Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/08/01 - Agenda Packet i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA THURSDAY August 1, 1991 7:00 p.m. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Arner "Commissioner Haskvitz Commissioner Banks Commissioner Preston Commissioner Billings x, Chairman Schmidt Commissioner Cooper _ III. Approval of Minutes June 6, 1991 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting IV. Old Business A. UPDATE ON PACKING HOUSE REUSE STUDY B. UPDATE ON FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE/PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION V. New Business C. UPDATE ON SANTA FE DEPOT FIRE VI. Director's Reports D. REVIEW OF IN-HOUSE CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW POLICY - Oral Report VII. Commission Business E. STATUS OF DEMOLITION REQUEST FOR THE LaFOURCADE BUILDING LOCATED AT 11871 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN 229-011-10 - Oral Report F. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE (October 16-20 in San Francisco) Oral Report G. UPDATE ON ROUTE 30 EXTENSION EIR/EIS AND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL MEETING - Oral Report VIII. Announcements IX. 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. X. Adjournment The Historic Preservation Commission will adjourn to a special meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 27, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 6, 1991 Chairman Bob Schmidt called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Schmidt then led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks, Gene Billings, Ada Cooper, Steve Preston, Bob Schmidt COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Alan Haskvitz STAFF PRESENT: Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Shelley Petrelli, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Billings, seconded by Preston, carried unanimously, 5-1-1, (Commissioner Banks arrived after the vote) to approve the May 2, 1991 Historic Preservation minutes and the Adjourned Joint Historic Preservation Commission/City Council minutes of May 22, 1991, as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of the relocation of the G.P. Ledig House (Landmark No. 13) from 5702 Amethyst Street, to Lot 11 of Tract 13930, located at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Wilson Avenue. Also being considered are plans for a new three-car garage and rehabilitation specifications for the residence. Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner discussed the site plan, the property setbacks, and the Community Trail that abuts the property. Commissioner Preston expressed concern that the $90,000 bid cost may not be enough to cover the rehabilitation of the house. He asked if staff felt the cost would escalate beyond that amount. HPC MINUTES - 1 - JUNE 6, 1991 Mr. Henderson stated the amount will probably cover the expenses. He felt trade-offs can be made to keep the cost within the $90,000; however, staff will go to the Block Grant for rehabilitation funds if necessary. Commissioner Preston asked how essential a three-car garage is to the structure or if perhaps the garage elevations could be oriented to help maintain the character of the structure. Mr. Henderson responded that the three-car garage is preferable to most homebuyers purchasing a house in that price range. He also stated that the house, with the planned landscaping and setbacks, will hardly be visible from the street. Commissioner Banks inquired what the estimated sales price for the house will be and also what type of marketing efforts will be made prior to completion of suggested improvements. Mr. Henderson remarked he thought the sales price will be approximately $300,000 to $350,000. He felt very little marketing would take place prior to the improvements. Commissioner Banks suggested taking care of structural improvements first and then marketing the house prior to its completion so a potential buyer can choose the carpeting, cabinets, etc. , and thereby saving money for both the buyer and the City. Mr. Henderson commented he felt this could leave the City open for liability. Commissioner Preston asked what that liability might be. Mr. Henderson stated there are a couple of potential liabilities 1) Safety hazards from allowing the public access to the house before it is totally finished; and 2) the buyer could hold the City responsible for faulty installation of fixtures and/or other improvements. Commission Preston felt that staff will have a good idea of the potential problems and will be able to disclose them to the buyer at the time of purchase. Commissioner Preston then asked if a specialist in the field of historic homes would be marketing the house. Mr. Henderson noted that a realtor familiar with the geographic area would be selling the home. Commissioner Preston stated in that case, he would be inclined to agree with Commissioner Banks' suggestions regarding the inside improvements and garage preference of the potential buyer. Commissioner Banks questioned if the house could be converted to a low impact business use. Mr. Henderson stated the buyer would be eligible to file an application to do such. HPC MINUTES - 2 - JUNE 6, 1991 Commissioner Banks remarked that she had a client who may be interested in purchasing the house for a wedding chapel only; no receptions would be held on the premises. Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing. John O'Neil, 5656 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, stated he he lives approximately 500 feet from the property where the house is to be moved and he objects to moving the "old" house into a neighborhood of "quality, contemporary" homes. He felt the house would detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Preston clarified that the issue before the Commission is not whether the land use is appropriate because that determination was made by the Planning Commission prior to this public hearing; the issue before the Commission tonight is to determine how that landmarked structure will now be altered or changed. Mr. O'Neil stated if that were the case, his suggestion would be to turn the house into a contemporary, custom home. Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Preston asked staff if the present proposal includes landscaping. Mr. Henderson commented that at this time it does not include landscaping. Commissioner Preston asked if provisions had been made for the security of the house during and after the move. Mr. Henderson stated that had not been discussed yet. Commissioner Banks wanted to ensure that there would be a degree of flexibility in the agreement between the City and the potential buyer for finishing off the house. Commissioner Preston suggested a memorandum of understanding to that effect. Mr. Henderson suggested acquiring the opinion of the realtor selected to sell the property and returning to the Commission with a memo regarding the interior and garage issues. He also stated that staff and the Commission could work informally on the issues. MOTION: Moved by Preston, seconded by Cooper, carried 6-0-1, approving Landmark Alteration Permit 91-01 with the understanding that an informal memo will come back to the Commission regarding the interior issue. HPC MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 6, 1991 NEW BUSINESS B. REVIEW OF THE HIPPARD RANCH MILLS ACT CONTRACT ) JS Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner presented the staff report. The Commission concurred their approval of the contract. C. INITIAL DATA ON STATUS OF SWEETEN HALL - Oral Report Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner presented the oral staff report. She updated the Commission with the information that the hall is used by many community organizations, including four or more Head Start classes per week. She commented that the Cucamonga Service Club presently owns the building and the building currently meets all code requirements. Ms. Hartig also sent landmark information to the building owner. Commissioner Billings commented that the Head Start Program at Sweeten Hall was the highest rated Head Start program in San Bernardino County. Commissioner Cooper added that the land was originally given to the school district by the Milliken family and the present building is the second school built at the same site (probably built between 1917 and 1922) . * * * * COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Banks asked for an update on the Price Club facility. Ms. Hartig replied that currently the project is in the Design Review process and staff is working with the applicant on the major mitigation measures. She further commented that Price Club has strict guidelines and corporate policies regarding the design of their facilities which do not necessarily meet with the City's standards and a great deal of negotiating has taken place. Commissioner Banks requested that staff create and update a list of available historic properties for sale. * * * * * Commissioner Billings commented that the Alta Loma Honor Roll is being restored and prepared for the move to the new location by a Boy Scout troop and the Mount Baldy Building Association. He also stated that he still has the two panels from the original dedication. HPC MINUTES - 4 - JUNE 6, 1991 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Henderson gave a brief explanation of how the Ledig House will be moved next week. Mr. Henderson announced that the Chaffey-Garcia house has been tentatively allocated $47,000 in funds from the Community Development Block Grant Funds for restoration of the structure. The formal authorization will have to be made by the City Council through a Subrecipient Agreement with the Etiwanda Historical Society. Commissioner Banks commented that the Fourth Annual Rummage Sale for the Chaffey-Garcia house will be held on Saturday June 8, 1991. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments ADJOURNMENT The Historic Preservation Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Shelley A. Petrelli Secretary HPC MINUTES - 5 - JUNE 6, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT d DATE: August 1, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UPDATE ON ALTA LOMA CITRUS HEIGHTS PACKING HOUSE REUSE STUDY BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency authorized the signing of a contract with Architectural Resources Group for the Adaptive Reuse and Rehabilitation Study of the Alta Loma Packing House on July 17, 1991. Architectural Resources Group, headed by rehabilitation architect Bruce Judd, is an award winning firm whose work in our area includes the restoration of the Mission Inn in Riverside, the rehabilitation of the Pasadena City Hall, and that city's One Colorado Boulevard Development. Recently, the firm received the Best in the West, 1991 Golden Nugget Award for the Best Rehabilitated Commercial or Industrial Project for a conversion project in downtown Oakland. The firm, composed of both architects and planners, has pulled together a solid array of consultants with which to determine the feasibility of a mixed use rehabilitation project for the packing house site. Structural and mechanical engineers, senior housing experts, cost estimators, and economic analysts, along with