HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/08/14 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 14, 1996 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Swearing in of Commissioners Bethel, Macias, and Tolstoy.
Roll Call
Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Bethel__ Commissioner Macias Commissioner Tolstoy
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 10, 1996
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their
opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address
the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5
minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
mo
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK
ALTERATION PERMIT 96-02 - CAMPOS - Consideration of exterior
alterations to connect and expand two historic landmark houses in
conjunction with their conversion into a restaurant of 2,530 square feet
in the Specialty Commercial district (Subarea 3) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9634 and 9642 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 208-153-24. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Modification
to Development Review 93-15.
Page 1
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission.
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS
¢
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Items to be
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
or my designee, hereby certi~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was
posted on August 8, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government
Code Section 54964.2 at I0500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
~ ,'....., ...................:.x.:.'.'-'...s .......- ..................: : ,....,......-.-... .................'...,,,..,- ..........:.....................-.-.-.. ·
i,i ml>'.'-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.';'; ............. 2'2':':';';';'"";' 'X';"-"""'-'.'-'.' ......... ' m .:.;.:.:.'.'.'o'.'.'.'.'...-.-.-.-.- ........... 2.:.1..'.'.-.-.......... .......;.;.2..'.'.'.'.'.'.
'.'Z'i'Z':';';';';'>;';'X':';';<.;.: ........................... '.';';':';':';'X'X';':':': ............. '.'.';':'2'1'1'2'2'2':'; ............ ; ....'2';'2'2'2';'2 .......... :.2.'.." ....·
J I -'.':':':':' ':' ' ': .....: ...... :.:.:.'-'-'-'.'-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'.'-'.'.'.'.':':':': .............:.:.:.:".'-'.'-'-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' ....: ......:-:..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'.'.'.'.'.' ........:,'.'.'.'.'.'-'-'.'.'.'.'.' ·
....... : ...... ........,...............:.:.:.:.:.: ............... : ............. ...............:.:.: ......: ...... .*.........-..........:.:.:...: ......... ; ......-......:.: ........... ·
I '/~' "~"' 'l' ' 'm' ' ' ' ........ ,~m' :~';-' i m I m m m I ':':': ...... :.:.: ....'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':';-;-; ....;...: .....;.:.**....................:.;....;... :~111~.:... ·
I I ' ' ': ..... :..'-'.'.'.':':':': ........ :-:.:.:.;~ ........ :.'.':':':':';'X':';"~*~*;"~ ~ ....
_ ,,I A~r~_ . I :':':':':':':':' ·::: :::::::;;::;: :':':':':':':'/;':':':':':' · ' :::::
I - -- C,a.'r~ m':::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::;;:':4'::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: m J:;:: ·
I'-'.'.'.'.'. .......... : ..... ' ' · ....... :.: ........ :i · .:. '.~
m:.'.'.'-'.-.-..'-:.:.:.: .....:' "'~'I-'":':':': .....:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:.1I.:.:....,
I H;J~" ~ HW~.~® I":':':':':':':':':" .........1 .';':': .........'"'""""'1 I:' ':"'m
............. :.......-.. : ....... ..................... .:... ·
i :.:.:.:.:.: ..........-:-:.:.~-I .......-:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:-i.. ....
i ,,,,,- !:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,_......-._.....:.........-...........-. .._
~ :::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::."
\ ~'~'" ~""-~ '"'"'"'"'-:'"~:::::::::~'1s~.-. ~ ·
% , L.,.o~ .:-'.'.-.' ;.1 I
"4, :.:.:.~.:.'.' j /~'
- \ "' 0 0 0 ~-~.__._s,._~r-' ~ .~
,~.T.& S.F. RR
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 14, 1996
Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT
96-02 - CAMPOS - Consideration of exterior alterations to connect and expand
two historic landmark houses in conjunction with their conversion into a restaurant
of 2,530 square feet in the Specialty Commercial district (Subarea 3) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9634 and 9642 Foothill Boulevard
APN: 208-t53-24. Related File: Modification to Development Review 93-15.
BACKGROUND: On October 5, 1994, the City Council approved the local landmark designation
for the four residences located at 9618, 9626, 9634, and 9642 Foothill Boulevard. While
individually the structures are not significant architecturally, the Commission determined the homes
derive their significance from the setting and context in which they are located. This block
represents one of the last remaining tracts of housing from the 1910s and 1920s that has not been
demolished and are a remnant of "Old Cucamonga." In addition, this area was within the sphere
of influence of John Klusman, a prominent local businessman.
