The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994/02/09 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 1994 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA me III· IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Lumpp Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Announcements Approval of Minutes January 12, 1994 V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ae LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - A request to demolish the Norton- Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-23. (Continued from December 8, 1993) LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-05 - GREG AND KRISTINE MICHAELS - A proposal to designate the Harne's Garage and Filling Station, located at 12906 Base Line Road, as a local landmark - APN: 227-131-17. (Continued from January 26, 1994) WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT VI. Public Comments VII. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Commission Business VIII. Adjournment VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission: I am here before you tonight to address the proposed request to demolish the Norton-Fisher house. This is not just a matter of should an old building be destroyed to convenience the owner, but it is also an issue of history in our community. Without history, there can be no future. Without respect, understanding and appreciation of what has come before, we cannot move forward. Buildings and areas of historical growth are the physical reminders of a way of life experienced by people like you and me. The people who lived in the past are not around to remind us of how things used to be, which allows us to live like we do today. These buildings are like the grandparents you knew as a child, whose lap you would sit in to hear their stories of how life was when they were young and the changes they have seen. Seeing once beautiful houses like this one, or the Stoebe house on Beryl & 19th, deteriorate through willful neglect is like watching your grandparents wander the streets homeless in torn clothes, searching for food. I cry inside every time I pass them, and wish fervently that someone would take these once beautiful homes tAnder their wing and love and protect them. I was taught to respect my elders, that they deserved my respect for surviving and obtaining knowledge and wisdom over the years. Historical structures are the physical elders of our community, and should be respected and preserved for everyone's benefit. We recently lost one our elders in the Etiwanda community, the C.N. Ross house, through neglect of an tAncaring owner, and I would hate to think that a similar situation is going to occur again with the Fisher house. Not only is this house beautiful in its own right, and important to our local history, it is significant to the history of southern California and its development in the early 20th century, being the site of the first telephone switchboard in 'the Inland Empire area. I am saddened by the fact Mr. Flocker only seems motivated by the dollars he thinks he might reap by the destruction of the building that has been in the stewardship of his family for close to 40 years. I am saddened that Mr. Flocker chose to board this house up 10 years ago and leave it neglected, and now complains about the cost it would take to restore it, when a little attention over the last 10 years probably would have prevented much of the slow deterioration that is evident today. He could have saved himself money by taking care of it himself, or letting someone live in the house that would have cared for it. He might actually have made some money from renting out the house over the past 10 years. I am more amazed that even if Mr. Flocker has no interest whatsoever in the historical impact this house has to the community on the whole, that he appears to have no feelings whatsoever of wanting to preserve the house he grew up in as a young boy and maturing man. I think most of us have feelings of nostalgia for the house we grew up in, but I have heard none fi'om Mr. Flocker. Everything I have read and heard indicates that he views this property he inherited as a windfall and is only concerned about how much profit he can squeeze from it. Even the compromises he suggested in 1988, and the current one of rezoning the property if he does not tear down the structure, do not seem tendered from someone who is truly trying to find a compromise, but of someone trying to make the most profit out of the situation. In fact compromise, which is the settlement of differences by mutual concessions, seemed far from Mr. Flocker's intent when he wrote in his letter of October 27, 1993, addressed to the City, "The City of Rancho Cucamonga will immediately restore my property to its original and irrevocable zoning of C-2 or the equivalent .... "as a condition of on-site preservation. It appears that if the City does not give in to his demands, than no other compromise will be considered by him. And as for his request to change the zoning to commercial, when you drive through that portion of Etiwanda immediately surrounding Mr. Flocker's property, a modem commercial development would detract from the historical and residential aspect of the neighborhood. As the owner of an historic landmark, I know first hand the special consideration that must be given to taking care of a structure that is not just yours alone, but which belongs to the community on the whole. Some homeowners might find this process frustrating and feel it is a violation of their personal rights, but preservation does not have to be viewed as an undesirable and inconvenient situation. Preservation is not static, just like history is not static. We are creating history every day, and the decisions that are made today will be the history of tomorrow. By working carefully together I believe a compromise can be reached that will satisfy the preservation needs of the community and the desire of the property owner. I would request that the Commission accept staff's reconmnendation to deny Landmark Alteration Permit 93-02 and direct them to continue working with Mr. Flocker in the spirit of compromise towards a reasonable resolution of this situation. Thank you for your consideration. Jan Sutton 9441 Lomita Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701-5817 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 9, 1994 Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - A request to demolish the Norton-Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-27. (Continued from December 8, 1993) BACKGROUND: At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to this meeting from December 8, 1993. This last action was the third continuance granted on this project. The Commission first opened the public hearing on this Landmark alteration Permit on September 8, 1993, at which time staff recommended continuance in order to explore alternatives to demolition with the applicant and property owner, Robert Flocker. The Commission continued the public hearing to November 10, 1993. Mr. Flocker was unable to attend this meeting, and again the Commission continued the item to December 8, 1993. Attached as Exhibit "HPC-I" is the staff report from the November 10, 1993, meeting for your reference. ANALYSIS: As the Commission will recall, staff has investigated other alternatives to demolition of the landmark house and engaged in related conversations with Mr. Flocker (see Exhibit "HPC-2," October 11, 1993, Memo to the Commission and Exhibit "HPC-3," Mr. Flocker's letter of October 27, 1993). Staff has had a number of conversations with the Board of Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society in which the likelihood of the Society's direct participation in the Norton-Fisher House's preservation was discussed. It appears that the Society is very interested and concerned about the retention and restoration of this important landmark, but at this time does not have the personnel, funds, or energy to tackle another major project without significant assistance from the City or another agency. Staff approached the Redevelopment Agency on the potential of utilizing housing set- aside monies to preserve the house. However, at this time use of these funds is not likely because of prior commitments and planned projects. Staff continues to investigate other funding options for the restoration of the house, including one that would involve soliciting support from GTE for the creation of a house museum dedicated to interpreting early telephone history in the area. Other preservation options that entail the relocation of the historic home are still being pursued, although relocation is not the most preferred alternative. Mr. Flocker has expressed an interest in donating the house for relocation and has not ruled out putting forth the funds he would have used ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LAP 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER February 9, 1994 Page 2 for demolition toward relocation efforts. Staff has investigated, in a preliminary manner, the possibilities of private receivership and non-profit receivership such as Habitat for Humanity. The next step staff will take is to solicit in writing the possibilities of participation by such groups in efforts to restore or relocate the Norton- Fisher House. Staff has also advised Mr. Flocker of the direction of staff's recommendation to the Commission regarding the environmental assessment of the demolition requests (see Exhibit "HPC-3" for letter dated December 21, 1993). Also, the Commission may recall that upon further analysis and legal advisement, staff found that per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the application for demolition must be accompanied by a focused Environmental Impact Report to be deemed complete. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff finds upon further review that the demolition of a designated local landmark constitutes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a recognized historic resource that may cause a significant impact on the environment as defined by Section 21084.1 of CEQA (Government Code) and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Item J. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the full impact of the proposed demolition until the applicant completes a focused Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission deny without prejudice Landmark Alteration Permit 93-02, and direct staff to work with Mr. Flocker on alternative strategies for the eventual rehabilitation either on- or off-site that will not involve demolition of the subject Landmark residence. Respec~lly ~mi tte~d, /Bra~ iulle~ City Planner BB:AH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-I" - HPC Staff Report dated November 10, 1993 Exhibit "HPC-2" - Memorandum to HPC from Brad Buller dated October 11, 1993 Exhibit "~PC-3" - Letter to Mr. Flocker dated December 21, 1993 Resolution of Denial DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 10, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - A request to demolish the Norton-Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-23. (Continued from September 8, 1993.) BACKGROUND: At the Commission's meeting on September 8, 1993, this item was continued in order to allow staff time to explore possible alternatives to demolition with Mr. Flocker. There remain a number of viable alternatives to demolition and staff met with Mr. Flocker to discuss these options on October 18, 1993 (see Exhibit "HPC-I" for Preservation Alternatives). Mr. Flocker provided limited verbal response to the alternatives suggested by staff and has since provided us with further written comments (please reference Exhibit "HPC-2 for a copy of October 27, letter). At the meeting on October 18, 1993, Mr. Flocker reiterated his opposition to rehabilitate the historic house, although he did not preclude the option of rehabilitation with monies other than his. As well, staff's suggestion that if the home were to be relocated, the demolition funds would be donated to the house's relocation, was met with agreement by Mr. Flocker which he reiterated in his October 1993 correspondence. Staff also reminded Mr. Flocker that the house's location and importance was a deciding factor in determining its flexible land use, Low- Medium Residential with a Community Services Retail Overlay, during the creation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. To this point Mr. Flocker responded that it was his opinion that the land use specified in the ESP reduced the value of his family's property. Furthermore, Mr. Flocker's condition for agreeing to let another interested party, the Etiwanda Historical Society for instance, rehabilitate the structure was that the City "immediately restore (his) property to its original and irrevocable zoning of C-2 or the equivalent," according to the October 27, 1993, letter to Brad Buller. ANALYSIS: To allow for demolition per City Ordinance, the Commission must determine that Mr. Flocker has demonstrated that such action "is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition" or that the "denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship" (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24.120). The Commission must review Mr. Flocker's request for demolition to determine if it is possible to mitigate the environmental impacts of such an action. PLANNING COmmISSION STAFF REPORT LAP 93-02 - FLOCKER November 10, 1993 Page 2 Precedent has been set by the Commission and City Council for the mitigation of any proposed demolitions of historic buildings. Mitigations that the Council has approved previously centered around the premise that as thorough an effort as possible to record and preserve the building or site be required. To this end, the requiring of oral histories; high-level architectural documentation; relocation; donations to local, non-profit historical societies; the installation of commemorative plaques; and public interpretative art programs has occurred. To