HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/01/14 - Agenda Packet II • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
4111, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
L%4 AGENDA
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA JANUARY 14, 2009 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
•
•
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Fletcher Vice Chairman Munoz
• Stewart _ Howdyshell _ Wimberly
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 10, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes
IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
A. STATUS REPORT ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OPTIONS FOR INITIATING DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS FOR THE
BIANE WINERY AND CUCAMONGA SERVICE STATION
B. STATUS REPORT ON SUSPENSION OF DEMOLTION OF
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES
C. REQUEST TO EXPAND DUTIES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE UPDATE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INCLUDE PARTICIPATION
IN FUTURE GENERAL PLAN STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
•
•
C� HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
b�Iff AGENDA
Lai
RANCHO
JANUARY 14, 2009
CUCAMONGA Page 2
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be
discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda.
IVI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS
IVII. ADJOURNMENT •
I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, •
or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was
posted on January 8, 2009, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
/
/ ,z.! ,,4, _ ,
Or
•
Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at
http:/lwww.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us
RIIf you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, •
please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
Vicinity Map
flistoric Preservation Commission
January 14, 2009
r�
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
r W. ; Q � W
I 'r W H.LLSI•E Z y 4. WIL 0N = 4 I P_'
vi U U Pr
■ H O ....4,
• __ _.�,
310. _� ` �_-�2'10-
19TH 1
1 I( BASE LINE
��' CHURCH
4.
'I ` 0,,as„, -,I_. FOOTHILL
we I
1 ARROW
I
8TH 0 I 4 0 r
CC m •�
gcC
W U.z W 4TH
Q
* Meeting Location:
City Hall
10500 Civic Center Drive
•
Items A, B, and C are City wide issues
•
STAFF REPORT t��
• PLANNING DEPARTMENT • L.
Date: January 14, 2009 RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission
From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner
Subject: STATUS REPORT ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OPTIONS
FOR INITIATING DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS FOR THE BIANE WINERY AND
CUCAMONGA SERVICE STATION
BACKGROUND: At the December 10, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, Planning
Director James R. Troyer updated the Commission on the validity of the two landmark applications
submitted by the Historical Preservation Association of Rancho Cucamonga (HPARC). Staff requested
additional time to work with the City Attorney for finality of these applications.
ANALYSIS: The Historic Preservation Ordinance does not currently require the property owner's
consent to designate a Historic Landmark. However, the City would like to maintain a positive
relationship with the owners of historical properties and recommends obtaining written consent prior to
initiating the designation. Staff contacted both property owners and they are both opposed to the
• designation at this time. As noted at the previous meeting, an application for Historic Landmark
Designation may only be proposed by the City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission, the
Planning Director, or the property owner. Since the applications submitted by HPARC do not include
consent of the property owner, they have requested that the Commission consider initiating the
designation processes for these properties.
A landmark designation application for the Biane property was initiated in the late 80's by the Historic
Preservation Commission and was tabled by the City Council. Staff is currently preparing an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the landmark applicability will be analyzed in that document.
This document must go through the appropriate review process and must be adopted by the City Council
prior to the demolition of any structures on the project site. Therefore, staff would support postponing
consideration of the landmark designation until the EIR is completed.
Lamar Advertising (owner of the "Cucamonga Service Station") indicated to staff that they do not consent
to landmark designation at this time because of current economic conditions. Lamar wishes to keep its
options open to either dedicate or sell the subject property at a future date, or they may be willing to
cooperate with landmark designation once the economy improves. Additionally, there have been
discussions where Lamar may want to donate the property to the City or to a non-profit organization at a
future date. Therefore, to necessitate landmark designation without owner consent for this property may
not be the best option at this time
OPTIONS FOR COMMISSION:
1. Initiate the historic landmark designation application and direct staff to compile a report assessing
• the historic significance of the property to be addressed as a Public Hearing item at a future
ITEM A
HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT
STATUS REPORT ON THE HPC OPTIONS FOR INITIATING DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS
January 14, 2009 •
Page 2
Commission meeting. Consideration for designating property over owner objection would also be
heard by the City Council as a Public Hearing item, and the owner will be notified.
2. Choose not to initiate the applications at this time.
RECOMMENDATION: Because of the reasons noted above, staff recommends that the Historic
Preservation Commission not initiate the landmark designation process for either property at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JRT: MN\ma
•
•
•
•
A-2
• STAFF REPORT
PLANNINGDEPARTMENrT I _•
RANCHO
Date: January 14, 2009 CUCAMONGA
To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission
From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner
Subject: STATUS REPORT ON SUSPENSION OF DEMOLTION OF POTENTIAL
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES
BACKGROUND: At the December 10, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the
Commission questioned the procedures regarding the demolition of potentially historic structures and the
available alternatives.
ANALYSIS: When an application is filed that either requests demolition, relocation, or the alteration of a
structure that has been identified .with possible historic value, the applicant is required to pay for an
independent analysis of the significance of the structure, per the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Each proposed request will require an individualized analysis to determine whether a Negative
• Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. The
burden of proof rests upon the applicant to provide a report analyzing the significance of the structure to
help determine if the structure qualifies as a "historic resource" for the purposes of CEQA.
Therefore, if the Commission requests a full report, staff can hold the requested action (demolition,
relocation, or the alteration of a possible historic resource) in abeyance until a report can be brought
back to the Commission at a future meeting. In California, local governments may enact a temporary
suspension until a full report on the analysis of the request can be determined under the authority of
Government Code Section 65858. Additionally, the City Municipal Code Section 2.24.100 H prohibits
any person to carry out a material change (i.e. demolition) on a proposed landmark until final action of
the City Council, denying the proposed designation, is taken. Based on the report, the Commission may
then make a determination of the significance of the structure, leaving the Commission with the following
options:
•
Determine that the structure meets landmark designation criteria, recommend landmark
designation, and deny the demolition request.
• Determine that the structure meets some historic significance, but the action may be mitigated to a
less-than-significant impact with appropriate mitigation measures including, but not limited to: the
placement of a plaque commemorating the site, documentation, preparation of oral histories
pertinent to the history of that site, payment of mitigation fees, etc.
•
Determine that the structure does not yield any historic significance and approve the demolition
request.
•
ITEM B
HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT
STATUS REPORT ON SUSPENSION OF POTENTIAL HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES
January 14, 2009
Page 2 •
However, there are ways in which property owners can use a type of strategy to develop a property by
"Demolition by Neglect." This is a term used to describe a situation in which a property owner
intentionally allows a historic property to suffer severe deterioration, potentially beyond the point of
repair. When properties get to this point, it can become a "Public Nuisance" or be classified as a
"Dangerous Building" under the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. When structures
get to this point, the Building Official has the authority to order demolition prior to any Historic
Preservation Commission review of historic significance, as established by the current Preservation
Ordinance. To prevent property owners from using this kind of long-term neglect to circumvent historic
preservation regulations, and to prevent similar circumstances, a penalty for demolition by neglect and a
provision for basic maintenance are being considered in the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance.
The intent is to proactively approach preservation before a structure gets to the point of deterioration.
With the ordinance update and new General Plan, there will be firm, up-to-date policies and procedures
in place that will help protect potentially historic resources from being demolished prior to Commission
review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission receive the staff
report and file for future reference.
Respectfully submitted,
R# kizuri
Jam rithte4R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JRT: MN\ma
Attachments: Exhibit A - Excerpt on Development Moratoria from the State Office of Historic
Preservation on "Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances"
Exhibit B - Draft Diagram of Demolition Permit Process to be Implemented in Ordinance
Update
•
•
B-2
• DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA AND EMERGENCY DEMOLITION BANS
Several California communities, including Palo Alto most recently, have adopted interim
regulations to prevent demolition of historic resources or new construction in historic
areas while new permanent regulations are being drafted or a comprehensive historical
resources inventory is being prepared. Palo Alto will not process applications for
development of a property while designation procedures are taking place under the
preservation ordinance, stating in the City code that,
no building, demolition; or other city permit fora `change that would constitute.
an!,alteration or demolition of a proposed hehitage property shall be issued while
". : .-.-.. � 153
the,appitcation for designation ts`pending... .. ; •
The Redondo Beach ordinance contains a similar provision to suspend the issuance of
permits once historic preservation review is initiated:
Once a completed application-has:been:accepted for the designation of a
landmark or an historic-district, no building;alteration„demolition,_=removal,or
relocation permits for any historic:resource, improvement building,,or,structure:
relative to a.proposed landmark or:within a proposed historic district shallbe
issued until a final determination,is,,;made;regarding the`;proposed!designation,
except as provided under Article.6of this chapter 75'_
In California, municipal government moratoria on development permits are allowed
• under the authority of Government Code Section 65858.155 Courts have also generally
upheld such emergency provisions, realizing that surveys, studies, and ordinance
drafting may be necessary and cannot be done overnight. A recent U.S. Supreme Court
case from California affirmed the ability of local governments to enact temporary
moratoria.156
In jurisdictions where demolitions are ministerial, situations continue to arise in which an
owner is able to secure a permit to demolish a potentially significant historic building.
