Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/09/08 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0 AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 8, 1993 7: 00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner McNiel Commissioner vallette Commissioner Melcher III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes August 11, 1993 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. A. 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 . VI. Public Comments 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. VII. Commission Business VIII. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 1993 TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: 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. BACKGROUND 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 ITEM A 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 91 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. AC-:12- i 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 RNCOMMENDATION 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, BraBuller 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 4L r. Norton-Fisher Home. Mrs. Fisher. 1920. 7'+5 _. � ami� 'v`s yg��}� •,�'1p .. � - ,� ��Z.��1 `i{• !.j 4 �' .i.} i ���rAn t� �t"�'�++ i sw.,er �� h ••`�yy yy����1� fid'•�• �� �•a.." '°�� J Ulf NORTON-FISHER HOUSE 7165 Etiwanda Ave. Built about 1892,this house was k I the location for the switchboard for the Home Tele- phone Co. in 1907. y 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 909/987-2304 August 2, 1993 `- cuSGA ll, ;fit; Div1 NuG -31993 QM � W 50 Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner The City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Anthea: 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 el City of Rancho Cucamonga ARolication For Historic Landmark Alteration Permit Identification 1. Common Name: None 2. Historic Name: Fisher House or Norton-Fisher House 3. Street Or Rural Address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City: Etiwanda Zip: 91739 County: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel Number: 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 Address: 6226 Topaz Street City: Alta Loma Zip: 91701 Ownership is: Private 5. Present Use: None Original Use: Single Family Residence Other Past Uses: Single Family Residence 6. Proposed Use: Not Applicable 7. Proposed Work: (i.e. demolition, remodel, addition, etc.) Immediate Demolition 8. Condition Of Structure: Not Inhabitable 9. 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 has 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. U Ex H lel 7— �� L- 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 fire, 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 LEE PETERSON lenged historical dasignatlon in the Stag Wetter past,the potential for unfriendly desig- U Reecho Cucamonga nations multiplied this year as the raga ever wants to city's historic preservation commission make history, someone will have to began upon a program of considering make a sacrifice. three local sites each month as histori- When it comes to historical restore- cal landmarks. tion,just who is going to bite the bullet When an Etiwanda house was recom- is not very clear in this contest pitting mended for a historical design ition in private citizens against city hall. May,the property owner,an Alta Loma Property owners feel they are the High School teacher, challenged the ones bearing the brunt of the push for deligaation. historical restoration. 1'he Fisher House,a nearly 100-year. In turn, pro-restoration city oiliciale old structure in Etiwanda, site upon a feel that,sooner or later,it is they who 4%-acm site which the owner wants to ! will have to take the political heat for clear and sell to developers. telling the property owners what to do. The historic commission decided the Though property owners have chal- See FORWRY/B3 History/from B1 Fisher House had historical sig- "As an overall policy we may ni8cance and sent it along to the have to get a little bit tougher Cit Council. on thio than we are perceived u The council postponed the being at this time,"Buqust said matter from a June meeting to "The City Council has to the first meeting in August. make a decision if it is going to Council members againppwwt• ewhat has been hers for pond consideration of a desig• 100 yam or allow four new nation on the property,pending houses to be built,"said Council. further discussion wiith the woman Deborah Brown. ,property owner'Robert Flocker. Councilman Jeff King dif. I dont want to spend $100.- fend.He said the council should 000 of my own money to fl:the be willing to "put its money house up, Flopker said Z feel where its mouth L"and pay for like I have no control over what restoratioru that itbants done. I own. I don't think the historic ation commission ever Mayor Dennis L. Stout said to what I had to say." the city's effort at historical Flocker has said that nobansfitthe ltrndo thecreationof as amount of incentives to restore the house will sway him km bankable community image. his decision to have it somehow However, Flocker, owner of removed f vo hisproperty. He the Fisher House, mid a land- said he will sus ff the city mark designation without the d� t� �� ownses eland- consent is a "misuse of againpower." V the hdoes bacons a Bngust challenged Flocker's landmark. Fkwker would be r► motivations. quired to have any plane for "We have a responsibility to a modifications" of the house . lot of people who an going to be cicleared by the historic commis- here a longgon. gons.Youre me seeing tr you re do Rigardless of designation. mid cents on this issus and not n or maJor modifl• much else,"Buquet told Flocker L oy would have to be at a recent council session. the planning com- Flocker said he is mon than mission. willing to donate the house to' Ostsnsrily the historic nom• W person or agency which mission is mon sensitive to would remove it his proper- changes of the building's osteri- ty. or which affect its historic char- While Flocker meets with rep- resentatives from the council More than 300 hoose await and the consideration as potential his- over the planning nth,sent. .todo,landmarks. while 81 al- tented historical dam_atiom have received landmark are tentati ' status.ready yconsidered b�tbs council. If the city is ging to have An inc d%w plan is being areas with historicalcharacter. drawn up to further entice prop- Councilman Charles Buquet erty owners to restore their his. said"somebody,somewhere will toric homes, and Associate- have to be the bad guy." planner Arlene Banks mid an In a discussion of the policy education program would be de- an unMendly designations, Bu- signed to create a "positive mo- y quet said the oouaeil oww it to mentum" for historical �7 ` flrture residents of the city to preservation in Rancho Cuca. view V the pus. monga. aca Section The Dally Report AugusThursday t 11,1988 ingOwner is willtodonate . house. to C er would like to see what the council become a landmark,the historical cam. R.C. officials see history but he seeg'a big price tag himself lathy riproposals m;�court , 11 in which'PI thegootaf urta By Ise Paterson IU$said.w�Council has until Oct.6 to .price d the house's restontio0.astimat- about the preservation of the house. ruled that the local government could Staff Writer accept the bouts,and ad at$100,000. Flocker mid Wednesday he does not designate ■ structure as a landmark a year after that to remove it(iota his The city, as the other hand, liis know what he will do if the council even if the property owner does not Robert placket wants to give away a, Etiwanda Avenue property, Flocker cell pno willingness•to dip into its rejects his afar,but in the past he has want the landmark status. house. mid ere to paay for the renovation. suggested