date, some of the most significant of these mitigations have been for the impacts caused by the Foothill Marketplace and the Masi Commerce Center projects. Staff finds that Mr. Flocker has yet to "demonstrate" that the demolition of the Norton-Fisher House is warranted per the Landmark Alteration Permit process as specified in the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In staff's analysis, the project's (demolition's) impact could possibly be mitigated: therefore an environmental impact report would not be required. Such mitigations would include: * The sponsoring of three related oral histories; * The completion of HABS Level 1 documentation of the structure; * The requirement for the owner to cover all costs of relocating the b,~lding to a suitable lot with preference given to those within the Etiwanda Community; OR RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that unless Mr. Flocker wishes to request a continuance of this request in order to continue to explore alternatives to demolition, that the Commission deny LAP 93-02. Moreover, staff recommends that along with the denial, the aforementioned mitigations be forwarded to the City Council as Conditions of Approval for the demolition if an appeal to the City Council is filed. BB:AMH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-I" - Demolition Alternatives Exhibit "HPC-2" - Letter from Mr. Flocker to Brad Buller, October 27, 1993 Exhibit "HPC-3" - HPC Staff Report dated September 8, 1993 Resolution of Denial Norton-Fisher House: Alternatives To Demolition PRESERVATION ON SITE P-1 Continue to encourage Mr. Flocker to utilize the incentives offered by landmark designation and restore the home, these incentives include: * Use of the State Historic Building Code for future rehabilitation/restoration; or If rehabilitated for commercial use, potential to receive Federal Investment Tax Credits (20%); P-2 Work on interesting GTE or PacBell in sponsoring restoration, perhaps for use as a museum dedicated to early phone history in Etiwanda; P-3 Have the City/RDA purchase or condemn the property for affordable housing, a historic park, municipal service offices, or for lease to the Etiwanda Historical Society (EHS) for expansion of their interpretive museum activities; or P-4 Work on interesting Habitat for Humanity, JobCore, or other groups interested in purchasing and restoring. RELOCATION R-1 Suggest Flocker offer house for relocation to qualified party and put demolition costs towards relocation costs; R-2 Work on involving the EHS in the relocation process; or R-3 Work on interesting Habitat for Humanity, JobCore, or other groups interested in relocation and restoring. /_/,o¢ _/ RECEIVED Robert C. Flocker 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 909/987-2304 OCT 2 7 1993 City ol Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division October 27, 1993 Mr. Brad Buller City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I have considered our meeting of October 18, 1993 and our discussion of options for relocation/preservation of the Norton-Fisher house. Either of the following two approaches will work for me: 1) RELOCATION As we discussed, I will put up the money I anticipate spending cn demolition of the house as a contribution toward the moving cost. I will donate the house to either Mr. and Mrs Banks for relocation to their property or to another qualified party. 2) PRESERVATION ON SITE I will enter into a lease of the house to a qualified party (i.e., Etiwanda Historical Society "EHS") for a period of five years. This assignable lease will provide that EHS will assume all risk and pay the expense of all preservation and/or renovation of the house. This lease will be a part of an overall agreement between myself and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, wherein we agree as follows: A) The City of Rancho Cucamonga will immediately restore my property to its original and irrevocable zoning of C-2 or the equivalent, so that I may actively seek out a developer to incorporate the house into a commercial development (i.e., small shopping center, office center, etc.). B) If, at the end of five years, I have been unable to interest a suitable developer in building such a commercial development incorporating the house into the plans, the City of Rancho Cucamonga agrees to permit relocation of the house to another lot within the City at that time. I will agree to sell the house, upon relocation, to either EHS or another qualified buyer for one dollar. Kindly advise which approach you prefer to recommend to the Planning Commission, provided you agree with these suggestions. i~ncerely., ,~ ~ ~ ~o~ert F1ocker DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT September 8, 1993 Historic Preservation Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, Principal Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER - A request to demolish the Norton- Fisher House, a designated local Landmark, located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga - APN: 227-131-23. A Landmark Alteration Permit is required to be approved before any person can carry out a material change to any designated Landmark, including demolition, as provided under City Code Section 2.24.120. Furthermore, Subsection C.4 of this Code requires, "Where the application is for demolition, the necessity for demolition shall be justified" and the Commission make findings including, Subsections G.3 and G.4, "The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or, the applicant has demonstrated the denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship." Final action on a Landmark Alteration Permit rests with the Commission unless appealed to the City Council. Deadlines for actions are not specified with the City Code for this type of application. The Norton-Fisher (Fisher) House was designated a local Landmark by the City Council on September 21, 1988. (See attached City Council Minutes.) The decision by the City Council to designate the Fisher House a local Landmark was made over owner objection and was taken after several hearings by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council (see attached copies of previous Staff Reports). It should be noted that the 1988 Landmark designation was a City initiated application. The application was a portion of a package of applications made during a period when the City was pursuing an aggressive policy toward designating on a prioritized basis those properties within the City which had been identified as historically significant. In this case, the Fisher House, which is listed as having the potential of being on the National Register, was in the first group of historic properties considered in 1988. The purpose of landmarking properties is primarily one of identifying the importance of historical cultural resources within the community. In addition, Landmark designation also allows the property owner to utilize several State and local laws which are HPC STAFF REPORT LA 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER September 8, 1993 Page 2 generally financially beneficial to the property. These laws include property tax reduction provisions provided by the Mills Act, contract provisions, and the use of the State Historic Building Code. The Fisher House which is located across Etiwanda Avenue from the Chaffey-Garcia House is a Queen Anne Victorian style structure built in 1892. From 1907 to 1930 the switchboard of the Home Telephone Company, a mutual cooperative company owned by Etiwanda citizens, was located in this house and operated by Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter, Nellie. The house is significant because of its architecture, age, and historical role in the development of Etiwanda. Also, the house is one of 15 structures identified in the Etiwanda Specific Plan as "Notable Structures" (reference Figure 5-43 of Etiwanda Specific Plan) and thereby, significantly contributing to the character of the Etiwanda community. Incentives available to help preserve the Fisher House include the provisions for "Notable Structures" (reference Section 402(a) pages 5-41) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan that enable a non-conformance to be treated as conforming; the exclusion of these notable structures in the residential density calculations which allows a structure to be an extra unit; the conversion of houses to non-residential uses as a Conditional Use Permit; an entitlement, if it is a landmark to use the Historic Building Code. If the house is qualified for listing on the National Register and were to be used as a rental or office or other depreciable use, and were to undergo substantial, certified rehabilitation, it would qualify for a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the rehabilitation costs. The applicant, Mr. Flocker has requested demolition indicating in his application that, "...structure is a fire trap and a serious hazard to the community, especially to children." In addition, he sites that vagrants have broken into the premises consistently causing additional damage to the structure. Furthermore, Mr. Flocker indicates that the justification for the demolition includes the offer of donation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 1988 on the condition that the City remove the structure within a reasonable period of time at the City's expense. In addition, he notes the City has failed to act upon this offer. (See attached newspaper clippings from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.) However, it should be noted that Mr. Flocker made a formal offer to the City Council in a letter dated August 9, 1988, in which six specific conditions were listed as prerequisites to his donation of the structure to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Within this letter one portion of a condition reads, "...the City of Rancho Cucamonga will honor my request not to designate the house as a Historic Landmark until the house is moved from my property." Therefore, the City Council's action to designate the property a local Landmark appears to run contrary to the proposal made by Mr. Flocker. No new offer has been made since the original Landmark designation in 1988. HPC STAFF REPORT LA 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER September 8, 1993 Page 3 Staff was able to confirm only one instance of a police report concerning the use of the house by a vagrant and that took place in 1991. The City Code Enforcement Division has not received any recent complaints within the last three years concerning conditions of the subject property and the Building and Safety Division has indicated that they have not received any complaints regarding the physical condition of the structure. It should be noted that City staff will be conducting a detailed interior/exterior inspection and analysis of conditions of the structure prior to the Historic Preservation Commission meeting but not in time to include within this written staff report. Therefore, a follow-up report will be made on September 8, 1993 at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting concerning physical conditions of the property. ANALYSIS In evaluating the applicant's request for demolition, the Commission must evaluate the actual need to remove the structure versus the property owner's desire to be rid of a potential liability. In this regard, staff must note that there has not been and there is currently no proposed development request affecting the subject location. Therefore, the need to remove the structure must be evaluated upon whether the maintenance of the structure constitutes an economic hardship to the property owner. The City has a Nuisance Abatement Ordinance administered through the Zoning Code Enforcement Division which requires properties be maintained at an acceptable level in terms of landscaping and structural condition. Other than the property owner's desire to not rent out the structure and to keep it boarded up, staff has not been presented with any factual information concerning maintenance costs or rehabilitation estimates by the property owner. Staff will attempt to provide at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting cost estimates relative to an inspection of the premises by staff who normally provide residential rehabilitation consulting services for the City's Home Improvement program. Intervention by the City or others to move the structure has been considered previously during the 1988 Landmark designation process. A discussion of the alternatives for City intervention is included on page 3 of the September 21, 1988 City Council staff report attached hereto for reference. In regards to intervention by other private property owners or developers, it should be noted that the applicant has indicated that he has verbally been contacted by several persons over the years and that the primary obstacle has been the securing of a vacant lot in the Etiwanda area to move the structure to. However, it should also be indicated that according to an advertisement carried by the property owner in a local newspaper, Mr. Flocker had been requesting a sum of $38,500 in order for the structure to be bought by an individual. It is unknown what the results would be if a similar advertisement were to be run in the local paper offering the structure for a dollar and perhaps the property owner's including a sum of funds equal to the cost of demolition towards moving the structure. HPC STAFF REPORT LA 93-02 - ROBERT FLOCKER September 8, 1993 Page 4 ~CO~'DATION Staff recommends that this item be continued from 30 to 60 days for the applicant to present additional documentation to justify the request per the City Code and allow staff to analyze the new information and present a complete analysis of the condition of the structure. In addition, staff will be able to determine whether the required Facts for Findings can be determined as prescribed by City Code. Respectfully submitted, ra~ Buller City Planner BB:LH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Historic Photos of Residence Exhibit "B" - August 2, 1993, letter from Applicant with Attachments Exhibit "C" - City Council Resolution No. 88-406 Exhibit "D" - September 21, 1998, City Council Minutes Exhibit "E" - September 21, 1988, City Council Staff Report Exhibit "F" - August 3, 1988, City Council Minutes Exhibit "G" - August 3, 1988, City Council Staff Report Exhibit "H" - June 15, 1988, City Council Staff Report Exhibit "I" - HPC Resolution NO. 88-07 Exhibit "J" - May 5, 1988, HPC Minutes Exhibit "K" - May 5, 1988, HPC Staff Report Exhibit "L" - April 7, 1988, HPC Staff Report Exhibit "M" - Advertisement of House for Sale Exhibit "N" - City Code Section 2.24.120 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 909/987-2304 August 2, 1993 Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner The City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Anthe. a: Per our recent telephone conversation, I have enclosed a completed Application For Historic Landmark Alteration Permit. Please contact me if I can be of any further help. Sincerely, Robert Flocker City of Rancho Cucs~monga Application For Hi~oric Landmark Alteration Permit Identification 1. Common Name: None 2. Historic Name: Fisher House or Norton-Fisher House Street Or Rural Address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City: Etiwanda Zip: 91739 County: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel N~mber: 227-131-23 Zone: Low-Medium Residential Legal Description: The North 65 feet of the South 305 feet of the West 1/2 of Lot 12, Block 'K', according to Preliminary Map of Etiwanda Colony Lands, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 24, records of said County. 4. Present Owner: Robert Flocker City: Alta Loma Zip: 91701 Address: 6226 Topaz Street Ownership is: Private 5. Present Use: None Original Use: Single Family Residenee Other Past Uses: Single Family Residenee 6. Proposed Use: Not Applicable 7. Proposed Work: (i.e. demolition, remodel, addition, etc.) Immediate Demolition 8. Condition Of Structure: Not Inhabitable Justification For Work: Structure was donated to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in August 1988 on the condition that the City remove the structure within a reasonable period of time at City's expense. City has failed to act upon this offer. (Please see attached newspaper clippings from The Daily Report.) 10. Other Information: Structure is a firetrap and a serious hazard to the community, especially children. Owner ha~ boarded up all windows and doors and posted no trespassing signs on all four sides of the structure. Owner has patrolled the premises on a regular basis. Nevertheless, vagrants have broken into the premises consistently, building fires and utilizing the structure for overnight transient lodging. In 1992, a vagrant accosted children on the way to school and the police were notified but the suspect was never found. Again, I boarded up the door. Due to the increasing number of homeless and transient people in the area, it is impossible to secure the structure in a manner that will provide adequate protection to the community. I am extremely disappointed that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has failed to act in response to my offer of August, 1988. If children should break into the structure and cause a f'u'e, they could be trapped inside. I urge you to issue a permit for immediate demolition of this structure for the safety and well being of our community. I will pay all costs of demolition immediately upon receiving your approval. Historical restoration in R.C. pits owners against city hall By LEg PETERSON 8raft Writer If Rancho Cueamong· ever wants to make bi~ory, someone will have to make a 8acFLfiCO. When it co·tee to historical restore- el·n, just who is we·of to bite the bulb· is not very clear in this contest pitting ~pr~sM~yvate citizens qain~ city k-it on· hearing tb brunt of the pu~ for Focl that, cs··mr or toter, it is they who will have to toke the political heat for tolling the ~5-p~y oM what to do. Tnongh prep~ own·re have chef past, the potential for un~enaty nee·g- nations multiplied this year ns the city's historic preservation commission berne upon · p .ros~*tm three local cites each month am col landmarks. When an Etiwanda house was recom- mended for · historical desif·it·on in Hifh School teacher, challenfeo me decifnatio~' The Fither House, · nearly 100-year? old structure in Etiwanda, cite upon · 4~44c~ cite which the owner wants to clear and ssll to developers. The historic coon·is·on decided the See !!19TORY/B3 History/from B1 Fisher He·me had historical cif- "As an overall policy we my nificanm and sent it along to the have to ~et · little bit tousher City Council. on this than we arm perceived as The council pcotponed the being at this time," Buquet matter from · June meeti~ to "The City Council her to the fire· meeting in August. make · doc~ion if it is ~oing to Couacil me·here a~ain po~t-. perserve what hss been here for posed co,~idm. atioa of· deci~- 100 year· or allow four new natis· on the propit·y, p~.n~ hons~ to be built," caid Council- further discussions with the woman Deborah Brown. ,pr~,p,p,p,p,p,p,p,~_ ~, Robert Fischer. Courtalii·an Jeff King dif- 'I don't want to spend ,100,- feted. He ~aid the council ~hould 000 of my own money to f~x the houm up," FioGkor ~ "! feel be will·n[ to '~ut it· money liho I have no control over wkst whore it· mouth is" and pay for I own. I don't titink the his·m4· restorations that it~wnnt~ done. Mayor De--in L. Stout said pressrvation co·minion e, ver the city's efforts at ' _ilmtm~al. list·nod to what I hnd to my. Flockor has said that no pressrvationactuallyhonefitthe amount of inmntivss to restore landowners by the creation of · the house will away him frmn bankable community imnge. his docision to have it somehow However, Flockor, owner of sum if the city mark ~tion without the designs· the site ss · land- owner's con·n· is a "misuse Buquot challenged Flocker o landmark, Fiocker would be r~ mottvation~ quired to have any ~ for "We have n responsibility to a · 'modifications*' of the hOUOe lot Of people who are foing to be cleared by tim historic commi~ here · long time after you are fono. You ·rs seeing the dollars and cents on this baue and not RifardJess of des·feat·on, any demolition or major ·edifi- cation predoct would have to be · utherbad by the phnning corn. mimio~ Oetencibl.y tho hbtoric com- mission is moro seas·tire to chaoses 0~ the b,,qdinl'. exteri- or which affect ite historic char- astra'. More than 300 homm awMt mnch eisa,, Buquet told Flocker at · recent council ssmion. Fischer said he is more than any perram or any ·fancy which would remove it from his proper- While Flocker mcote with rssenmtivss From the council and the planning depafiment. consideration as poMntial h~ ove~ the nszt month, two more r~~ho, while 31 as- eton·coted ~ dos·me·ions have re·ired inadmm'k ' are tentatively'scheduled to ho- considered by the council. If tim city is foing m have An inc·naive· plan is being areas with historical charocter, drawn up to further an '.bce p.r~p*. Councilmen Charles Buqust arty owners to restore thoir.hb*' said 's:-~ody, somewhere will ·otis homos, end Ass·clot·- have to ho the bed Ivy." Planner Arleno Banks ~id an In a di&*ussisu of the policy education pt·tram would be do* on unfriendly ds·motions, Bu- cifnod to cream a"pnsitive ms- 'qua· coid ·ha council ow~ it to men·us" For historical future rsstdanta o~ thefTS.~ pruorvetion in Rancho Cnca- ~ tam past. monfL RESOLUTION NO. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission had held a duly a~vertised public hearinS to consider all comments on the proposed Landmark Desianation and issued Resolution No. 88-07 recommendinS to this City Council that said Landmark Desisnation be approved. WHEREAS, tha City Council has received and reviewed all input from the Historic Preservation Commission resardins said Landmark Desisnation. WHEREAS, all less1 prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO U3CAMONGA DOES H~REB¥ specifically find, determine, and' resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The application applies to property located at Assessor Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION__~: The proposed landmark meets the followins established in Chapter 2.z4.090 of the Rancho Cucamonsa Municipal Code: criteria A. Historical and Cultural Sisnificance: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period and s~yle. The proposed landmark is an example of a type of buildi~.$ which is no~ rare. 3. The proposed landmark is of sreater age then most of its kind. The proposed landmark is connected with a (historic) business. B. Historical Architectural and En$ineerin8 Sisnificance: me The overall effect of the desisn of the proposed landmark is beautiful. C. Neishborhood and Geosraphic Settins: Resolution No. 88- 6 Page 2 The proposed landmark ma~erial!y benefits ~he historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the conu~unity. SECTION 3: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Section 15308). SECTION 4: Based on the substantial evidence received and reviewed by this Council and based on the findings set forth above. NO~, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAH)NGA DOES HEREBY approve designation of the Fisher House as a Landmark. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1988. Buquet, Wright, Brown, Stout AYES: NOES: King ABSENT: None Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly ~Authelet. City Clerk I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California, do hereby certify =hat the foregoing Resolutlon was duly passed, approved. and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonsa, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of September, 1988. Executed this 22nd day of September, 1988 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. September 21, 198o (44) (45) (46) Councilman Kin~ requested a breakdown of the $140.00 in ~-' u~ trim·nS and irri$·tion. Councilman Buquet e~resse{ '~% ~ could reduce so~ of the cost in so~ ways, such as planCi~ C~-_ ~-20 fee~ fr~ ~he cen~er line, i~e~ of 8-10 thus thi~in~ I~ the trees. Council received ·nd filed the report. C~. A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE TIlE SITE OF THE HAVEN PROJECT, LOCATED Ill THE HAVEN &VKI~IE ~DZAM ISLAMD~ BKTMKEH AS A POINT OF HISTOLI¢ INTEREST. St·ff report presented by Pl·nner. (1402-06 HISTORY) ~TIOH AND ~ILSON Henderson, St. RESOLUTION NO. 88-586 A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUMCIL OF CUCAHOHC~, CALIFORMXA, APPROVXHG DES THE HAVEN AVENUE BKAUTXFXCATXON ~DXAN XSLAIfI~ BET~F. KN HISTORIC INTEREST CITY OF RANCHO OF THE SITE OF , LOCATED IN THE b'II,SON AS A POllIT OF. HOTIOH~ Hoved by Mrisht, second, designating the Haven Avenue interest. Ha,ion carried Buquet to approve Resolution Ha. 88-586 .ion Project as · point of historic ly, 5-0. GS. A PROPOSAL TO TO ocro~l 5, THE aziza HOUSE. 9468 A (TABLaD HISTmY) RESOLUTION NO. 88-587 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF RANCHO , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE RELPH HOUSE, LOCATED AT 9468 LOMXTA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK Tabled to October 5, 1988. G6. HISTORIC LAHDNA__RK DESX(RILTZON OF 7165 KTXt~VANDA AVENUE - APN 227-131-23. (Continued from&usuoC 3, 1988 me,inS) St&f£ report presented by Brad Bullet, City Planner, (1402-06 HISTSaY) Hayor Stout opened the mss,inS for public he·tins, C£ty Counc£1 Minute.~ September 21, 1988 Pa~e 15 ltr. Ylocker stated he did not vish to address Council, but had presented Council with a letter for infbr~atlonal purposes. There being no other public response, ~ayor Stout closed the public hearing. Councilman King expressed there yes no ti~e crunch resardin~ this house, and felt vevere setting a bad precedent. Ii ~e vould york vlth Hr. Flocker, he thought ~e could co~e to an amiable agreement. He also expressed that in his opinion, ~e were beginning to dictate to people what they ~ere going to do with their property above and beyond nor~l planning issues. Councilman Buquet expressed that it vas appropriate for Council to take necessary action in order to preserve historical property; and he personally felt the historical designation would enhance this property. RgSOLUTION NO. 88-~06 A R~SOLUTIO~ OF Tt~ CITY COUNCIL OF TR~ CITY OF RAI~CRO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVINC DESICCATION OF T~ HOUSI LOCaTeD AT 716~ ETZ~,~DA AV~U~ A~ A It0TION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to approve Resolution No. 88-~06. Motion carried &-l-0 (lies, no). G7. DESlC~-~---Staff report presented by Ji~garris, Associate Civil 02 SI~S) CONSIDERATION OF A RIVISED TZ~FFIC SI(ItAL ILLUMINATED STREET NAI~ STy. ~'ACE (0807- Council was: .ve for a street siSn. Mayor Stout opened the meetin~ for public input. John Nicolopolous felt that $&50.00 was Stout closed the public portion of There being no further public input, the meet£n$. Mr. Maguire, City Engineer~ Bized we were already spending $&$0.00 on each illuminated sign on .flit signal. All staff was proposing to do was change the face of tl to have the City na~e or logo included, ~hich would run approximately more per sign. Mr. Manager, pointed out that a lot of the signs $oin$ in are paid for per fees, and that money cannot be spent for other uses. Count Buquet expressed he would like to see so~e information come back wit ~rall costs impacts. (47) DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUB J EC T: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT September 21, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council Brad Buller, City Planner Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WITH MR. ROBERT FLOCKER, OWNER OF THE FISHER HOUSE, A POTENTIAL LOCAL LANDMARK RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council not accept Mr. hlocker's offer to donate the Fisher House to the City and to designate the house as a landmark because it is both architecturally and historically important and it is a notable feature on Etiwanda Avenue. II. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of August 3, 1988, Mr. Robert ~locker spoke against landmark designation of the Fisher House, which he owns. The Council voted to continue the item so that a meeting with Mr. Flock,r, a Councilmembe,, and staff could be arranged to discuss possible options. Councilmember Jeff King was appointed to serve on this subcommittee. The meeting took place on the porch of the Fisher House on Tuesday, August 9, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Flock,r, Mr. Hudson, Jeff King, Brad Bull,r, and Arlene Banks. Mr. ~ocker's brother James Flocker joined the meeting at about 6:20 p.m. The meeting ended about 6:55 p.m. III. DISCUSSION: Mr. Flocker said that he opposes landmark designation because he someday wants to sell the property for development and thinks that the value is in the land, not in the house, and that the land is more valuable without the house than with it. He said that the house would cost a great deal of money to rehabilitate, and he thinks landmark status would reduce the land's value because a developer would face the prospect of restoring it and developing around the house or moving it elsewhere on the property. It was explained that landmark status does not freeze a structure and does not mandate any requirements except to apply for a permit from the Historic Preservation Commission for material changes to the exterior and changes in use. Review by the Commission does not mean that changes, even demolition, cannot take place. CITY COUNCIL STAFF i~ORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Flocker feels his land value was already affected once when the Commercial zoning under the County was changed to Residential with a Community Services overlay under the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He does not find the incentives in the Plan to be of interest and thinks that someday the property will be developed with "low impact" commercial uses. Mr. Flocker also objects to designation on principle because he does not like the City having any additional controls over his property. He feels he is being forced to make plans and commitments at a time when he does not want to do anything with the property. He thought that the best solution would be for the City to move the house off the property and he presented an offer in writing that the City accept the house and move it within a year. Councilman King asked Mr. F'locker if he had had the property appraised with and without the house. Mr. Flocker had not had the property appraised. Councilman King expressed the City's wish both to retain this house on the lot where it now stands and the City's desire to work cooperatively with Mr. Flocker to come up with a solution that would be satisfactory to everyone. Councilman King thought it would be helpful to put together different appraisals assuming various scenarios. He also mentioned the possibility of tabling the matter until Mr Flocker wishes to sell or to remove the house, at which time the Council will reconsider designation. Councilman King also inquired about the possibility or existence of liability insurance and placing a fence around the house. Councilman King expressed the idea that there are developers that would want something like this on his/her property and that it would create a unique development using this house as a centerpiece. He thought that the City would demand that projects on this portion of Etiwanda Avenue be of exceptionally outstanding quality, and the house would improve the prospects for such a development. He asked Mr. Flocker what would it take for him to cooperate with the City and support landmark designation. Mr. Flocker replied that he preferred to have the City consider first his offer of the house. The desirability of having the house remain where it is or close by was discussed. Potential lots for move-ons north of Base Line Road on Etiwanda Avenue were mentioned, as well as the possibility of moving the house to the Chaffey-Garcia property across the street. The group toured a few rooms in the house, which is boarded up. There are some signs of deterioration, but generally the house appears to be sound. CITY COUNCIL STAFF ~.,PORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 3 IV. ALTERNATIVES: In staff's opinion, there are many possible directions to take. A. Designate the house as a landmark. are: The consequences of this Landmark status would acknowledge the importance of the house and might help to preserve it. This option does not preclude the acceptance of Mr. Flocker's offer. If Mr. Flocker wished to move or demolish the house he would have to apply for an alteration permit and justify the move or demolition to the Historic Preservation Commission. The house would become eligible for current and future preservation incentives. Accept Mr. Flocker's offer. The consequences of this decision are: The City would be spending many thousands of dollars to move the house and for possible property acquisition; J The historical value of the house would be lessened and it may no longer be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places depending on the location and geographic orientation of the new placement; The City would incur the responsibility of finding a lot and protecting, maintaining, and restoring or rehabilitating the house (or finding someone else to do so); The historical environment of Etiwanda Avenue may be diminished; Perhaps most important, this may set a precedent that the City will move significant historic structures if owners object strenuously enough to landmark designation. (As you know, landmark designation is an exercise of the City's police powers which in effect creates an overlay zone where there is special design review as well as special privileges. A city's right to designate landmarks was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York.) C. Table the designation. The consequences of this decision are: CITY COUNCIL STAFF i,'-~ORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 4 Proposals to remove, demolish, or alter the house would reactivate the Council hearing because changes cannot be approved until a decision has been made by the Council. 2. The situation would remain as it is now. Deny the Designation. The consequences of this are: 1. Mr. Flocker would probably find this an al ternati ve. acceptable e The house could be demolished or moved outside of the City or radically altered with no input from City agencies beyond issuance of an applicable permit. The house would still be eligible to use the incentives in the Etiwanda Specific Plan (a "bonus" residential unit or adaptive reuse with a CUP), but would not be eligible to use the Historical Building Code and other incentives that may be adopted by the Council. In summary, the City Council is requested to act on the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission for landmark designation and secondly consider Mr. Flocker's proposal. Regarding landmark designation the Council may approve, deny, or table, action on the designation or continue the matter for further information. BB:AB:vc Attachments: Staff Reports with Attachments Letter from Robert Flocker Resolution 6226 Topaz A1 ta Loma, CA 91701 August 9, 1988 Rancho Cucamonga City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Proposed historic landmark designation of 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. APN #227-131-23 Dear Council Members: I appreciate your efforts to arrive at a satisfactory solution concerning the historic landmark designation of my house located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue. Since the city wishes to preserve this house, I hereby make a formal written offer to donate the house, excluding all land which I own underneath and surrounding it to the City of Rancho Cucamonga under the following conditions: 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has 1 year from the date of acceptance of this offer to move the house from my property. 2. The house is to be moved frommy property entirely at the City of Rancho Cucamonga's expense. 3. Upon acceptance of this offer, the City of Rancho Cucamonga assumes all liability for any injuries incurred by persons involving the house while it remains on my property. 4. I am not responsible for any of the expenses involved in the restoration of the house. 5. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will discuss the disputed historic landmark designation of my house at the September 21, 1988 city council meeting. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will honor my request not to designate the house as a historic landmark until the house is moved from my property. I will give the city council up to 2 weeks past the date of this meeting to decide whether to accept or reject my offer. 6. The city council must notify me in writing of their decision concerning this offer by October 5, 1988. Sincerely, Robert C. Flocker CLOy Council Minutes ~_) ~ ~ Augu. C 3, 1988 Couucilvo~u Brown stated for the. record that she felt thle was iu violati._~of tha EClvand~ Specific PI~ and d~s~reed ~th the v~ ~t v~s be~ douey- But, ~t w~e ~ ~tter of ~ett~ tb~s done b~ C~t~ ~t~rds ~tend oo she ~uld go along ~Ch it. ~ION: ~ved by Ki~, seconded by ~zighC to approve the ~' JaCi~ Agree~nC 88~1. ~t~on carried ~-1 (~SE~: B~uet - Co~i~.. :~queC h~ stepped out of the room). * * ~uaent Ordnances Nos. ~6~ and 365 ~re con.~de [d and approved at * * thia point ~n the agenda. ~e m~tee ~re le*'?~n the Age~a Order - see item DI and D2. ~ ' cazz report presence· oy ~lene Bp~i, Associate Planner. (1402-06 H~STORY) ACTION: After considerable di_-:ussion, City Council concurred in approving the incentives ChaC did not have Jay budgetary impacts, end to come back for those incentives which have a fiu-.cial impact. G2. A PHOPO~IL TO 9'~I(21AT~ ~TCAHONGi.. AS A H~?L'ORIC LAh~HAi~ APN 1062-071-08. Staff report presented by Arleue Banks, Ass. ~iate Planner. (1&02-06 HISTORY) RESOLUTION NO. 88-503 ;.~-RESOLUTZON OF THE CITY ¢O~qCIL OF THE CITY OF RAHCHO -¢UCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPR~VIHG DESIGHATIOH OF THE ¢.P. .--' ~EDIC HOUSE LOCATED AT 5702 AHETHYST AVEHUE AS A LANDM~IK MOT?~H: Moved by BuqueC, seconded by Brown Co approve aesolucion 88-503. Ms: .on carried unanimously G3. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGIqATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE, 7165 ETIWAHDA AVENUE- APN 227-131-23. (Continued from June 15, 1988 meeting) Staff report presented by Arlene Banks, Associate Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY) ~layor Stout opened the meeting for public co·neut. Addressing Council was: (42) (43) City Council Minutes August 3, 1988 I} Page 16 Robert Flocker, owner of the house, expressed he did not want to improve the house. RESOLUTION NO. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Wright to continue Resolution No. 88-406 to the September 21, 1988 meetin~ in order to give a member of the City Council and staff time to sit down with Mr. Flocker to see if the problem could be resolved so the house might be preserved. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Councilman Ki~ was appointed to work with Mr. Flocker and staff. Nayor Stout opened the' meeting again for public count. WaS: Addressi il Pamela Kin~, 8730 King Ranch Road, expressed her conce Council. Mayor Stout called a recess at 12:00 midnight. 12:15 a.m. with all members of Council t meeting was reconvened at (45) (46) G4. UPDATE ON THE TREE report on the status of future (Continued from July 20, City Planner. (0203-02 ORDINANCE - Staff will be presenting a ~ts to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. .Staff report presented by Brad Bullet, After considerable dis~ Council took the following action: ACTION: Council eucalyptus trees staff to obtain costs for the maintenance of both private and public property. G5. CON,~ OF COUNTY ~OUNSEL'S OFFICE. DEFENDING LAWSUITS WHICH ARE G TAX REFUNDS FOR GTE SPRINT, ETC. V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ET AL.; PACIFIC PIPE LINES, INC. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ETC., ET AL.; AND PIPELINE COMPANY V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ETC., ET AL. (0704-00 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJ £CT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 3, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council Brad Buller, City Planner Arlene Banks, Associate Planner A Proposal to Designate The Fisher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, as a Landmark. APN: 227-131-23 Recommendation: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council designate the Fisher House a landmark because it has both historical and architectural value and meets the ,criteria established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In addition, the historical survey team's findings were that the house has State and National Register potential. II. Background: Current status: This item was continued from the meeting of June 15, 1988. The owner and his family object to designation of this property because they do not wish to be encumbered with the designation if they desire to remove the house and offer the land for sale. The Historic Preservation Commission finds that the house not only meets the criteria in the ordinance, but is a particularly important structure. They expressed the opinion that if the house must be moved, that it be moved to a more suitable spot on the site or at least remain close to its current location. If the house is designated a landmark, the moving or demolition would be subject to review and approval by the Commission. The owners do not wish to undergo this review. Incentives: The City Council requested that staff look into the matter of incentives that the City can offer to owners to make landmark designation more attractive. The general topic of incentives is discussed in a separate staff report. Incentives available to help preserve the Fisher House include the provisions for 'notable structures' in the Etiwanda Specific Plan that enable nonconformities to be treated as conforming; the exclusion of these notable structures in residential density calculations which allows the structure to CITY COUNCIL STAFF ~ 2PORT THE FISHER HOUSE August 3, 1988 Page 2 be an extra unit; the conversion of houses to non-residential uses with a Conditional Use Permit; and entitlement, if it is a landmark, to use the Historical Building Code. If the house is qualified for listing on the National Register and were to be used as a rental or office or other depreciable use, and were to undergo substantial, certified rehabilitation, it could quality for a tax credit equal to 20 percent of rehabilitation costs. Site Plans: The City Council also requested to look at a site plan that shows the house in relationship to the site. Attached to this Staff Report are alternative layouts developed by staff. Two schemes assume a single family residential development, the other two assume a mixed use development with the Fisher House being adaptively reused. One of each leaves the house as it sits and the other shows the house located elsewhere on the site. There appears to be several ways to develop this property that would include preservation of the Fisher House. III. Alternatives: The City Council's alternatives are: 1. ) to accept the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation and designate the Fisher House a landmark; 2.) to deny the designation even though it meets the criteria in the ordinance; 3.) to designate the Fisher House as a point of historic interest which recognizes the historical value of the house but does not require Historic Preservation Commission review of changes; 4.) to continue the item. IV. Additional Rationale for Designation: The United States Supreme Court has ruled that designation of landmarks benefits all citizens and improves the quality of life, and that designation is legitimate as long as an owner is able to make a reasonable return on his investment. Designation of the Fisher House would not prevent use of the property or reasonable return on investment; it would help protect the house from inappropriate alterations and make it eligible to use the Historical Building Code. CITY COUNCIL STAFF ~ ~ORT THE FISHER HOUSE August 3, 1988 Page 3 Ve Now that a proposed shopping center and condominium development at the corner of Etiwanda and Base Line is making its way through the planning process, the value of this land may be increasing and the likelihood of development in the near future would be greater. Keeping the heritage of the Etiwanda area of Rancho Cucamonga alive depends on retention of as much of the original historical fabric as possible and on using the historic buildings as a touchstone for new development. Without inclusion of authentic, original buildings in the development of Etiwanda, the turn-of-the- century theme will be artificial and not in keeping with the goals and policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Designation of the Fisher House will help to keep the character of this unique community. The Etiwanda Specific Plan calls for the protection and enhancement of the visual and historical character and the quality of Etiwanda Avenue and its surroundings. Designation of the Fisher House is consistent with this purpose. Action Requested: Staff requests that the City Council accept the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission and designate the Fisher House as a landmark. ii__ _ fu~/ U lty ~anner BB:AB:mlg Attachments: Staff Reports Resol uti on A1 ternati ve Site P1 ans Hahland Ave. C Victoria St. Baoe Line Rd. Site Location 7165 Etlwanda Ave. CITY OF RA~~ CLCA~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF RAN(~HO CUCAMONGA FISHER HOU~ I I ' I ETIWANDA RAILWAY RTATION HOUll 7110 ~ ), · · IM ITIWANDA ~ONGREGAT~NAL CHURCH Y ~ CHAPFlY - QARCIA HOUI! 1 PIIHIR HOUI! [~ BABELINE I ROAD CONCEPTUAL DIIIAWINGE CITY OF RAN'CHO CUCAMONGA I ITIWANOA RAIl. WAY I*TA~N #OUII 7110 ITIWANDA CONORIQATIONAL ¢HURCN I · i IfilNil NodLF~~ BAlELINE 4dP ROAD ¢ONC:IrpTUAL DRAWINGS CITY OF RK~CHO CUCAMONGA -%. HOURI 7110 I~ J I?IWANDA RAILWAY 87ATION ) ,4 *' RYIWANOA COHQRIQATIONAL I- CHURCH f ~ CHAPFRY - GARCIA HOUI! I L. 1 ., I lAIRLINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWMOI -~-~ t?tlH~tuhI LOC&TIOII , ~,~/~,,,- ~,,~- CITY OF~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA J ITIWANOA RAILWAY STATION HOUIS 7110 ~ ) · ) LJ-'-- ITIWANDA CONQRIGAT~NAL CHURCH CHAFFBY o QARCIA PlINIR HOUS BAlELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWINQ8 IiSNNII?IAL COII~P! aN #~' ee,,el CITY OF RAI~CHO CUCAMONGA FISHER HOU~ #OUII 7110 IITIWANOA RAILWAY RTAT14)N '~ II'~WANOA ¢ONG#IGATIONAL CNURCH I FIIHIR NOUII -L. I - ~ ~ ' BAlELINE I ROAD CONCEPTUAL DI~AWIIOi LOCATIOlie DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: · ,. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 15, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council Brad Buller, City Planner Arlene Banks, Associate Planner A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE FISHER HOUSE, 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A LANDMARK II. RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council designate 7165 Etiwanda Avenue a landmark. BACKGROUND: This house, located across Etiwanda Avenue from the Charley-Garcia House, is a Queen Anne Victorian-style structure built in 1892. From 1907 to 1930 the switchboard of The Home Telephone Company, a mutual cooperative company owned by Etiwanda citizens, was located in this house and operated by Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter, Nellie. The house is significant because of its architecture, its age, and its historical role in the development of Etiwanda. The property is located in the Community Services Overlay District and the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The Plan provides substantial incentives to help foster preservation of "notable" structures; e.g., they may be converted to various commercial and professional uses with a Conditional Use Permit on this portion of Etiwanda Avenue. In addition, the Plan also permits notable structures to serve as a "bonus" for residential developments on lots of 1 acre or more. These structures are not included in density calculations and do not reduce the number of new dwellings permitted. Mr. Robert Flocker, owner of this house as well as several adjacent lots, is opposed to designation. Mr. Flocker is planning to sell the house and have it relocated possibly outside the City. Although landmark status would not necessarily prevent removal, the Historic Preservation Commission would review relocation plans. Mr. Flocker does not wish to be subject to such review. He does not want to demolish the house, but he does want to clear the land and sell it for development. He has expressed his opposition in writing as well as orally (a copy of applicable correspondence is attached for reference). CITY COUNCIL STAFF i .~ORT The Fisher House June 15, 1988 Page 2 III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: The Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark designation at its May 5, 1988 meeting. The Commission felt that the house was important enough to warrant designation. They thought it should be kept near other important historic structures in Etiwanda. If the Fisher House must be moved, they would prefer that it be relocated close to its current location. ted ETIV%%NDA ?' HISTORICAL SOCIETY Post Office Box 363, Etiwanda, CA 91739 June 14, 1988 Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council: In 1882 the Chaffey Brothers (who were friends of Alexander Graham Bell) completed a telephone line from Etiwanda to San Bernardino, the longest in the world at the time. On February 1, 1906 a public telephone was installed at the Frost Brothers Store in Etiwanda, and on June 2, 1907 the Home Telephone Company was formed as a mutual, cooperative company owned by the citizens of Etiwanda. The Home Telephone Company was located in the Norton- Fisher home at 7165 Etiwanda Aven~:. .Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie operaX~Ld!~the~nu~ system until the 1930's. At that time the Home Te~h~_~mpany sold to Associated Telephone Company and a ~~frick central switching station was built (and is still standi~) on Victoria Avenue. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a unique opportunity to preserve an important segment of history. Due to the age of the Norton-Fisher house, its Victorian architecture, its ties to local history and its association with the national development of telephone service, the significance of the structure spreads beyond the boundaries of our City. The structure is a strong candidate in its original location for State and/or National landmark status. Furthermore, due to the proximity of three other City landmarks to the west and north,* the Norton-Fisher house, as a landmark, would complement and enhance the City's preservation policy. For these reasons the Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society have RESOLVED: That the action of the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission recommending the Norton-Fisher house for landmark status is whole-heartedly endorsed and the City Council is urged to adopt their recommendation. Respectfully Submitted, Gar~Collins, President * Chaffey-Garcia House - directly west * Etiwanda Congregational Church - directly northwest * Pacific Electric Railroad Station - directly north cc: Arlene Banks m a~e~.~ All donations of money or rials are tax deductible RESOLUTION NO. 88-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA RECOilMENDING APPROVAL TO DESIGNATE THE FISHER HOUSE LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission had held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Historic Landmark Designation No. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period and style. 2. The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which is now rare. 3. The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. 4. The proposed landmark is connected with a (historic) business. B. Historical Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful. Ce Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the con~nunity. SECTION 2: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA. {Article 19, Section 15308) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission does hereby recommend approval of The Fisher House as a Historic Landmark to the City Council. BY: ~ED AN~~STH DAY OF MAY Bob Schmidt, Chairman , 1988. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CO0~,~ARNER, BANKS, BILLINGS, NOES: COMMI SS IONER~ONE ABSENT: C~ERS: STAMM, HASKVITZ SCHMIDT --carried HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to designate the ~isher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, a Historic Landmark - APN: 227-131-23. Arlene Banks presented the staff report. Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing. Robert Mocker, owner of 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, the Fisher House, expressed his opposition to the designation. Copies of his written objections were distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Banks stated that one of Mr. Flocker's main concerns is that the landmark status would prevent moving, which is not the case. She stated he would have to come before the Commission with an Alteration Permit. She stated that the house is of great significance, that across the street from the house are two landmarks and there are two more to the north and that it is a great advantage to the City to have so many landmarks close together. She stated that if the owner decides to move it that it will stay close by and maybe the property could be converted to commercial use. Larry Henderson, Senior Planner, questioned if Mr. Flocker was planning to sell the property and the structure. Mr. Flocker stated that not at this time. He stated he feels the house is in the middle of the four acres and in the way of being able to develop the property. He stated that he has been trying to sell the house for some time and has had two offers. Larry Henderson questioned if the two offers had expressed any idea as to what purpose or location. Mr. Flocker stated that it was for residential use and they had desired keeping it in Etiwanda. Larry Henderson questioned if the structure was designated, would it bring a better selling price. Mr. Flocker stated that he did not see how it would, but would place more restrictions on the property. He stated that it should be up to the property owner to have their pr~per~~ructure designated. HPC MINUTES - - MAY 5, 1988 Larry Henderson explained the procedure for designation and moving the structure. Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Banks stated that she felt the economic value as a commercial use would be great if it was to remain at the site. Commissioner Arner moved to recommend to City Council the approval of the Historic Landmark Designation of 7165 Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Banks seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, COOPER, BILLINGS, SCHMIDT NONE STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIOI OF 6797 HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to :nate the Lord House, 6797 Hellman Avenue, a Historic ~ndmark - APN: 202-061-12. Arlene Banks presented the staff Chairman Schmidt opened the pul Schmidt closed the public hearin . .rt. hearing. Hearing none, Chairman Commissioner Billings verified significance of the house. Commissioner Billings moved Historic Landmark Designati buildings. Commissioner carried by the following recommend to City Council the approval of of 6797 Hellman Avenue, excluding the out seconded the motion. The motion was AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS, ARNER, BANKS, COOPER, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONER~ NONE ABSENT: ;: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried HPC MINUTES MAY 5, 1988 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 5, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Larry Henderson, Senior Planner Arlene Banks, Associate Planner HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to designate the hisher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, a Historic Landmark - APN: 227-131-23. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: That the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of a Resolution designating the Fisher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, a Historic Landmark. Location: The house is on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Base Line Road, south of the Pacific Electric tracks and across the street from the Chaffey-Garcia House. Cm Site Land Uses - Zoning - General Plan Designation: The site is an unoccupied, boarded up, single family residence. The zoning is determined by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. It is in the Low-Medium Density Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The General Plan also designates it as Low-Medium Density. The Etiwanda Specific Plan includes the property in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. Surroundin~ Land Use - Zoning - General Plan Designation: North - Vacant; Designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the Etiwanda Specific Plan Map and also on the General Plan Map. It is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. South - Vacant (with a new chain-link fence); Designated Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the Etiwanda Specific Plan and on the General Plan. East - Vacant; Same designation as above. The property to the east is not within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District or the Community Service Overlay District. HPC STAFF REPORT ~ ~ RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 2 West The site is directly across the street from the Chaffey-Garcia House which is on land designated "L", Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community Specific Plan. However, the Chaffey Garcia House is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. Overlay Districts Within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: The hisher House is within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. The Etiwanda Specific Plan contains provisions tailored to the Etiwanda area. These provisions replace City- wide regulations. They were adopted to take into account Etiwanda's special character, while allowing a reasonable level of development. Throughout the Plan, there are references to historical features such as period architecture, windbreaks and tree lined streets, and rock curbs. The Plan encourages historic preservation. The purpose of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District is to protect and enhance the visual and historical character and the quality of Etiwanda Avenue and its immediate surroundings. Minimum setbacks are 25 feet with a 30 foot average setback. Structures facing Etiwanda Avenue must be at least 25 feet apart. Styles are encouraged to be traditional and field stone used as major design element. A single family appearance is to be maintained and landscaping is to be consistent with the streetscape theme contained in the Plan. e The Community Service Overlay District was formed to provide opportunities for limited or specialized, low- impact commercial and quasi-commercial services. Its purposes are to provide a focal point in the heart of the community that reinforces a sense of community identity and to encourage perpetuation of features that are tied to Etiwanda's heritage. With a Conditional Use Permit and provisions that assure no adverse impacts and enhancement of the visual and historical character of Etiwanda, professional offices, restaurants, beauty shops, farmers' markets and similar uses could be permitted, as well as schools, churches, community buildings and the like. HPC STAFF REPORT ~.L RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 3 II. Description: The Historic Resources Inventory form describes this house as Spindle-work Queen Anne. The description reads as follows: "An irregular shaped single story structure of wood construction with combination of hipped and front and side gables. Roof has composite shingles. Eaves are enclosed. Gable ends have shingle treatment and detailed verge boards. Siding is flush boards. An integral porch is located on the front with lattice work frieze suspended under porch ceiling, turned porch supports and spindle-work in the balustrade. Porches are of wood. There are similar porches located at the rear of the structure on both the north and south sides. Foundation material is wood. Doors and windows are unknown, due to being boarded. The structure is located on a large, vacant lot of 10 acres. A barn of similar structure was located at the rear of this structure, however, it has collapsed. There are two large trees located to the front of the house, between the dirt driveways. A row of trees lines the street in front of this structure." The large trees in front of the house appear to be Magnolias, and a tall Washington Fan Palm stands closer to the street. Silk Oaks line the edge of the property near the stone curbs. ANALYSIS: A. Background - General: This house was selected from the list if potential landmarks identified in the 1987 survey. Be Reasons for Designation: This house is significant because of its age and its Victorian-era Queen Anne architecture. It is estimated to have been built in 1895. Etiwanda The First 100 Years gives an 1892 date. It is also significant because it was the location of the switchboard for the Home Telephone Company which was organized in June of 1907 and owned by the people of Etiwanda. The switchboard was staffed by Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie. The switchboard was moved and mechanized in 1930. Issues: This house is unoccupied and boarded up. Designation could perhaps help along the process of rehabilitation and reoccupuation. The City's Development Code allows landmark residences to be used for non-residential purposes with a Conditional Use Permit, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan also HPC STAFF REPORT ,.~ RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 4 provides for alternative uses. Funds for rehabilitation, however, are scarce. If the building is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and if it were to be converted to commercial use or rental residential use and needs substantial rehabilitation, then it might qualify for a 20% income tax credit for certified rehabilitation. There is also a possibility that future California Bond funds could become available for properties which a local municipal agency owns or has an interest in (such as a facade easement). On the other hand, rehabilitation for owner-occupancy could take place as development pressure in the area increases. Respectful rehabilitation that is in harmony with the Victorian architecture of the house would help set the tone for this stretch of Etiwanda Avenue. The rehabilitation of the Chaffey- Garcia House has provided a solid start in the direction of developing this area in accord with the vision embodied in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Fisher house is worthy of recognition as a landmark and should be encouraged to follow in the steps of the Chaffey-Garcia House and be reclaimed. D. Environmental Assessment: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA requirements (Article 19, Section 15308). III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Criter.ia selected from the Ordinance that are applicable to the hisher House are as follows: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period and style. 2. The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which is now rare. The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. The proposed landmark is connected with a (historic) business. B. Historical Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful. Ce Neighborhood and Geographic Setting 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. HPC STAFF REPORT RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 5 The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in ~ne Daily Report newspaper and notices have been sent to the owner and property owners within 300 feet. A message was left on the owner's answering tape informing him of the upcoming hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt a Resolution designating the Fisher House a landmark because it meets the criteria established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Such designation is also in conformity with policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Respectfully submitted, Larry Henderson Senior P1 anner LH:AB:ko Attachments 24 TH STREET i SUMMI~ AVE. ROUTE Chaffey/Garcia House to be relocated ' ~NOTABLE 5 43 STRUCTURES DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 7, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 1977 Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Larry Henderson, Senior Planner Arlene Banks, Associate Planner MAY 5, 1988 SCHEDULED LANDMARK PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS In keeping with the Historic Preservation Commission's established Historic Preservation Landmark Hearing Schedule, the following properties will be scheduled for public hearing on May 5, 1988 CUCAMONGA COBIWNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 208-041-29 Address: 7656 Archibald Avenue Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark N..TA LOMA COI,!IU#ITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 202-151-12 Address: 7125 Amethyst Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark ETIWAIOA COI~NITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 227-131-23 Address: 7165 Etiwanda Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark As previously requested by the Historic Preservation Commission, this report serves as notice of the upcoming hearings for the second of a series of public hearings on those properties contained upon the Historic Survey List. Attached is information relative to the previously referenced Historic Survey. Copies of the Historic Resources Inventory form for each property is attached. This form contains basic identification information in terms of name, location, ownership, description, relevancy, year of construction, architect and so forth. In addition, we have included photographs. HPC STAFF REPORT ~ ~, RE: MAY 5, 1988 PH April 7, 1988 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, Larry Henderson Senior Planner LH:AB:ko Attachments City o!,[.ancho Cucamonga Application for HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION X Historic Landmark Historic Point of Interest IDENTIFICATION l. 2. 3. Common Name: Historic Na~e, if known: Street or Rural Address: City: Rancho Cucamonqa Fisher House or Norton-Fisher House 7165 Etiwanda Avenue Zip: 91739 Cotmty: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel No. 227-131-23 Zone: Etiw. Sp. Pl: Legal Description: Etiwanda £olon¥ Lan~s Lot 12 Blk K Present Owner, if known: City: Rancho Cucamonqa Zip: Present Use: Other past uses: LM Robert Flocker Address: 6226 Topaz 91701 Ownership ts: publlc private X Original Use,' Single Family Residence Single Family Residence DESCRIPTION 6. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: (See State Historic Resources Inventory Form) This Spindlewor Quenn Anne Victorian house has a complex hipped roof, porches with turned vosts and a lattice frieze, and wood board siding. It is bo:,ded up. Location sketch map (draw & label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): SEE SITE MAP 8. Approximate property size: Lot Size (in feet) Frontage Depth or approx. acreage 9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent b. Good c. Fair ~ d. Deteriorated e. No longer in existence 10. Is the feature: a. Altered? b. Unaltered? Aooarently ll. Surroundings: (check more tb one if necessary) a. Open land X b. Residential X c. Scattered buildings o d. Densely built-up e. Commercial f. InUustrial X g, Other 12. Threats to Site: a. None known~ b. Private development X d. Public Works Project e. Vandalism X 13. Dates of enclosed photograph(s) 1987 and 1988 NOTE: The following (Items 14-19) are for structures only. 14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone c. Stucco d. Adobe e. Wood X 15. Is the Structure: a. On its original slte? b. Moved? c. Unknown? 1S. Year of Initial Construction: 1895 This Date is= a. Factual 17. Architect (if known): 18. Builder (if known): 19. Belated Features: a. Barn c. Outhouse d. Shed(s) f. Wind~tll h. Other trees c. Zoning f. Other b. Brick f. Other X b. Estimated x b. Carriage house e. Formal Garden(s) g. Watertower/t&nkhouse I. None SIGNIFICANCE 20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): (See State Form) Home Telephone Company Switchboard located here from 1907 to 1930. Switchboard was run by Florence Fisher and her da-ghter, Nellie. 21. Main theme of.the historic resource: ~JO~t~~X~I~t[X: a. Architecture X b. Arts & Leisure c. Economic/Industrial X d. Government e. Exploration/Settlement f. Military g. Religion h. Social/Education 22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: State Historic Resources Inventory form , Etiwanda, The First lO0 Years. 23. Date form prepared April, 19~8 Address: Phone: By (name): Arlene Banks City: Zip:~ Organization: City of Rancho Cucamonga State of Cadfornia - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKSANO RECREATION HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY HABS UTM: Set. No.]7'30 -- 27 HAER Loc-- SHI No. NR Status~ 11-451870-3776775 c I DENTI F I CATION 1. Commonname: Fisher House 2. Historic name: Fisher House 3. Street or rural address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City Rancho Cucamonqa, Cali f. Zip 917 39 County San Bernardino 4. Parcel number: 0227-131-23 5. Present Owner: Robert C. Flocker City Rancho Cucamonqa, Cali f. 6. Present Use: Residence Address: 6226 Topaz Zip ' 91701 Ownership is: Public Private Original use: Residence DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Spi ndlework Queen Anne 7b. Briefly describe the present physical at2pearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: An irregular shaped single story structure of wood construction with combination of hipped and front and side gables. Roof has composite shingles. Eaves are enclosed. Gable ends have shingle treatment and detailed verge boards. Siding is flush boards. An integral porch is located on the front with latice work frieze suspended under porch ceiling, turned porch supports and spindle- work in the balustrade. Porches are of wood. There are similar porches located at the rear of the structure on both the north and south sides. Foundation material is wood. Doors and windows are unknown, due to being boarded. The structure is located on a large, vacant lot of 10 ~cres. A barn of similar structure was located at the rear of this structure, however, it has collapsed. There are two large trees located to the front of the house, between the dirt driveways. A row of trees lines the street in front of this structure. Curb in this area is original stone. 523 fRev 11 ~851 12. Construction date: Estimated 1895 Factual _ Arch itect Unknown Builder Unkncwn Approx. property size {in feet) Frontage Depth_ or approx. acreage. 10 Date(s) of enclosed photogral- July 1987 13. Ccndition: Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated X No longer in existence 14. Alterations: Removal of surroundinq qrove; boarding of structure Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land X Scattered buildings Densely built-up Residential X Industrial X Commercials Other: 16. Threats to site: None known Private development ~ Zoning Public Works project ~ Other: Vandalism 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: N/ A SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site.) Location of the switchboard for the Home Telephone Co. a put stock co. owned by the people of Etiwanda and orgainzed on ~2/07. The switchboard was "wornmaned" by Frs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie. The switchboard was moved and mechanized in. [930. 20. 21. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture Arts & Leisure Economic/Industrial X Exploration/Settlement Government Military R el igion Social/Education Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates). "A field Guide to American Homes", Virginia and Lee McAlester Date form prepared By (name) Lynn Organization Address: City Phone: September 29, 1987 Merri 11 Zip Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): I I :ICE :e 65 r )RDERS rATION. ,SUN* tem-10gm TERS* ,ur. 7 days ~ 9am-lOpe ~IAL --hAS iC I)rlcell 'TCY :S fMTS ! TAPE oS ns, garnil#- rffice,9-S) m EQUITY LOANS. Cash to t5% SMALL NO PMI-NO ESCROW LOW RATES & FEES Coil J4/hr rate hotline for more info in all our d~ loon services 714/687-LOAN BAD CREDIT OK Douglas ironker&&~m 714/354-0280 tO~AJO Lentil. REAL ESTATE LOANS %100% OF PROPERTY VALUE eSq~ ON PURCHASES LOANS TO S~O,0O0 TERMS TO IS YEARS FULLY AMORTIZED 1ST, SND, 3RD POSITION a NO APPRAISAL · NO UPFRONT FEES eND MORTGAGE INSUR- ANCE liMpItel. SIIM~ ; ~ income. DELUXE CONDO J bdrm. with K~I., J N~, Cp~., d~. VACANT. PRICE RIDUCiD yMg CN~e. 982-8844 anytime GOV~ OWNED RE~S ALL AREAS LOW ~WN EZ GUAMF. BKR ~ .SPECIAL. .NOME BUYERS. ***FREE*** Weekly List of Homes for Sale by Owner with Eddresses, prices, phone numbers. Call 980-6162 10071 Arrow, Rancho Cnce. · FUNDED WITHIN tit DAYS u":,";,::::,":7" *ONTARIO* FIWt family o~drk~ ~rmr~,l. PICK A ~INNER ONE ~NTH FREE ~l~l ~e. P~ at all emmMfiM Incl~IN NUt 947-3034 ONTARIO 874-5030... RIALTO SUSAN O'CONNOR OUT OF TNi ORDINARY ¥~d"~:',: NEW LISTING tim for Iml Wstl estaMIM N. Cllrement 94 9' ~ b~NNO~~ ADULT PARK, 3 k. ~ ~. din. & finny. rm, III e~'l, 3~ ~ REAL ESTATE ~ ~ R- L ESTATE &21~8 . ~21~ F~ ~M ~ ~yln~lli~ & FOR ~le ~ M~, 4 IR, ~ ~ _-- ' finiKing m~lie ~m~. No ~, CAC, fr~c, din r . & I . OPEN HOUSE he. & S~ ~ B Etiw,~ I iN, 4 ~. 2 ~. xtrl C ~ ~ll ~ AC NORSE PROP 3 ~ ~ IVICTORIAN i~le FOR SALE BY OW.' SR __ BEST BUY S116,9~ TU~ ml, ~ Nrm~ _ + ~ XMI ~e in ~i~ Ira. honu~ roam. Living/d. ~ I ~Ughtlul S~k~ IIv ~ w/ Mm ~ m~l WIU &~.~ / ni~y ~KI~, ~ c~d N' Thll W'I list I~1 tW~ ~ SeeK. ~St/a~ lax. ~ DO-IT-YOURSELF IDEAS GREAT WESTERN A READER SERVICE OF THIS NEWSPAPER REAL ESTATE CUSTOM trl-tevel 'd43& S.F. I~ , · · ~t M[. vacant. Make after. I: 00'4:00 ~:: ~ !::' : i a~i~ $ stir ~to~o Mrk. 2 M, .~:::~.::~.: :.:.- I ~NOFINANClAL. N~lm. c~r ~. m,, ~i..~ 6246 Moodstone IN~ LTV Hame foens it- ~7~. ~, 2~N, ~m. ~- ~,'.- .~,,. ' .....~ ..,.~ & ., ~ r~ CMIt ~ I~e ~ ~lM ~ MM~. 2 N, 2 N7~ ; , .... ~.- . .~ ~s. Mm'LcMStr.,M~ ~, M amM ~. C~tw ~ w. No S~ ~ Alta Loma S~ial I ~me. ~Ic, In YNr ~ 4 ~r ~rw, ~M ~, I ~ ".' ~.. - , ' B4ult. Low pricel. Lew Mir wi~ Syl~ ~tls ~ ES t W.mMiyN M fast. Me as ~l aS ~ wOW. ~ly MW M~ b c~ -.y, fiu~ RE, ESTATE LOANS ~m mM~ ~. Pull & ~. ~W M royon nl~ Ne CMIt cWk, N ~we lu~. TN we. M W nlllh~ .LI!d & oncell~1 Aria Paul ~ ~. s to ~y ~ m. ~ ym ~iN ext. M (714) 391-14ll ~ ~ Llletlme f~, ~M ~e Mac ~,-. · ~' ADULT MOBILE shi~ai. ,~ 3s~.~,. HOME PARK ~80-3100 · M,. mm IKr/PrinclN[ l.,~,~ ~:~r~ GREAT BUY ! ' ......... s~uld( e, ~ ~m nM ' ' TRESTLE DESK any ~ ~ ~, ~ ~th, ~ ~- yore ot~r ~ ~kM~ ~r & ~m. This easy-t~build trestle desk givfi you maximum Mar.. = "" "' ' ~t (714) N~S. Has ~Kk ~lnl, male work space in a minimum of floor space. R features . ~t ~. te ~. ~. ~- brick fireplace with relied his dmte, I ~14. ALTA LAGUNA PRESTIGE ~, ~ IIv~ ~ ~ 24' x 42' writing area and eight drawers lot fil~ and ~ w~, ~+[ M~ lain. stK ~ my ~ Rr- supplies. Just trace the full-size paltern pa~s onto res~sl~e ACASHLOANTOStS,~I rm, a/c, Coler c~e~init~ ra~. BI~ ya~ & N~. ~tract~ ~ NO CREDIT OR ~ml~, all ap~fie~es, ceil- Just a ~1 nice ~e. S113,9N, veneer plywood, saw out. and assemble. Step-by-step ~n ray.If. EMPLOYMENT NEEDED photos and initrubies guide you through each ~ase arlo FOR NEW PROERtl ~ tans. F~ ~, ~r~ ~ ~ ~ O r V iC 0 S I R C tear, anxi- (tilt ~S. 14 ~. IN vllH, CIII MI ALii. 0~ conIlluSion. A Goreplate mainrials lisi arid ~ulUng others ~t In ~/~mu~? U Mve in FAMILY PARK 9~-..~4&6 schedule remove all the guess work. working~ ~M. WUl ~y y~r h~. bye ~tirio, nice 2 Nrta, ~ tike 1o Mir' YNrNOl~.~l~7G. II~i~M ~r y~ng family. Alt~ Lom~ who Mel 1M I PMblal". NOME Nui~ ~nl, I~ Mini ~ s.c. mi. am7 Pool Home -- ,Miri., ~ ,fiy.r~.~v.,~-!~ AIRPORT CLOSE ~~t~.~ ~,o: a ,~Trestle~k .... ~.~ 2 Nm~ M, ~c, lU a~l- fomily nMltll ~M ~ cul~ ~OP~m~pt. ~ 112-page catalog ..... ~.~ $1.~ P JOHN BARAKAT ,am, ~ trig, mm ~. W~I ~ 4 ~ m P.O. ~x ~ (Picturing 7~ pr0jK~) OFFE~ )MING BROKER OBTAINS m~ fostl ESIO w~ e g~ ~. ~ d x- Vm N~, ~ 91d~ ~ & eelluBe SUPIR R/E ~ANS ~3-~ ~ls. 6134,~. ~1. ~. ~om- JUL Jrll. tO~ UPLAND ELDORA~ (714) ~,,.t~. FORGET THE REST ~r ~, ~ ~rm, vaunt, OPEN H~ S~. I~. N. M ~ t( wllNr/d~ KI, nKe ~- IW, M ~lmln. tim ~M Nime iTNESSES WE ARE THE BEST t~. UE4~ St. 1~ s.f., 4 k, 1~ ~, MMiW ~p~. ' ~., ~t~, ~c, ~ f/p's. " r~ ~ FIXED FROM 1.17S~ LAKE SIIS,M. N7~. ~ I~s. AddreSS Niles atl~? ~r We ~ve KI d~ wb ,u~,. REFINANCE NOW ~ ,~ m ~,~ · s..~ ~~ ~,~.~ Ci~ P~nt ~MENT* 95~ PURCHASE ~k.. 2 & I Nml. ~e ~ ~, foe. re, M, nv. rm, 2~ ~p. SJZ :. ~v. fi ~ I~ ell. 4M-1~ ~., 2 fl~'s, S~. ~ State ~teln A~. ~ PUR/REFI, NO PMI lye. m~ ~ e~. ~. ~ ~INC~EQUALIFIER HOMESTEAD REALTY AND D AND A ~BILE H~ES By ~r, 3 ~ M, f/R, gin Price Includfi Postage & Prompt Handling add EGAS ~H~V~ 9~ 1141 E. ~111 Blvd. m, Ntlo, ~e~, ,* DIRECT LENDER ...... ' O~n House Si/Su IIM ~ PRORLEM CREDIT TM Pie. ~ F~I II~, Sp. HIGH DIBTSRATIO 21, CMCIMenII. Adg~ ~rk, ._ . .,.....r...r.. ,.. THE JUMP .... maine, may ~rK must ~. .rst'l train- if w ~ ~ORCED - (714) 591-0557 ~ 11 ~ ~ lJll i rill b?. ~m~.~. BRAND NEW 1~s skillS? 71~2Mll ~ up & MY ~. .eD..W,--' raining in Big 24xS2, 2 BR, 2 ~, ~, I~ O~e of optlonsl 2.24.120 B. An application for the special use permit shall be filed with the community services department upon the prescribed form and shall contain the following information: 1. A plan showing the relation of the proposed use to surrounding structures; 2. Alterations required for the change of use; 3. Other information deemed necessary by the historic preservation commission. C. After receiving an application for a special use permit, the community services department shall refer it to the historic preservation commission which shall hold a public hearing. D. The historic preservation co~mission may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. E. Prior to approval or modified approval, the historic preservation commission shall find that: 1. The action proposed is consistent with the pur- poses of this chapter; 2. The use proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural or engineering interest or value of an historic nature; or, 3. The applicant has demonstrated that denial of the application will result in immediate and substantial hardship. F. Upon approval of an application, the historic preservation commission shall issue a special use permit, one copy of which will be forwarded to the applicant, one copy of which will be retained in the files of the community services department, and one copy of which shall be forwarded to any other department or agency requesting it. G. Any person residing in or owning property in the city shall have the right of appeal to the city council. Notice of appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the action of the historic preservation commission. ; H. No special use permit shall be issued unless the proposed use at the subject location is permitted by Title 17. (Ord. 70 §11, 1979). 2.24.120 Landmark alteration procedure--Permit require- ments. A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.24.160, it shall be unlawful for any person to carry out or cause to be carried out a materiaI change on any designated landmark unless a landmark alteration permit has first been obtained for such material change. B. Any person desiring to carry out a material change on a designated landmark shall apply for a landmark alteration permit. 33 (Rancho Cucamonga 5/83) 2.24.120 C. An application for a landmark alteration permit shall be filed with the community services department upon the prescribed form and shall contain the following data: 1. A statement of the proposed work; 2. Plans describing the size, height, and appearance of the proposed work; 3. A site plan showing all existing buildings and structures and the proposed work; 4. Where the application is for demolition, the necessity for demolition shall be justified; and 5. Other information deemed necessary by the historic preservation commission. D. After receiving an application for a landmark alteration permit, the community services department shall refer it to the historic preservation commission which shall hold a public hearing. E. The historic preservation commission in considering the appropriateness of the landmark alteration application shall consider, among other things, the purposes of this chapter and the historic architectural value and significance of the landmark. Among other things, the commission shall take into consideration the texture and material of the building or structure in question or its appurtenant fixtures, including signs, fences, parking, site plan and landscaping. F. The historic preservation commission may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. G. Prior to approval or modified approval, the historic preservation commission shall find that: 1. The action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance; and, 2. The action proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of an his- toric nature; or 3. The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or, 4. The applicant has demonstrated the denial of the application will result in immediate or substantial hardship. H. Upon approval of an application, the historic preservation commission shall issue a landmark alteration permit, one copy of which shall be forwarded to the applicant, one copy of which shall be retained in the files of the community services department, and one copy of which shall be forwarded to the building official. In addition, a copy shall be forwarded to any other department or agency request- ing it. (Rancho Cucamonga 5/83) 34 2.24.130--2.24.160 I. Any person residing in or owning property in the city shall have the right of appeal to the city council. Notice of appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the action of the historic preservation commission. J. No building, gradfng or demolition permit shall be issued by the city, if the issuance of such permit will allow a material change to be carried out on a designated landmark, unless the applicant for such permit has first obtained a landmark alteration permit. (Ord. 70 §12, 1979). 2.24.130 Landmark alteration permit--Commission advisory function. The historic preservation commission may, upon request of the property owner, render non-technical advice on proposed work on a designated landmark alteration permit. In rendering such advice and guidance, the historic preser- vation commission shall be guided by the purposes and criteria in this chapter. This section shall not be construed to impose any regulation or controls upon any property. (Ord. 70 §13,.1979). 2.24.140 Additional conformance requirements. Issuance of permit in conformance with this chapter shall not alter conformance requirements with the other standards and require- ments of this chapter, or any other applicable ordinance. (Ord. 70 ~14, 1979). 2.24.150 Unsafe or dangerous conditions. None of the · provisions of this chapter shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration, removal, demolition or relocation necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous conditions of any structure, other feature, or part thereof, which such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the building official, after informing the historic preservation commission when the structure is a landmark, and where the proposed measures have been declared necessary by such official to correct the said condition, provided however, that only such work as is necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed pursuant to this section. In the event any structure or other feature shall be damaged by fire or other calamity, the secretary or building official may authorize, prior to the commission's review, that amount of repair or demolition necessary to correct an unsafe condition. (Ord. 70 §15, 1979). 2.24.160 Property owned by public agencies. The secretary shall take appropriate steps to notify all public agencies which own or may acquire property in the city, of the responsibilities involved in the ownership of designated landmark properties. In the case of any publicly owned landmark, the agency owning said property shall obtain the DATE: October 11, 1993 --CITY OF RANCHO CUCA...ONGA MEMORANDUM TO: C~airman and Members of the Historic Preservation FROM~ Brad Buller, City Planner BYy Anthea M. Hartig, Associate Planner S~JECT: NORTON-FISHER HOUSE: ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED DEMOLITION Per the Co~nission's direction at the meeting on August 11, 1993, staff has compiled a range of possible alternatives to the proposed demolition of the Norton-Fisher House. As a point of background, it is important to remember that in order to receive approval of the submitted Landmark Alteration Permit, per City Ordinance, Mr. Flocker must demonstrate that either demolition "is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition" or that the "denial of the application will result in in~nediate or substantial hardship" (R.C. Municipal Code Section 2.24.120). The Commission and Council also must review the proposed demolition per CEQA to determine if it is possible to mitigate the environmental impa-ts of such a demolition. If it is determined that the impacts can be mitigated, the application can be approved with mitigations or an EIR can be required. If on the other hand it is decided that the impact cannot be mitigated, the Council would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration in order to allow for the proposed demolition. The other CEQA possibility would be to make findings of an immediate public hazard and thereby negate any EIR mitigation necessity. However, this option would be difficult to support with sufficient findings of fact. There remain a n,,mher of viable alternatives to demolition of the Norton-Fisher House, however, almost all involve a level of cooperation with its owner, Mr. Flocker. Staff is currently investigating the following ideas which are broken down into two categories, on-site preservation and relocation alternatives. PRESERVATION ON SITE P-1 Continue to encourage Mr. Flocker to utilize the incentives offered by landmark designation and restore the home, these incentives include: * Use of the State Historic Bui lding Code for future rehabilitation/restoration; or MEMO TO HPC NORTON FISHER HOUSE October ll, 1993 Page 2 * If rehabilitated for commercial use, potential to receive Federal Investment Tax Credits (20%); P-2 Work on interesting GTE or PacBell in sponsoring restoration, perhaps for use as a museum dedicated to early phone history in Etiwanda; P-3 P-4 Have the City/RDA purchase or condemn the property for affordable housing, a historic park, municipal service offices, or for lease to the Etiwanda Historical Society (EHS) for expansion of their interpretive museum activities; or Work on interesting Habitat for Humanity, JobCore, or other groups interested in purchasing and restoring. RELOCATION R-~ Suggest Flocker offer house for relocation to qualified party and put demolition costs towards relocation costs; R-2 Work on involving the EHS in the relocation process; or R-3 Work on interesting Habitat for Humanity, JobCore, or other groups interested in relocation and restoring. If Mr. Flocker is not willing to work with the City to preserve the building, and staff/Commission determine the impacts of the proposed demolition can be mitigated, it seems that mitigations should include: * Related oral histories (2-3); * HABS-level documentation of the house; * Owner required to cover all costs of relocation to a suitable lot -- preference given to those within the Etiwanda community. APPROACH Staff is working on setting up a meeting with Mr. Flocker to go over these options. Staff has worked to solicit input fro~ various interested parties and to establish an approach in which we will explore all available alternatives to demolition. Thus far, we have spoken with representatives of the Redevelopment Agency, the EHS, and Nellie Fisher's great-granddaughter, Marilyn Anderson, who has been in contact with GTE. MEMO TO HPC NORTON FISHER HOD October 11, 1993 Page 3 Regardless of whether or not Mr. Flocker desires to work with the City, the denial of his demolition request will probably not resolve in a positive outcome, the ultimate status of the house. It is apparent and probable that Mr. Flocker will allow the House to deteriorate and without direct intervention by the City, the long-term viability of the structure is in doubt. The City could attempt to have Mr. Flocker rehabilitate his property through the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance. This Ordinance is administered by Code Enforcement staff to seek a voluntary compliance. A failure to comply could lead to direct City action to rehabilitate the house, while recording a lien against the property. BB:AMH/jfs T H E ANCH December 21, 1993 C C T M 0 F Robert F1ocker 6226 Topaz Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT= ENVIRONMENTAL A~SESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02, THE NORTON-FISHER HOUSE, 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE Dear Mr. F1ocker: I write to clarify what is further required in order to complete your application and also to respond to your request for a written response to alternatives you presented in your letter of October 27, 1993. At the November 10, 1993 meeting of ~he Historic Preservation Commission, at which you were not in attendance, ~he Commission continued the public hearing until December 8, 1993 in order to allow for your input. Staff was notified prior to ~he November meeting that upon further review of the demolition request per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a focused Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to assess the impact of the proposed project. At that November meeting a revised Resolution was prepared but was not voted upon that made findings of incompleteness (see the attached draft Resolution). Since that meeting staff has spoken with you and at your request, the item has now been continued to February 9, 1994. It is still the City~s hope that a feasible and mutually aqreed upon alternative bo demolition can be found. We appreciate your attentive response to demolition alternatives and your willingness to work with us. In your letter of October 27, 1993, you proposed that an agreement be struck with the City, which would "restore# the land use designation of your property to what it was prior to 1977 when the Etiwanda area was under the jurisdic~ion of San Bernardino County; and with the Etiwanda Historical Society (EHS) or another 'qualified party,' which would enter into a five-year lea~e with you, and using their o~n funds would restore and rehabilitate the building. Under your proposal, if you were unable to begin to redevelop the site within five years, all parties would agree that the hou~e be relocated and sold to the EHS or other party. Per the Etiwanda Specific Plan, your property has a limited co~-ercial overlay upon it and which was intended to encourage the adaptive reuse of historic structures like the Norton-Fisher House, a very. important contributor to the history of the Etiwanda camunity, that this overlay district was created. In order to change the land use of the property Mayor Pro-Tern Charles J, Bucluet II Jack Lorn, AICP, City Manager Mayor Dennis L. Stout ~;~.~ CouncilmemDer William J. Alexoncler Councilmember Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez 105130 Civic Center Drive Pa. Box 807 · i~anct~o Cucamoncjo, CA 91729 · [909) 989.1851 Robert Flocker LAP 93-02 December 21, 1993 Page 2 to the equivalent of the County's C-2 zoning, both the City's General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan would have to be amended formally. Staff cannot support this land use change at this time, especially since you have not had proposed any specific project or given adequate justification for the benefits of such a change. If in the future, you were to have a specific project that incorporated the Norton-Fisher House and the surrounding site, you could request a land use change or changes to the types of uses allowed currently per the zoning designation and initiate subsequent amendments at~ that time. Staff cannot agree to a project five years into the future without a Development Agreement, since City standard approvals are only valid for two years. Any proposal you would submit for relocation of the Norton-Fisher House would also be reviewed by staff and the Historic Preservation Comission in the same form as the demolition request, a Landmark Alteration Permit. It is very likely that the environmental review for a relocation would not result in the requiring of the preparation of an EIR. Both of the in situ preservation alternatives you proposed involve a high level of participation from the Etiwanda Historical Society (EHS) or another "qualified party." There are a number of problematic issues with such a complex relationship, if one were to be established. Further discussions need to occur on the feasibility of rezoning your property and on the likeliness of EHS's participation. As well, providing some use or ownership guarantee to the EHS if indeed they were to restore the house should be discussed. At this time, I cannot recomend that the Historic Preservation Comission approve either of the two alternatives you outlined in your October 27, 1993 letter. Of the two suggested alternatives, it is my opinion that the preferred option is preservation on-site. Unfortunately, the conditions you have proposed with which you could support on-site preservation pose some major policy issues that can only be addressed through a series of General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment applications and subsequent public hearings. We look forward to o~r continuing this dialogue. Please do not hesitate to call me or Larry Henderson or Anthea Hartig at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COSUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Brad Bullet City Planner BB :AH:mlg Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 93-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 FOR THE NORTON- FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA - APN: 227-131-23 WHEREAS, the Historic Prese~vation Coanission has held a duly advertised public he~ring to consider all available comments on the proposed Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has received and reviewed all available input regarding said Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the Historic Preservation Co~miseion specifically finds, determines, and resolves as followsc hereby SECTION I: The application applies to the building located at Assessor's Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION II= The proposed demolition of a designated local landmark constitutes a significant effect on a recognized historic resource per CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Item J. Lacking the needed environmental documentation, it is not possible to either approve or deny the project until an Environmental Impac~ Ropor~ is prepared. SECTION III: Based on the substantial evidence reviewed by this Commission and based on the findings set forth above, NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucomonga Historic Preservation Commission does hereby deny without prejudice LandmArk Alteration Permit 93-02 for demolition of the Norden-Fisher House. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1993. HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 94-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 93-02 FOR THE NORTON- FISHER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA - APN: 227-131-23 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all available co~nents on the proposed Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has received and reviewed all available input regarding said Landmark Alteration Permit. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 'NOW, THEREFORE, the Historic Preservation Commission specifically finds, determines, and resolves as follows: hereby SECTION I: The application applies to the building located at Assessor's Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION II: The proposed demolition of a designated local landmark constitutes a significant effect on a recognized historic resource per CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Item J. Lacking the needed environmental documentation, it is not possible to either approve or deny the project until an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. SECTION III: Based on the substantial evidence reviewed by this Commission and based on the findings set forth above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission does hereby deny without prejudice Landmark Alteration Permit 93-02 for demolition of the Norton-Fisher House. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1994. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary HPC RESOLUTION NO. 94-01 LAP 93-02 - NORTON-FISHER HOUSE February 9, 1994 Page 2 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 9th day of February 1994, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= NOES= COMMISSIONERS= ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS=