Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/08/27 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY AUGUST 27, 1991 7:00 p.m. RANCHO CUCA14ONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ADJOU`14NED SPECIAL MEETING I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Arner A ommissioner Haskvitz c/ Commissioner Banks Commissioner Preston Commissioner Billings � Chairman Schmidt Commissioner Cooper III. Old Business CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) - 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. V. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 27, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to consider formulating a draft response for City Council's consideration on September 4, 1991, concerning the draft Route 30 Extension EIR/EIS. In addition to the Historic Preservation Commission's review and recommendation to the City Council, two other City Commissions have or are considering the draft EIR/EIS. The two Commissions are: the Planning Commission and the Public Safety Commission. It should be noted that the Planning Commission is scheduled to review and consider all comments at their meeting on August 28, 1991. Any changes, alterations, or additions to the cultural resources portion of this report will be reported orally to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: A. Draft EIR/EIS: The Draft EIR/EIS for the Route 30 Freeway Extension has been released by the Department of Transportation for public comment. The deadline for responding to the Draft EIR/EIS is September 15, 1991. As stated on Page S-4 of the EIR/EIS, the proposed project is intended to achieve the following objectives; 1 . Establish and enhance a major east-west travel corridor to alleviate projected traffic congestion on parallel routes such as Route 66 and the I-10 Freeway. 2. Reduce travel time on the corridor. 3. Provide an important link in the regional highway system by connecting the existing I-215 and I-10 Freeway, thereby providing more direct access between San Bernardino and Los Angeles's Metropolitan areas. B. General Plan Consistency: The proposed Route 30 Freeway Extension has been planned for within the City's General Plan since the first formal plan adoption in 1984. As stated in the Circulation Implementation Section on Page III-32 of the General Plan, "Foothill Freeway Corridor. The development of a high speed limited access route along the Foothill Freeway Corridor is an important component to the circulation system of the City. The City policy stresses the need for the development of an access control high speed facility along this corridor. Should Caltrans withdraw from the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 EIR/EIS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 27, 1991 Page 2 development of a Foothill Freeway, the City will evaluate other methods for development of the high speed corridor. Any changes in the City's policy should be reflected in revisions to the General Plan." With this foundation firmly established, it should be noted that the City's response to the draft EIR/EIS is intended to be supportive of the overall project. The comments generated from the City, therefore, are intended to be presented in an atmosphere of cooperation when clarifying issues and concerns of particular relevance to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. EIR/EIS Project Summary: The subject environmental document contains three primary alternatives. The first is a no project alternative, the second is full freeway development, and the third is a freeway/expressway. A no project alternative is self-explanatory. The full freeway alternative involves the development of a grade separated freeway along the entire length of the Route 30 Corridor. This freeway would provide three general purpose lanes plus one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The freeway would connect the existing Route 30 Freeway from its existing terminus at Foothill Boulevard (Route 66) in LaVerne, to the I-215 freeway in San Bernardino. The freeway/expressway alternative would be the same as described for the full freeway alternative from the western portion of Route 30 between Route 66 and I-215. However, the eastern portion of Route 30 between I-15 and I-215 would be an at-grade six lane expressway with controlled access at signalized intersections. It should be noted that several sub-alternatives have been and are still being studied for the full freeway and freeway/expressway alternatives. D. Unresolved Issues: According to the environmental document, several issues remain unresolved. These issues are of a design nature according to the EIR/EIS. The two major issues affecting the City of Rancho Cucamonga are: 1 . Interchange spacing, i.e. , the provision of one-mile spaces for interchanges as previously planned for in the City of Rancho Cucamonga versus the Federal Highway Administration's standard of requiring a minimum two-mile separation between interchanges in rural areas. 2. A request by the City of Fontana to provide direct access to Cherry Avenue from Route 30. Both Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration believe an interchange at Cherry Avenue could pose operational problems for the Route 30/I-15 interchange by providing an arterial interchange within a freeway-to-freeway interchange. As indicated on Page S-14 of the subject document, "Further analysis of the above noted design issues remain underway. These issues will be fully addressed and resolved prior to completion of the final environmental documentation. Other unresolved design issues, such as the location of frontage roads, park and ride lots, and the identification of borrow sites for fill material, etc. , are being addressed in cooperation with corridor cities. These issues will be resolved in conjunction with the final project design and would be subject to separate environmental documentation." - 2 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 EIR/EIS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 27, 1991 Page 3 ANALYSIS: A. Full Freeway Alternative: As indicated in the attached Exhibit "B, " Memorandum from Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, dated August 15, 1991 , the full freeway alternative is supported by the Engineering Division and the Public Safety Commission (at its August 6, 1991 meeting) with the mitigation measures being in the best interest of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The full freeway alternative is shown in the attached copy of Figure 2-1 from the EIR/EIS and shows the location of elevated and depressed segments of the freeway as well as the proposed interchange locations. Figure 2-2 illustrates a typical freeway section of this alternative. A sub-alternative considered within the environmental document is a full freeway with a modified two-mile interchange spacing. As shown on the attached Table 2-3, this alternative would remove interchanges proposed at Carnelian and East Avenues. It should be noted that with a modified two- mile interchange alternative, increased congestion would likely be experienced on the arterials accommodating the diverted traffic volumes requiring the effected cities to provide additional arterial capacity. The arterial lane configurations required to revive this needed capacity is in excess of their recommended guidelines established for arterial roadways. These configurations could create both operational and design problems which will be difficult to mitigate. In addition, the widening of arterial roads beyond their planned widths may involve significant impacts upon local communities (e.g. , residential and commercial displacement) . Further, the cities along the Route 30 Corridor have long proceeded with their general plan programs with the assumption that the freeway would include interchanges proposed in the one-mile alternative. The two-mile alternative would, therefore, be inconsistent with land use and circulation elements of local general plans . It should be noted that urban development is proceeding rapidly in the areas of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Rialto which are the cities effected by the two-mile alternative. Significant future development is projected to occur in these areas pursuant to the local general plans. Therefore, prior to completion of the Route 30 Extension project, these areas would most certainly qualify for the urban interchange spacing standards of the Federal Highway Administration. B. Phasing and Funding: Although a precise phasing schedule for the project has not yet been established, it is anticipated the final project design would be developed over a two- to four-year period following project approval. It is estimated that the full freeway alternative would most likely occur in stages beginning in areas where travel demand is greatest, the project could, therefore, evolve into a five- to ten-year development. The construction and right-of-way costs for the full freeway alternative is estimated to be approximately $719 million ( 1989) dollars. This includes approximately $104 million right-of-way costs and about $615 million in construction costs. In addition to monies from state and federal highway construction funds, various other funding sources could include San HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 EIR/EIS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 27, 1991 Page 4 Bernardino County's Measure I sales tax revenues, developer fees, and the establishment of benefit assessment districts. According to a preliminary estimate of potential Route 30 revenue sources included in a 1989 Arthur Young & Company study, it was indicated that these revenue sources could be combined to provide sufficient project funding. C. Detailed Comments and Recommendations: A detailed list of comments and concerns on the Historic/Cultural Resources EIR/EIS sections is contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto for consideration and recommendation. This exhibit was prepared in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission Subcommittee (Commissioners Banks and Haskvitz) review and input. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission consider the attached Exhibit "A", containing detailed comments and recommendations concerning the draft EIR/EIS, and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Respectfully submitted, Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner LJH/jfs Attachments: Site Location Map Figure 2-1 - Proposed Freeway Alternative Figure 2-2 - Typical Freeway Cross-Section Table 2-3 - Interchange Spacing Alternatives Exhibit "A" - Detailed List of Comments and Concerns Exhibit "B" - Memo from Joe O'Neil dated August 15, 1991 OREST -N- RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 Cassaletti Polka Palace C ....... LLJ zN < > - ,� > o o Etiwanda Windbreaks o C, u a ? _ z a Rural Historic Landscape'; ¢ z w z a - W -.•. 4c c. Hilleman House x N m {�: a ;/ z _ 0 Y. tr.v..- .�eer� H.W. Minor House _ a0 Wi z > c = — �/ aUj N U z Houses Gosney Ranch _ `n N -ROUTE 30 _ a c r .�. .. .. I j". low. m w m mlt aiemssem�eme�s,em - emamamesemam! _-ti_ 1 !! _ W' James C.Iskf Ern / / Tibbetts House Maloot House W rz House :f.: _ House Ul A > Ross Hbuse _• �c_ ` Kemp Hous TH AVE ` �. W RANCHO CUCAMONGA z; c FONTANA w FOOTHILL BLVD ARROW RTE. LEGEND _ 4000 0 4000 ED ALIGNMENT scale feet— © PROPOS FIGURE 3-12A G HISTORIC PROPERTIES , Z. RANCHO CUCAMONGA LA VERNE _ CLAREMONT °,F ° ROUTE 30 `< i z BASE LINE HD UPLAND z r `Oo / RANCHO CUCAMONGA ►M� IIW I�I IOw/E MIE u `!ni // LEVO W U / FOOTHILL BLVD LEGL NII 11/ VERTICAL PF1u1 n I t + +f [It I it o RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA > at j w iw r N z < < •� wlrrT AVEAvf60 O r t i FREEWAY/ARIEI'll AI IN ItI+, I J ` t ..... ..... •• ` UTE 30 ............ r J FREEWAY/FHLEWAY INTI Hi II„r. i ' _ � u W� O u f BASE LINE HO F It,11111 RIALTO y SAN BERNARDINO FULL FRE{ W! i FONTANA o ALT E R NA I IV I W a c, ` Ia0 Tochnoillogii” fOOi HIU ewo 116' MIN. 73' 73' MIN. MIN. 10' 36' —2r— 27 36' 10' MIN. MIN. SM�,DR HOV FACILITY AND MEDIAN SHLDR FIGURE 2-2 ROUTE 30 FULL FREEWAY OR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL FREEWAY SECTION Paso roehnolo-.&-: In Asaaadan We: Paow s lban�or Kala+Aa mles a IWA EmWws �' ltd, Z —L TABLE 2-3 INTERCHANGE SPACING ALTERNATIVES "Two-Mile" "One-Mile" Alternative Modified Alternative Interchange Locations Interchange Locations Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard Fruit Street Fruit Street Towne Avenue Towne Street Padua Avenue Padua Avenue Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue Campus Avenue Campus Avenue Carnelian Avenue Archibald Avenue Arcibald Avenue Haven Avenue Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue Milliken Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Day Creek Boulevard East Avenue I-1 S Freeway * 1-15 Freeway Beech Avenue Beech-Citrus Citrus Avenue Sierra Avenue Sierra Avenue Alder Avenue Alder-Ayala (21 Ayala Avenue Riverside Avenue Riverside Avenue Pepper Avenue State Street State Street } Freeway-to-freeway intechange ** Split-diamond interchanges 9_ ? INTRODUCTION pL►an OVERVIEW OF CE .T TON 4 (f) PRQrVAR A . Summary Providing an important east-west thoroughfare, Route 30 will eventually extend eastward in the City of Rancho Cucamonga along the historic corridor of Highland Avenue. This extension has been a part of local and state planning since its adoption in 1949, its suspension in the late 1970s, and its rejuvenation in the mid-1980x. Although much of the material culture of the citrus industry which prospered along the foothills has been destroyed or significantly altered, significant elements remain and some stand to be impacted by the freeway's extension. Review of such resources to date has utilized National Register Guidelines, per Section 105 and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) , to determine five historic resources in Rancho Cucamonga eligible for the Register. While the proposed mitigations for these identified sites begin to address the range and severity of potential impacts, there are no provisions made for the monitoring and reporting as specified in AB 3180. A number of resources in the Alta Loma and Etiwanda communities which lie along Highland Avenue and various intersections have not been included in the review process thus far. Per CEQA's (California Environmental Quality Act) Appendix G, Item J, a project impacting historic or cultural resources important to a community or group should analyze and when necessary provide mitigations for such resources. Furthermore, there exists no denotation of the location of the eight archaeological sites reviewed for the project, see Section 3.7.1 . , and thus it is difficult to assess these potential resources per CEQA. 9 . 3 DISCUSSION OF ROUTE 30 PROJECT AND IISE SECTION 4 (f) PROPERTTuc A . General Comments Five Rancho Cucamonga properties were identified as eligible for the National Register: the Sam and Alfreda Maloof House and Workshop; the Herbert and Evelyn Goerlitz House; the Isle House ; the Ernst Mueller House; and the eucalyptus trees of the Etiwanda Windbreak Rural Historic Landscape. Some major issues surrounding the ultimate character of the freeway--such as interchange spacing and full freeway or freeway/expressway--have yet to be finalized. Since the EIR/EIS has been drafted assuming a full freeway configuration with one-mile interchange spacing through the City, subsequent decisions altering these assumptions would require further investigation to determine potential impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga supports the full Freeway Alternative with complete interchanges at 1 mile intervals as shown in the City's General Plan. The Alternate Interchange Alternative would remove the Carnelian Street and East Avenue interchanges and therefore is inconsistent with the City's Plan. Although the impact on two eligible resources, the landmarked Palms and Eucalyptus trees and the Mueller House, would be reduced, it is unclear what effects the lack of an interchange would have on nearby streets, in particular on Etiwanda Avenue. and therefore possibly other cultural resources. For all but the Mueller House, the freeway as it is currently proposed would have resolute effects on these five identified properties and thus require specific mitigation measures. The "Draft Finding of Effects" found that the freeway's construction would have an "adverse effect" on all of the sites and proposed a variety of mitigation measures. The draft EIR/EIS explores a variety of alternatives, including often the most extreme, "No Project" and "Complete Freeway Realignment." Further analysis which follows suggests further mitigation measures. 9.3.1 ACTUAL USE A. Nature and Adequacy of proposed Mitigations, Property: The Sam and Alfreda Maloof R si d n e & Studio (R. 9-16) Impact: The Maloof property lies directly in the proposed path of the extension under both the Full Freeway and Freeway/Expressway alternatives, taking approximately 3.8 of the total 5.1 acre site. Proposed Mitigations: The EIR/EIS suggests possible mitigation measures including the relocation of the structures, a minor alignment change and construction of a retaining wall; and HABS-quality documentation prior to relocation or demolition of the structures. Recommendations: Representatives from the City, Caltrans, SANBAG, Federal Highway Commission, the Maloof family, and others met during the first three months of 1991 to discuss a full range of mitigation options to minimize the freeway's impact on this very significant and complete cultural and aesthetic resource. Most of the alternatives discussed during these meetings are not presented in the draft environmental documentation, including the combination preferred by the Maloof's, of alignment adjustment, relocation of the Maloof family, and establishment of a museum/cultural center. These kinds of mitigations should be completely addressed prior to finalization of such documentation and a thorough mitigation monitoring and reporting program developed for the decided mitigations. Property: The Herbert and Evelyn Goerlitz House (n_ 9-191 Impact: Most if not all of the site's setting and context would be destroyed by the proposed freeway--3.2 of 4. 4 acres. A eucalyptus-lined drive, providing access and a strong historic sense of entry, along with an aged oak, and most of the original citrus groves would be removed. Proximity to the southern right-of-way would cause much greater unattenuated noise levels and place the front of the home and business within 90 feet of the pavement. Proposed Mitigations: A proposed realignment effecting both the Maloof and the Goerlitz house would reduce the distance between the front (north) side of the house and the pavement would be increased to 110 feet. A 16 foot sound wall and/or landscape buffer are also proposed as well as NABS-quality documentation if significant alteration or demolition occur. - 0 Recommendations: Every effort should be made to preserve, maintain, and protect during construction the mature oak and as much of the existing grove as possible. Since the Full Freeway alternative would eliminate the site's current access and inhibit its current use, a detailed plan for new access which includes appropriate landscaping mirroring the historic design should be developed. A complete mitigation monitoring and reporting program should also be developed for the property prior to finalization of the EIR/EIS. Property: James C. Isle House, p. 9-20 Impact: Situated on an 18 . 9-acre site, the home lies directly in the proposed freeway path, and the draft EIR/EIS calls out for its removal or demolition. Proposed Mitigations: A vaguely worded statement regarding the relocation of the home along with again HABS-quality documentation is proposed. Recommendations: The effects of a possible realignment did not receive the detailed treatment those for the Maloof residence did (maps, calculations of displaced individuals, cost, loss of structures) . No mention of the existing setting--the entrance palms , the windrows--occurs in the document . These contributing resources should be relocated as well. Furthermore the writers of the environmental document state that "relocation of the house may result in the removal of one or more mature Eucalyptus trees from the perimeter of site, " without explaining this statement. The home and the palm's relocation should be sponsored by the lead agencies and be carefully and thoroughly advertised with preference given to property owners in the Etiwanda community. A detailed mitigation monitoring and reporting program should also be completed prior to a final determination of mitigations. Property: The Mueller House, n.4-57 Impact: The proposed East Avenue eastbound off-ramp as well as the southern pavement edge will impact the home. Proposed Mitigations: The craftsman home is not included in the mandated 4f Review and no mitigations were proposed, although a standard 16' soundwall would be constructed. Recommendations: In the "Draft Finding of Effects, " measures suggested to reduce the freeway's impact on the Mueller house included the relocation of the East Avenue interchange and the construction of a noise barrier along the northern property boundary. However, the draft EIR/EIS omitted the site from review under Section 4 (f) , asserting that although I ' the historic character of the property could be diminished by indirect noise and visual impacts, these effects would not substantially impair the site' s historic character. After a careful review, the City proposes no further mitigations. Property: The Etiwanda Windbreak Rural Historic Landscape Impact: The freeway as it is proposed would remove 35 acres, about 6, 340 linear feet of eucalyptus windrows. Proposed Mitigations: No specific mitigations are proposed in the document, rather relocation and replacement of taken windrow are said to be "under consideration." Recommendations: With respect to the Windbreaks, the City's Etiwanda Specific Plan calls out for eucalyptus windrows to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio and thus the 5:1 ratio is unacceptable by our City's standards. Moreover, as designated Landmarks, the Palm trees along Highland Avenue should also be subject to mitigations which would reduce the proposed freeway's impact. It seems plausible to mitigate the retention and relocation of as many palms in the right of way as possible. Any and all mitigations should be carefully detailed and the lead agencies should provide for the environmental review process as detailed under CEQA, a full mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. ANALYSIS OF UNIDRNTIBIED LOCAL R$SOURCZS AND PROPOSED MITIGATIONS A . General Comments State architectural historians from Caltrans and their consultants surveyed each potentially historic site built prior to 1946 within 500 feet of the proposed freeway's centerline and produced a "Historical Architectural Survey Report. " Under NEPA this review utilized National Register Guidelines, per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and thus sought to determine potential eligibility for the Register for each of the surveyed sites. A number of the City's local resources, then, fell below the National Register' s significance standard used by State historians in their review but still stand to be impacted by the proposed freeway extension. Under CEQA the project's EIR/EIS would have to take into account the proposed freeway's impact on structures deemed significant or potentially significant by local standards. Caltrans officials have claimed that NEPA can supersede CEQA in projects funded in part by the Federal Government. The City's legal counsel has concurred with that of the California Preservation Foundation in determining that CEQA standards for cultural resource review apply to this freeway project. The ineligible surveyed resources in the Alta Loma and Etiwanda communities which lie along Highland Avenue and various intersections are from West to East: the Ellen Loeb House, 9911 Highland Ave. ; the Hilleman Residence, 10067 Highland Ave. ; the H. W. Minor Residence, 10304 19th Street; the Gosney Ranch, 6422 Haven; Casaletti's Polka Palace, 12583 Highland Ave. ; the Ross House, 6527 Etiwanda Ave. ; the Kemp House, 13151 Highland Ave. ; and the Tibbetts House, 13710 Highland Ave. 1 -2- B . Non-significant Structures/Sites Property: The Ellen Loeb House. 9911 Highland Ave Impact: It appears that the proposed freeway right of line falls just on or directly south of this site. Thus the freeway would have a severe impact on the site and it is probable that the site could be destroyed. Moreover, the freeway alignment begins a 1 . 59% climb from a -0 . 47 depression at the Archibald intersection and the grade difference between the existing landform (noted on the included maps' cross-section with a dotted line) is approximately 35 feet. Therefore if the right of way does not "take" the structures on the Loeb site, the construction of a retaining/sound wall seemingly would alter irrevocably the resource. There exists a strong possibility that the freeway will be realigned to reduce its impact on the Maloof and Goerlitz properties and at this time it remains difficult to assess the final impact of the proposed freeway. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: According to the State's research, the Loeb site has undergone significant alterations. Although potentially significant due to the scope of its uses, including workers housing it is questionable whether the site would meet local landmark criteria. Property: The Hilleman Residence. 10067 Highland Avenue Impact: The proposed right of way bisects this site and as with the Loeb site discussed previously any freeway realignment could alter the site's final shape. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: Staff concurs with the finding' s of Caltrans' historians: "This house has been altered so substantially that it is difficult to assess its original appearance, " and therefore does not recommend any mitigations. Property: The H. W. Minor Residence, 10304 19th Street Impact: The full freeway alternative appears to require a major portion of the existing lemon grove above the Minor home. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: The Minor family decidedly played a significant role in the development of Alta Loma and the structures' use as an egg ranch is an example of a use which is now very rare in our rapidly suburban area. Furthermore, the house's setting, a lemon grove, is as the Architectural inventory states; a very rare example of what was historically the most common land use pattern along the foothills. We encourage the lead agencies to leave as much as possible of the grove intact. - 13r Property: The Gosney Ranch. 6422 Haven Impact: The proposed freeway would locate this site over 50 feet below the freeway and directly, north of the westbound on-ramp and directly west of the eastbound off-ramp. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: Further research has determined that the one-time ranch does not retain a great level of significance or integrity. Property: The Tihhetts House. 13710 Highland Avenue Impact: The home would sit just below freeway level directly south of the off-ramp leading to the north-bound Interstate 15, and thus be impacted by the freeway's construction. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: The structure has been altered on numerous occasions and its significance does not appear to be of local Landmark quality at this time. C. Significant or Potentially Significant Impacted Structures/Sites Property: Gasaletti's Polka Palace. 12583 Highland Avenue Impact: The freeway as proposed would lie approximately 150 ' north of Casaletti ' s; and although not directly impacted, the structures would decidedly 'be effected by the freeway. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: Casaletti's is an institution of local importance and a potential Local Landmark. Access to this complex is currently unclear and should be determined prior to finalization of the environmental review process. There also might exist archaeological deposits of significance about which the City should be informed. Property: The Ross House, 6527 Etiwanda Ave. Impact: The house would sit within 50 feet of the freeway and approximately 20 feet above freeway grade. The proposed freeway as well as construction of a barrier/soundwall would seem to impact this site. Access to the home also is ambivalently defined, as it is not clear how or if Highland Avenue will continue along this section. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: The Ross family figured significantly in Etiwanda's history and despite the loss of the front porch and related outbuildings, the family home remains locally significant . We concur with State - 1. y architectural historians who found that the Ross home had lost much of the Ross family-era details-- the large front porch, and context, the outbuildings , citrus groves, and other agriculturally-related elements. However, it does fall within the parameters of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, and is listed as a Potential Local Landmark, and deserves mitigations under CEQA. We recommend that prior to the completion of this review process, mitigation language be provided that compensates for the taking of the properties windrow per a replacement program based on City standards and that matters of access are more clearly defined. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program would also be included. property: The Kemp House, 13151 Highland Ave_ Impact: The eastbound freeway off-ramp as proposed would lie 20 feet below and abut the property and thus bring the house approximately within 30 feet of the off-ramp. The site would thus seem to be impacted significantly. It is also unclear at this time the ultimate configuration of Highland Avenue and therefore access to the home is ill-defined. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: Like the Ross Home, the Kemp family home stands as a reminder of Etiwanda's citrus legacy--perhaps an incomplete remainder, having lost an elaborate porch and significant outbuildings, but a locally significant structure all the same. Although the _State findings seem to downplay the importance and longevity of the Kemp family in Etiwanda, it is true that the structure itself and its context have been altered and that these alterations have not achieved any keen historical sense of their own. Like Casaletti's and the Ross House, this home is on the City' s Historic Property Survey. We recommend that the questions of access be defined clearly and that a suitable and dense landscape buffer planted to mitigate the visual impact of the freeway. CITY OF RANCHO CtCA-NIOtiGA ME MORAN M v r o — f ,11-Y OF RAMC-AO C_iCAMUNGA DATE: August 15, 1991 AM AUG 15 1991 TO: Larry Henderson, Principal P1annwgslvlsjlulzll1jd1u141518 FROM: Joe O'Neil , City Engineer _ BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic-Engineer SUBJECT: Route 30 Freeway Environmental Impact Report The above-referenced EIR/EIS is now under public review, with comments due by September 15, 1991, to Caltrans in San Bernardino. The Engineering Division is completing its review of the report and will have final comments available by August 21. The report was given to the Public Safety Commission at its August 6 meeting, with the request that comments be sent to Engineering. The Commission generally supports the full freeway alternative with mitigation measures as best for our City. The Commission decided not to hold a workshop on the subject due to the short time before the need to submit comments. While continuing our review for the presence of errors or needed information or mitigations from the circulation standpoint, it can be said now that the report analyzes the option which has long been the desire of the City Council . This is the full freeway alternative with complete interchanges at Carnelian Street, Archibald, Haven and Milliken Avenues, Day Creek Boulevard and East Avenue. Other alternatives are also examined as required by law and Federal direction. Our comments and any received from others will be reported to you as available. WJO:PAR:sd cc: Paul A. Rougeau i