that he will take legal re. Flocker does not agree. Howe hunters should know there's a The Alta Lona High School teacher CoundInuum Jeffrey King said he course if the Fisher House is made s "I'm certainly doing my part and catch: He act only wants someone to mads the offer to the city in respoosi to does not see placket's offer as an inti- historic)landmark while it remains on offering c donate the house for free.I'm take the haw off Ws bands but also off the city's historic preservation commis• matum. his laced. trying gto do m the should be ��, lion's teammendatSaa to make a local King,considered the council member Discussion d incentives to restore y �. y Flocker has given First rights at the landmark d the Fisher Haw, which mat sympathetic to Flocker's argu. the house are premature as placket has willing to do !herr part too," Flocker deal to the cit d Rancho Cuamoaga, site on plackets property at 7166 Ed- went, said the matter will likely be no immediate plane to develop the ti. said. which Is considering malting the nearly Wanda Ave. resolved by the end of September in a acre parcel,King said. "I think(the city)hes the resources 100 tereld home a local historical Rocker balked at the commission's wait that will make everybody happy. In making its recommendations to and ability to restore it that I don't landmark. plans,unwilling to foot the bill for the City Planner Brad Buller mid Flock- the City Council that Flocker's house have."he said. y i Landmark declared Sy Lee Peterson the special privileges offered to The city did not accept. financial benefit to restore it," Statt Writer those who preserve their land- If the city were to accept Flocker said. marks. Flocker's donation of the Fisher On the City Council, only Whether he likes it or not, However,Flocker said he was House at 7165 Etiwanda Ave., Councilman Jeff King agreed Robert Flocker now owns a cerci- inteTested only in one day sell. the city would incur the Finan- with Flocker. Pied piece of Rancho Cucamonga ing the five-acre parcel on which cial responsibility for moving, "We are getting to the point history. the so-called Fisher House sits, rehabilitating and maintaining where we are beginning to dic- The nearly 100-year-old house and felt that the land would be ' the property. tate to people what they should —�' that sits on his five-acre parcel sold more easily if the buyer did City Planner Brad Buller said do with their property," King in Etiwanda has been declared not have to worry about the said. an official historic landmark, a landmark. the removal of the house may honor he does not welcome. Moving, demolition of, or sig- diminish the "historical envi- Councilman Charles Buquetronment" of Etiwanda and that disagreed. "Such a designation Flocker had been fighting the nificant alterations to the exteri- the city would be setting t will not preclude the highest designation ever since it was or of an official landmark is first recommended by the city's subject to the review by the precedent that the city will and best use of this property, historic perservation commis- city's historic preservation com- move historic structures if own- he said. sion in June. mittee. The committee's deci- erg object strenuously enough to Flocker said he has been con- "I haven't really decided yet •ions may be appealedthe designations. tacted b to the y a person interested in what I'm going to do," Flocker City Council. Flocker said he felt that the moving the house to another said of his next step. Last month,Flocker offered to city was making an example of parcel in Etiwanda and restor- City officials attempted to give the house to the city or him. ing it. However, nothing is cer- (� convince Flocker to accept theanyone willing to move it off his "It seems like they are trying tain about that situation, he landmark status by pointing out property. to portray that it would be to my said. 1 6� i RESOLUTION NO. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 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 advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Landmark Designation and issued Resolution No. 88-07 recommending to this City Council that said Landmark Designation be approved. WHEREAS. the City Council has received and reviewed all input from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding said Landmark Designation. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW. THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HERESY specifically find. determine. and- resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The application applies to property located at Assessor Parcel Number 227-131-23. SECTION 2: The proposed landmark meets the following criteria established in Chapter 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code: 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. C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Resolution No. 88- 5 Page 2 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 community. SECTION 3: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Section 153 08) SECTION 4: Based on the substantial evidence received and reviewed by this Council and based on the findings set forth above. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM3NGA DOES HEREBY approve designation of the Fisher House as a Landmark. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of September. 1988. AYES: Buquet, Wright. Brown, Stout NOES: Ring ABSENT: None r 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 that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed. approved. and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 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. Beverly 14 Authelet, City Clerk City Council Minta I September 21, 198a Page 14 Councilman King requested a breakdown of the $140.00 i and irrigation. �,,..r•+ .rte Councilman Buquet ezpresse could reduce some of the cost in sone nays, such as planting t 20 feet frog the center line, instead of 8-10 feet, thus thinni the trees. s Council received and filed the report. (44) G4. A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE SITE OF THE HAVEN AVENUE B IFICATION PROJECT LOCATED IN THE HAVEN AVENUE INDIAN ISLANDS BETWEEN FOOZI= AND WILSON AS A POINT OF HISTORIC INTEREST. Staff report presented by L Henderson, Sr. Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY RESOLUTION NO. 88-586 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DES ION OF THE SITE OF THE HAVEN AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION CT, LOCATED IN THE MEDIAN ISLANDS BETWEEN F WILSON AS A POINT OF HISTORIC INTEREST !NOTION: Moved by Wright, second y Buquet to approve Resolution No. 88-586 • designating the Haven Avenue B tification Project as a point of historic interest. Motion carried una sly, 5-0. (45) G5. A PROPOSAL TO THE jZLPX HOUSE 9468 TA A LANDMARK. (TABLED TO OLTOBEH 5, 1988 402-06 HISTORY RESOLUTION NO. 88-587 SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE RELPH HOUSE, LOCATED AT 9468 LOMITA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK A Ns Tabled to October S. 1988. (46) G6. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 STIWAYANDA AVENUE - APN 227-131-23. (Continued from August 3, 1988 meting) Staff report presented by Brad Buller, City Planner.._(1402-06 HISTORY) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. -d) rA City Council Minutes September 21, 1988 Page 15 Mr. Flocker stated he did not wish to address Council, but had presented Council with a letter for informational purposes. There being no other public response, Mayor Stout closed the public hearing. Councilman King expressed there was no time crunch regarding this house, and felt we were setting a bad precedent. If we would work with Mr. Flocker, he thought we could come to an amiable agreement. He also expressed that in his opinion, we were beginning to dictate to people what they were going to do with their property above and beyond normal planning issues. Councilman Buquet expressed that it was appropriate for Council to take necessary action in order to preserve historical property; and he personally felt the historical designation would enhance this property. RESOLUTION NO. 88-406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOUSE LOCATED AT 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A LANDMARK MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to approve Resolution No. 88-406. Motion carried 4-1-0 (King, no). G7. CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ILLUMINATED STREET NAME S CE (47, DESIGN. Staff report presented by Jim Harris, Associate Civil E (0807- 02 SIGNS) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public input. Add Ing Council was: John Nicolopolous felt that $450.00 was asive for a street sign. 'There being no further public input, or Stout closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Maguire, City Engineer, sized we were already spending $450.00 on each illuminated sign on the affic signal. All staff was proposing to do was change the face of t ign to have the City name or logo included, which would run approximately .00 more per sign. Mr. Wasser City Manager, pointed out that a lot of the signs going in are paid for b eveloper fees, and that money cannot be spent for other uses. Counc' Buquet expressed he would like to see some information come back 'Wit overall costs impacts. — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 21, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WITH MR. ROBERT FLOCKER, OWNER OF THE FISHER HOUSE, A POTENTIAL LOCAL LANDMARK I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council not accept Mr. oc er 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 Fl ker spoke against landmark designation of the Fisher House, which he owns. The Council voted to continue the item so that a meeting with Mr. Flocker, a Councilmember, 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. Flocker, Mr. Hudson, Jeff King, Brad Buller, and Arlene Banks. Mr. Fl 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 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. -0 )� Ex /1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF 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. Flocker 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. ft CITY COUNCIL STAFF c= ORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 3 IV. ALTERNATIVES: In staff's opinion, there are many possible direction o take. A. Designate the house as a landmark. The consequences of this are: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. The house would become eligible for current and future preservation incentives. B. Accept Mr. Flocker's offer. The consequences of this decision are: 1. The City would be spending many thousands of dollars to move the house and for possible property acquisition; 2. 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; 3. 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) ; 4. The historical environment of Etiwanda Avenue may be diminished; 5. 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: ! 1 I CITY COUNCIL STAFF PORT The Fisher House September 21, 1988 Page 4 1. 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. D. Deny the Designation. The consequences of this are: 1. Mr. Flocker would probably find this an acceptable alternative. 2. 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. 3. The house would stili 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. Re ull it , d r City lanner BB:AB:vc Attachments: Staff Reports with Attachments Letter from Robert Flocker Resolution 6226 Topaz Alta 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 from my 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, NL Robert C. Flocker fl �� City Council Minutes � - August 3, 1988 Page 15 Councilwoman Brown stated for the record that she felt this was in violati of the Etivanda Specific Plan and disagreed with the way it was being don But, it was a matter of getting this done by City standards instead of t unty's so she would go along with it. MOTION: Moved by Ring, seconded by Wright to approve the tion Agreement 88-01. Motion carried 4-0-1 (ABSENT: Buquet - Councilman out of the room). uquat had stepped * * Consent Ordinances Nos. 364 and 365 were consid d and approved at this point in the agenda. The minutes were le in the original Agenda Order - see items D1 and D2. * * * * * * G. CITY MAXAMR, STAFF REPORTS G1. DISCUSSION OF 014NE C arwr INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. (42) Staff report presented by rlene B is Associate Planner. 1402-06 HISTORY) ACTION: After considerable di ssion, City Council concurred in approving the incentives that did not have y budgetary impacts, and to come back for those incentives which have a fi cial impact. * * * * . PROPOSAL TO IGNATE TSE G.F LEDIC HOIISE 5702 AMTHYST AVERANCHO (43) SUGAAS A HIWORIC AP062-0 - 8. Staff report presented by Arlene Banks, As iate Planner. 1402-06 HISTORY RESOLUTION NO. 88-503 As OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO UCAMONGA, CALIFORNU, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF THE G.P. LEDIG HOUSE LOCATED AT 5702 AMETHYST AVENUE AS A LANDMARK MOT Moved by Buquet, seconded by Brown to approve Resolution 88-503. Mo on carried unanimously 5-0. TSTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FISHER HOII8E7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE- (44) APH 227-131-23. (Continued from June 15, 1988 meeting) Staff report presented by Arlene Banka, Associate Planner. (1402-06 HISTORY) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing Council was: City Council Mintes August 3, 1988 1rill 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 CUCAMONGA, 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 meeting 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 King was appointed to work with Mr. Flocker and staff. Mayor Stout opened the meeting again for public comment. Addressi ouncil was: Pamela King, 8730 King Ranch Road, expressed her cone to Council. ****** Mayor Stout called a recess at 12.00 midnight. a meeting 8 ug was reconvened at 12:15 a.m. with all members of Council present. * * * (45) G4. UPDATE ON THE TREE PRESERVA N ORDINANCE - Staff will be presenting a report on the status of future�^sndments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. (Continue/ERATIONOF 20, 198 eeting) -Staff report presented by Brad Buller, City Plan2 TRE After cona Sion, Council took the following action: ACTION: ected staff to obtain costs for the maintenance of eucalyptuth private and public property. * * * * (46) G5. CONF COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE DEFENDING LAWSUITS WHICH ARE RE UES G TAX REFUNDS FOR GTE SPRINT ETC. V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ET AL. ; SOUT PACIFIC PIPE LINES INC. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ETC., ET AL. ; AND S IEGO PIPELINE COMPANY V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ETC., ET AL. (0704-00 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 3, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: A Proposal to Designate The Fisher House, 7165 Etiwanda veK nue, Rancho Cucamonga, as a Landmark. APN: ZZI-131-ZJ I. Recommendation: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the My 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: A. 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 sal e. 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. B. 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 r CITY COUNCIL STAFF - ORT 9A 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. C. 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: A. 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 .hPORT THE FISHER HOUSE August 3, 1988 Page 3 B. 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. C. 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. Y. Action Requested: Staff requests that the City Council accept the recommen a !on of the Historic Preservation Commission and designate the Fisher House as a landmark. ARefully teranner BB:AB:mlg Attachments: Staff Reports Resolution Alternative Site Plans 0DA 1 �1 Hghland Ave. i s s � • s C 4c • �' W W Victoria SL Base Line Rd. Rite LocaUoa 1165 .Etiwanda Ave, NORTH ,.-'ITY OF ITEM: F7sher Hoksr- HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXHIBIT: SCALE: COMMISSION -0 ---� V/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISHER HOUSE ETIWANDA RAILWAY STATION HCUS! 7110 I 30 It " W s W O t ETIWANDA CONGREGATIONAL F CHURCH W i I FIEHER HOUSE -- CHAFFET • GARCIA HOUSE BASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISHER Mouse ETIWANOA RAILWAY STATION MOUSE 7 Ila I i 1 • W i W t 0 i 493 ETIWANOA CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH W 1 I PISME MO MOM CMA/PET • GARCIA MOUSE i BASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWN" 4-F-_- CITY OF RAiCHO CUCAMONGA f11MER Nouse ETIWANOA RAILWAY STATION HOUSE Tito ED I t i W W < 1 0 I I � < O i 49 it ETIWANOA CONGREGATIONAL W CHURCH I i O I =EPHEN N USE CNAPFEY - GARCIA HOUSE 1 BASELINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS i CITY OF-RANCHO CUCAMONGA F1sHER HOUSE I ETIWAHDA RAILWAY STATION HOUSE ?110 Im 30 44 1 1 ETIWANDA CONGREGATIONAL F CHURCH W I FISHER NOYs CNAFFEY - GARCIA HOUSE �AtELINt ROAD CONCEPTUAL DRAWINaG 0290011ITIAL CONCIPT wev"we move* cJovwugvuww#1994TO909 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISHER HOUSE ETIWANOA RAILWAY STATION HOUSE 7110 ❑ - -_ _- 1 3. 1 M 9• s s 1 I < 1 � 3 ETIWANOA CONGREGATIONAL F CHURCH 1 1 PISHER HOUSE CHAPPET • GARCIA HOUSE 1A:tLINt ROAD [� CONCEPTUAL DRAWE1108 j� """M.w TIME 169GAYMNIF ( tl — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 15, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE FISHER HOUSE, 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A LANDMARK I. RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends a ei y ouncil designate 7165 Etiwanda Avenue a landmark. II. BACKGROUND: This house, located across Etiwanda Avenue from the Gaffey-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 MORT The Fisher House June 15, 1988 Page 2 III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: The Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously o 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. Resp lly ted r Bu r City nner BB:AB.vc ETIM'ANDA An- ' ' 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 ,�ve Mrs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie ope r tYl a_ua� system until the 1930 ' s. At that time the Home Te pe pany sold to Associated Telephone Company and a `?Brick central switching station was built (and is still standi g) on Victoria Avenue. t The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a unique opportunity to F ` 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 thec 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 t recommending the Norton-Fisher house for landmark " status is whole-heartedly endorsed and the City Council is urged to adopt their recommendation. Respectfully Submitted, Garf Collins, President t � * Chaffey-Garcia House - directly west * Etiwanda Congregational Church - directly northwest * Pacific Electric Railroad Station - directly north cc: Arlene Banks it r� All donations of money or materials are tax deductible -> RESOLUTION NO. 88-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING 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 . C. 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 community. SECTION 2: Designation of a landmark is exempt from CEQA. (Article E 19, Section 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 . PROVED AND ADO TED THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. BY: Bobmi a rman AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COOP , ARNER, BANKS, BILLINGS, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS• ONE ABSENT: COMMIS ERS: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried D. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO proposal to designate the is er ouse, Etiwanda-Avenue, a Historic Landmark - APN: 227-131-23. Arlene Banks presented the staff report. Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing. Robert Flocker, 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. I 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 property or structure designated. HPC MINUTES -4- , J � I MAY 5, 1988 crllelT J 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: COMMISSIONERS: ARNER, BANKS, COOPER, BILLINGS, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried E. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATIO OF 6797 HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO proposal o designate the Lord House, eellman Avenue, a Historic andmark - APN: 202-061-12. Arlene Banks presented the staff re ort. Chairman Schmidt opened the pu is hearing. Hearing none, Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearin . Commissioner Billings verified he significance of the house. P Commissioner Billings moved recommend to City Council the approval of Historic Landmark Designati of 6797 Hellman Avenue, excluding the out buildings. Commissioner ner seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following v te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS, ARNER, BANKS, COOPER, SCHMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONER NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONE S: STAMM, HASKVITZ --carried g HPC MINUTES -5- MAY 5, 1988 �� —ML CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 5, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 7165 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO proposal o designate the Fisher House, wean a—Avenue, a Historic Landmark - APN: 227-131-23. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: That the Historic Preservation Commission recommenT to the City Council adoption of a Resolution designating the Fisher House, 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, a Historic Landmark. B. Location: The house is on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, nor oT Base Line Road, south of the Pacific Electric tracks and across the street from the Chaffey-Garcia House. C. Site Land Uses - Zonin - General Plan Designation: The site is an unoccupied, boarded up, single am y 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. C. Surrounding Land Use - Zoning - General Plan Designation: or - acan 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. E. Overlay Districts Within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: The Fisher House is within the Ellwanda Avenue er ay istrict and the Community Service Overlay District. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 11() HPC STAFF REPORT RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 3 F. 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. II. ANALYSIS: A. Background - General : This house was selected from the list if potential l andmarEs--i dents fi ed in the 1987 survey. B. Reasons for Designation: This house is significant because of its age and 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 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. C. 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 1,'1 -4 1 HPC STAFF REPORT l-h 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 requ remen s rticle 19, Section 15308). III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Criteria selected from the Ordinance that are applicable to the Fisher House are as follows: 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 . C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic y character of the neighborhood. HPC STAFF REPORT l ► RE: 7165 ETIWANDA AVE. May 5, 1988 Page 5 2. 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 The Daily e ort 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. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation ommission 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, �- -A;—t� Larry Henderson Senior Planner LH:AB:ko Attachments 24 TH STREET !I SUMM_'AVE ROUTE 30 AND AVE I LCT_ORIA ARK L \ / �ryy 9. / /VICTORIA AVE. AC. I 0 0 * —6W 1]20' 7600 RR �e1 / O Notable Structures N 6956 (Address) /J/ I � Chaffe Y/Garcia House { to be relocated :r < - Foothill blvd. R S.P. ::j:;+.::fi%rtk:K$%:si?:i:i :ft:'.'2:c;':;:;�y,:;:• :i 1,= l,.: •`d'.t•:.•: __ .. ::>� _ <::�:.:.�.::>:::::k:;:�:::;:>:.::::>:; _ �:, � �:���:vt• it ! j ARROW HWY. I tit1e W W figure ff <I q! '� !NOTABLE - I 5- 43 Ci 0: STRUCTURES Y V' i F ��h�Qr �okslc — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GU OA STAFF REPORT ce t r O p E}- Z U a 1977 DATE: April 7, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: 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 COMMUNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 208-041-29 Address: 7656 Archibald Avenue Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark ALTA LOMA COMMUNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 202-151-12 Address: 7125 Amethyst Potential Ranking: Local Landmark/State Landmark/National Landmark ETIMANDA COMMUNITY Assessor's Parcel Number: 227-131-23 ` Address: 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 1_1 RE: MAY 59 1988 PH April 7, 1988 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, Larry Henderson Senior Planner LH:AB:ko Attachments -11(o City 04Ancho Cucamonga Application for HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION X Historic Landmark Historic Point of Interest IDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name: 2. Historic Name, if known: Fisher House or Norton-Fisher House 3. Street or Rural Address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue City: Rancho Cucamonga Zip: 91739 County: San Bernardino Assessor's Parcel No. 227-131-23 Zone: Etiw. Sp. P1: LM Legal Description: Etiwanda rolonv Lands Lot 12 Blk K d. Present Owner, if known: Robert Flocker Address: 6226 Topaz City: Rancho Cucamonga Zip: 91701 Ownership is: public private-- 5. Present Use: Original Use: Single Family Residence Other past uses: Single Family Residence DESCRIPTION S. Briefly describe the present h sicalapear�ance of the site or structure and describe any major a terataons from its original condition: (See State Historic Resources Inventor Form) This Spindlework Quenn Anne Victorian house has a complex hipped roof, porches witn turnedwit posts and a lattice frieze, and wood board siding. It is boarded up. ?. Location sketch map (draw & label S. Approximate property size: site and surrounding streets, Lot Size (in feet) roads, and prominent landmarks): Frontage Depth or approx. acreage SEE SITE MAP 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? Annarently 11. Surroundings: (check more tha one if necessary) a. Open land X b. Residential X c. Scattered buildings d. Densely built-up e. Commercial f. Industrial X g. Other ��r7 12. Threats to Site: a. None known b. Private development X C. Zoning d. Public Works Project e. Vandalism X f. Other 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 b. Brick c. Stucco d. Adobe e. wood X f. Other 15. Is the Structure: a. On its original site? X b. Moved? c. Unknown? 18. Year of Initial Construction: 1895 This Date is: a. Factual b. Estimated X r 17. Architect (if known): 18. Builder (if known): 19. Related Features: a. Barn b. Carriage house c. Outhouse d. Shed(s) e. Formal Garden(s) f. windmill g. Uatertower/tankhouse h. Other trees 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 daughter, Nellie. 21. Main theme of-the historic resource: )0=#XM(X4U*XWMJ: a. Architecture X b. Arts k Leisure c. Economic/Industrial X d. Government - e. Exploration/Settlement 1. 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 100 Years, 23. Date form prepared April, 1998 By (name): Arlene Banks Address; City: Zip: Phone: __ Organization: City of Rancho Cucam, State of California—The Resources Agency Ser. No. —27 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO RECREATION HABS HAER Loc SHL No. NR Status UTM: A 11-451870-3776775 c HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY e D IDENTIFICATION Fisher rL,pr House 1. Common name: 2. Historic name: Fisher House 3. Street or rural address: 7165 Etiwanda Avenue Cit% Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. zip 91739 County San Bernardino 4. Parcel number: 0227-131-23 5. Present Owner: Robert C Flocker Address: 6226 Topaz City Rancho Cucamonga Calif. zip - 91701 Ownership is: Public _Private X 6. Present Use: Residence Original use: Residence DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Spi ndl ework Queen Anne 7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance 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 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. Curb in this area is original stone. « 8. Construction date: Estimated 18.x— Factual 9. Architect Unknown 10. Builder Unkncwn 11. Approx.Property size (in feet) Frontage Depth A. or approx. acreage. 10 s 12 Date(s)of enclosed photographs) July 1987. roc) F,71 raov 1!PSI 13. Condition: Excellent _Good Fair Deteriorated X No longer inexistence 14. Alterations: Removal of surrounding grove; boarding of structure 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land X Scattered buildings Densely built-up Residential X Industrial X Commercial Other: 16. Threats to site: None known—Private development._ Zoning Vandalism Public Works project Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? Y _ Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: W 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 V 2107. The switchboard was "wommaned" by Frs. Florence Fisher and her daughter Nellie. The switchboard was moved and mechanized in 1930. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets,roads,and prominent landmarks): 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one isNORTH checked, number in order of importance.) ATE' Po7' Architecture Arts& Leisure EconomicAndustrial XExploration/Settlement Government Military Religion Social/Education chw�N�R 21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews and their dates). "A field Guide to American Homes", Virginia and Lee McAlester '. 22 Date form prepared September 29, 1987 By (name) Lynn Merrill Organization Address: City Zip Phone: X r OdIm LOMA Lim A cleN h I% a. shows me in ewlwr• ■ mr=1✓I.AMM I /i c. :E hospital. sAam 6gewne. slap,131,5 1,ICu111X1 '8855 1s"�t Alla Iona OUT OR THE ORDINARY 1Nf pe en. EQUITY LOANS. 0),266100 t( .■�arMilan) NEW LISTING RIM far lust s ' Gshto9S9G ALTA LyMA *ONTARIO* wall established N. Clarement DELUXE CONDO 2 bdrm. Forest familyy ark- Largest PICK A%INNER arae of ofewf custom homes. 94� IiMALL NO PMI-NO lSCnow with blf s.,2 baths,cpts.,drp eelec"onof 2 and 2 bdrm's. Wlth tAls great 3 dr starter Features super sized tam rm LOW RATES A FEET s ONE MONTH FREE RENTI home. Priced of ll,",Seo.Wltll w/irWc,bvNy IIgM Rr rot Compultirized p it VACANT. PRICE REDUCED ail ammenHies including built w/1Km daag area, s•peraf • BC )ERS f0 f6f,P10. lxallom bay ler M kitchen, breakfast area, i Oreakfast room, and all tIN ION* young couple. 947-3034 ONTARIO aueery ,eoFenced yard mest a•ureabM 6 a I OA I Call 24/hr rate horlM•for men 982-8844 anytime 874-5030... RIALTO 11'1 coved patio a RV prkg. iecludag _ Into on all our Morteage loam , services GOVT OWNED REPOT ADULT PARK,3 br.2 be.din. SUSAN O CONNOR ONNO JN' ALL AREAS LOW DOWN Ez arm y.rote au• s, 34r ten REAL ESTATE R ESTATE OME n-IOP 714/687-LOAN OUALIF.BKR Pal NO2 a/c,�A holt.Ssa,> "0441 �Z1�H `Zlyou MIl RS* free Into an ba In salllny a FOR sale by owner, 4 BR, c O Idesy. BAD CREDIT OK -"na"cing mobile demes. No be, CAC, frplc, mole r 7 m.10pm Douglas BrwkwaAsoe *SPECIAL*P E C I A L owigafion."1.212. 174-:020 be, CA neck.$141,400,ni ,. • • 714/354-0284 *HOME BUYERS* OPEN HOUSE sof.i S lo Etilw►ausda ***FREE****FREE*** 4 6 spa,4 lar. 2 ba.Xtra c n 0,L — leo%Loans. owner 6127,16/.Call An�pu►pose. Weekly List of Homes A]ti Lena ACT4� !PROP.2 VICTORIAN sfyla ranch Me to ' AS _ 1N-e46d141 for Sale by Owner with festa. rot, 3 car gar a v: a moves onto year Silo. rlcosl REAL ESTATE LOANS addresses, prices, Banyan,1701st,SISM., s» s2l no 147 I= CY o�1000� phone numbers. BEST BUY 1116,950 FOR SALE BY O R OF PROPERTY VALUE Xlnt home In upcoming aro. bonus room.Tiled real, 3 bdrm/2%Living + S= aLiviDelightfusunkenulsunkenIfv rot w/ nrel Wy1om and mol Wil 95%ON PURCHASES Call 980-6162 Delightful � a ts, LOANS TO 6261" frplc, comfortable Italy rm, with broken. 1162,"0. M dons TERMS TO 1S YEARS madly decorated,Ides cov'd pa- This won't last long)"►O—ur urry ` FULLY AMORTIZED tie A a new rem./Ni s. • • 1ST,2ND,3RD POSITION ' ' Y14-P11daa6. by ower,2 61%2 br/! 2 yrs, 2 OR, 1 be, 2 car ga res a;•; Alt. ITS I Imdscpd obv Bolin.Asim VA •)/,000, S10A00 a. 1n66 Fair= •NO APPRAISAL Iwo s130K."6-5431/appt IaX.411.4361 or 633-75" APE •NOUPPRONTFRES •r,nvka)ruwoor�vw e No MORTGAG! INSUR- 10016 Arrow,Manche Coca. o :� ONCE is ® DO-IT-YOURSELF IDEAS *FUNDED WITHIN 10 DAYS garnish- USE FOR ANY PURPOSE M•bt •IMIs. GREAT WESTERN A READER SERVICE OF THIS NEWSPAPER { -e',t-S) VILLAGEOAKS Housing REAL ESTATE �{ per MORTGAGE CUSTOM frl-level 2436 S.F. % ne acre. nKamic view. unique 4 11a-182-2aes Mobile Home Sale amwl�I",6210AN.111.3414. OTHER LOAN 3 months free space rent. 2 ' _PROGRAMS AVAILABLE bdrm,doublowlde,new carpet, OPEN HOUSE • • Momwwmers•N•ed Gsht Credit Pot ON.Vaunt.Make oNer. Y Pr•blemaf RWlawaY bills? I" 1X04-4 44 Feraelesunf Ilya Can Helpl S star Ontariopark. 2 lad, 1 JNDFINANCIAL."s-13M. corner M4 fetal loci. space' 6246 Moonstone 100% LTV Home loans bar- 637S/me. alar,2%ba,pool/w.5230,100. r ; C•nfYry 21 Hembree 6 raged.Credit K InCOrne prgb• w fame. Gemmel,censtr.,land K Brand new douae'wwe.7 ed,: "1i7q :4 hones. No shoe Lonan, be, an a double W. Cv..-- 114.114 1721 Kul Nn/24hn. made for you.Total incl space. Alta Loma Spe�ill .n Your t51s/me• Spp•mccleu 4 OR,2%ahs heme' 12.20" Huge 4 car Be Ills rem a ( ; NOQUALIFYING REPOS-Au areas. Family a spa, gazebo a cev'd petalo l adult. Lew price's. aw solar watersystam noting the { f down.moves you In fast. home a wNl as the wow. Ri double' REAL ESTATE LOANS soles Manager Needed, pull Newly Wletad afaHor is glean S ,n, im- support. Tp comm. Ask ler a sharp. Pride m oanurshfppee n rata- No credit check, ao Income Poul or Les, nelghbOrttead a •Xda at Afta n MM. requirements he up Tram fees Vista Mobile Homes lo"• aehams 0174,111. 0511 f �o s Dmf bthird nS4 SMMou Mountain ores, .!W=eiy Wumm,�1p e10 third 4160:Holt pay 1 h eon. 25 vn lowing ex . PK (714)391-1481 rU!��RchBEallr Fatima ian,aurlooegs•rvlabar: 20%. a'Can ADULT MOBILE A"'IE"otsDinwOn t3hiltweist 1-1419. Standard Mortgage HOME PARK 980.3100 g mesh Brkr/PrinelpBl Uplands p~live star park. Short s166+ making Full amenitleg.Home Is cavo- 160 (714)"2-8241 "Lofty located to club hew.. GREAT BUY! shoulder Lew maintenance green ben- vCam,mew gvltk.ch•rinfllg will not 3 bedroom plus 2 bathe,famlly 16M vent mid. well kept home' 2 Biu "CMn with ern. a0I TRESTLE DESK elast" f nem`, HOME Impavement lovas. No Bedroom, 7 barn, Inside cue- mats,breakfast bar A built-No. This easy-to-build trestle desk Ives you maximum Murlel, dry with N kltehen.M"Rie' y g from! f . apyrafun No u Agoet 171q�i10606. Has IAkk urpaH m.eslw work space in a minimum of floor s from! fee. 11 dye funding. »IP• brick fireplace w�1n raised P pace.it features a 5ata 1 3014. ALTA LAGUNA PRNSTIGE beaAh, large llvi"g nem do- 24'x 42'writing area and eight drawers for files and 51611 A CASH LOAN TO s1.,M i Double wide, 3+L ane tam, slNnd for eaey wrnitwe bar- supplies. Just trace the full-size pattern arts onto red by NO CREDIT OR rm, a/c, color co-ordinated roapent tat. Big yard i patine P P mysall EMPLOYMENT NEEDED fareughem,all appliances,Call- Just a nal nice hems.$117,150 veneer plywood,saw Out,and assemble.Step-by-step FOR NEW PROGRAMI Mg fans. For beauty, prestige' photos end IflSiructlOflS guide you through each phase .rsathat (fila)3214Ura N Ars. aha valve,ail"owl ALPI. of construction.A complete materials list and cutting In Dal.Willi ley you Y have an 981 -1466 Save ting or gptbn,WIII Guy year hes-Leve FAMILY PARK schedule remove all the guess work. re'Mar yourequiy.Gaorge62101e6. Ontario, nice 2 bdrm, very feel the offorodable for Your family. Alta Loma Doing". HOME"any Iotns,100%home Low space'rest.OM2T :.part. Impnwmott�,haw Mang that Pool Home — — — — — — — — — — — — — — cA Ntyear"esMs.Ww,OM-sue AIRPORT CLOSE Greet location. walking dis- SOW p #435 Trestle Desk ....14.50 EaCh 7 bdrmn be, a/c, all appll- ta"c•a all schools- Excelko PAtG JOHN BARAKAT allies,•wmer treastal mon famN nelgbberhow on cul-de- ORD Pa"Kn DW. p 112-page catalog+G sac.Well kept 4 badt.•m home P.O.box 2363 r .....13 f►5 61.00 P/fl. -,wore- BROKER OBTAINS mow fanl Efip with lo greand PON U,N x- (Picturing 700 projects) �. SUPER R/t LOANS Oce 36Yt frac.$171,90.Agent. Von Nuys,G 91409 OFIFtEL l t00% UPLAND ELDORADO t114)"P16es nation. FORGET THE REST corner lm, 2 bdrm, vacant, PEN Neuaa on. /-Spm N.N waMr/dryw Space, tale• M 11th,off Hallmam.SIN Gard a BMW to: ES—SE s WE ARE THE BEST tit.UEu St.11p1a6s.f.,4 k 1%be,family Name r about 244h FIXED FROM 9.a7S% LAKE $1144.N.907.3 t5 fN�. Address Dept. :31: 41. We have b"I dale while mobilo BY OWNER.Level 7611sq� Niles MI, REFINANCE NOW homes In Les Swoon A Swan )(uot la."i city Print Nal NT* Lakes. 2 i 3 bdrms. Some new Nome en Vin acre Iva u 9S%PURCHASE as 1"Om•ale.4s41r bd, tam. rm,den llv.rm, i n Ave. 00%NNO-INCOME QUALIFIER Ive.lmeew�ge ion vppl'"1� State Zip Zip.size, HOMESTEAD REALTY AND bar.(N Y S D AND A MOBILE HOMES By owner, 3 br/2 be,•fa/•p�,sdpa•, Price Includes Postage a Prompt Handling Add 38Y i 17 FHA/VA 9% u llwut E.Foothillwudi-1161 $101'A 0/Fir/bit"I;.01-f62f sale.- 7; LENDER Open House Sa/Su 11-4 PROBLEMCREDIT The Plow."Pf PMI Blvd, Sp. HIGHD ATSRATIO 21, Cucamonga. Adult Yrk, 100%HOME IMPROVEMENT spec. 3 bd/2 be, calkedrial 2 2ND.TD4/!%LTV callings, screen perch, low _ ,rain. BEn�TES-SERVICE by y w,m —�T THE ,TAMP Greafiy reduced far Wick"M. �% CALL FIN.NETWORK CALL AL.REMCO 714-"0-TMp — me Mart ED $5000 East Cash Mobile( 4. 1 A 6XH//9 iT Up to 01% of v me en nal 1 aft. 24 br.appro cafe tredlt 1 problemsora" rk unto• BRAND NEW 19US 1; 714it2.8011 tot ireedy-w N tU i 1-16 Local park,walk M ahoppingl � �. ,o In 39 NEW 2 BLE WIDE* Marts ane". Bie 24x2,2 BR, 2 be,den,lots 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 commission 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 material 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 ,`/ i 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, grading 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. 70 512, 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. 70 513, 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. 70 514, 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 S15, 1979) . 2 .24. 160 Property owned by public agencies. The secretary shall take appropriate steps to nota y 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 35 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 909/987-2304 September 8, 1993 City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Commissioners: I have reviewed that certain staff report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission dated September 8, 1993 from Brad Buller, City Planner by Larry Henderson, Principal Planner. I now wish to challenge, in writing, certain statements and conclusions made by Mr. Henderson and Mr. Buller: 1. I believe that the City of Rancho Cucamonga-initiated 1988 landmark designation of my property was improper and unjust. The City records prior to and since 1988 indicate that I was "singled out" for unduly harsh, overly-aggressive mistreatment. No other property owner in this City, to my knowledge, has been forced to submit to the pressure of landmark designation against their wishes. Now I'm told that the City has changed its "aggressive" policy of designation against the owners will. This is plainly unequal enforcement by the City against me. Additionally, many material misrepresentations were made to me, including the repeated assurances by City officials that I would financially benefit through enjoyment of property tax reductions and other provisions of law. In the five years since 1988, I have not saved one cent as a result of City-initiated designation. 2. 1 have been told by experts in the field of historic renovations that the continuing representation to me that the Norton-Fisher house would qualify for the National Register is ludicrous. My brother, Jim Flocker and I consulted with Mr. William Von Gremp in September, 1988 (See letter of September 16, 1988 attached). Mr. Von Gremp is a member of the National Trust for Historical Preservation, Committee for the Future of America's Past and the Los Angeles Conservancy, and he has extensive experience in historical rehabilitations, including the Pasadena Playhouse (State Theatre of California), Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and the Pacific Coast Stock Exchange Building. Mr. Von Gremp's letter (page #2, paragraph #2) states: "...only those structures of unquestionable value nationally are likely to be found to deserve tax credits." Mr. Von Gremp's letter was provided to the City in 1988. In July and August of 1986, Jim Flocker proposed to AT&T that they relocate and restore the Norton-Fisher house. At that time, Jim was told that a privately-owned, closed-circuit telephone hookup between private residences within a community did not meet the national public utility definition of a "telephone company." To qualify as being historically significant, it would need to be interlocked with a public phone system. The Home Telephone Company was, from a national historic perspective, no more that an early, private intercom system between a few farm homes. While residents may think this is significant locally, it is of no apparent national historic importance which might qualify it for the National Register. 3. On August 30, 1993 I welcomed the City to inspect the Norton-Fisher house for the purpose of seeing for themselves that it is a hazard to the community and to support my request for demolition for all of the reasons explained in my application dated August 2, 1993. Instead of addressing the issue of my demolition permit, Mr. Henderson, Cathy Morris and Anthea Hartig took photographs and measurements and discussed among themselves renovation of the house. This meeting took place at 7:30 a.m. Later, Mr. James Schroeder arrived. Upon his arrival, my brother overheard him ask Mr. Henderson "Now what exactly is it that you want me to do?" I was still inside the house with Cathy and Anthea. Upon coming outside approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Schroeder approached me in a threatening manner, stating that I had "opened up a Pandora's Box of trouble" by asking for a demolition permit. I hope that the City will not undertake new tactics of imposing fines, rewriting ordinances or further threatening me with a "Pandora's Box" of trouble simply because I have attempted in every way possible to protect my property, my rights and the safety and security of the community of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. Page A3 of the Staff Report attempts to characterize my offer to donate my house to the City in 1988 as "conditioned" upon unreasonable terms, and further cites my newspaper listing to sell the house for $38,500.00. At no time did I ask the City for $38,500.00. In fact, I offered to give that value for free to our City. Please refer to the attached Option to Purchase House to be Moved dated June 6, 1989. I have attempted to find any qualified person or entity to remove this house from my property for the purpose of restoration. I believe that no company or individual will attempt a removal and restoration due to fear of possible retaliation and tactics of intimidation utilized by the City. The public is aware of the City's actions through past newspaper reports. 5. I strongly object to a continuance of "30 to 60 days" as recommended on page A4 of the Staff Report. I believe this is an effort to delay action on my permit 93-02. Such a continuance could result in an accident or death on my property resulting in financial losses to me and worst of all, loss or injury to members of our community. Sincerely, Robert Flocker .�-- srr� r� �in� DEVELOPMENTS INC . September 16, 1988 Mr. Robert C. Flocker 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, California 91701 RE: Historical designation of house located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue Dear Mr. Flocker, You have requested that I review your situation from the perspective of an individual and developer with extensive experience in historical rehabilitations within the State of California. My qualifications include membership affiliations with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Committee for the Future of America's Past and the Los Angeles Conservancy. My personal experience in historical rehabilitations include the Pasadena Playhouse in Pasadena, Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood, and Pacific Coast Stock Exchange Building in Los Angeles, of which I am co-general partner. I have reviewed your documentation, including your letter of August 9 to the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in which you offer to donate your house to the City. I commend you for making this generous offer, and would expect the City to respond through unqualified acceptance. As you undoubtably realize, rehabilitations are expensive ventures, more properly undertaken by either private limited partnerships or government grant, rather than by individuals. You should also be aware that no municipal agency can offer investment tax credits to you or promise that historical designation will increase the value of your property. Quite to the contrary, you as owner must bear the burden of seeking National or State Register status, then pay the costs of rehabilitation 264 N. BOWLING GREEN WAY LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 (213) 472-2528 yourself while having no guarantee of receiving any federal or state tax benefits. From the developer's perspective, having a structure of the type you own on an otherwise valuable piece of land could cause you to lose an enormous amount of money upon selling, since any developer would regard the City's historical designation of the structure as a liability to development, not an asset. Also, I sincerely doubt that you could, even if inclined, obtain a listing on the National Register. This process is very complicated, and only those structures of unquestionable value nationally are likely to be found to deserve tax credits. In conclusion, please remember that my commitment to historical rehabilitations of a legitimate nature is a matter of record. In my personal opinion, there is not enough money available in our Country today for saving many extremely deserving structures that qualify as national treasures, and I would encourage anyone with resources to devote to this worthy activity to be certain that their funds are spent on preserving a structure of unquestionable national importance. I hope the City of Rancho Cucamonga chooses to work with you in the spirit of cooperation and understanding, since you deserve that treatment for your kind gesture toward your community. Sincerely, moi.. William von Gremp Streamline Developments OPTION TO PURCHASE HOUSE TO BE MOVED Rancho Cucamonga, California June 6 1989 For and in consideration of the sum of One hundred dollars ($100.00) paid to Seller, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by said Seller, to apply on the purchase price, the undersigned ROBERT C. FLOCKER (hereinafter the "Seller"), hereby grants the right and option to purchase and agrees to sell to ANDREW BARMAKIAN (hereinafter the "Purchaser") , or his assigns, the following described personal property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California: A wood frame house to be moved, presently located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue, Etiwanda, California, (hereinafter "House") . For the total purchase price of Four hundred dollars ($400.00) , payable as follows : Three hundred dollar ($300.00) balance to Seller within 24 hours following the removal of the House from and cleanup of Seller's property. If Purchaser elects to purchase House at the price and on the terms herein set forth, and within the time specified, the Purchaser shall give Seller due notice in writing. If Purchaser does not give Seller written notice of intention to purchase House on or before the date of expiration of the term of this option or does not make payment of balance of purchase price as herein provided, then Seller shall be released from all obligation hereunder. All rights , legal and equitable, of Purchaser shall immediately cease and the consideration previously paid to Seller shall be retained by Seller as liquidated damages. All notices required hereunder to be given either party shall be posted U.S. Registered Mail at the addresses shown below. Purchaser and Seller also agree to the following provisions : 1. This House is to be moved solely at Purchaser's expense and risk. 2. This option to purchase shall not include any land owned by Seller. 3. Purchaser agrees to move the House from Seller's property within 365 days from the date of signing of this option or this Option To Purchase House To Be Moved becomes null and void. 4. Seller is not responsible for obtaining or paying for any permits deemed necessary to move House from Seller' s property. 5. Seller is not liable for any personal injuries, damages, liabilities, or losses of anykind whatsoever during removal of House from Seller's property. 6. Purchaser is solely responsible for any damage incurred to House during or following the removal of the House from Seller's property. 7. Purchaser agrees not to attempt to exercise this option until Purchaser has obtained all final approvals from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 8. The term of this option shall expire at 5:00 pm on June 6, 1990, unless exercised earlier. Notwithstanding this provision, Purchaser agrees to exercise this option within seven days following receipt of final approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga of Purchaser's development plans for which house will be moved and renovated. 9. Purchaser will receive title to the House only upon removal of House from Seller' s property. 10. Purchaser accepts the House "as is" with no expressed or implied conditions or warranties of any kind. 11. This option shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. 12. This Option To Purchase House To Be Moved may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original . Any disputes concerning this option shall be decided in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Time is of the essence of this agreement. Witness: S e x x ' ROBERT C. FLOCKER 6226 Topaz Street Alta Loma, CA 9170 Witness: Purchase : ANDREW BARMAKIAN, President The Barmakian Company 8560 Vineyard, Suite 510 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 2. THE BARMAKIAN COMPANY, INC. 1468 0.975 ARCHIBALD AVE., STE. 101 714-987-3084 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 16.4/1220 PAY TO THE 1 a 1 OR R OF $: -�- lOODOLLARS SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK Alta Loma Offioa 00362 95lts 60 S"Wina Road N ` ALoma,\CA,917�01 `r FORS 11'00 L4681i' is L 2 20000431: 36 2sili L L68 2811' ETIWANDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY - Post Office Box 363,Etiwanda, CA 91739 September 8, 1993 Historic Preservation Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 RE: Norton-Fisher House, Etiwanda Avenue Dear Commissioners : At its regular meeting held September 7, 1993, the Board of Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society discussed the proposed demolition of the Norton-Fisher House on Etiwanda Avenue in Etiwanda, California. The Board authorized me, as President of the Society, to express to you, in letter form, its concerns about such an action. While, on the one hand, the Board is not unsympathetic with the burdens placed on the owners of historic properties, the Board, on the other hand, is anxious that the Commissioners be well aware of the great historical significance of the telephone and the Norton-Fisher House to the history of Etiwanda. In the early 1880 's a telephone call was placed from Etiwanda to Lugonia, the longest telephone call which had been made to date. The call was made from the home of the Chaffey Brothers who were friends of Alexander Graham Bell. There were no other phones in San Bernardino County other than the one on the receiving end. On February 1, 1906, a public telephone was installed at the Frost Bros. General Store on Etiwanda Avenue. It was the first public telephone in the area; there were none in Ontario, Upland, or the immediate surrounding areas. The Norton-Fisher House was the site of the first telephone company in San Bernardino County. All of Etiwanda's crank-type telephones ' wires terminated at the Norton-Fisher House where the operator connected various calling parties together. In those days the operator interacted with the calling party saying, "Minnie's not home; she's at the post office; she'll be back in a few minutes" . The Home Telephone Company kept its switchboard in this home until the 1930 's. All donations of money or materials are tax deductible The House is architecturally attractive, well built and in surprisingly good condition despite years of neglect. It could be put in habitable condition without a tremendous investment. The Norton-Fisher House is sensitively situated in a group of City landmarks consisting of the Chaffey-Garcia House, the Etiwanda Community Church, the old Etiwanda Water Company office and the Pacific Electric Railway Station. There is no other place in Rancho Cucamonga, and few in the entire West End of San Bernardino County, where there are so many historical structures clustered together. The House is without question among the five most important historic structures in Etiwanda. To put it in historical perspective, it was sad and regrettable to see the C.N. Ross House destroyed. It would be a major disaster to see the Norton-Fisher House destroyed. Due to the historic value of the Norton-Fisher House, the Etiwanda Historical Society request that you indulge in every reasonable effort to save it. It is worth the effort. Sincerely, ETIWANDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY by: CHERYL PERDEW, President