Mr. Judd's staff, will spend almost three months determining the economic and structural feasibility of reusing the site while keeping in mind our community goals of giving new life to the Old Alta Loma Downtown while respecting the needs of the local residents (please refer to the firm's Work Description and Project Schedule, attached at Exhibit HPC-1). Once provided with specific data, staff will be able to assess the soundness of creating a new set of uses for the historic area and bring them back for the Agency's review. The study will determine the economic and structural feasibility of rehabilitating the site for senior housing and an array of other potential uses. If such a project proves feasible, the Agency will close escrow on the Packing House site in early October. The reuse study fits well into staff's progress on the Old Alta Loma Neighborhood Plan (Overlay District). Graduate Intern Buffie Hollis has completed her review of all structures in the historic project area. Over 50 previously unidentified structures have been reviewed by Ms. Hollis who is now completing her extensive research and compiling State DRP -- 523 - Historic Resources Survey forms for approximately 44 -v"� A HPC STAFF REPORT ALTA LAMA PACKING HOUSE August 1, 1991 Page 2 structures. As part of the 1987 survey, three State forms were completed. Staff has also begun the early stages of research and drafting of the Neighborhood Plan itself, and hopes to complete the Plan by December of this year. Please feel free to forward any questions about this project to Anthea. Senior Redevelopment Analyst Olen Jones, 989-1851, extension 2154, is managing the economic elements of the study and potential purchase and would also be happy to answer any questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, 015 . -444w� Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner I.7H:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit HPC-1 - A.R.G. 's Work Description and Project Schedule A - � JIiL-2c 9 �c.^q jji:H�'�F ?TE'_ _!FHL C '_ �=' '�_ 115- 1=�-� - =� PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM Initial Concerns We believe that there are several issues that need to be carefully addressed to ensure that the rehabilitation and re-use study for the Alta Loma Cirrus Heights Packing House will accomplish the goals established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Because the budget is very tight for the wide range of tasks identified in the RFP, every effort must be made to obtain the most usable information to assist in malting project decisions at the level of detail required at this stage of the project.Thus, structural calculations and market projections will be conceptual in nature yet of sufficient detail to allow for informed decision-making concerning the future of the property. f Economic assessment and analysis of the proposed alternatives for the buildings and site and review of potential markets for these alternatives will be accomplished in three stages. We will first review existing regional and City market data for demand analysis for the identified proposed uses. Second we will then consult with either John A. Buchanan Associates of Newport Beach or with Economics Research Associates (ERA) of Los Angeles. We have worked with both firms and have confidence that either could provide the level of overall detail needed at this stage of the project. 'Third,we will utilize the extensive knowledge of the John Stewart Company with one of the above firms to review and comment on the market demand potential for senior housing on the site. Should traffic engineering be needed we are willf--ig to consult with DKS Associates in Los Angeles. We have worked with their Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento offices on previous projects. While the buildings art very interesting historically and architecturally,the site presents challenges for use as senior housing due to the nearby train tracks,strip commercial uses, and school.Thought must be gi,-,:n to locating and designing the rehabilitation alternatives so that the impact of these co_Aitions will not negatively affect the project. Due to its status as a hirwric structure, use of the State Historical Building Code may reduce some construcdon costs. Also,there may be opportunities to combine the use of Historic Rehabiliv,don Tax Credits with Housing Tax Credits thus contributing to the economic feasibility of the project. Approach to the Project We prorose to carry out preparation of the study in five phases that follow in sequence one to the next. The tasks shown in these phases have been identified in the Request for Pro_,osals, although we have rearranged how they interrelate. We have also added several c� fJC•�1c, - _ -tip tasks that we feel will result in a more complete and usable final report, such as a building code analysis. The initial step will be to gather as much information about the Packing House, outbuildings, and sire as possible, as well as determining the needs of the City. We will then prepare existing conditions documentation based on this research and on our field work. This will be used as the foundation for all of the following tasks of work. We will then analyze the structural capacity of the buildings and make recommendations for alternative structural bracing schemes and analyze the market demand for several possible use alternatives.We will then study several alternative re-use options based on the information gained above and potential market information obtained. We will review the potential alternatives with the Building Department and Fire Marshall. After this review we will prepare cost projections for all of the work identified. A draft study report will be Prepared for review after which we will incorporate comments received and prepare the final study report. For each phase of the project we have shown the resulting products and the time schedule for that phase of work The proposed time schedule can be compressed or expanded as necessary. We have made some assumptions regarding the needs and desires for the study and are quite willing to modify our proposal to better meet these requirements. Phase 1. Existing Condition Analysis 1. Initial Analysis A. Meet with Rancho Cucamonga City staff and others identified by the City who should be involved in the project on a regular basis. 