On January 11, 1995, the Planning Commission approved construction of a 1,600 square foot
restaurant and the conversion of four houses into commercial uses. During plan check, the
applicant discovered that the lender and the restaurant operator required additional parking to
proceed with a construction loan. The applicant was denied a modification to create more parking
by removing these two houses. Since then, staff has worked with the applicant to develop an
innovative scheme which will preserve these landmarks by converting them into the desired
restaurant space.
In a related request, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Landmark Alteration Permit
94-04 for the four houses in order to convert them to commercial use. The alterations included
handicap access ramps, removal of fireplaces and chimneys, hardscape changes, and parking
areas. The Commission granted approval for removal of the chimney and removal of a window and
replacement with a door on the north elevation for the house at 9642 Foothill Boulevard. The
originally approved elevations, site plan, and photographs for these two houses have been
attached.
ANALYSIS
Alteration Description: The major alterations are the construction of an addition connecting
the two houses, and additions to the rear of both houses, to expand the floor area for the
restaurant. The existing deteriorating roofs will be removed and replaced with a new roof
ITEM A
HPC STAFF REPORT
LAP 96-02 - CAMPOS
August 14, 1996
Page 2
which preserves their side-gabled form. Other minor alterations include changing the
pattern of windows and doors. The front elevations facing Foothill Boulevard remain
unchanged except for replacing of the sidelights with non-mullioned windows. The front
elevations are being used to create an atrium between the dining room and the building
front.
Although not shown on the elevations, the kitchen may require roof-mounted exhaust
fans/vents which will require screening. Alternatives may be available under the historic
building code to minimize exterior changes, similar to the Thomas Winery building where
additional dormers with Iouvered vents were provided in lieu of vent stacks. The Design
Review Committee requested that the elevations be revised to show the proposed method
of screening.
Alteration Significance: Because the four houses were designated as Landmarks based
on their context and the setting of the neighborhood, any alterations to that setting have a
bearing on the significance of the houses. In this case, the improvements required will have
a large impact on the structures. The area will be transformed from a residential character
to a more urban commercial feel. Staff, however, does not believe the improvements will
be detrimental to the historic context of the structures for the following reasons:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
encourage the adaptive reuse of historic structures. In particular, the restaurant use
fulfills the activity center goals and objectives.
The activity center concept provides amenities at a pedestrian scale more
appropriate to the single story design of the structures.
By reusing the residential structures, public spaces will be created between the
units to foster the concept of pedestrian scale.
The access ramps are located at the rear of the houses. The ramps are relatively
low and landscaping can be used adjacent to the ramps to obscure visibility from
public view.
o
The mature trees to be removed will be replaced with like specimens or the largest
nursery grown stock available.
The applicant will be rehabilitating/restoring the units consistent with their original
construction.
Design Review Committee: The Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Fong) reviewed the project on
July 16, 1996, and recommended the following revisions:
Delete new double door, facing Foothill Boulevard, if allowed by code, or simplify
the design in order to preserve the appearance of two separate residences as
viewed from the street.
HPC STAFF REPORT
LAP 96-02 - CAMPOS
August 14, 1996
Page 3
Delete proposed clay tile roof material and use architectural grade (i.e., thick butt)
asphalt shingle to maintain California bungalow architectural style.
Delete proposed truss and retain existing siding underneath gable over front door
of 9642 Foothill.
4. Provide trash enclosure near service door to kitchen.
o
Preserve or duplicate existing architectural details, such as window trim shapes,
window mullions, and gable brackets.
6. Preserve existing sidelight window mullions flanking both entry doors facing Foothill.
7. Provide outdoor dining utilizing existing front porches.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An Initial Study was completed as part of the application for
Development Review 93-15. Based upon that review, the Planning Commission issued a mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project. That mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addressed
the environmental impacts associated with the Landmark Alteration Permit. No further
environmental review is necessary with this application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve
Landmark Alteration Permit 96-02 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
City Planner
BB:DC/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" Site Plan
Exhibit "B" Existing Building Elevations
Exhibit"C" - Building Photographs
Exhibit"D" - Proposed Elevations
Exhibit "E" Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval
Z
Z
q '.
