Cultural Heritage Board
Memorandum
Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov
PC-2026-00128
CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 15, 2026
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5
PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board recommend that the City Council:
1. DETERMINE that Planning Case PC-2026-00128 (Historic Designation) for the dedesignation of the Structure of Merits located at 4472 & 4480 Orange Street and modification of the Prospect Place Historic District Boundary is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Rule) and 21084.1 (Historical Resource), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment; and Case
Numbers PC-2026-00128 (Historic Designation)
Request
To consider a Historic Designation Modification request to dedesignated the Structures of Merit located at 4472 & 4480 Orange and modify the Prospect Place Historic District boundary to remove the properties.
Applicant
Belen Bobadilla on behalf of
the Riverside County Office
of Education
Project
Location
4472 & 4480 Orange Street,
situated on the east side of
Orange Street, between
Fourteenth Street and
Prospect Avenue
APN 219-023-028; 219-023-029
Ward 1
Neighborhood Downtown
Historic District Prospect Place Historic
District
Historic
Designation
Contributor to Historic District;
Structures of Merit
Staff Planner
Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer
951-826-5507
[email protected]
PC-2026-00128
2. APPROVE Planning Case PC-2026-00128 (Historic Designation), based on the facts of findings, and dedesignate and remove 4472 & 4480 Orange Street from the Prospect Place Historic District.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2025, the Cultural Heritage Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness request, Planning Case DP -2025-00269, by the Riverside County Office of Education to demolish the fire damaged structure at 4472 Orange Street.
As part of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of 4472 Orange Street, condition of approval #1 states:
Within one-year of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall submit an application to dedesignate the subject property and modify the project Prospect Place Historic District Boundary to removing 4472 and 4480 Orange Street.
The residence at 4480 Orange Street was previously demolished in the late 1980s as part of a project on the two parcel, approved by City Council on January 27, 1987. A demolition permit for the building at 4472 Orange Street was issued on March 12, 2026.
On January 28, 2026, the applicant submitted a request for dedesignation of the subject properties and modification of the Prospect Place Historic District boundary, in compliance with the approved conditions of approval.
ANALYSIS
TITLE 20 EVALUATION
Under Title 20 (Cultural Resources), “Structure (or Resource) of Merit” means:
A. Any improvement or natural feature which contributes to the broader understanding of the historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic, or artistic heritage of the City while retaining sufficient integrity; and B. Meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Has a unique location, embodies a singular physical characteristic, or contains a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature within a neighborhood, community or area.
2. Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community or area;
3. Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare;
4. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory; or
5. Represents an improvement or Cultural Resource that no longer exhibits the high degree of integrity sufficient for landmark designation, yet still retains necessary integrity under one or more of the landmark criteria to convey cultural resource significance as a structure or resource of merit.
FACTS: The original structure at 4480 Orange Street was approved for demolition by City Council in 1987. The current carport structure on site was constructed in the early 1990s and does not contribute to broader understanding of the City’s historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic, or artistic heritage.
PC-2026-00128
The fire-damaged building at 4472 Orange Street was approved for demolition by the Cultural Heritage Board on October 15, 2025. Once demolished, there will be no structure meeting the criteria for Structure of Merit, as the site will be vacant.
Under Title 20 (Cultural Resources), a Contributor means a building structure within a Historic District or Neighborhood Conservation Area that provides appropriate historic context, historic architecture, historic association or historic value, or is capable of yielding important information about the period.
FACTS: Once the original building is demolish, as approved, there will be no structures on the site at 4772 Orange Street that are within the period of significance of Prospect Place Historic District (1887-1931). The carport structure at 4480 Orange Street was constructed outside the period of significance of the district. Therefore, the subject properties will no longer provide historic context, historic architecture, historic association or historic value to the district. As the parcels at 4472 & 4480 O range Street no longer contribute to the historic district and are on the edge of the district, the removal of the parcels from the district will not impact the integrity of the historic district.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. As of the writing of this report, no responses have been received by Staff regarding this proposal.
APPEAL INFORMATION
Actions by the Cultural Heritage Board, including any environmental findings , may be appealed to the City Council within ten calendar days after the decision. Appeal filing and processing information may be obtained from the Planning Division by calling 951-826-5800.
EXHIBITS LIST
1. Aerial/Location Map
2. Historic District Boundary
3. Revised Historic District Boundary
4. Prospect Place Historic District Resolution
5. Cultural Heritage Board Staff Report, October 15, 2025
6. Cultural Heritage Board Minutes, October 15, 2025
7. Dedesignation Request Letter
Prepared by: Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer Approved by: Matthew Taylor, Acting City Planner
N
PC-2026-00128
Exhibit 1 - Aerial/Location Map
ORANGE ST 0 40 80
Feet
Parcels
Project Site
Key
4472 & 4480 Orange St
N
PC-2026-00128
Exhibit 2 - Historic District Boundary Map
LEMON ST
STADIUM AVE
P
R
O
S
P
E C T A
V
E
F
I F
T
E
E
N
T
H
S
T
ORANGE ST
EMMA ST
FOURTEENTH STALLEY
MAGNOLIA AVE
ORANGE GROVE AVE
MAIN ST
Prospect Place
Historic
District 0 180 360
Feet
Parcels
Project Site
Key
4472 & 4480 Orange St
N
PC-2026-00128
Exhibit 3 - Revised Historic District Boundary Map
LEMON ST
STADIUM AVE
PROSPECT AVE
FIFTEENTHST
ORANGE ST
EMMA ST
FOURTEENTH STALLEY
MAGNOLIA AVE
ORANGE GROVE AVE
MAIN ST
Prospect Place
Historic
District 0 180 360
Feet
Parcels
Key
A Resolution of the Cultural Heritage Boai: d of the
City of Riverside , California , Designating
Historic District # 2
WHEREAS the Cultural Heritage Board has considered the
historic residential architecture concentrated wi hin the area generally bounded by Fourteenth Street, Orange Grove Street, Main Street, and Olivewood Avenue; and
WHEREAS the Cultural Heritage Board has re ognized this area as one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the city; and
WHEREAS residents and property owners have petitioned
the Cultural Heritage Board to designate this area a Historic District; and
WHEREAS the Cultural Heritage Board has identified the
boundaries of a Prospect Place Historic D•istrict as depicted on the attached map;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Board that the area , as depicted by the boundaries on the attaehed map, and including all properties and structures located within those boundaries , be designated as Historic District # 2, the Prospect Place Historic District, of the City of Riverside, California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this designation includes
the exterior surfaces of all structures as visible from any public thoroughfare, exclusive of paint color and of any minor maintenance projects not requiring a City building permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this designation explicitly includes all street trees and essential landscape patterns r ( meaning the continued emphasis upon grass , trees, shrubs, and flowers) as visible from any public thoroughfare.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this designation explicitly includes all streetlighting throughout the District.
ADOPTED by the Cultural Heritage Board af the City of
Riverside, California, and signed by its Chairman and attested by its Secretary this 15th day of October, 1986 .
enneth E. Sta
Acting Chairman of the Culturai
Heritage Board
ATTEST D:
i 7, ct i t L
Acting Secretary of the
Cultural Heritage Board
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council continue to support the designation of the Prospect Place Historic District and that it encourage future sensitive adaptive re- use to allow a mix of residential, business, and
institutional uses.
Prepared by: Approved by:
a. _ . `*.:,_.
William G. Dougall John E. Holmes
Historic Resources Director City Manager
Concurs with:
c2tL
X/)
e o.
Ka n M. Maddox, Chairman
Cultural Heritage Board
I
i
I , Kathryn Maddox , Acting Secretary of the Cultural Heritage Board of the City of Riverside , California , hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced by the Cultural Heritage Board of the City of Riverside at its meeting held on the 15th day of October, 1986 , by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes : Maddox, Tobin, Pillitter, Anderson
Noes : Stacey
Abstain : Savage
Absent: McGavin, Vanderzyl , Chance
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have set my hand this 15th day of
October, 1986 .
2. J
Acting cretary of the Cultural
Heri age Board
r.
FOURTELNTH STREET
w
w
t--
w
cn w
F--
z
a
w
ZI Q
I
i o
ii w
Q
1 l w
1 O
i i
I
FIFTEENTH STREET
Qt
I o
i .
I
II
1 I .
i
i
L---, PROSPECT----'
I
PROSPECT PLACE HISTORIC
DISTRICT
v
I
Cultural Heritage Board
Memorandum
Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov CONTINUED FROM JUNE 18, 2025
CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 15 , 2025 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4
PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board:
1. DETERMINE whether the proposed request meets the Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design findings, provided in Section 20.25.050.A of the Riverside Municipal Code.
If the Cultural Heritage Board determines the request meets the required Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design:
1. DETERMINE that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Case
Numbers DP-2025-00269(Certificate of Appropriateness)
Request To consider a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing fire damaged residential office structure.
Applicant
Belen Bobadilla on behalf
the Riverside County Office
of Education
Project
Location
4472 Orange Street,
situated on the east side of
Orange Street, between
Fourteenth Street and
Prospect Avenue
APN 219-023-028
Ward 1
Neighborhood Downtown
Historic District Prospect Place Historic
District
Historic
Designation
District Contributor;
Structure of Merit #313
Staff Planner
Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer
951-826-5507
[email protected]
EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL October 15, 2025
Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) and 15301 (Existing Facilities); and
2. APPROVE Planning Case DP-2025-00269 (Certificate of Appropriateness), based on the facts for findings outlined and summarized in the staff report, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND
The Cultural Heritage Board reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness request June 18, 2025 meeting (Exhibit 1 & 2). The Board expressed concerns related to the salvageability of the structure and potential replacement project. Following discussion, the Board continued the item for 90 days, with the direction that the applicant provided information including options for a replacement project, feasibility of a restoration consistent with the California Historic Building Code, and salvage opportunities.
Additional information on the proposed project and the project background can be found in the attached staff report from the June 18, 2025 meeting.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has prepared and submitted supplemental information, including a cost estimate for reconstruction, a peer review of the previous submitted Historic Resources Assessment, and a sample rendering of the replacement. (Exhibit 3) The cost estimate indicates that the cost of reconstruction would be approximately $1.5 million.
The peer review was completed by Bill Wilkman of Wilkman Historical Services, dated September 24, 2025. The Wilkman concurred with the findings by Casey Tibbet that “the 4472 Orange Street property as not significant as a contributor to the Prospect Place Historic District or as a Structure of Merit.” Wilkman also concurred with recommendation to modify the Prospect Place Historic District Boundary.
A conceptual rendering of a pavilion with bell cast hipped roof, similar to the residence, was provided by the applicant as a potential replacement on the site. Should the applicant move forward with this project prior to the submission of a dedesignation application, as specified in the recommended Condition of Approval, an administrative Certificate of Approval would be required for the construction an accessory structure within a historic district.
The Cultural Heritage Board will review all previous and supplemental information and determine whether or not the property at 4472 Orange Street meets Structure of Merit and District Contributor criteria. If the property does not, it is not considered a historical resource and a Certificate of Appropropriateness can be issued for the demolition request.
The findings and analysis of the proposed project are found in the attached staff report from the June 18, 2025 meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
Public notices were mailed to property owners within 300-feet of the site and a Notice of Demolition was posted on site at least 30 -days prior to the Cultural Heritage Board EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL October 15, 2025
meeting. As of the writing this report, Staff received 1 public comment letters in opposition to the proposed project. The letters do not provide any substantial information that is not addressed in the staff report and primarily expresses disappointment in the demolition.
APPEAL INFORMATION
Actions by the CHB, including any environmental findings, may be appealed to City Council within ten calendar days after the decision. Appeal filing and processing information may be obtained from the Planning Division by calling 951-826-5371.
EXHIBITS LIST
1. Cultural Heritage Board Staff Report – June 18, 2025
2. Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – Jun 18, 2025
3. Supplemental Information by Applicant
4. Public Comment
Prepared by: Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer Approved by: Maribeth Tinio, City Planner
Cultural Heritage Board
Memorandum REVISED
Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov
DP-2025-00269
CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD MEETING DATE: JUNE 18 , 2025 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4
PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board:
1. DETERMINE whether the proposed request meets the Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design findings, provided in Section 20.25.050.A of the Riverside Municipal Code.
If the Cultural Heritage Board determines the request meets the required Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design:
1. DETERMINE that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) and 15301 (Existing Facilities); and
Case
Numbers DP-2025-00269(Certificate of Appropriateness)
Request To consider a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing fire damaged residential office structure.
Applicant
Belen Bobadilla on behalf
the Riverside County Office
of Education
Project
Location
4472 Orange Street,
situated on the east side of
Orange Street, between
Fourteenth Street and
Prospect Avenue
APN 219-023-028
Ward 1
Neighborhood Downtown
Historic District Prospect Place Historic
District
Historic
Designation
District Contributor;
Structure of Merit #313
Staff Planner
Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer
951-826-5507
[email protected]
DP-2025-00269
2. APPROVE Planning Case DP-2025-00269 (Certificate of Appropriateness), based on the facts for findings outlined and summarized in the staff report, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND
4472 Orange Street
The subject property is approximately 6,534 square feet and was developed with a single- story Late-Victoria Cottage style family residence, with Neo -Classical elements, in 1908.
The single -family residence was listed as a contributor to the Prospect Place Historic District and as a result also designated as Structure of Merit #313.
Character-defining features of the structure include: a rectangular ground plan with a raised foundation; a moderately -pitched, asphalt shingle topped bellcast hipped roof with wide boxed eaves, outlookers, and a bellcast hipped roof dormer; narrow wood lap board siding; an internally set red brick chimney; an asymmetrical façade; a partial-width recessed porch with a doric column topped half-wall; two canted bays, one on the west (façade) elevation and one on the south elevation; and wood double-hung window with wood trim, some with a diamond pattern divided lite. An ADA ramp with a lap-board half-wall has been added to the north elevation as part of the adaptive reuse of the structure discussed below.
In 1986, an application, by Thompson & Colegate Attorneys at Law was submitted, to rezone the parcels at 4462, 4472, and 4480 Orange Street from Residential - 3 (Multi-Family Residential) to the Restricted Office Zone. The proposal included the demolition of the residence at 4480 Orange Street and adaptive reuse of the residence at 4472 Orange Street into a professional office. As part of the rezoning, a Parking Overlay Zone was also added to the parcels at 4462 (already vacant) and 4480 Orange Street. The proposal was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 3, 1986, and approved by City Council on January 27, 1987. Due to the timing of the application submittal, the project did not require CHB approval; however, a comment letter was provided to the Planning Commission by staff to the CHB, Alan Curl.