1. Review the final scope of project,proposed study report outline, the proposed project schedule,and logistical arrangements. 2. Obtain any drawings,including site surveys, records,documents, and earlier reports,that describe the Packing House, its site, and any easements or other development constraints affecting the property. B. Review existing drawings and reports. II. Site Visits A. Walk through the packing house and the site with the entire consultant team. B. Takf existing conditions photographs of the buildings and site. Perspective- conaolled photographs will be taken of the facades for possible use in preparing elevation drawings of the facades. C. Take additional field measurements, as required, to record any differences between the located existing condition drawings and the actual existing conditions. -2- D. Review existing mechanical, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems. III. Existing Condition Drawings And Analysis A. Based on the located existing drawings,the field measurements,and photographs taken at the site,prepare revised txisting conditions floor plans,sections, and details. These drawings will be used as base drawings for the study report. B. Using site survey and any landscape information provided,prepare a site plan base map. Drawing will indicate locations of site utilities,train tracks,irrigation systems. any existing landscaping, walls, paving,parking,curb cuts,etc. C, Prepare a draft section describing the inventory, assessment,and analysis of existing conditions. Text will be coordinated with plan drawings, elevations, sections,and details as necessary to convey pertinent information regarding the current condition of the property. Drawings will be prepared at scales appropriate to clearly convey the desired information. Phase 1. Products A. Final Project Schedule.Five copies will be submitted to the City. B. Draft Existing Conditions Section of the study report describing the inventory, assessment,and analysis of existing conditions.Five copies will be submitted to the City. C. Summary menu on existing building and site systems;mechanical,electrical, irrigation,etc.Five copies will be submitted to the City. D. Existing conditions: 1. Photographs of building interiors and exteriors 2. Field measurements of the buildings,as necessary 3. Revised floor plans,if necessary 4. Sections and details, as necessary S. Site base plan Phase 1.Projected Terme Schedule: 3 weeks. Phase 2. Preliminary Structural Analysis L Preliminary Analysis A. Based on the existing conditions analysis completed above,historic information, and other documents,the structural engineer will analyze the current structural capacity of the buildings for both vertical and lateral loads.Floor capacities will be determined with emphasis on considerations for housing use. Analysis and calculations will be conceptual in nature. - S 3- 1 ► - �8 B. Structural engineer will then prepare alternative structural bracing rcconunendations for the buildings.Recommendations will include the effect of using the State Historical Building Code and/or other alternative structural regulations such as Las Angeles Division 88. C. Prepare a draft section of the report describing the above analysis and recommendations. D. Meet with City representatives to review the structural analysis and recommendations. Phase 2. Products A. Conceptual structural calculations for the buildings. Five copies will be submitted to the City. B. Draft structural section of the.study report. Five copies will be submitted to the City. Phase 2.Projected Time Schedule: 3 weeks. Phase 3. Use Study and Spatial Analysis I. Preliminary Market Study A. Research market demand and need for several possible alternative uses for the property including senior housing,retail,commercial,and services uses. Market study will be limited given the limited budget, but will be detailed enough for decision making at this level of design. Meet with economic consultant to review market demand and potential for possible alternative uses. B. Prepare draft summary memo of results of study. C. Meet with representatives of the city to review the findings. D. Based on city staff comments,prepare final market study summary to be incorporated into the final report. 11. Preliminary Use Study and Spatial Analysis A. Using the existing conditions analysis,structural analysis study,and market study recommendations,five to six alternative uses including senior housing will be studied to see how well they might fit the existing buildings and site. 1. The architectural drawings will include 1/8 inch per foot floor plans, sections, details,and elevations,describing any proposed alterations and new construction. They will also include preliminary conceptual recommendations for structural,mechanical, and electrical systems. 