I? ;~ ,. i_
ILl
~ yf',;,;;'..~-
o
~',.~
-;!¸
Z
0
0
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY
Address: 7~'~ ¥' /
View Looking
Date of Photo
View Looking 5oo'77-/~/°1~.Z'- Date of Photo
A
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY
View Looking A/O,~ 7'/-/ Date of Photo
View Looking ~ 6/T"~// Date of Photo
"L
:--'~:., ' i,. ' ' /'7
A,/, :
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY - PART !1
B___ACKGROUND
1) Project File #/Name: //~'~Z~. -'/Zo ,~,~~-,/~K'"'
2) Related File(s): ~~'-'~ ~,-
3)
4)
Applicant:
Address:
Telephone #:
Project Description:
5) Project Accepted as Complete (date):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the
potential impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. An explanation
sh~_Jl also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to
be significant and is marked "No."
f)
Yes Maybe No
CITY O
g)
EARTH. Will the proposal result/n:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in the geologic structure~_ CL - 13
b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the
soil? []
c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? [] []
d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? [] [] /,~
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the
site? [] []
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
F RANCHO C U C A M O N G A
'" .....................
AIR. Will the proposal result in.'
a)
b)
c)
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? []
The creation of objectionable odors? (:3
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally? []
~es
Maybe
[]
No
III.
WATER.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
h)
i)
Will the proposal result in:
Changes in currents, orthe course of direction of ware r movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any body?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal pools?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
IV.
PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of ....
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? []
Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species? []
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? []
b)
c)
d)
[]
[]
C I T
In~ial SIuCy Pt fl
ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish;
benthic organisms or insects)?
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species or animals?
Y O F R A N C H~O C U C A
O
c)
d)
Yes
Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? []
Maybe
VII.
VIIi.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
LIGHT AND. GLARE. Will the proposaL'
a) Produce new light and glare?
LAND USE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
O
IX,,
.N~TURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
RISK
a)
b)
OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
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?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
[]
[]
[]
Xl.
POPULATION. Will the proposaL'
a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of an area? ---
'-o
HOUSING. Will the proposal:
a) Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Xl!lt.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
C I T
Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
[] []
[] []
[] []
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
oedestrians?
Y O F R A N C H O C U C A
[] []
E] []
_rj] []
M O N
No
/
/
Yes Maybe IVo
XIV.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a)
b)
c)
-d)
e)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks and other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
XV.
ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a) 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?
XVl.
UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Water?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exclud- ing mental health)?
b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
XV!!I.
AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in:
a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
XIX.
RECREATION. Will the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities?
b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
C I T
rr~¢,~al Sluc'y Pt I!
Y O F R A N CI~oj C U C
A
o o
O N G A
XX.
XXI.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wifi the proposal.'
a)
b)
c)
Yes Maybe
Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archeological site?
Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
No
XXI!.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? Q Q
Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-
term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) C) El
Cumulative: Doesthe 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 on the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.) C~ _ ._ O
Substantial adverse: Does the project have environment~i'
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? Q E~
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
(Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.)
C i T
Y O F R A N C H O C U C A M O
N G
A
DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
(Attach additional sheets examining whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning,
plans, and other applicable land use controls.)
XXlV. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately anaJyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached
sheets:
a)
b)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpo-
rated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
XXV. DETERMINATION. (7'0 be completed by Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation'
a)
I find that the proposed project coul~t ~ot have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .... C]
b)
c)
Date
CITY
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 mitig~ztio~z menures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ............................. X
find the proposed project rn~zy have a significant effect on the environment, and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP~q~d . .~_..~ .....
Preparer's Signature
O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
XXVIo APPLICANT CERTIFICATION (To bc ~'~p!ctcd by epptlcanl,)
t 0l=rtlfy that I am the applio~nt for the proje~--'t described tn this Initial Study. I aoknowledga that I have
read this ini~ia! Study and proposed mftlgetlon rnea~uru~. Further, I hav~ revised thc projcct plans of
proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed ml![~afion rne~sure~ lo avoid the effects or mitigate
the effe~;ts to a point where clearly no etgniflcant environmental effects would occur,
ANA MARIA CAMPOS
Print Name and Title
c ~T ¥ OF ..... m_._A N C .... C U c A r~ ~ NG A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Initial Study - Part II
Environmental Evaluation and Discussion
Project Description: Modification to Development Review 93-15 and Landmark Alteration
Permit 96-02 - Campos. Addition to, and conversion of, two historic
landmark houses into a restaurant.
IV.
Plant Life:
a) The site contains a total of 18 trees of differing varieties (see attached Exhibit). An
arborist report has been prepared which indicates that 28 percent are in poor
condition. The project design anticipates the removal of all but five of the trees due
to conflicts with improvements. Three of the trees, which are located along the
Foothill frontage, will be preserved in-place. Two of the trees will be transplanted
elsewhere within the project. The impact is not considered significant because
a) many of the trees are in poor condition and are not suitable for preservation, and
b) replacement planting with the largest nursery grown stock is required by the Tree
Preservation Ordinance and conditions of approval. A copy of the arborist report is
available in the Planning Division.
b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site.