The Prospect Place Historic District
Concurrent to the rezon e request and prompted by commercial development in the area south of Fourteen Street, specifically the expansion of the Press Enterprise complex at the southeast corner of Orange Grove Avenue and Fourteen Street, the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) designated the area roughly bounded by Main Street on the west, Orange Grove Avenue on the east, Prospect Avenue on the south and just north of Fifteen Street as the Prospect Place Historic District (PPHD). Following a series of informational meetings, CHB held a Public Hearing on October 15, 1986, and approved the PPHD nomination. During this time Structure of Merit criteria included Criterion E – Its relationship to other preservation designations recognized by the City of Riverside if it is complementary to the integrity of that designation, and it was standard practice of CHB to automatically designate all the contributors to a historic district as Structures of Merit .
No additional evaluation for individual significance were completed. In current practice, properties are evaluated and designated individually as Structures of Merit, and not collectively. When a historic district is designated, the properties are solely listed as
DP-2025-00269
contributors or non-contributors, as is consistent with State and Federal Guidelines, and best practices in other jurisdictions.
An appealed CHB’s approval of the PPHD nomination was filed by property owner and applicant for the rezoning at 4472 Orange Street, Thompson & Colegate, as the adaptive reuse, demolition, and rezoning project was already in process when the Historic District was designated. F ollowing a few years of discussion at City Council and the Land Use Committee, City Council denied the appeal and upheld the PPHD designation on January 17, 1989. At that time, Council included in the motion to reconsider the designation in three years as there was some discussion regarding possible impacts to a potential expansion of the Riverside Community College.
In 1992, a status report and recommend ation on the PPHD was provided to the City Council. Of the alternative s considered in the report, staff recommended the PPHD be retained and zoned for single -family residential but allow for the adaptive reuse of the structures to non -residential uses with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. On September 22, 1922, City Council accepted staff recommendation and retained the PPHD.
With the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan in 2002, the area of the PPHD, including the property was rezoned as Downtown Specific Plan – Residential District (DSP-RD).
Rezoning and Designation Timeline
The following outlines the timeline of key events for the property including rezoning and historic designation:
• 1/15/86 - PPHD Discussions begin
• January - October 1986 – CHB Reviews and Considers PPHD Designation • 6/4/86 - Rezoning Application Submitted
• 7/3/86 - Planning Commission Recommends Rezoning Approval • 8/25/86 - PPHD Public Information Session
• 10/15/86 - PPHD Designated
• 10/30/86 - Letter of Appeal Filed
• 1986 – 1989 – Appeal reviewed by CC and Land Use Committee • 1/17/89 - CC Upholds Designation
• 9/22/92 - CC Retains PPHD
• 11/2002 - DSP adopted & PPHD rezoned DSP-RD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In December 2023, the building at 4472 Orange Street caught fire and sustained damage. The applicant, Riverside County Office of Education, is requesting the demolition of the structure due to the significant fire damage and usability of the structure. The applicant contracted with Insight Forensics to complete a Structural
DP-2025-00269
Damage Evaluation Report. The report prepared by Blake Landers, Licensed Civil Engineer and General Contractor, found that:
More than 50% of the floor system and 60% of the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised by exposure to heat/fire. Based on the areas damage in the roof system, the entirety of the roof would require replacement either due to fire damage or implementation of current standards for building. Similarly, the floor framing, including the car decking and beam lines supporting the repetitive joist of the floor framing has been damaged and would require removal of all of the framed systems above the damaged areas.
The report concluded that “Based on the extent of structural damage, limited salvageability of the remaining structure and impact of the building code update/upgrade requirements on reuse, it is expected that the subject building will be required to be dem olished entirely and reconstructed from the ground up to ensure safety, functionality/code compliance.”
A Historic Resources Assessment was also prepared by Casey Tibbet of LSA to determine continued eligibility of the structure. The report recommended the repeal of the Structure of Merit Designation, the identification of the property at 4472 Orange Street as a non - contributor to the PPHD, and the northern boundary of the district be shifted to remove 4472 and 4480 Orange Street from the district. A full evaluation, including historical research is included in the assessment.
It was standard practice of CHB in the 1980s to designate all contributors to historic districts as Structures of Merit. As no criteria analysis was ever completed for the subject property, the assessment by Tibbet includes the following Structure of Merit criteria analysis:
City Structure of Merit Criterion 1: Has a unique location, embodies a singular physical characteristic, or contains a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature within a neighborhood, community or area.
This property is located in the downtown area of Riverside, in an area where there are many similar buildings. There is nothing unique about its physical characteristics, location, or view. It is not significant under this criterion.
City Structure of Merit Criterion 2: Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community or area.
The building types associated with this property are single-family residence (1908– 1987) and residential office (1987–2024). Both are exceedingly common property types in Riverside. It is not significant under this criterion.
City Structure of Merit Criterion 3: Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare.
DP-2025-00269
The property was not associated with a business historically. It is not significant under this criterion.
City Structure of Merit Criterion 4: Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
The building does not date to the prehistoric period. It was constructed in 1908 using common methods and materials for that time. It was then remodeled for use as an office in 1987. It is unlikely that it would yield any information important to history or information that cannot be found in other buildings of a similar vintage.
It is not significant under this criterion.
City Structure of Merit Criterion 5: Represents an improvement or Cultural Resource that no longer exhibits the high degree of integrity sufficient for landmark designation, yet still retains necessary integrity under one or more of the landmark criteria to convey cultural resource significance as a structure or resource of merit.
This property does not retain enough integrity to meet any of the Landmark or the Structure of Merit criteria. As part of its conversion to an office, the setting and spatial relationships that conveyed the property’s association with early residential development in Riverside and the PPHD were radically altered and severely compromised. Additionally, as previously noted the building does not meet the Landmark designation criteria because no historically important people are associated with the former residence, and it is not the work of a master architect or builder. The building has sustained alterations including construction of an ADA- compliant ramp on the north elevation and removal of nearly half of the windows including the façade windows. A fire destroyed the interior and damaged the roof and exterior walls. This is not a rare resource as there are many examples of Neoclassical cottages in the city, including in the PPHD and the nearby Mile Square neighborhood. It is not significant under this criterion.
The historical assessment also reviewed the historic district criteria and the property within the context of the district.
Historic District Criterion 6: Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning.
As one of Riverside’s oldest truly residential neighborhoods, the PPHD represents an important era of Riverside’s settlement and growth. The small lots, 15- to 20-foot setbacks between houses, narrow driveways, and, in most locations, landscaped parkways between the street and sidewalk contribute to the urban character of the neighborhood. Conversion of the 4472 Orange Street residence to an office with related parking radically changed the spatial relationships that conveyed the property’s association with the early 20th century neighborhood. The building is now accessed by a 25-foot-wide driveway and is surrounded by parking on three sides. The closest residence is more than 70 feet to the south. In addition, the landscaped parkway was removed, and the fro nt setback was reduced to
DP-2025-00269
facilitate street widening. All of these things are inconsistent with the remainder of the neighborhood. The property at 4472 Orange Street is no longer representative of the small -lot, residential pattern of development and does not provide appropriate historic context or association for the PPHD. It is not a contributor to the district under this criterion.
Historic District Criterion 7: Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship, or association.
The PPHD is not significant for its architecture per se, but it does convey a sense of cohesiveness through the subdivision design, its setting, and the materials found throughout. The subdivision is laid out with small lots, consistent front and side setbacks, and a grid street pattern (with the exception of Prospect Avenue). The right-of-way width is approximately 40 feet, including landscaped parkways that are mostly located between the curbs and sidewalks. This is not the case for 4472 Orange Street. At this location, the street has been widened to approximately 50 feet and the parkway has been shifted between the sidewalk and front yard, which essentially causes it to disappear as there is no distinction between it and the yard area. Although the front setback was reduced by the street widening, the side setbacks were enlarged significantly to accommodate the wide driveway and parking areas. This was facilitated by removal of the residence adjacent to the south at 4480 Orange Street.
The PPHD setting is a small-lot, urban neighborhood surrounded by non-residential uses on larger properties. Nearby non -residential properties include Riverside Community College to the south and west and a car wash, bank, law offices, the Press Enterprise facility, and the office at 4472 Orange Street to the north and east.
Each of these occupies a large property with on -site or adjacent parking.
Although the building at 4472 Orange Street is residential in appearance, its immediate setting, like other non -residential uses in the area, consists of a wide street and a large parking lot with a wide driveway. This is inconsistent with the PPHD setting.
Throughout the PPHD, wood is the dominant material found on the buildings. It is used for siding, window frames, doors, and accents. The same is true for the building at 4472 Orange Street and in this way, it does relate more to the PPHD than to the other non-residential uses in the area. However, this relationship is outweighed by the changes to the design and setting. The combination of the tree-filled parking lot and the large setbacks from other buildings gives this property an expansiveness that historically it never had. There is a sense that it was part of a multi-acre property perhaps surrounded by citrus groves. Because of this, the property does not convey the appropriate historic context or association. It is essentially creating a false sense of history and, therefore, does not contribute to the significance of the PPHD under this criterion.
In summary, alteration to the contexts of the site, including but not limited to the removal of the parkway, the widening of the street, the reduction of the setback, and the separation of the property from the other properties of the district have diminis hed its
DP-2025-00269
ability to provide appropriate historic context or value to the PPHD; therefore, as asserted in the assessment by Tibbet, this property should be considered a non-contributor to the historic district and thus removed as it is on the edge of the district.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
FACTS FOR FINDINGS
Pursuant to Chapter 20.25.050 of Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC), the Cultural Heritage Board and Historic Preservation Officer must make applicable findings of specific Principles and S tandards when approving or denying a Certificate of Appropriateness. For proposed projects involving individually significant Cultural Resources (i.e. City Landmarks, Structures of Merit, eligible Landmarks, etc.), the project should demonstrate:
Chapter 20.25.050.A – Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design Review for Individually Significant Resources
Consistency or compatibility with the architectural period and the character-defining elements of the historic building, such as colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features, details, height, scale, massing, and method of construction.
Facts: This finding is not directly applicable, as the project proposes removal of the existing structure and does not include any new construction or additions for which architectural compatibility would typically be evaluated.
The proposed project does not destroy or pose a substantial adverse change to an important architectural, historical, cultural or archaeological feature or features of the Cultural Resource.
Facts: The property at 4472 Orange Street is currently designated as a Structure of Merit.
This designation was applied under a former practice in which all contributors to historic districts received automatic designation, without individual evaluation.
The recent Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Tibbet suggests that the property does not meet the criteria for individual designation as a Structure of Merit. If this assessment is accepted, and the property is determined to lack individual significance, its removal may not constitute a substantial adverse change to an important cultural resource.
However, as the current designation remains in effect, removal of the structure could also be interpreted as a potential impact to a designated historical resource. The significance of the impact ultimately depends on whether the existing designation is affirmed or the conclusions of the updated evaluation are accepted.
DP-2025-00269
Chapter 20.25.050.A – Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design Review for Individually Significant Resources
Compatibility with context considering the following factors: grading; site development; orientation of buildings; off -street parking; landscaping; signs; street furniture; public areas; relationship of the project to its surroundings.
Facts: The subject property’s immediate context has undergone substantial alteration over time, primarily due to surrounding site redevelopment and the introduction of surface parking areas in the mid 1980’s . These changes have resulted in an auto - oriented environment with minimal physical or visual connection between the building and nearby structures, significantly diminishing the original spatial and landscape relationships the property once had.
Given this altered context, the existing building’s compatibility with its surroundings has been substantially reduced. While the building itself retains architectural elements that reflect its original design and orientation, the broader environmental cha nges have compromised its ability to contribute meaningfully to the site’s historic context.
Consequently, the proposed removal of the structure may be seen as consistent with the evolved site conditions and could facilitate a more cohesive redevelopment that better aligns with current use patterns. It is recognized that some may view the building’s architectural presence as a valuable link to the past, and its removal could be seen as a loss to the remaining contextual fabric.
Consistency with the principles of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Facts: This finding is not applicable as the project involves only the removal of the structures from the project site and does not involve any new structures or any addition to existing structures where consistency with the Secretary of the Interior' s Standards is a consideration.
As applicable, consistency with other federal, state, and/or local guidelines.
Facts: No additional federal, state, and/or local guidelines apply to this project.
DP-2025-00269
For proposed projects involving contributors or contributing feature within Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservations Areas, the proposed project should demonstrate:
Chapter 20.25.050.B – Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design Review for Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas Compatibility with the height, scale, or massing of the contributor (or contributing feature) the Cultural Resource.
Facts: This finding is not applicable as the project involves the removal of the structure that has been found to be a non-contributor to the PPHD and does not involve any new structures or any addition to existing structures where compatibility with the height, scale, or massing of the historic district is necessary.
Compatibility with colors, textures, materials, decorative features of the contributor (or contributing feature) to the Cultural Resources.
Facts: This finding is not applicable as the project involves the removal of the structure that has been found to be a non-contributor to the PPHD and does not involve any new structures or any addition to existing structures where compatibility with the height, scale, or massing of the historic district is necessary.
The proposed change does not destroy or pose a substantial adverse change to an important architectural, historical, cultural or archaeological feature or features within boundary of the Cultural Resource.
Facts: The recent Historic Resources Assessment by Tibbet recommends that the subject property be considered a non -contributor to the Prospect Place Historic District. This recommendation is based on alterations to the site including widening of the street, reduced setbacks, removal of parkways, and a general disconnection from the historic district’s original character.
If the property is accepted as a non-contributor, its removal would not be expected to significantly impact important architectural, historical, cultural, or archaeological features within the district.
However, as the property is currently listed as a contributor to PPHD, its removal may also be interpreted as an adverse change to the district’s fabric and significance. The significance of the impact ultimately depends on whether the existing designation is affirmed or the conclusions of the updated evaluation are accepted.
Compatibility with the context of the Cultural Resource regarding grading, site development, orientation of buildings, landscaping, signs, or public areas.
Facts: The subject property is located at the edge of the Prospect Place Historic District boundary and is visually, physically, and spatially disconnected from the majority of the district. According to the Historic Resource Assessment, the structure appears more as
DP-2025-00269
Chapter 20.25.050.B – Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design Review for Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas a remnant grove house than an integrated element of a cohesive historic neighborhood.
The assessment finds the property to be a non-contributor to the district. If this finding is accepted, removal of the structure would not significantly alter the ratio of contributing resources within the district or affect the district’s overall context.
However, as the property remains currently designated as a contributor its removal could also be interpreted as a loss that affects the district’s contextual integrity. The determination of impacts to the context depends on the weight given to the current designation versus the findings of the updated assessment.
Consistency with the Citywide Residential Historic District Design Guidelines, approved guidelines for each Historic District, and/or any other applicable Design Guidelines; Facts: This finding is not applicable as the project involves the removal of the structure that has been found to be a non-contributor to the PPHD and does not involve any new structures or any addition to existing structures where the Citywide Residential Histor ic District Design Guidelines apply.
Consistency with the principles of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Facts: This finding is not applicable as the project involves only the removal of the structures from the project site and does not involve any new structures or any addition to existing structures where consistency with the Secretary of the Interior' s Standards is a consideration.
DP-2025-00269
AUTHORIZATION AND COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Regulatory Codes Consistent Inconsistent
Historic Preservation Code Consistency (Title 20)
Based on the findings, the project can be found consistent with Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code. Although the subject property was previously listed as a contributor to the Prospect Place Historic District (PPHD) and therefore, automatically designated as a Structure of Merit, a recent Historic Resource Assessment has determined that the
property does not meet the criteria for individual designation.
Due to prior alterations and changes to its setting, the structure also no longer contributes significantly to the historic context of the district. Accordingly, the proposed demolition of the structure can be seen as resulting in no substantial adverse impact on the character or integrity of the PPHD.
However, as the property remains currently designated as a contributor and Structure of Merit, its removal could also be interpreted as a loss to a Cultural Resources . The
determination of Consistency with Title 20 depends on
whether the existing designation is affirmed or the
conclusions of the updated evaluation are accepted.
☐
There are reasonable arguments in support of both retaining and removing the structure.
Factors include that building has sustained significant fire damage, and a recent Historic Resource Assessment concluded that it does not meet the criteria for individual designation and no longer contributes meaningfully to the historic district. Alternatively, the structure remains formally designated as both a Structure of Merit and a contributor to the Prospect Place Historic District, rehabilitation, including the retention of any remaining exterior materials, to preserve its presence within the district. The determination relies on whether the Cultural Heritage Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the submitted evaluation reports.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
If the Cultural Heritage Board concurs with the findings of the Historic Resource Report by Tibbet:
• The building at 4472 Orange Street has been found is ineligible for individual designation based on new information, it does not qualify as a “historic resource” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, potential impacts to the residence itself through demolition are not subject to CEQA analysis.
• The property has also been found as non-contributor, the removal of this property through demolition has no affect or impact on the district; therefore, its removal cannot be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
DP-2025-00269
• Therefore, there project can been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) and 15301 (Existing Facilities).
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
Public notices were mailed to property owners within 300-feet of the site and a Notice of Demolition was posted on site at least 30 -days prior to the Cultural Heritage Board meeting. As of the writing this report, Staff received 140 public comment letters in opposition to the proposed project. The letters do not provide any substantial information that is not addressed in the staff report and primarily expresses opposition.
APPEAL INFORMATION
Actions by the CHB, including any environmental findings, may be appealed to City Council within ten calendar days after the decision. Appeal filing and processing information may be obtained from the Planning Division by calling 951-826-5371.
STRATEGIC PLAN
This item contributes to the Envision Riverside 2025 City Council Strategic Priority 5 – High Preforming Government (Goal 5.3 – Enhance communication and collaboration with community members to improve transparency, build public trust, and encourage shared decision-making).
This item aligns with the following Cross-Cutting Threads:
1. Community Trust: The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is being reviewed at a public meeting of the CHB and notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the property and posted on at the property , providing an opportunity to comment on the project.
2. Equity: The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness will be discussed at a CHB meeting which is available to all residents and can be viewed both in person and virtually.
3. Fiscal Responsibility: The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness has no impact on City General Funds.
4. Innovation: The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness makes use of new information and approaches to research.
5. Sustainability and Resiliency: The proposed will all for future reuse of the project site.
EXHIBITS LIST
1. Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Aerial Photo/Location
3. Prospect Place Historic District Map
4. Project Plans (Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevation)
5. Structural Damage Report by Insight Forensics
6. Historic Resource Assessment by Casey Tibbet, LSA
7. Interior Photos
8. Site Photos
DP-2025-00269
9. Prospect Place Historic District Designation, 1986-1989
10. Letter from Alan Curl regarding rezoning
11. Prospect Place Historic District Designation Reconsideration, 1992
12. Public Comment
Prepared by: Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer Approved by: Maribeth Tinio, City Planner
EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL June 18, 2025
PLANNING CASE: DP-2025-00269 MEETING DATE: June 18, 2025
CASE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. Within one-year of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall submit an application to dedesignate the subject property and modify the project Prospect Place Historic District Boundary to removing 4472 and 4480 Orange Street.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
2. There is a one -year time limit in which to secure the necessary building permits required by this Certificate of Appropriateness. If unable to obtain necessary permits, a time extension request letter stating the reasons for the extension of time shall be submitted to the Planning Division. HP staff may administratively extend the term of a Certificate of Appropriateness for one year, no more than twice.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE APPLICANT WILL NOT BE NOTIFIED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION ABOUT THE PENDING EXPIRATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
3. The project must be completed in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Board’s (CHB) Certificate of Appropriateness approval, including all conditions listed. Any subsequent changes to the project must be approved by the CHB or HP staff.
4. This approval for the Certificate of Appropriateness is for design concept only and does not indicate the project has been thoroughly checked for compliance with all requirements of law. As such, it is not a substitute for the formal building permit plan check process, and other changes may be required during the plan check process.
5. Granting this Certificate of Appropriateness shall in no way exclude or excuse compliance with all other applicable rules and regulations in effect at the time this permit is exercised.
EXHIBIT 1 –CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION N
DP-2025-00269
Exhibit 2 - Location Map
ORANGE ST 0 30 60
Feet
Parcels
Project Site
Key
N
DP-2025-00269
Exhibit 3 - Prospect Place HD Map
P
R
O
S
P
E
C
T A V
E
LEMON ST
EMMA ST
STADIUM AVE
F
I F
T
E
E
N
T
H
S
T
ORANGE ST
FOURTEENTH STALLEY
MAGNOLIA AVE
ORANGE GROVE AVE
MAIN ST
Prospect Place
Historic
District 0 180 360
Feet
Parcels
Project Site
Key
Sheet Name:
Date:
Project:
Author:
Sheet Description
Structure Dimensions
4472 Orange St, Riverside, CA 92501
4472 Orange St.
2/20/25
Site Plan
PlacPlacPll ceceeceePPllPlaccceeePPllaclacaPlaccccPPlacllaaaaaccccccceeeePlacacccceccceeePPlaclacaacccccceeeePlaclacceceeePPlaclalacacaaacccceeeePPlalaacaccceeeeeee CompaaCompampaCompapCompaCompaCompanCoCoCoComComCompompaaCompaCompaComCoCoCoompanCComCoCompCCCCCoCoompaCCCompaoompaCoCoo aaCoo aaannnnnnnCCoo aaaannnnnanCoCCCoCo aaaaanCCCoo aaannnnnCCCo ppapapaaaananCompaoo paCCoCoo aaCompaaananCCooo aaaaaannpp yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy LogLogogooogoLL gogooLLL oLoggggogooooggooooooooLLogoggggggooooooLoggooooooooLogoooooLogLoggggooooooLogoooooooLogLogoggggooooooLogoogggggooooogggggggg HHHHHeHeHeHeHererereHeerereHHHeHHeHeHeHeeererreHHHeHeHeeeeeeeeerrrrereeHHeeeeeereHHHHeeHereHHHHHHeeeeereereerreeeHHeeeereereHHHHHHHHeeeereereeeerererereeHHHHHHHereeeeeeeerrerrreeee 56'
38'
Orange Street
Sheet Name:
Date:
Project:
Author:
Sheet Description
Floor Plan
4472 Orange St, Riverside, CA 92501
4472 Orange St.
2/20/25
Floor Plan
PlacePlacececeecePPll eeeePlacacaacccePPllaaaacccccceceePPPlaclacacaacccceeeceeePPllaacaaacccccceePlaclacccceeeeePPlalacaaaaaccccceeeePPlalaacacccceeeeeeeeeee CompCompaCompaCompaCompaCompaCompaComCoCompanCoCoComCoComCompaanCompaCComCoCCo paCCCCCompCoCo aompanCCCCooCom aaanannnnCooCoompaaaannnnnnCCoCCompanoompaaaaanannnCCCooo paaCCCoo aaaanannnnnCCooo pppapaaaananCooo paaaCCoooo aaaaaannCCo paaaaannCCompaompapaappp yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy LogoLogogogooLLLogooLLogoLogogggooogooLoLogogggggggooooooLogLogggggoooooogooooooooLogggggooooooLooggggoooooooLogggggooooooLoLoooggggggoooooooggggggggggggg HHHHeHeHeHeHeHeerHereHereHHHHHHeHeHHeeHeeeHeeeeeeerrrrereeeeeeeerrrereeeHHHeeHHHeeeeereeerereeHHHeeeeereeeerrreeeeHHHHHHHeereererreeeHHHHHHereeeeeeerrerreeeeHH
Sheet Name:
Date:
Project:
Author:
Sheet Description
Exterior Elevations
4472 Orange St, Riverside, CA 92501
4472 Orange St.
2/20/25
Exterior Elevations
PlacPPlll ceeceeceePPll eePlaccceePPlaclacaPlaccccPPlallaaacaccccccceeeePlacacccceeelaccceeeePPllacacaaccceePPlaclacceceePPlaclaclaacacceeeeeePPlaacceeeee papaCompaCompaCompaCCoompanCoComCoCoComComComCompompaCompaCCompaCompComCompaoompaompanCompaCCCompaComCCoC aCompCoCCCComCompCCCCCompaompaoo paCCoooCom aaaannnnCooo aaaannnnCCCoCo aaaaannCCooo aaanannnCCoo paaaaanannnCCompaoompappppaaCoCooo aaaannCoo ppaaaaaannp yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy LogLogogogogoooL goLL oLogggggoooooooggggoooooooLoggggggggoooooLoggooooooooLogoooooLogggooogoooooLogogoooLogogoggggooooLogogogoggooogggggggg HHHHHeHeHeHeHeHererreereHHeeHHeHeeeeererereHHeeeeeeeeeeererereHHHHeeeeerHHHeeHereHHHHHHeeeeereererHHHeeeeereereHHHHHHHHeeeereerererreeHHHHHHHereereeeereeereere 01 XXXX
02 XXXX
03 XXXX
04 XXXX
North Elevation South Elevation
East Elevation West Elevation
10'8"
19'8"
11'6"
20'6"
12'
16'
10'8"
19'8"
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE EVALUATION REPORT –
FIRE DAMAGE
FEBRUARY 9, 2024
RIVERSIDE OFFICE OF EDUCATION
4472 Orange Street, Riverside, California
Prepared For:
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
141 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103
Pasadena, CA 91101
(800) 331-1511
Claim Number: 631845
Date of Loss: December 11, 2023
Prepared By:
Insight Forensics LLC
Project Number: IF24105
TABLE OF CONTENTS & EXHIBITS
Report navigation instructions: The reader can navigate through this intera ctive report by clicking on select blue underlined text links below:
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE EVALUATION REPORT – FIRE DAMAGE
EVENT HISTORY/ASSIGNMENT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
DISCUSSIONS
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
REPAIR / CODE UPGRADE ANALYSIS & HISTORIC STRUCTURE REVIEW
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
INSIGHT FORENSICS PHOTOLOG
EXHIBIT A
PERMIT RECORDS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY /STRUCTURE, OBTAINED VIA
THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY ONLINE
SERVICES
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL DETAILS AND PARCEL MAP FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY , OBTAINED VIA THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE PARCELQUEST ONLINE
PUBLIC DATABASE
EXHIBIT C
FIRE INCIDENT REPORT PREPARED BY BATTALION CHIEF OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT, MR. MIKE ALLEN, DATED NOVEMBER 25, 2023
EXHIBIT D
PROPERTY DETAIL HISTORIC VIEWER RECORD FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
February 9, 2024
Sent via email to: [email protected]
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
141 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: Riverside Office of Education
4472 Orange Street, Riverside, California
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Forensics Project Number: IF24105
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE EVALUATION REPORT – FIRE DAMAGE
Dear Mr. Sommers,
In response to your request, Insight Forensics ( Insight) has performed an evaluation of claimed damage to the Riverside Office of Education , located at 4472 Orange Street in Riverside, California . The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the extent of structural damage sustained due to a fire that occurred on/or about December 11, 2023.
Relevant Documentation
The opinions in this report are based on the following:
• Site visit performed on January 22, 2024. The investigation was of a visual nature only and no destructive testing was undertaken.
• Review of permit records for the subject property/structure, obtained via the City of Riverside Department of Building and Safety online services (see Exhibit A).
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
• Review of parcel details and parcel map for the subject property, obtained via the Riverside County Assessor’s Office ParcelQuest online public database (see Exhibit B).
• Review of photographs of reported damage at the subject unit documented by the Addressee (DH Adjusting, LLC ) on November 15, 2023 (available upon request).
• Review of fire incident report prepared by Battalion Chief of the City of Riverside Fire Department, Mr. Mike Allen, dated November 25, 2023 (see Exhibit C).
• Review of historical aer ial and street view photographs for the subject property, obtained via nearmap, Google Maps, Google Earth, multiple listing service (MLS; such as Redfin, Trulia, Zillow), and/or City/County records.
Event History/Assignment
Based on discussions, on/or about December 11, 20 23, f ire/heat-related dama ge was sustained to portions of the structural framing system/elements as well as the associated architectural components/features of the subject historic building due to a fire. As a result of this event, Insight was requested to perform the following activities:
• Document the condition of the subject building and determine the extent of structural damage.
• Evaluate the feasibility of repairing the subject building based on the extent of damage with consideration of code impact/upgrade requirements and provide a conceptual repair scope.
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
Property Description
All dimensions, dates, and building material types noted herein are considered approximate and represent nominal sizes, unless otherwise indicated.
The subject building is a one-story historic structure built circa 1908 based on County records and is currently serving as an office/administrative building for the district of Riverside County Office of Education . The property is 0.15 -acres, and the total area of the building is approximately 1,430-square feet. The structure consists of wood framed exterior and interior walls with wood siding panels on the exterior and painted/textured lath and plaster finishes on the interior. The pitched gable/hip roof structure consists of asphalt shingles atop roofing membrane/felt over 1x skip sheathing and oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing supported by roof rafters and the load‐bearing walls of the structure. The ceiling is composed of “T‐bar”/drop ceiling tiles, and the floor consists of carpet atop raised -floor system with straight lank sheathing supported by joints and beams, which in turns are supported by vertical components entailing posts and piers or stem walls within the crawlspace (see Photographs 1 & 2).
Discussions with the Interviewed Party
Present during the site visit was a staff member (interviewed party) of Riverside County Office of Education, Mr. Matt Snellings (Executive Director), who stated the following:
• The fire was started by an individual that accessed the crawl space on the south side where the burn area was the most severe.
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
Field Observations
The following is a summary of observations made during the site visit (all dimensions, dates, and building material types noted herein are considered approximate and represent nominal sizes , unless otherwise indicated). Photographs/observations provided are representative of the site conditions; not all photographs taken have been included in this report:
• There was evidence of surficial charring and carbon/soot deposits at the exterior finishes around/adjacent to wall/window openings, consistent with fire induced by oxygen or airflow from the exterior/outdoor environment (see Photograph 3).
• Fire/heat-related damage to the interior finishes/components was noted throughout the building (see Photograph 4).
• Areas within the northern portion of the building had no discernible fire/heat-related damage to the structural framing of the structure; carbon/soot deposits were noted on the surface of the interior finishes (see Photograph 5).
• Visible charring/burning and/or discoloration was prominent at areas of the structural framing members/components (i.e., subfloor, wood laths, straight/skip sheathing, joists, and rafters) within the southern portion of the building, which were partially or completely consumed by the fire .
Bricks in the lower sections of the chimney had evidence of spalling. There were no visible indications of leaning or out -of-plumb conditions in the chimney structure; however, the structural element/stability of the chimney was compromised due to the spalling/detachment of bricks within the lower half of the stack construction (see Photographs 6 & 7).
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
• The general disposition of the roof framing system within the southern portion of the building exhibited prominent signs of excessive amounts of charring. The noted fire/heat -related damage had compromised the integrity of the supporting members as well as the continuity of the load - carrying capacity. More than 60% o f the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised (see Photographs 8-through-11).
• There was visual evidence of fire/heat-related damage to the floor framing system/members, as evidenced by the visible degree of charring/burning or discoloration (see Photograph 12).
• The foundation of the structure had been retrofitted/replaced at some point during the life of the stru cture with CMU (concrete masonry unit) slump face block. There was limited damage to the accessible are as of the foundation. Heat/fire in the crawl space d amaged limited sections of the block along the south wall (see Photograph 13).
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
Analysis/Discussion
Damage to the structure consisted of fire/heat-related damage to areas of the structural framing members/components (i.e., subfloor, wood laths, straight/skip sheathing, joists, and rafters ) as well as the attached interior finishes . Visible charring/burning and/or discoloration was prominent in the af orementioned structural framing systems within the southern portion of the building , which were partially or completely consumed by the fire, indicating fire/heat‐related distress, damage, or degradation due to excessive heat exposure during the reported event. There was evidence of surficial charring and carbon/soot deposits at the exterior finishes around/adjacent to wall/window openings, consistent with fire induced by oxygen or airflow from the exterior/outdoor environment.
According to the incident report ( see Exhibit C) issued by the City of Riverside Fire Department, the fire “…was confined to two rooms…” and the duration of the reported fire was approximately 14-minutes1 prior to its containment.
Bricks in the lower sections of the chimney had evidence of spalling; however, there were no visible indications of leaning or out -of-plumb to the chimney structure. Although Insight could not definitively associate the spalling with excessive fire/heat conditions during the reported event, the structural element/stability of the chimney was compromised due to the spalling/detachment of bricks within the lower half of the stack construction and will require repair/rebuild.
Fire/heat‐related damage to wood members is typically identified by progressive stages of degradation, and at elevated temperatures, wood undergoes thermal degradation or pyrolysis. The amount of degradation that wood undergoes as a result of fire is a function of temperature and the duration of heat exposure. During the initial stages of thermal degradation, wood members become dehydrated, generating water va por and non - combustible gases. As the temperature increases, the wood will release carbon monoxide
1 The time reported on the date of loss was at 2035 hours (8:35 PM), and the fire was placed under control at 2049 (8:49 PM) hours.
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
in addition to the pyrolysis of hemicelluloses and lignin components, resulting in the charring of wood surfaces.
The general disposition of the framing systems within the affected areas exhibited prominent signs o f excessive charring; the noted fire/heat -related damage had compromised the integrity of the supporting members as well as the continuity of the load-carrying capacity of the structural systems. More than 50% of the floor system and 60% o f the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised by exposure to heat/fire. Based on the areas damage in the roof system, the entirety of the roof would require replacement either due to fire damage or implementation of current standards for building. Similarly, the floor framing, including the car decking and beam lines supporting the repetitive joist of the floor framing has been damaged and would require removal of all of the framed systems above the damaged areas.
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
Repair/Code Upgrade Analysis
Damage to portions of the structural framing as a result of the fire has exceeded the current code requirements and therefore meets the criteria of “ substantial structural damage” as defined in Section 202 of the 2022 California Existing Building Code (CEBC), which states as follows:
“[BS] SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. A condition where any of the following apply:
1. The vertical elements of the lateral force -resisting system have suffered damage such that the lateral load-carrying capacity of any story in any horizontal direction has been reduced by more than 33 percent from its predamage condition.
2. The capacity of any vertical component carrying gravity load, or any group of such components, has a tributary area more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure's floor(s) and roof(s), has been reduced more than 20 percent from its predamage condition, and the remaining capacity of such affected elements, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by the California Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location.
3. The capacity of any structural component carrying snow load, or any group of such components, that supports more than 30 percent of the roof area of similar construction, has been reduced more than 20 percent from its predamage condition, and the remaining capacity with respect to dead, live and snow loads is less than 75 percent of that required by the California Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location.”
Based on observations, the e xtent of fire damage has compromised the load-carrying capacity of the major/essential structural framing components/systems, as evidenced by
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
prevalent burnt/charred members within the southern portion of the building; less than 40 percent of the remaining structural materials of the roof and floor framing (diaphragms) are considered salvageable ; none of the interior finish materials are salvageable due to the extent of fire/heat impact. Due to the severity of damage and demolition requirements of the remaining framing, it is “ technically infeasible ” by code definition to implement repairs and salvage the existing materials that were not damaged by the fire. Section 202 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) defines:
“TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a building or a facility, that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because oth er existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features…”
Based on observations and analysis of the cod e provisions, the damage to the structure from the fire has resulted the threshold for reduction in the lateral load-carrying capacity.
Further, the damage to the vertical load-carrying systems that composed more than 30 - percent of the total area of the structure’s roof/floor system has resulted in more than 20- percent reduction in the vertical load-carrying capacity. Therefore, the structural damage to the subject property, resulting from the event, meets the criteria of “ substantial structural damage.”
The age and type/configuration of the buildings structural systems/as-built configuration that utilizes non-code compliant (current code) means/methods and materials not currently used for general construction, would require additional efforts to salvage and assimilate along with current available/qualified building materials and mean/methods.
The load-bearing system provides continuity and stability to adequately transfer applied/design loads from the roof -level to the foundation via framing members/components and hardware/connectors. There were indications that the fire damage had compromised th e continuity of the structural load -carrying capacity, including the roof and subfloor framing, and therefore, any partial or non-affected load-
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
bearing members adjacent to the damaged sections that were consumed by the fire will also require removal/replacement.
This level of qualified damage requires that the major building/systems and structure be reconstructed in compliance with current applicable architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes. Due to the configuration and demolition requirements of the remaining framing, it is believed that it is “technically infeasible” by code definition, per Section 202 of 2019 California Building Code (CBC), to implement repairs and salvage the existing materials that were not damaged by the fire.
Historic Considerations
Insight acknowledges the City’s interest/desire in preserving the historic value and culture the subject building provides for the community , it is unknown if the subject building has been designated/adopted as a historic building by the California Historical Building Code (CHBC) Board . However, the building is located within a designated historic district “Prospect Place Historic District” According to Section 18955 of the 2022 Health and Safety Code (HSC), a qualified historical building or structure is defined as follows:
“…any structure or property, collection of structures, and their related sites deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local or s tate governmental jurisdiction. This shall include historical buildings or structures on existing or future national, state or local historical registers or official inventories, such as the National Register of Historic Places, State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and city or county registers or inven tories of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, historic districts, or landmarks. This shall also include places, locations, or sites identified on these historical registers or official inventories and deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local or state governmental jurisdiction.”
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
The provisions and code regulations to ensure /maintain and/or upgrade the structural safety of buildings designated as qualified historical buildings shall comply with the CHBC; the objective/intent of preserving the building significance/standard is stated in Section 8-701 of the 2022 CHBC, Title 24:
“…to encourage the preservation of qualified historical buildings or structures while providing standards for a minimum level of building performance with the objective of preventing partial or total structural collapse such that the overall risk of life-threatening injury as a result of structural collapse is low.”
Records2 indicated that the subject property is part of the Prospect Place Historic district of Riverside and was
built in 1908. However, general review of the conditions of each property within the district are subject to review by the jurisdiction for any/all preservation requirements when alterations or repairs are proposed. The
preservation of the structure and or rebuild
requirements will require repair plans or replacement is submitted to planning. See Exhibit D for Historic Viewer Records for the subject property.
For reference, in the event of preservation requirements, the existing building performance under the guidelines of structural and lateral load regulations in Sections 8- 705 and 8-706, respectively, of the 2022 CHBC states:
“Any unsafe conditions in the lateral-load-resisting system shall be corrected…the evaluation of structural members and structural systems for seismic loads shall consider the inelastic performance of structural members and their ability to
2 Historic Sites Inventory & Studies | CEDD (riversideca.gov)
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
maintain load -carrying capacity during the seismic loadings prescribed by the regular code.”
and
“The seismic resistance may be based upon the ultimate capacity of the structure to perform, giving due to consideration to ductility and reserve strength of the lateral- force-resisting system and materials while maintaining a reasonable factor of safety…”
and
“…all members that would be reasonably expected to fail and lead to collapse or life threatening injury when subjected to seismic demands shall be judged unacceptable, and appropriate structural strengthening shall be developed.”
It is believed that more than 60-percent of the structural load-carrying elements capacity has been compromised due to the fire event , diminishing the reserve strength of the lateral-force-resisting system to resist wind and seismic loads and imposing an immediate hazard to life safety. Based on the extensive fire damage to the structure and the unsalvageable conditions of the remaining/undamaged framing members and components, any repair scope/recommendations associated with an anticipated/expected repair and code upgrade estimate as a result of the event would be considered infeasible/impractical. A rebuild/reconstruction per the current code provisions/requirements is recommended, including the existing foundation/raised-floor system, to meet the structural demands for a new superstructure design and the provisions of the current code upgrade.
Summary Conclusion
Based on the extent of structural damage , limited salvageability of the remaining structure and impact of the building code update/upgrade requirements on reuse, it is expected that the subject building will be required to be demolished entirely and reconstructed from the ground up to ensure safety, functionality/code compliance.
Mr. Jon Sommers
DH ADJUSTING, LLC.
Riverside Office of Education
Claim Number: 631845
Insight Project Number: IF24105
February 9, 2024
Limitations
This report has been prepared for DH Adjusting, LLC. for their use in assessing reported damage to Riverside Office of Education , located at 4472 Orange Street in Riverside, California. This report has been prepared for DH Adjusting, LLC. to be distributed as they deem fit.
The opinions in this report are limited to information provided to us. If any additional information is provided to Insight Forensics after the issuance of this report, we reserve the right to review such information and, if necessary, modify our opinions accordingly.
No warranty, either expressed or implied, is given about the general or specific condition of the property as it affects the owner or prospective future owner.
Reliance upon information, observations, or opinions contained in this report should not be made by any party except the intended recipients.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding the above.
Insight Forensics
Blake R. Lander P.E.*, GC**, LEED GA
* Licensed Professional Engineer: California, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas
** Licensed General Contractor: California
California Engineering License No. 78896
California Contractors License No. 759285
REENIGNELANOISSEFORPDERETSIGER
AINROFILACFOETATS
C I V I L
REDNAL.REKALB
Exp. 03-31-20
No. 78896
4 INSIGHT FORENSICS PHOTOLOG
Riverside Office of Education, Riverside, California, IF Project No. 24105
1. Close-up aerial view of the subject building; source: nearmap.com; view of the north elevation of the building from the parking lot.
2. View of the east and south exteriors of the building from the parking lot. Wall/window openings had been boarded with plywood subsequent to the reported fire event.
N
Riverside Office of Education, Riverside, California, IF Project No. 24105
3. There was evidence of surficial charring and carbon/soot deposits at the exterior finishes around/adjacent to wall/window openings, consistent with fire induced by oxygen or airflow from the exterior/outdoor environment.
4. Fire/heat-related damage to the interior finishes/components was noted throughout the building.
Riverside Office of Education, Riverside, California, IF Project No. 24105
5. Areas within the northern portion of the building had no discernible fire /heat-related damage to the structural framing of the structure; carbon/soot deposits were noted on the surface of the interior finishes.
6. Visible charring/burning and/or discoloration was prominent at areas of the structural framing members/components (i.e., subfloor, wood laths, straight/skip sheathing, joists, and rafters) within the southern portion of the building, which were partially or completely consumed by the fire.
Riverside Office of Education, Riverside, California, IF Project No. 24105
7. Bricks in the lower sections of the chimney had evidence of spalling . T here were no visible indications of leaning or out -of-plumb conditions in the chimney structure ; however, the structural element/stability of the chimney was compromised due to the spalling/detachment of bricks within the lower half of the stack construction.
8. The general disposition of the roof framing system within the southern portion of the building exhibited prominent signs of excessive amounts of charring. The noted fire/heat-related damage had compromised the integrity of the supporting members as well as the continuity of the load -carrying capacity. More than 60% of the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised.
Riverside Office of Education, Riverside, California, IF Project No. 24105
9. The general disposition of the roof framing system within the southern portion of the building exhibited prominent signs of excessive amounts of charring. The noted fire/heat-related damage had compromised the integrity of the supporting members as well as the continuity of the load -carrying capacity. More than 60% of the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised.
10. The general disposition of the roof framing system within the southern portion of the building exhibited prominent signs of excessive amounts of charring. The noted fire/heat-related damage had compromised the integrity of the supporting members as well as the continuity of the load -carrying capacity. More than 60% of the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised.
Riverside Office of Education, Riverside, California, IF Project No. 24105
11. The general disposition of the roof framing system within the southern portion of the building exhibited prominent signs of excessive amounts of charring. The noted fire/heat-related damage had compromised the integrity of the supporting members as well as the continuity of the load -carrying capacity. More than 60% of the roof system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised.
12. There was visual evidence of fire/heat -related damage to the floor framing system/members, as evidenced by the visible degree of charring/burning or discoloration. More than 50% of the floor system framing exhibited cross-sectional charring or excessive sapping/glazing appearance and were compromised by exposure to heat/fire.