2. Prepare preliminary landscape and site improvement drawings. Drawings will include landscaping, parking, curb cuts, etc. Drawings will also identify where work may be accomplished in phases. -4. T B. Meet with city representatives to review the use study and spatial analysis alternatives. III. Code Review of Proposed Designs A. Review the alternatives to assess current Building Code issues and potential problems that need to be addressed. B. Meet with the City's Building Inspection and Fire Department staff to discuss any potential problems encountered and how to best resolve them. Exiting and disabled access seems to be the most difficult issues to be discussed C. Based on comments received by City staff above,revise alternative use recommendations and incorporate them into the final report. IV. Analysis of Impacts of Proposed Rehabilitation A. Analyze the potential impacts on circulation,parking,traffic, noise, etc.on the surrounding community. Analysis will be conceptual in nature given the limited budget. B. Meet with city representatives to review the analysis of impacts. C. Based on City staff comments,prepare a final impacts section of the study report Phase 3. Products: A. Draft and final sections of the study report relating to alternative use recommendations,including: 1. Architectural drawings,floor plans, sections and details as necessary for proposed alternative use recommendations. 2. Recommendations for structural,mechanical and electrical systems. 3. Conceptual landscape and site improvement drawings. 4. Conceptual market conditions analysis section. S. Building code issues memo. 6. Impacts on surrounding community memo. Five copies will be submitted to the City. Phase 3. Projected 71=Schedule: 4 weeks Phase 4. Rehabilitation Estimates I. Preliminary Cost Projections A. Prepare preliminary cost projections for each of the re-use alternatives identif+cd in the use study and spatial analysis. Cost projections will be divided into individual tasks of work such as"Carpentry", "Electrical",etc. =i i5:47 i Vii:�-qW- H'7E'=''JP AL -aR 1. Cost projections will be computerized with unit costs so that over time they may be revised to better reflect current construction costs. H. Meetings A. Meet with the City representatives to present the final drawings, specifications, and cost estimates, 11I. Final Cost Projections A. Prepare a revised final construction cost projection incorporating the comments received by the City representatives. Phase 4 Products Cost projections for each alternative studied. Five copies will be submitted to the City. Phase 4. Projected Time Schedule: 2 weeks. Phase S. Prepare Final Study Report I. Prepare Draft Study Report A. Using the sections prepared above,prepare a draft study report incorporating the comments received and information gained throughout the study process. II. Meeting A. Meet with City staff representatives to present and review the draft report, III. Prepare Final Study Report A. Based on the comments received from City staff and others,prepare a final study report for submission to the City. Phase 5. Products A. Draft final study report, Five copies will be submitted to the City. B. Final study repot. One cameraready original will be submitted far duplication and ` distribution by the City. Phase 5.Projected Time Schedule: 3 weeks. -6- u-- I Rehabilitation/Re-use Study for the Alta Loma Citrus Heights Packing House rity or xoneno C mmwnga f t Proposed Project Schedule Calmdar Days wt -14 4 7 14 21 n 35 42 49 Sf 63 70 77 34 !l Comas=Ngotiabm&Sim s. r�l U, Exis inn Candkions Analysis U! `tl PtCh1p1l OY SUUrAmal Aa*sis W Cllei RCviCw F �— Use Satdy and Spatial Analysis t CL C4 Q r Chew Review CL Rehabilitation FAdmawaI Lh Cheat Revicw ui I hcpm Faaal So*Repm I C6eatt lcvww and Final Mactmg •i I U �1 J I 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 1, 1991 TO: Chairman & Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION MITIGATIONS BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-37 for the Foothill Marketplace project on June 26, 1991. This review included the mitigations proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission and approved by the Council on February 20, 1991. At the June meeting, the Planning Commission modified these conditions, limiting the number of oral history interviews to six (6) and deleting the $100,000 contribution of the Wattson Company to the reconstruction of the Chaffey- Garcia House. On July 1, 1991, the Mayor appealed the Planning Commission's modifications to the cultural resources mitigations in that the Council had previously reviewed and supported the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission -- Mr. Stout's letter is attached for your review (Exhibit HPC-1). The appeal is scheduled for the August 21, 1991 Council agenda at which time the Council will determine the appropriateness of the Planning Commission's modifications to their recommendations. ANALYSIS: As requested, a letter has been drafted under the Chairman's signature to the Mayor and City Council supporting the Historic Preservation Commission's previous recommendation. Please refer to the attached letter drafted for your review, Exhibit HPC-2, which briefly reiterates our position on the mitigations and supports their implementation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission make any corrections or additions to the attached letter they deem necessary and approve its forwarding to the Mayor and City Council. Respectfully ubmitted, Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner LJH:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit HPC-1 - Mayor Stout's Appeal Letter Exhibit HPC-2 - Letter in Support of Appeal Z'tGrn 1� N A - M 0 NG A 1�t 2 1991 �� DIED DE1 July 1 , 1991 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 THE WATTSON COMPANY I appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on this matter in that modifications were made to the recommended Historic Preservation Conditions of Approval. I feel that since the Council specifically heard and recommended the Historic Conditions, that the Council should decide if they should now be removed. Sincerely.- Dennis incerely,Dennis L. Stout Mayor DLS/jfs � -z T H E C I T y O F Q) A NC o C U C A M 0 N G A August 1, 1991 Dennis Stout, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: MAYOR'S APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATIONS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONDITIONS FOR THE FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-37. Dear Mayor Stout: On behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission, I forward my support of your appeal of the Planning Commission's alterations of the cultural resources mitigations for the Foothill Marketplace project. We believe that the measures the Council previously reviewed adequately mitigate the loss of sixty acres of southern Etiwanda/eastern Cucamonga viniculture history. The Historic Preservation Commission recommendations were carefully conceived and analyzed. In particular, a relationship was established between the reconstruction of the Chaffey-Garcia House Barn and the demolition of the Guidera Winery Complex and Home and the DiCarlo Home. The House and Barn, as you are aware, will serve as a local history interpretive site and museum; the opportunity would therefore be created to exhibit and interpret artifacts from the viniculture and citrus agricultural industries. Please do not hesitate to approach any of the Commissioners or our Planning Department staff with any questions or concerns you may have. Thank you for your continued interest and actions on behalf of preserving Rancho Cucamonga's rich heritage. Sincerely, Bob Schmidt Chairman, Historic Preservation Commission BS/jfs Mayor Dennis L. Stout Councilmember Diane Williams Mayor Pro-Tem William J. Alexander Councilmember Pamela J.Wright Jack Lam,AICR City Manager > Councilmember Charles J. Buquet II 10500 Civic Center Drive . P.O.Box 807 . Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 . (714)989-1851 FAX(714)987-6499 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 1, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE SANTA FE DEPOT FIRE BACKGROUND: As some of you may be aware, the Cucamonga Santa Fe depot was set ablaze early in the morning of July 5, 1991. The Fire District believes that a "bottle rocket" type of home-made firework, thrown on the eastern portion of the depot's roof, ignited the wood-framed structure. While the walls are standing, extensive structural damage to the roof and interior occurred. The exterior walls are buckling and the structure as a whole is in a very weakened state; the portions of the structure which may date back to the original c. 1887 depot have been completely destroyed. Photographs of the depot are included for your review (See Exhibit "HPC-1" ). Santa Fe Railroad has already expressed an interest in demolishing the structure but has yet to request a demolition permit. The railroad has gone out for bids on the demolition of the structure, however. ANALYSIS: When a designated local landmark suffers unforeseen damages such as these, the City has a number of regulations to follow and options upon which to decide. The Building Official has deemed the depot to be in an "unsafe and dangerous condition," and thus per our Ordinance, the Commission only needs to be aware of measures taken to correct such a condition (2.24.150) . The Ordinance specifies that only actions that "have been declared necessary by such official (Building Official) to correct the unsafe or dangerous conditions, may be performed pursuant to this section." Jerry Grant, the City's Official, has already determined that demolition is the most viable option. CEQA does give us the power to mitigate the demolition request Santa Fe is sure to request. Appropriate mitigations would include requiring Santa Fe to have a completed HABS/HAER quality documentation of the depot prior to demolition. Upon site inspections and discussions with the City's Building and Safety staff, we feel any proposed rehabilitation of the depot would be both costly and potentially dangerous in that the structure is currently in a hazardous state. Staff has already requested that the railroad locate and provide the plans of the depot's remodeling in the 1940s and has received an offer from a graduate student in Cal Poly's architecture program to volunteer drafting services. HPC STAFF REPORT SANTA FE DEPOT UPDATE August 1, 1991 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve of efforts to mitigate Santa Fe's demolition request by requiring a HABS/HAER quality documentation of the depot. Respectfully submitted, -a Larry J. Henderson Principal Planner LJH:AH:sp Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Photographs of the Cucamonga Santa Fe Depot's Fire Damage C -2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMSSION LANDMARK SURVEy Address: O'µST, -4 WLC W aA-L-D A%J E. AP# Z07-O!o 2r-04. � _ r "' .nla Fe Al yi a r g View Looking tAOK114 . Date of Photo 5:3VL>( 199 l C - 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Address: T 1 /� View LookingD. IL ws� {t j i •„r t tit ttc� �ZEJ Ile .. 4 ' r� r •� 'Y row Y. j ♦ n�✓ - .� A a p ;� P FR=ilylop- f►jfY '' t }x A of is •• A A,. 1 r • ' 1 • • a� r c , fit--•' ,_... �. _...___ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: SST '� �� -�{ � � AP# 20-4--CxnZ w.. i View Looking , Date of Photo 1931 .