August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
Historic Preservation Commission
Staff Report
August 2, 2023
FILE NO: MAJCOA-021547-2023
APPLICATION REQUEST: Major Certificate of Appropriateness for the retroactive approval of multiple unpermitted projects, including an unpermitted renovation of a duplex, the removal of one heritage tree, and the installation of a fence at the side yard at a contributing resource within the Lincoln Park Historic District.
DATE SUBMITTED: January 25, 2023
ADDRESS: 607 N. Gibbs Street, 195 E. Pasadena Street
APPLICANT: Andy Tai; Sun Wood Property, LLC
PROJECT PLANNER: Alan Fortune, Assistant Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: If approved, this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15331, Class 31 (Historic resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) of the California CEQA Guidelines as the project consists of minor alterations to an existing structure and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If denied, CEQA does not apply.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the retroactive tree removals for Major Certificate of Appropriateness MAJCOA-021547-2023 and replacement of one non-historic window on the rear of the house, deny the remaining alterations of the unpermitted renovation of the duplex, and adopt Resolution No. 23-009.
BACKGROUND:
The contributing resource located at the north-west corner of North Gibbs Street and East Pasadena Street consists of a duplex with one unit oriented toward each street . The resource has two designated Attachment No. 5
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
addresses, one at 607 N. Gibbs Street and one at 195 E. Pasadena Street. The units are 1,012 square feet and 940 square feet, respectively. The original development of the site at 607 N. Gibbs Street appears to have been developed with a single -family residence between 1895 and 1906 based on survey data and Sanborn Maps, both show a single -family structure, but it is unclear if it is the same structure. The structure was subsequently converted to a duplex sometime later. Staff was unable to locate the original building permits for either unit in Building and Safety Division records; however, staff was able to determine that the property was originally developed as a single-family residence, based on early Sanborn Maps, by at least 1895, potentially earlier. We have provided the Sanborn Maps as an attachment to observe the progression of this property from a single-family residence to a duplex (Attachment 2). One of the several-recorded surveys estimates the second unit at 195 E. Pasadena Street to have been constructed as an attached unit in approximately 1915. The 1993 survey that evaluated this property identified the structure as California Bungalow or Craftsman architecture and ga ve the resource a “Contributing” rating with no alterations or additions having been made to the building, with the house remaining relatively unaltered (Attachment 3). The survey identifies the condition of the building as being good. The property was included as a contributing resource with the adoption of the Lincoln Park Historic District in 1998. Site photographs have been provided for Commission review in Attachment Number 4.
On December 7, 2021, the applicant applied for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA 17382- 2021) to replace exterior wood siding like for like and to replace nine original wood windows with vinyl windows. The window assessment f orms associated with this application , with pictures of the original windows of this structure , have been attached for Commission review (Attachment 5). Before the application could be reviewed, a hold was placed due to unp ermitted construction activity. On January 24, 2022, the Code Compliance Division issued a citation for unpermitted construction that was taking place and notified the applicant that a Certificate of Appropriateness must be obtained for the work being performed. On Januar y 25 , 2022, the applican t applied for a Minor Certificate of A ppropriateness (MINCOA 17627-2022) for the installation of a new wrought iron fence around the property, new garage doors of a compatible style, and the replacement of seven wood windows to match like for like.
On April 28, 2022, the applicant withdrew Major Certificate of Appropriateness application Number 17382-2021, requesting to replace original wood windows with new vinyl windows with the intent of replacing windows like for like or having existing windows r estored. Staff placed a hold on issuing any Minor Certificate of Appropriateness’ so that all proposed changes could be captured in a single project description. Unknown to Staff, unpermitted work continued to take place. On August 2, 202 2, the applicant a pplied for a second Minor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA 19021 -2022) for the removal of two mature trees of character-defining landscaping.
On September 15, 2022, the applicant applied for a third Minor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA 19476-2022) to replace the existing composition shingles like for like. The request to replace the roofing material is the only Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued. Staff did not issue the other pending minor certificates of appropriateness as the scope of work continued to change, required materials were missing from the application, and work continued to take place without permits. In all cases, work had begun or had finished prior to any issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or building permit.
On January 24, 2023, Staff conducted a site visit and observed multiple unpermitted projects had taken
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
place without the benefit of any Certificate of Appropriateness nor a building permit. In some cases, such as the deletion or replacement of windo ws, were far beyond the restoration work verbally explained to Staff by the applicant. Staff also observed that the units are currently occupied by tenants. The unpermitted work includes:
1. Two doors on the north facade have been deleted;
2. Two windows on the north facade have been deleted;
3. Exposed rafters on eaves have been covered with fascia board;
4. Window trim around all windows has been changed;
5. A Non-original sliding door at the rear of the house has been replaced with an asymmetrical, non- matching window;
6. Non-original sliding window at rear of house has been replaced with wood, single/double -hung window;
7. Wooden carriage doors on the street-facing garage have been replaced with aluminum, mechanical garage doors;
8. House has been re-sided and corner boards have been placed on facade corners;
9. New metal fence that is inappropriate for the period and architectural style has been installed;
10. New air conditioning units with wrought iron cages have been installed on the north side of units;
11. One mature Crape Myrtle tree has been removed;
12. Character-defining landscaping in the street facing front and side yards has been almost entirely removed;
13. Several original single-hung or double-hung windows have been replaced with gridded windows not original to the home;
14. Two large windows on the north facade have been replaced with smaller windows;
15. The primary front doors on each unit have been replaced with new doors;
On January 25, 2023, Planning Staff received an application for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA 20613-2023) for the retroactive approval of all unpermitted projects to an unpermitted renovation of a duplex, the removal of multiple trees, and the installation of a fence at the side yard at a contributing resource within the Lincoln Park Historic District . Project plans prepared by the applicant have been attached for Commission consideration (Attachment 6).
Prior to the recent unpermitted work, the condition of the structure was good, with no major alterations or additions having been made, and it could be determined that t he structure had retained many of its character-defining features, based on the two historic resource surveys and staff visits to the site.
However, the requested retroactive approval s do not match the architectural style of the home in a number of ways, and some character-defining features have now been removed or screened from view.
This Project was originally scheduled and noticed for the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting on May 7, 2023. However, at the staff’s request, the Historic Preservation Commission continued the item to the meeting on August 2, 2023, to allow additional time to prepare a comprehensive anal ysis based on all of the unpermitted work.
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES:
The primary structure is a Craftsman Bungalow Style duplex . The original character-defining features present on this Bungalow structure include:
1. Narrow exterior clapboard wood siding
2. Roof features such as the relatively low-pitched roofs, modest eave overhang with simple beam supports, and small rectangular louvered vents within the gables
3. Grouped double-hung windows surrounded by wood trim
4. Unusual tandem front-facing gabled roofs coupled with a transverse gable
5. Small colonnade porches without walls typical of Craftsman Bungalow style. It is set under a front- facing gable supported by tapered wood posts sitting on brick pedestals
DISCUSSION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Site Design/Building Layout: The subject site consists of a duplex and one detached garage . The detached garage is located near the west property line setback from East Pasadena Street. The east unit facing Gibbs Street (607 N . Gibbs Street) was the first unit constructed in or before 1895; the attached unit facing Pasadena Street (195 E. Pasadena Street) and was added to the original structure in approximately 1915. There are no proposed additions to the building that affect the site design or building layout.
2. Architecture: Prior to the illegal work, the existing structure appeared to be in original condition, with very few alterations. The only alterations that affected the character of the building was the sliding door on the west elevation and the security fencing on the porch along Gibbs.
3. Roof: Among the character-defining features present on this home is the moderately pitched, cross- gabled roof with composite roof shingles as well as the open overhanging eaves with exposed rafters and vertical wood vents within the gables.
4. Windows/fenestration: There are a number of large, grouped, double-hung windows surrounded by wood trim on all facades of the home. No windows original to the home had grids and nearly all were double-hung. Each unit had what was likely a non-original door leading into the home from the street.
At the rear of the attached unit facing Pasadena Street (195 E. Pasadena Street), there was a non - original sliding door that led into the backyard toward the detached garage. At the north facade of the structure, each unit had a door leading into the side yard from the kitchen. The detached garage had original wood carriage doors that swung open on hinges.
5. Landscaping: The front and side yard setback areas along Gibbs and Pasadena Streets were landscaped with natural turf and flowering shrubs surrounding the duplex. The parkway along both streets in front of the subject property had also been maintained with natural turf. Before the unpermitted renovation, there were two mature trees that appeared to be healthy when viewed from
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
previous imagery; those trees have been removed. One was a Mexican Fan Palm ( Washingtonia filifera), and the other a Crape Myrtle Tree ( Lagerstroemia indica ). Both exceeded the minimum protection thresholds for their respective species and are considered character-defining landscaping.
A separate mature California Pepper Tree ( Schinus molle) was in the parkway within the public right of way between sidewalk and curb in front o f the house on Pasadena Street; this tree was rem oved by the City to prevent further breaks due to structural damage after a large limb had broken, as observed by the Parks and Landscapes Supervisor. One relatively small Queen Palm ( Syagrus romanzoffiana) was in the front yard setback along Gibbs Street, the size of this tree was below the minimum protection threshold for this species.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS:
The following is a list of alterations for the Commission's consideration under this request. The list is a compilation of both the unpermitted work requested to be legalized by the applicant and alterations that were observed by the Planning Staff and are associated with an open citation with the Code Compliance Division. None of the following alterations have obtained Historic Prese rvation Commission or staff approval. Because of the significant number of alterations, rather than discuss how the project does or does not meet the design review and Secretary of the Interior’s standards, this report discusses how each alteration does or does not match each applicable criteria and references the criteria number(s). The applicable design review criteria and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are listed after the discussion of each alteration.
1. Two doors on the north facade have been deleted;
Two original doors on the north facade were removed and filled in or replaced with much smaller windows at a different height than surrounding windows . Exact specifications were not provided by the applicant for any new windows or doors installed. Craftsman style architecture has windows that are generally consistent in proportion with each other, with the sill and head heights being at the same height throughout the building. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 2, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the windows restored.
2. Two windows on the north facade have been deleted;
At least two windows were deleted and filled in with siding on the north elevation . Craftsman style buildings were designed to allow for cross ventilation. Staff has received no justification as to why the windows had to be r emoved and no reason why they could not be replaced with new windows.
This alteration is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the windows restored.
