARAGE, LOCATED AT 12912 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AS AN HISTORICAL LANDMARK - APN: 1100- 061-02 A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Landmark Designation No. 92-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark Designation request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 25, 1992, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the 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 2 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located at 12912 Foothill Boulevard. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 25, 1992, 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: Representing both the Etiwanda citrus community and the importance of Route 66 to American culture and folklore, the structure harkens back to an era of agricultural growth and mass western migration. Offering fuel, mechanical services, and often a helping hand, the station and its owners were an important part of the local area. 144D HPC RESOLUTION NO. 92-03 LD 92-02 - PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 2 Finding 2: The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare. The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Fact: Gas stations and garages from the early age of the automobile were a prominent feature of many local landscapes, including the Etiwanda area. Most of these roadside stations and garages have fallen out of use or been abandoned or demolished. With their loss, physical reminders of the everyday patterns that characterized community life sixty years ago are fading. Finding 3: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most, of its kind. Fact: Opening shortly after the completion of Route 66 in 1926, the Pearson Filling Station and Garage is one of the oldest such structures extant. Finding 4: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renown or important or a local personality. Fact: The Pearson family was and is deeply connected with the cultural and familial fabric of Etiwanda history. Finding 5: The builder or architect was important. Fact: Builder Henry Klusman was one of the more talented, competent, and significant local builders to mark the pages of this area's history books. 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: The reserved, vernacular expression of the very popular Spanish Revival architectural style demonstrates local interest in broader stylistic trends. C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting. Finding 1 : The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact: At the Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue intersection, the station is the only remaining link to an important element of local history and to an epoch of our A41 HPC RESOLUTION NO. 92-03 LD 92-02 - PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 3 national experience. Without it, all physical traces of that portion of Route 66 will be lost. Finding 2: The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact: For over 65 years, the Pearson Filling Station and Garage has been a community resource and its owners, the Pearsons, Stevens, and Myers to name a few, added to the communal experience of the Etiwanda area. 4. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 25, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and pursuant to the Commission policy regarding landmark designation over an owner's objection, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: A. It is the policy of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to override the objection of an owner in recommending landmark designation when: Finding 1: The property is on the City's Historical Inventory. Fact: Staff has reviewed the structure and listed it as a Potential Local Landmark (PLL) , Potential State Landmark (PSL) , and Potential Listing on the National Register of Historic Places (PNR) . Finding 2: The property stands out as having outstanding historical, architectural, cultural, and/or aesthetic significance. Fact: The important place of the citrus industry to our local area and, on a broader scale, of Route 66 and the westward migration in the 1930s, are evidenced by this modest, architecturally-intact community resource. Finding 3: Designation could help protect it. Fact: As a local landmark, any subsequent alterations, including demolition, would have to be reviewed fully by the Commission. 5. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and this designation is exempt from CEQA under Article 19, Section 15380. HPC RESOLUTION NO. 92-03 LD 92-02 - PEARSON FILLING STATION August 25, 1992 Page 4 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, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 25th day of August 1992, of this Landmark Designation application. 7. The Chairman of this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. By: Marsha Meek Banks, Chairman AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 143 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT Notice is hereby given that the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting of August 6, 1992, adjourned said meeting to August 25, 1992, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. to be held in the Council Chamber of the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said adjournment was passed by the following vote: Ayes: ARNER, BANKS, BILLINGS, COOPER, HASKVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER Noes: NONE Absent: NONE Abstain: NONE August 10, 1992 Date Gail Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT I, Gail Sanchez, declare as follows: That I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; that at a regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission held August 6, 1992; that the members present authorized adjournment of said meeting to August 25, 1992, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. to be located at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center; and that a copy of said notice was posted in a conspicuous place near the door of the room in which said meeting was held, on the next working day following the August 6, 1992, meeting. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 1992, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. 'c:d Z"0Z Gail Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary