Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/08/12 - Agenda Packet ! avActiA.49//, `.v1 ' THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUGUST 12, 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 I Regular Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2009 IIV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS A. UPDATE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES — THE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM (DRC2008-00928)AND THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS NOMINATION (DRC2009-00182) FOR THE NORTON-FISHER HOUSE 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. • /��,_, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • v{',,,,, AGENDA _. AUGUST 12, 2009 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 2 VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS VII. 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 August 6, 2009, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga / A a 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://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, • please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 CIO 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 Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2009 rj SPHERE OF INFLUEN CE. I - _ J CC J W ? ti W HILL-IDE y w a Q WIL N'N U J .7 r , - • 19TH ir,wer A `I . SE LINE ina nr CHURCH ,I a �� a FOOTHILL 0 O �� , I ARROW Li s. 9 r z I 8TH 12_4r O __, KZ = Q 4 4TH it Pr. A N Meeting Location: City Hall • 10500 Civic Center Drive STAFF REPORT • ' • PLANNING DEPARTMENT L Date: August 12, 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: UPDATE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES — THE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM (DRC2008-00928) AND THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS NOMINATION (DRC2009-00182) FOR THE NORTON-FISHER HOUSE. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL: Certified Local Government Program Staff sent in an application to the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to be authorized as a Certified Local Government on February 24, 2009. The OHP forwarded a response to the City on April 23, 2009 (Exhibit A), that they were unable to endorse the City's certification at this time and would be forwarding our application with a negative recommendation to the National Park Service (NPS). This negative recommendation was because of the fact that our Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission are a joint body. Despite the recommendation of denial from the OHP, staff elected to move forward with the application processing for final consideration to the NPS (Exhibit B). Staff has not • yet received a formal response from the NPS but anticipates it will be arriving soon. National Preservation Honor Awards Nomination Each year, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) celebrates the best of preservation by presenting awards to those whose contributions demonstrate outstanding excellence in historic preservation with the National Preservation Honor Awards. Staff nominated the Norton-Fisher house in Etiwanda for consideration. Photos, a short biography of the project, news clippings, and related information were sent to the Awards Coordinator on February 26, 2009. Regretfully, the NTHP replied on June 5, 2009, indicating that the Norton-Fisher house was not among the award recipients this year (Exhibit D). The Preservation Honor Awards occur annually and staff will continue to submit historic preservation projects to the NTHP to be considered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission receive the staff report and file for future reference. • Respectfully submitted, James royer, AICP Planning Director JRT:MN\ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Letter from OHP to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated April 23, 2009 • Exhibit B - Letter from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to Megan Brown, CLG Program Coordinator for NPS, dated May 21, 2009 Exhibit C - Letter from OHP to NPS, dated May 22, 2009 Exhibit D - Letter from NTHP to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated June 5, 2009 Item A • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION - DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BOX 942896 AMENTO,TO,CA 94296-0601 653-6624 Fax:(916)653-9824 calshpo@ohp.parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov April 23, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO rCUCAMONGA. APR 2 7 2009 Mayuko Nakajima r PLANNING Planning Department t City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPLICATION FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Ms. Nakajima, • Thank you for your Certified Local Government Certification Application. We regret that we are not able to endorse your certification as a CLG at this time. As explained in section four below, we do not support having your planning commission sit as your • historic preservation commission. We also do not find that your current commission meets the CLG requirement that all commission members have a demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation. . Our comments on your commission, as well as on the other elements of your application, are listed below. CLG Application Comments Section One — Survey • You provide a good description of your past and present survey activities. You have also mentioned how you plan to conduct future surveys based on several identified contexts. You are definitely on the right track here. We do have one concern with your survey program however; it seems overly focused on designation, with properties being listed as either "designated local landmarks" or as "designated potential local landmarks." Remember that a survey is not necessarily about discovering what you can officially or potentially designate, but finding out what resources exist in your community. Section Two — Current Preservation Program Activities • You have offered a good picture of preservation in Rancho Cucamonga. Your description of your plaque program was especially astute and connected the program and preservation awareness well. EXHIBIT A A-2 Ms. Nakajima April 23, 2009 Page 2 • Section Three —Additional Activities Resulting from Certification This section generated questions. You mention that organizing your historical resources data using the CHRID would be an improvement upon your current system. This begs the question of just how difficult your system is to use. You may want to consider implementing an easier-to-access system in the interim. Keep in mind that the point of gathering this data is to share it and use it in the planning process. We also have questions about your planned design guidelines. Keep in mind that you may have some resources that are not located within historic districts, so you will want to develop guidelines flexible enough to apply to both districts and to contributing resources within districts as well as to individually designated properties. Alternately, you may want to develop two sets of guidelines, one for districts and their contributing resources, and one for individual properties that are not necessarily located in a district. Section Four— Commission Our greatest concerns with your application lie with your commission. We do not recommend that the planning commission act as the city's historic preservation commission. The priorities and interests of each commission are often mutually exclusive. The planning commission's focus is on broader concerns, and on the big picture. Historic preservation is certainly a part of that picture, but it can often be lost • amongst the many issues that a planning commission must consider. That is why it is important to have a body dedicated solely to historic preservation. A dedicated historic preservation commission's very narrow purpose is to ensure that preservation is represented at the table. A planning commission by definition does not have such narrow goals, interests, or functions, meaning that preservation does not always receive adequate consideration. The membership of your current commission is also concerning, and would still be so even if your current commission were a dedicated historic preservation commission. Only one of your members expresses an interest in historic preservation on his resume. The rest of your members do not list even an interest in historic preservation. The regulations for the Certified Local Government program found at 36 CFR 61.5 require that: All commission members shall have a demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation. Though you state that the commission has made preservation a priority, we still question whether your commission members have the interest or experience to meet the requirements of the regulations and to further your preservation goals. Additionally, even if your current commissioners have the desire and knowledge to adequately address preservation in Rancho Cucamonga, what about the next commission, and the • commission after that? You currently have no mechanism to ensure that this and future commissions make preservation a priority. A-3 Ms. Nakajima April 23, 2009 Page 3 • We recommend including the establishment of an independent historic preservation commission in your ordinance update. We also recommend including in the ordinance update language similar to that found at 36 CFR 61.5 in regards to your commission members. This ensures that your commission members are interested enough and experienced enough to sufficiently attend to historic preservation in Rancho Cucamonga. We are aware, as you have pointed out, there have been local governments certified in California in which the planning commission and the historic preservation commission are one. We do not believe this is a good practice and no longer find that arrangement acceptable. Section Five — Incentives We applaud your available incentives and look forward to more incentives becoming . available with your ordinance update. Section Six— CEQA & Section 106 Review Process Though you have provided an excellent list of mitigation measures, we are unclear on exactly how the CEQA review process works in Rancho Cucamonga. You mention the • documents that you require when a demolition request is reviewed, but what do you require applicants to submit when demolition is not involved? What does your commission look for during the review? We also are concerned about your review process in relation to archaeological resources. Do you require that any studies be performed prior to commencing construction when there are no pre-existing buildings involved in a project? If you do not, you may want to consider changing your review process to make it more proactive and less reactive by requiring developers to determine if any archaeological resources are likely to exist on the project site and to plan accordingly before construction begins. It is often cheaper to plan ahead than to halt a project upon the unexpected discovery of archaeological resources after grading begins. Also, you mention that the city is using CDBG funds to rehabilitate the Pacific Electric Railway Etiwanda Station. How was the Section 106 review for this project completed? We have no record of consultation with our office. How might the review process work for any future projects involving.CDBG funds? Draft Ordinance Comments 2.24.030 I. — If you are going to have both conservation districts and historic districts, it may be confusing if your "Conservation Plans" relate to your historic districts and/or your conservation districts. For your historic districts, you may want to consider using • the term "Preservation Plan" or "Historic District Plan" instead. A-4 Ms. Nakajima April 23, 2009 Page 4 • 2.24.030 CC— In your definition of "Point of Historical Interest" it is not completely clear what differentiates a Point of Historical Interest from a Landmark. Is the difference just that a Point of Historical Interest does not have to retain its integrity and a Landmark does? 2.24.040 - See Section Four above for our suggestions regarding your commission. Thank you for your interest in becoming a Certified Local Government and your obvious commitment to historic preservation. Please consider revising your ordinance to separate your historic preservation commission from your planning commission. Then will we be able to consider endorsing your application to become a Certified Local Government. Please take a careful look at our comments, and you still wish for us to forward your application to the National Park Service with a negative recommendation, please let me know. Sincerely, Lucinda Woodward, Supervisor Local Government Unit • • • • A-5 Mayor • DONALD J. KURTH, M.D. Mayor Pro Tem L. DENNIS MICHAEL Councilmembars 1 REX GUTIERREZ ~ SAM SPAGNOLO DIANE WILLIAMS ; City Manager I THE CTS' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JACK LAM,AICP te"' RANCHO CUCAMONGA — May 21, 2009 Megan Brown • CLG Program Coordinator Historic Preservation Grants Division National Park Service 1201 I Street, NW (6th Floor) Washington, DC 20005 • SUBJECT: CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPLICATION • Dear Ms. Brown: • The City of Rancho Cucamonga submitted a Certified Local Government application to the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) on February 24, 2009. The OHP • forwarded a response to the City on April 23, 2009, that they were unable to endorse the City's • certification at this time and would be forwarding our application and negative recommendation to the National Park Service (NPS). This negative recommendation was due mainly to the fact that our Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission is a joint body. Although we understand the concerns of OHP in regards to dual commission responsibilities, separating the two Commissions is not an option at this time. The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department which administers the Historic Preservation program, currently has