3. Exposed rafters on eaves have been covered with fascia board;
Fascia board has been placed along the roof eave to cover the exposed rafter beams that were present
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
on the moderately pitched and cross gabled roof. These exposed rafters are a character-defining feature of the architecture of the home. This alteration is inconsistent with the style of architecture and covers a character-defining feature. It is inconsistent with the City’s Design Review Criterion No. 7 and 8; and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, and 6. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the fascia boards removed.
4. Window trim around windows has been changed;
Original window trim has been altered by removing the original and replacing with new. The new trim in instances where the window has been replace, is a difference dimension than the original trim. The varying dimensions and style of the trim is inconsistent with the architectural style, City’s Design Review Criterion No. 7, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and window trim restored to its original style and dimensions.
5. Non-original sliding door at rear of house has been replaced with asymmetrical, non -matching window;
The sliding glass doors that were removed were not original to the home . Unfortunately, this non- historic feature was replaced with a window that is a size and proportion that is inconsistent with the other windows on the house. Craftsman style architecture has windows that are generally consistent in proportion with each other, with the sill and head heights being at the same height throughout the building. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 2, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the window replaced with an appropriately proportioned window.
6. Non-original sliding window at rear of house has been replaced with wood, single/double -hung window;
The sliding window that was removed was not original to the home . This non-historic feature was replaced with a single/double-hung wood window that is a size and proportion that is consistent with the other windows on the house. Craftsman style architecture has windows that are generally consistent in proportion with each other, with the sill and head heights being at the same height throughout the building. The proposed alteration is therefore consistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also consistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 2, 6, 9, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be approved, with the Condition that the window trim match the original window trim on the building.
7. Wooden carriage doors on the street-facing garage have been replaced with aluminum, mechanical garage doors;
Original wood carriage doors were replaced with mechanical aluminum doors. These doors were likely original to the garage. The original garage was constructed in approximately 1906 ( according to recorded Sanborn Maps) and was expanded to its current size shortly after. These carriage-style doors
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
were consistent with the architectural style of the home whereas the recently installed aluminum door does not match the Craftsman architectural style. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 7, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 7, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the doors replaced with an appropriately styled door.
8. House has been re-sided and corner boards have been placed on facade corners;
All damaged pieces of existing wood siding have been replaced with similar or like materials to match the exposure of existing pieces. Only damaged pieces were removed. A number of corners on the facade now have corner boards, however this is inconsistent as not all corners have new boards. The narrow exterior clapboard wood siding is among the character-defining features. Corner boards are not a feature typically found on Craftsman styled buildings. The Craftsman style mitered the corners of siding to avoid the use of corner boards and showcase the craftsmanship of the builders. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion Nos. 6 and 7, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the corner boards replaced with siding.
9. New metal fence that is inappropriate for the period and architectural style has been installed;
An existing 6’ tall wooden fence within the front and side yard setbacks has been removed. Within the front yard along Gibbs Street, the fence has been replaced with a horizontal metal -slat fence at approximately four (4’) tall. This style of fencing is not compatible with the style or time period of the architecture of the duplex. Wrought iron fencing with pointed tops has been placed above a block wall along the north property line to be approximately six (6’) tall. The style of wrought iron or the combination nature of the now six -foot tall fence does not match the Craftsman Bungalow style of the duplex. This fence is inconsistent with the fence design guidelines approved by the Commission.
It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 7, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the fence replaced with a fence that meets the City’s fence design guidelines.
10. New air conditioning units with wrought iron cages have been installed on north side of units;
New air conditioning units have been installed around the foundation of the homes and are visible from the street. It was recommended by Staff that the air conditioning be put underneath the house within the raised foundation to screen it from view. New me chanical equipment is re quired to be screened from public view. The air conditioning units also have wrought iron cages that are not compatible in style to the architecture of the home. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s design guidelines, Design Review Criterion No. 10, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the air conditioning units relocated to an area not visible from the public right- of-way.
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
11. One mature Crape Myrtle tree has been removed;
The two mature trees present on site that were within the side yard setback facing Pasadena Street were removed without obtaining any Certificate of Appropriateness and without inspection by the City Arborist. One was a Mexican Fan Palm ( Washingtonia filifera) that did not meet the protected height requirement and the other a Crape Myrtle Tree ( Lagerstroemia indica), that did exceed the minimum protection threshold and is considered character defining landscaping. Imagery shows that these trees were likely healthy. A third mature tree within the parkway, a California Pepper Tree (Schinus molle), was removed by the City to prevent further breaks due to s tructural damage after a large limb had broken, as observed by the Parks and Landscapes Supervisor. A retroactive approval is allowed under the City’s tree preservation program. The Crape Myrtle tree’s diameter of over 24 inches makes it a heritage tree. The replacement guidelines requires a 2:1 replacement ratio for heritage trees and a 2:1 ratio for a retroactive approval. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the tree removal, with the replacement of four (4) trees to replace the heritage Crape Myrtle tree.
12. Character-defining landscaping in the street facing front and side yards has been almost entirely removed;
Several components of character -defining landscaping have been removed. Nearly all street facing landscaping was removed and replaced wit h gravel. Public right of way landscaping has also been removed and replaced with gravel. This is not compliant with the Pomona Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. All flowering plants and shrubs have been removed during the renovation, as has all natural turf on the subject property. Also removed was a relatively small Queen Palm ( Syagrus romanzoffiana) that was in the front yard setback along Gibbs Street, however the size of this tree was below the minimum protection threshold for this species. The City’s landscape ordinance does not allow the yards to be covered in gravel. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and new landscaping installed consistent with the City’s requirements.
13. Several original single-hung or double-hung windows have been replaced with gridded windows not original to home of different dimensions;
A number of original wood single hung or double hung windows have been either renovated or replaced. Some windows have been replaced all together with windows of a different style an d size.
Though all new windows are wood, they may be a different size than was original or are of a different style, such as having gridded windows where there were none before. Replaced windows are not the same dimension or at the same height as was the o riginal window. These new windows have grids whereas the original windows did not have this feature. In some cases, these new windows are of a different size, have been installed at a different height, or both. Staff has received no justification as to why the windows had to be removed and no reason why they could not be replaced with new windows. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture.
It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 2, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the windows restored.
14. Two large windows on north facade have been replaced with smaller windows.
Two large original wood windows have been replaced with windows of a smaller size. They appear to be composed of wood but are of a much smaller dimension. These smaller windows have been installed at a different height than that of the windows on the same north facade. Staff has received no justification as to why the windows had to be removed and no reason why they could not be replaced with new windows. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 2, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the windows restored.
15. The primary front doors on each unit have been replaced with new doors
Each of the front doors leading into each unit that are visible from the streets have been replaced.
The previous doors, which may not have been original, have been replaced with new doors that are not Craftsman in style and are not the most compatible with the period of construction of the homes.
Staff has received no justification as to why the windows had to be removed and no reason why they could not be replaced with new windows. The proposed alteration is therefore inconsistent with the Craftsman Style of architecture. It is also inconsistent City’s Design Review Criterion No. 2, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards No. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, this alteration should be denied and the doors replaced with period appropriate doors.
DESIGN REVIEW:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides that the Commission is guided by the following areas in addition to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff has reviewed the project as it relates to these standards as well as any applicable design guidelines. Staff’s analysis is below:
1. Height. The height of any proposed construction shall be compatible with the height and bulk of surrounding structures and in conformance with the maximum allowable height for the applicable zoning district.
2. Proportions of Windows and Doors. The proportions and relationships between doors and windows shall be compatible with the architectural style and character of the surrounding structures, and be of an appropriate material.
3. Relationship of Building Masses and Spaces. The resulting relationships between proposed structures and created spaces, or between remodeled structures and created spaces, shall be consistent with the shapes and setbacks of existing adjacent structures.
4. Roof Shape. The designs of the roof shall be compatible with the architectural character and style of the surrounding structures. Gables, turrets, and other roof forms shall be incorporated when appropriate to
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
accomplish design compatibility with adjacent structures.
5. Scale. The scale of the structure shall be compatible with the architectural character and style of the existing buildings. The new building shall blend in with surrounding buildings through the sensitive use of proper scale and materials.
6. Directional Expression/Facades. Facades in an historic district shall blend in with other structures with regard to directional expression. Structures in an historic district shall be compatible with the dominant horizontal and vertical expression of surrounding structures.
7. Architectural Details. Architectural details, including materials and textures shall be treated so as to make any new construction compatible with the architectural style and character of the historic district.
8. Architectural Rhythm and Articulation. All proposed structures or facade remodeling shall show sufficient and rhythmic repetition of architectural details so as to be compatible with the facade articulation of existing adjacent buildings.
9. New Additions/Construction. New additions and adjacent related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
10. Mechanical Equipment. All exterior mechanical equipment shall b e screened from view with appropriately designed screens, parapet walls, landscaping or any other form of screening which the commission or the planning and development services manager may deem acceptable. The design, style, color and texture of the requi red screening method shall be compatible with the existing or proposed building/facade design.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides that the latest Rehabilitation Stan dards contained in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties guide the Commission. Staff reviewed the project for compliance with the applicable standards below:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest mean s possible.
Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
The findings required in Section .589 -13(F)(6) of the Pomona Zoning Ordinance for a Certificate of Appropriateness are included in the attached resolution (Attachment 1).
CONCLUSION:
The unpermitted work brings the contributing re source further away from its initially intact histori c integrity and good condition. Staff does not recommend the retroactive approval of these changes as discussed above. These changes are not compatible with the style of the existing home nor the existing adjacent contributing homes in the immediate neighborhood. These projects will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. Staff has conditioned that all the features of the units be brought back to their original state. Because the mature and healthy Crape Myrtle Tree has already been removed, Staff recommends that this be replaced per the objective tree replacement methodology. Staff also recommends approval for the replacement of one (1) non -historic window on the west elevation. Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA 21547-2023) to allow for the retroactive approval for the removal of one heritage tree , replacement of the one (1) non -historic window, and deny all other requests
August 2, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting File No.: MAJCOA 21547-2023 Staff Report
associated with the application and adopt draft Resolution No. 23-009.
Upon the Commission’s action on this Major Certificate of Appropriateness, staff will deny the two minor permits, MINCOA 17627-2022, for the installation of a new wrought iron fence around the property, new garage doors of a compatible style, and the replacement of seven wood windows to match like for like and MINCOA 19021-2022 for removal of two mature trees of character-defining landscaping.
PUBLIC NOTICING:
On May 25, 2023, a public hearing notice was mailed to the applicant and to all owners of properties located directly adjacent to and directly across the street fr om the subject sites (Attachment 7). On July 18, 2023, a second public hearing notice was mailed to the same recipients due to the continuation of the item and the change of meeting location. As of the date of this staff report, Planning Division Staff has not received correspondence regarding the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
If approved, Staff has determined that this project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15331, Class 31 (Historic Rehabilitation) of the California CEQA Guidelines as the project is a minor alteration to an existing structure and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Therefore no further environmental review is required. If denied, CEQA does not apply.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The Conditions of Approval are contained in the attached resolution (Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 23-009
2. Sanborn Maps
3. 1993 Citywide and Lincoln Park Historic District Survey Forms
4. Site Photographs
5. Window Assessment Forms
6. Project Plans
7. Notice of Public Hearing
DRAFT HPC RESOLUTION NO. 23-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF POMONA, CALIFORNIA FOR MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (MAJCOA-021547-2023) TO DENY THE LEGALIZING OF THE UNPERMITTED
REVONATION OF A DUPLEX AND TO RETROACTIVELY APPROVE THE
REMOVAL OF ONE TREE AND APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF ONE NON - HISTORIC WINDOW AT A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE AT 607 N. GIBBS STREET AND 195 E. PASADENA STREET, LOCATED I N THE LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT (APN 8336-017-008).
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the applicant, Andy Tai, has submitted an application for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA -021547-2023) for the retroactive approval of multiple unpermitted projects including the renovation of a duplex, the removal of two mature trees, and the installation of a fence at the side yard of a contributing resource located at 607 N. Gibbs Street and 195 E. Pasadena Street;
WHEREAS, the resi dential structure at the site is estimated to have been constructed in between 1895 and 1915 in the Craftsman Bungalow style of architecture;
WHEREAS, the subject property is a contributing resource to the Lincoln Park Historic District, which was designated as a historic district by the Pomona City Council on May 4, 1998;
WHEREAS, major projects that include changes which significantly alter the height, proportions, relationship of the building mass and space, roof shape, scale or distinctive facades of the structure requires the Historic Preservation Commission to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness prior to the issuance of building permits;
WHEREAS, a retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained for all unpermitted removal of character -defining landscaping within historic districts and historic sites throughout the City,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission must make fin dings as described in Section .5809-13.F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness for a project that significantly alter s distinctive facades of a contributing resource located in a historic district;
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, hel d a public hearing on August 2, 2023, concerning the requested Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA-021547-2023); and
Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
WHEREAS, the Hi storic Preservation Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case presented at the public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby determines that, pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project meets the criteria of a Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Section 15301(e)(1); and Class 31 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation), Section 15331 in that the project is a minor alteration to an existing structure that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
SECTION 2. Section .5809 -13.F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Preservation Commission to make findings to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings regarding the replacement of one (1) non-historic window on the west elevation and the replacement of one (1) protected tree:
a. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located.
The unpermitted replacement of a non -historic window w ith an appropriately designed, wood frame, single/double -hung window of similar proportion to existing historic windows will not adversely affect the significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the property or the Lincoln Park Historic District because the new window is consistent in style, dimension, and height with the other windows on the home, and is consistent with the Craftsman architectural style. The retroactive approval of the removed trees will not adversely affect the neighborhood as they will be replaced either on site or somewhere within the Lincoln Park Historic District.
b. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with the existing adjacent contributing structures in an historic district.
The unpermitted replacement of a non -historic window with an appropriately designed, wood frame, single/double -hung window of similar proportion to existing historic windows is compatible with the Craftsman architectural style and contributing structures in the Lincoln Park Historic District because the new window is consistent in style, dimension, and height with the other windows on the home and the Craftsman architectural style.
Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
c. The proposed change is consistent with the ar chitectural style of the building as specified in Section .5809-13 F 5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The unpermitted replacement of a non -historic window with an appropriately designed, wood frame, single/double -hung window of similar proportion to existin g historic windows is consistent with the architectural style of the main building as specified in Section .5809-13.F.5 of the Zoning Ordinance , because the new window is consistent in style, dimension, and height with the other windows on the home, and is consistent with the Craftsman architectural style.
d. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures.
The unpermitted replacement of a non -historic window with an appropriately designed, wood frame, single/double -hung window of similar proportion to existing historic windows is consistent in fenestration or proportion to other windows on the house.
SECTION 3. Section .5809 -13.F.6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Preservation Commission to make findings to approve a Major Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings regarding the alterations proposed, excluding the two alterations outlined in Section 2:
a. The proposed change will not adversely affect any significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the concerned property or the historic district in which it is located.
The unpermitted alterations of the home will adversely affect the significant historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic features of the Lincoln Park Historic District in that the unpermitted work, including but not limited to the deletion of multiple doors and windows and the replacement of original windows with those of non -matching styles and dimensions and heights that are not consistent with the other windows on the home, are not consistent with the architecture of the existing home. Many of the structures nearby in the immediate neighborhood.
b. The proposed change is compatible in architectural style with the existing adjacent contributing structures in an historic district.
The unpermitted changes to the structure are not compatible in architectural style with the existing contributing structures in the Lincoln Park Historic District. Alterations such as the air conditioning units that are visible from the street and the replacement of the original wood carriage styl e doors on the detached garage with mechanical metal doors is not appropriate for the time period of a majority of homes in the immediate vicinity. Adding Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
corner boards on siding of the façade corners of the structure and installing windows of differing style that is not consistent with the architecture of the home and visible from the street is not compatible with the contributing structure on site or the adjacent contributing structures.
c. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building as specified in Section .5809-13 F 5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed project is not consistent with the architectural style of the main building as specified in Section .5809 -13.F.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The alterations include new windows installed at different heights that are of a different style than the existing windows and do not match the architectural style of the home. The introduction of fascia board along the eaves that covers the exposed rafters removes a character defining feature from the home and should be removed. The horizontal metal slat fence is not of a material or time period that matches the style of the home. The gridded windows are not original to this style. The new doors are not Craftsman style. The non-original sliding door at the rear has been replaced with a window with a differing height, creating asymmetry on the rear façade that is visible from the street.
d. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, textures, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or compatible with adjacent structures.
The proposed changes are not consistent with the period nor compatible with the adjacent structures in fenestration or proportions. Many of the newly installed windows differ in size than the original windows that were there previously, are of a different style (such a s having grids) than the original windows, and are located at a different height than the other windows on the façade or around the house. This massing and fenestration is inconsistent with the original residence. The improvements are inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 9.
SECTION 4. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA-021547-2023) for the retroactive approval to remove one (1) protected tree, replacement of one (1) non -historic window on the west elevation, and to deny the unpermitted renovation of a contributing resource located within the Lincoln Park Historic District with the following conditions:
1. Time Limits. The Certificate of Approp riateness shall become void twelve (12) months from the date of approval (August 2, 2024) unless a building permit has been issued and work authorized by this approval has commenced prior to the expiration date and is diligently pursued to completion.
Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
2. All unpermitted work on the house must be restored to its original state. Plans must indicate such prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
3. Any de viation from the structure’s original state shall require a separate Certificate of Appropriateness that complies with Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and require approval of the Planning Division and, if necessary, the Historic Preservation Commission.
4. All project conditions shall be imprinted on the t itle sheet of the construction drawings.
The approved set of plans shall be retained on-site for review by Building Inspectors during the course of construction.
5. In the event that conditions imposed by the Historic Preservation Commission are inconsistent with provisions of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (also known as the California Building Standards Code) or any uniform construction code applicable within this jurisdiction, such conditions of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be waived in favor of such code.
6. Prior to Occupancy the Planning Division shall inspect the premises to ensure the Conditions of Approval have been met and that the project has been constructed per the approved plans.
7. Construction Activities:
Hours of construction activity shall be limited to:
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
(There shall be no construction allowed on Sunday or on any Federal or State Holiday)
8. Violation of any of the conditions of this permit shall be cause for revoc ation and termination of all rights thereunder.
9. Any new windows that do not match the original location, dimension, material, or style must be replaced with windows of a dimension and style, including material, trim, appearance, and opening direction, that would have been original to the home. Plans must indicate such prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
10. Any new windows that were installed where there was not initially a window should be removed and filled in, as was original to the home.
11. Unpermitted window trims must be removed and restored to match their original appearance.
Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
12. The front doors to each unit shall be replaced with Craftsman style wood doors that are compatible with the style and architecture of the contributing structure.
13. The door in each unit leading into the side yard on the north façade (two doors total) that have been removed and filled in shall be reinstalled and restored to their original location, size, and material.
14. Any removed windows that have been filled in shall be reinstalled and restored to windows of the location, dimension, material, and style that would match that of the original windows and home.
15. The removed Crape Myrtle Tree must be replaced using the objective Replacement Methodology at double the replaceme nt ratio as is required for retroactive tree removal permits. Because the tree exceeded 24” diameter at breast height and was removed without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, the minimum replacement ratio is 4:1.
16. All new clapboard siding on the house shall be restored with the corner boards removed.
17. The air conditioning units, water heaters, and other mechanical equipment must be screened from public right of way to the extent feasible. This can be achieved by relocating them to the rear of the structure or moving them within the raised foundation.
18. Windows shall be shall be wooden and be of the same style (single -hung, double-hung, picture, etc.) consistent with the windows of the existing structure. Plans must indicate such prior to the issuance of a Building permit. All gridded windows shall be removed as these are unpermitted, not original to home, and are not of a style that matches the other windows on the home.
19. The unpermitted metal garage door that has been installed on the detached garage shall be removed and replaced with wood, swinging, carriage style doors that will match the style and time period of the contributing structure and would have been original to the home.
20. The new window installed in the place of the un -original sliding door at the rear shall be re-installed to be at a level that is matching and symmetrical to the other windows on the façade and around the house. The new window shall be of a material, size, and style that is appropriate for the architectural style and time period of the contributing structure.
21. The replacement trees should be planted on site at or near the locations of the original trees.
If the replacement trees cannot be planted on site, the applicant may pay an in -lieu fee to the City to plant the required replacement trees within the Lincoln Park Historic District.
Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
22. The species of the replacement trees must be either the same species as the removed trees; from the approved tree palette as recommended by the City Arborist; or a separate species approved by Planning Staff and the City Arborist.
23. The front and side yard landscaped areas must be restored to a state that is compliant with the Pomona Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, to the extent feasible.
24. The unpermitted fence must be replaced with a material and style that is appropriate for the period and architectural style of the Craftsman Bungalow structure. The applicant must obtain a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness for the fence.
25. Eave overhangs shall be restored to their original state. The fascia boards shall be removed so that the exposed rafter beams are visible.
26. Any changes to the paint color(s) approved as part of this project shall be selected from a period appropriate palette and shall require approval of the Planning Division.
27. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition or construction.
28. All ground and roof-mounted mechanical equipment is required to be fully screened from view. Upon final inspection, Planning Division staff may require additional screening if warranted, through either landscaping, walls or a combination thereof.
Draft HPC Resolution No. 23-009
MAJCOA-021547-2023
607 N. Gibbs St./195 E. Pasadena St.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk.
APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023.
___________________________________
CHARA SWODECK
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________________
GEOFFREY STARNS, AICP, LEED AP BD + C
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SECRETARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
CITY OF POMONA)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Pursuant to Resolution No. 76-258 of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Sanborn Maps
1895
1906
1911
1956
Lincoln Park Historic District
Name of Property
NPS Form l 0-QOOo
(Rev. 8/86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet No. 3 Los Angeles. CA
County and State
OMB No. 1024-0J18
National Park Service
Section number 7 Narrative Description (Continued) Page 77 Parcel Number: 8336-017-008
This is a Craftsman Bungalow that shows a number of features typical of the early style. Double hung windows are on either side in the left elevation. A small porch without walls, set under a front facing gable supported by tapered posts, is sitting on brick pedestals. It has a modestly pitched roof with simple beam supports. An unusual, tandem front-facing, gable roof, coupled with a transverse gable, and the porch gable create a rather busy roof line. Narrow clapboard siding and small, rectangular, louvered vents complete the exterior definition. The earliest recorded owner was Sarah A. Buck, widow of Henry Buck.
306, 307. 617-676 North Gibbs Street (C) 1932
Historic Name: Trinity Methodist Church Education Building Other Name:
Parcel Number: 8336-018-021
The original church sanctuary was built in 1908, however, it was later demolished and in 1953 a new church was constructed. On the same site an education building was constructed for $50,000 in 1932 and is the historic structure of interest. The education building was designed by Los Angeles architect Reginald F. Inwood and C.F. Shilling. The builder was Robert R. Jones of Los Angeles. The building was constructed of brick, with a wood frame approximately 100' by 140', having two stories and a basement.
Exterior features of the education building include brick exterior, arched Gothic style stained glass windows with very delicate diamond shaped panes. Very intricate wrought iron gates appear to be original. Concrete quoins or cornerstones provide a visual contrast to the red brick which predominates.
The Education Building was designed in a manner compatible with the original church, whose architect was Ferdinand Davis, a well known Pomona area architect. The new church, designed by B. H.
Anderson, continues to complement the older Education Building. 308. 677 North Gibbs Street (C) 1900
Historic Name:
Other Name:
Parcel Number: 8336-017-004
This transitional Folk Victorian house features shiplap siding: hip and projected gable roof; shed roof over small front porch; sawn work on the front porch; vertical car-siding foundation cover; tall, narrow, double-hung sash windows, and a picture window with a painted faux transom window above.
This home was first owned by Archelaus Price in 1903 who was an agent for L. W. Blinn Lumber. 309. 697 North Gibbs Street
Also Includes 172 Pearl
Historic Name:
Other Name:
Parcel Number:
(C) 1925
Built in 1925, this Craftsman Bungalow features a multi-gable roof, accented with exposed beam ends, and wide overhangs. Narrow clapboard siding, edged with corner boards, covers the exterior.
Square, tapered, wooden columns, resting on a solid river-rock rail, supports the porch roof. This house features natural-rock planters at the top of the rail. It is edged with two rows of rocks that are place vertically along the top, leaving room for plants in the middle. Double-hung windows are used 77 Lincoln Park Historic District
Name of Property
NPS Form l 0-90Ja
(Rev. 8/86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet No. 3 Los Angeles. CA
County and State
OMB No. 1024-0018
National Park Service
Section number 7 Narrative Description (Continued) Page 78 throughout the house. Harvey Chitwood was the first known owner. There was a previous house on this property that was built around the turn of the century. 310. 701 North Gibbs Street (C) 1925
Historic Name:
Other Name: Art's Market
Parcel Number: 8336-003-007
Commonly known in the neighborhood as "Art's Market," this corner grocery market building is typical of many "Mom and Pop" grocery stores from the 192o's. Although the storefront itself has changed numerous times over the years, the basic structure remains intact. Original clapboard siding on the north, south, and west sides is unchanged. The original brick stemwall can also be seen, although stuccoed on the south side. Three original windows high up on the north and south walls allowed for light to enter, but allowing for shelves along the interior walls. The original Gambril roofline can still be seen, and the loading doors on the sol,lth are unchanged. This structure has been altered with a false front. 311. 715-721 North Gibbs Street (C) 1919
Historic Name:
Other Name:
Parcel Number: 8336-003-006
This multi-family Craftsman home features shingled siding, multi-gable roofs, bay windows on two floors, double-hung windows, decorative projected support beams, exposed eaves, ample porch, and river-rock porch wall and foundation. In 1938, the apartment house roof was re-shingled. In 1991, two brick chimneys were removed and replaced with sheet metal chimneys over existing chimneys.