VI.
Noise:
a)
b)
The development of the site with a restaurant will increase the noise level by the
mere fact that the property consists of abandoned houses. The project design
includes construction of a 6-foot high solid masonry wall along the perimeter;
therefore, noise level increases on adjoining properties will not be significant.
The noise levels will not exceed the allowable noise levels for this zone.
VII.
Light and Glare:
a) New light and glare will be created because the property is currently vacant. A
condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan for review and
approval to ensure the light does not spill over onto adjacent properties. The impact
is not significant.
Cultural Resources:
a) No 'known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries.
b) The project will construct a small addition between the two historic landmark
residences for the purpose of expanding the floor area to accommodate their adaptive
reuse as a restaurant. Also, a new roof will be constructed to join both houses. The
new roof line will maintain the side gable form of the existing houses. Such a
landmark alteration will benefit the community by preserving these landmarks
consistent with the existing architectural style and details. As mitigation, the
conditions of approval will require an architectural grade asphalt shingle roof
material, and preserving or duplicating architectural details, such as window trim
shapes, window mullions, and gable brackets. Landmark Alteration Permit 96-02 is
being processed concurrently with this development application.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT NO. 96-02 FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF TWO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES TO COMMERCIAL USE, LOCATED AT 9634 AND
9642 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 208-153-24.
A. Recitals.
1. Ana Campos has filed an application for a Landmark Alteration Permit as described in
the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark Alteration Permit
request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 14th day of August 1996, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Historic Preservation
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to the buildings currently located at 9634 and 9642 Foothill
Boulevard (APN: 208-153-24).
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on August 14, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, and pursuant to Chapter 22.24.120 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts:
FINDING:
The action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this
Ordinance.
FACT:
The Ordinance encourages the adaptive reuse of historic
structures to preserve their longevity and viability within the
community.
FINDING:
The action proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or
feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or
engineering interest or value of an historic nature.
FACT:
The addition will tie the structures together, yet preserves their
individual front facades. The improvements will integrate the
structures into the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan activity
center while maintaining the historical significance of the area.
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 96-06
LAP 96-02- CAMPOS
August14,1996
Page 2
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Histodc Preservation Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Historic Preservation Commission; and, further, this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, together with the mitigation measures incorporated herein, no significant adverse
environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Historic Preservation Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as
a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission
during the public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below.
Environmental Mitigation Measures
1)
The addition shall be designed using materials consistent with the
building designs. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Planner prior to building permit issuance.
2)
The units shall be restored using materials, details, and workmanship
consistent with the original design and era of construction. The final
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to
building permit issuance.
3)
The chimney at 9642 Foothill Boulevard shall be preserved or replaced
in kind, consistent with the original design. The final plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit
issuance.
4)
Alterations and rehabilitation shall comply with the plans submitted and
provided with the Staff Report dated August 14, 1996, and consist of
modifications that will match the existing materials and finishes of the
structures.
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 96-06
LAP 96-02 - CAMPOS
August 14, 1996
Page 3
5)
A sign, no more than 4 square feet in area, shall be provided near the
new restaurant entrance on the north elevation, to identify and educate
the public regarding these historic structures. The final design,
location, and wording shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
6)
Any signs shall be designed compatible with the architectural style of
the structures.
7)
Delete new double door facing Foothill Boulevard, if allowed by code,
or simplify design.
8)
Roof material shall be architectural grade (i.e., thick butt) asphalt
shingle to maintain California bungalow architectural style.
9)
Delete proposed truss within gable over front door at 9642 Foothill
Boulevard and retain as is.
10) Preserve or duplicate existing architectural details, such as window trim
shapes, window mullions, and gable brackets.
11) Preserve existing sidelight window mullions flanking both front entry
doors facing Foothill Boulevard.
12) All new light fixtures, including parking lot lighting, shall be consistent
with architectural style.
General
1)
Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Historic Preservation
Commission, if the structures are not altered as approved within 24
months from the date of this approval.
2) The existing front porches may be used for outdoor dining.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1996.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Larry J. Henderson, Acting Secretary
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 96-06
LAP 96-02 - CAMPOS
August 14, 1996
Page 4
I, Larry J. Henderson, Acting Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 14th day of
August 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: