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