deleted, laid off or has vacant 5 and 1/2 positions including a full time vacancy in the Historic Preservation Section of the Department. Nonetheless, our Commission acknowledges the importance of historic preservation and are advocates of preserving Rancho Cucamonga history. Additionally, staff has dedicated numerous hours rebuilding and revitalizing the preservation program including, updating our templates/applications, creating city brochures, participation in the National Historic Preservation Month, working with our two Historic Preservation Societies, currently creating a historic preservation website, and updating the Historic Preservation Ordinance (ongoing) and more. Furthermore, the City has purchased and/or rehabilitated three historic structures that were in danger of demolition and are currently in negotiations to purchase another structure. The City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan. One of the main themes of this update is focused on historic preservation. In concert with the General Plan Update, a historic preservation consultant has been hired to perform a city-wide survey. The evaluation criteria will conform to State and Federal standards. Both the General Plan and updated survey will be helpful in guiding the City towards a more preservation-oriented mindset. • • N xwk EXHIBIT H I B IT By 7 • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917229-0807•Tel 909-477-2700 w 700 • Fax 909-477-2849 • ww.ciryofac.us km ice/ A-6 �3 • • CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPLICATION May 21 , 2009 Page 2 • Staff has developed a stakeholders group consisting of Landmark owners, Historic Preservation Society members, members of the Rains House Museum, Historic Preservation Commission members, and City Council members who have been involved in both the update of the ordinance and the General Plan Update process. Additionally, a Historic Preservation Subcommittee has been created and includes two of our City Council members and two Historic Preservation Commission members who meet once a quarter to discuss major historic preservation efforts. Although the OHP had negative recommendations, the City of Rancho Cucamonga would like the NPS to consider reviewing our application and consider the City's position during these economic times. The City's certification as a CLG would allow the city to apply for additional funding opportunities that will further our ability to maintain and promote the Historic Preservation program. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is committed to historic preservation • and preserving our local history. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jam R. Troyer, AICP- . Planning Director • JRT:MN/ge c: Lucinda Woodward, SHPO The City Council The Historic Preservation Commission Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Pam Easter, Assistant City Manager Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Director • • A-7 •STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHN/ARZENEGGER,Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ;, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION X 942696 , ilk MEN O.CA 94296-0001 (9s j 653-6692 Fax(916)653-962= calshpolmoho.oarks ca gov www.oh p.parks.ca.gov CITY OF AANC 40 CUCAMONGA• May 22, 2009 ILIN 0 1 1004 C �� � LA� 1pr 'R`' Megan Brown, CLG Program Coordinator PLANNING • Historic Preservation Grants Division . National Park Service . 1201 I Street, NW (2256) Washington, DC 20005 Dear Ms. Brown: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has requested certification as a Certified Local Government in California. The Office of Historic Preservation has reviewed the application and does not recommend approval. We do not support the city's planning commission sitting as their historic preservation commission. We recognize that we do have some CLGs in California • with such an arrangement, but that is something we no longer support. On a related issue, we do not find that their current joint planning and historic preservation commission meets the CLG requirements that all commission members have a demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation. Our practice is to ask that local governments submit a draft application which we review and provide informal comments. On December 9, 2008 we emailed comments to the City expressing concerns about their joint planning and historic preservation commission. After discussion, the city elected to forward their formal application process on February 24, 2009. On April 23, 2009 we responded with much the same comments and concerns that we expressed in our informal comments in December. Again, after discussion, the city requested we forward the CLG application to you, despite our recommendation of denial. Enclosed are our informal comments of December 9, 2008; our formal letter of April 23, 2009; and the Application Checklist. Please review and process the City of Benicia's request. The contact person for the City is Mayuko Nakajima, Planning Department, City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Her telephone is (909) 477-275 0 and her email is Mavuko.Nakajima5citvofrc.!s. If you have questions regarding our office's review and evaluation of the application, please contact me at 653-9116 or at Iwoodward(c�parks.ca.aov. • EXHIBIT C A_$ Ms. Brown May 26, 2009 Page 2 Sincerely, • is , Lucinda M. Woodward, State Historian Ill Supervisor, Local Government Program Enclosures: Email, December 9, 2008 Letter, April 23, 2009 Application Checklist, May 20, 2009 • Cc: Mayuko Nakajima • • • A-9 • NATIONAL SUN S t' '```G TRUST • FOR HISTORIC Riri-1`10$ PRESERVATION- June June 5, 2009 Mayuko Nakajima • Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Mayuko Nakajima: On behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, thank you very much for submitting the Norton-Fisher House for a 2009 National Preservation Award. This year we received 129 nominations, each of excellent quality, and each worthy of recognition. A jury comprised of preservationists from across the United States carefully reviewed all nominations and advised National Trust President Richard Moe in the selections. • We regret to inform you that the Norton-Fisher House was not among the award recipients this year. We hope that you understand this simply means that there were more excellent submissions this year than awards available. I sincerely wish we could present every entry with an award and give national recognition to all nominees for their important contributions to the preservation of our nation's heritage. All of us at the National Trust for Historic Preservation appreciate your special commitment to historic preservation and the time you spent preparing your nomination. We hope you will participate in the National Preservation Awards program again in the future. Sincerely, 1 ,,. Peter H. Brink Senior Vice President. Programs • 1785 Massachusetts Avenue.NW Washington.DC 20036 c^^.. -orvm rag anzv r;nr,.,;;nthn.org wwwPreservetionNation.org EXHIBIT D A.10