When preservation interests learn of the plans, a battle to protect the structure often
ensues. In other instances, a preservation commission may announce its intent to study
a neighborhood for possible designation as a historic district. Some owners, in an
attempt to circumvent anticipated future restrictions, may rush to city hall to secure
demolition permits. What can a local government do under these circumstances to
protect threatened historical resources without violating the legal rights of property
owners? •
Surveys take time and can be expensive, and, even when a survey has been
completed, it may be several years before identification is translated into designation.
What, then, should a local commission do when a building of landmark quality that
•
153 Palo Alto, California, Code of Ordinances, § 16.49.80.
154 Redondo Beach, California, Code of Ordinances, § 10.4.305 (Delay of work pending hearing).
155 See, Bank of the Orient v. Town of Tiburon, 220 Cal.App.3d 992 [269 Cal.Rptr. 690] (Cal. App. 1990).
156 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et at v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al., U.S.
Supreme Court Docket No. 00-1167, decided April 23, 2002.
• Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 88
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin#14
EXHIBIT A B_3
•
enjoys no official protection is threatened with demolition? Provided the Government •
Code authorization for local government moratoria applies in the given situation, the
local government or commission may enact a temporary ban or moratorium that would
halt all activities that could be affected by the survey or designation process, including,
potentially, revocation of an already issued building permit or halting demolition. The
availability of this type of authority in California may be evidenced by Davis's ordinance,.
which contains the following provision that could potentially halt a wide variety of
development activities:
While-the commission's public•hearing or the City Council's decision on the ••
commission's [cleSignatiOnt recommendation is pending, the City Council upon .
the recommendation.may declare a work moratorium. During the
moratorium,:any workthat would•require an:alteration"permit if the improvement
were already.designated a historical resource.or:outstanding.historical.resource
or if.it were already'located in a:historic district shall not••be carried out The work
moratorium will;end upon the earlier of the.City Council's decision on the.
proposed designation the moratorlum termination date designated by the City';
Council or on_e,hundred:eighty cale'ndardays from the-date of•commencement of
the moratorlum.157
Invoking emergency demolition bans raises two major legal issues, involving procedural
due process and "vested rights." While the constitutional guarantee of due process
generally requires that affected persons be given notice and an opportunity to be heard
. before adoption and application of a restrictive ordinance, it is well established that a
governmental body may take temporary emergency action without prior notice or •
hearing if affected persons are afforded an opportunity to be heard before such action
becomes final. For example, as soon as possible after enacting a demolition ban, the
local government should afford the owner or developer an opportunity to be heard and
contest designation or revocation of a building permit.158
Assuming that the local government has satisfied procedural due process dictates, it
must still face the so-called "vested rights" issue. This arises, for example, when a
developer, relying on existing law, spends money in anticipation of demolishing a
building of landmark quality. Although there is no such thing as a "vested right" under
the U.S. Constitution, most state courts recognize it in some form. If developer has done
nothing more than obtain a demolition or building permit, they probably cannot claim a
vested right to proceed. If, however, the developer has signed a contract with a
demolition company and has spent funds to plan for a new development on the site
prior to enactment of the ban, the question is a more difficult one. The vested rights
issue can be defused by establishing an administrative proceeding that places the
burden on developers to produce evidence that they should be allowed to proceed. In
this way, the local government can determine if the facts support its decision to forbid
demolition.
157 Davis, California, Code of Ordinances, § 29-145.11 (Designation Procedures—Work Moratorium).
158 See, Selinger v. City Council, 216 Cal.App.3d 259, 270-71 [216 Cal.Rptr. 499] (Cal. App. 1989). •
• Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 89
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin#14
B-4
• While valuable and often essential to preservation, moratoria have serious ramifications
and thus require forethought. Of equal importance, they should not be used as an
excuse to do nothing. The ordinance establishing the moratorium should state the
reasons for its invocation, set forth a specific expiration date, and contain a safety valve
to allow the preservation commission to deal with hardship cases. From a practical
perspective, the types of development or alteration to be prohibited or made subject to
review should be carefully delineated.
•
•
B-5
O 0 N
+' C V N
O c0.
C
L TS, •
co 0 O
/)C a � °a L oo > L �E > L o 0 0
O Q. d c0 c0 c0 Th. .
t a 4. 3 0 � � E > -c . c00
v h A ' -F+ L
Q s C p. CO a) 0 6 Q
(Q O AL ,�nty �i-, CB O '� L -� C .
rr Aq.;N F`�l n e. u' i-)' 0 -'-/:• -FJ:
r 0 7 ..,., t3. -0• a CO p (0 CTS >, :.
F' .. . 1 D a t' : gla; O
:Q ,J . V 0 /
v•4y U 7.j U)
ti:. T - g, lfn,y',- of ,+,zro.a _
r{". rvr$.. },.�,.'w i!V:}3'0_ �'s^ ,.tJ a."x �n 4, 0
.0 " -EPm `-aYf' °t n 0
: CO•.•CO c ?�R gt. c
� N - Os �' # C a) •
co U Q w a) O O�'1 1,: O (0 • O C 0
p O O 0 U/� ;`O#` �333',t,`64Q� N O co E
0 co C s n (O #tea % 9
,
,
t X1 , 0 u)vakl.thE 0.)
Jt :"-1 _: P'0 c
W a ,o c
i N , C 2'39Y g r1.�
N 1 �4
C a) a) a- N 0 c C . _ O O n CO_E cC_ - L L. U U ► L U L � a )L v E a) c 5. •LN Q Q O Q '� C
W
EXHIBIT B
B-6
STAFF REPORT 7";��
• PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date: January 14, 2009
RANCHO
To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission CUCAMONGA
From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner
Subject: REQUEST TO EXPAND DUTIES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE UPDATE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INCLUDE PARTICIPATION IN
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
BACKGROUND:
Staff is working with Chattel Architects to develop General Plan goals, objectives, and policies in
regard to Historic Preservation. This includes updating the City's historical inventory of
previously surveyed properties that are listed as "Surveyed Undetermined Significance" and
identifying additional resources previously not identified, Staff held a kick-off meeting and
Citywide tour with Chattel in mid-2008 and a series of meetings with the long-time residents of
the community. Additionally, Chattel participated and gave recommendations at staffs Historic
Preservation-Ordinance Update Stakeholder meeting in October. Chattel Architects' findings
and studies will be included in the General Plan Update.
• ANALYSIS:
Currently, there is an existing City Council "Historic Preservation Subcommittee," whose tasks
include: investigating potential historic districts, participating in Ordinance update stakeholder
meetings, and providing comment and feedback on the General Plan Update. The current
members are Councilmember Diane Williams and Councilmember Sam Spagnolo. There are
also two Historic Preservation Commissioners serving on the Ordinance update stakeholder
meetings; they are Commissioners Ray Wimberly and Lou Munoz.
To further the General Plan Update goals pertaining to historic preservation, an additional
committee comprised of various stakeholders will be created. Interested groups will be invited
to the meeting for open discussion regarding long-term strategies. This committee will be
comprised of:
• Chattel Architects
• The Historic Preservation Subcommittee members (Williams and Spagnolo)
• Two members from the Historic Preservation Commission
• Interested groups or individuals such as historical societies, homeowners, long-time
residents, etc.
• Planning Department staff.
Staff anticipates the first meeting to be held in early February. The exact date of the meeting
will be sent to all stakeholders.
Having the two Commissioners currently serving on the Ordinance meetings (Wimberly and
Munoz) participate in future General Plan stakeholder meetings would help synchronize the
• formulation of long-term strategies for Historic Preservation, both in the General•Plan and the
Historic Preservation ordinance.
ITEM C
HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT
January 14, 2009
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: •
That the Historic Preservation Commission approve the recommendation that the two members
from the Historic Preservation Commission (Wimberly and Munoz) that are serving at the
Ordinance Update meetings expand their duties to include participation in future General Plan
Stakeholder meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
2eJ s R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JRT:MN/Is
•
•
C-2