The earliest recorded owner was E. L. Curtis who lived at 715 in 1919. Also listed as residents in 1919 were H. A. Bielfeldt, at 719, and R. R. Hastings at 721.
312. 735 North Gibbs Street (C) 1910
Historic Name:
Other Name:
Parcel Number: 8336-003-005
This single family Colonial Revival home features hip roof; gable dormer; shingled siding; double hung and picture windows; large, wood-floor, front porch, classic support columns; brick chimney; bay window, and natural river-rock foundation. Residents show as G. B. Metl<lff with Bertha and Sara dwelling here in 1907. In the city directory it shows a rancher by the name of Henry B. Davis as owner in 1909.
313. 745 North Gibbs Street (NC) 1986
Historic Name:
Other Name:
Parcel Number: 8336-003-004
This structure was built after the period of significance. 78 Site Photographs
607 N. Gibbs Street
195 E. Pasadena Street
Site Photographs
Site Photographs
Surrounding Neighborhood
Surrounding Neighborhood
Surrounding Neighborhood
Surrounding Neighborhood
Surrounding Neighborhood
Alteration #1 & #2
• Two doors have been on north façade
have been deleted
• Two windows on the north façade have
been deleted
Alteration #3
Exposed rafters on eaves have been
covered with fascia board
Alteration #4
Window trim around all windows has
been changed
Alteration #5
Non-original sliding door at rear of house has
been replaced with asymmetrical, non -matching
window
Alteration #6
Non-original sliding door at rear of house has
been replaced with asymmetrical, non -matching
window
Alteration #7
Wooden carriage doors on the street -facing
garage replaced with mechanical doors
Alteration #8
House has been re-sided and corner boards
have been placed on façade corners
Alteration #9
Old previously existing fence New metal fence
Alteration #10
New air conditioning units with wrought
iron cages
Alteration #11 
• Removal of mature Crape Myrtle tree
• Landscaping within front and side
yards has been removed
Alteration #13
Original single-hung or double hung
windows replaced with gridded windows
Alteration #14
Two large windows on north façade have
been replaced with smaller windows
Alteration #15
Primary front doors on each unit replaced
with new doors
Window #1
Original wood window Refurbished window
Window #2
Original wood window New window; larger size with gridded style
Window #3
Original wood window New window; larger size with gridded style
Window #4
Original wood window Window was removed and wall filled in
Window #5
Original wood window New window, smaller size with gridded style
Window #6
Original wood window New windows have larger frame and
trim
Window #7
Original wood window New windows have larger frame or
trim
Window #8
Original wood window New window is smaller and of a
different style
Window #9
Original wood window New window is larger
Window #10
Original wood window Window was removed and wall filled-in
Window #11
Non-original aluminum sliding window Replaced with an appropriate wood single/double hung window
Window #12
Non-original vinyl sliding door Replaced with an asymmetrical window at a different height
Window #13
Original wood window Refurbished window
Window #14
Original wood window New window of different style
Window #15
Original wood window Refurbished window
Window #16
Original wood window Refurbished window
Window #18
Original wood window New windows are of a different style
CITY OF POMONA PLANNING DIVISION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED PROJECT
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
This is not a citation (Esta no es una citación).
If you are receiving this notice, your property is located directly across or adjacent to the proposed project.
Time & Date Historic Preservation Commission Meeting, Wednesday, August 2, 2023, 6:30 p.m.
Location Palomares Park Community Cen ter, 499 E. Arrow Highway, Pomona, CA 91767 (in- person meeting)
Questions Alan Fortune, Assistant Planner
Available to contact at (909) 620-2449 or at [email protected]
Written Comments: Written comments may be submitted to [email protected], by 5:3 0 p.m. the day of the hearing. Please title your email “HPC Public Comment 6-2-23”. Comments received via email will be made a part of the official record of the meeting.
The staff report on this matter will be available n o later tha n July 27, 2023 on the City of Pomona website, which may be accessed at https://pomona.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx or by emailing the case planner, Alan Fortune.
PLEASE NOTE: If you challenge this m atter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pomona, Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Para Información en Español, llame (909) 620-2446.
The Historic Preservation Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a request for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness (MAJCOA 21547-2023) for the retroactive approval of an unpermitted renovation of a duplex at a contributing resource within the Lincoln Park Historic District.
Applicant Andy Tai, Sun Wood Property, LLC
Location 607 N. Gibbs Street, 195 E. Pasadena Street
Assessor’s Parcel No(s). 8336-017-008
Hearing Body Historic Preservation Commission
Case File(s) MAJCOA 21547-2023
Environmental Determination
The City of Pomona, as lead agency, has conducted an environmental review on the proposed project per th e California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21084 et. seq.), the guidelines include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the envir onment which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA . If the project is approved, t he Historic Preservation Commission will consider adopting a Categorical Exemption in compliance with Article 19, Section 15331, Class 31 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in that the project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Section 150301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) in that the project consists of minor alterations to an exis ting structure, therefore no further environmental review would be required. If the project is denied, CEQA does not apply.