Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/12/08 - Agenda Packet THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 441e HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION � AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA DECEMBER 8, 2010 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Munoz _ Vice Chairman Howdyshell _ • Fletcher_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,1k I November 10, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes IIII. NEW BUSINESS I A. REQUEST TO INITIATE LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2010-00905- LUANA Y. HERNANDEZ - A REQUEST TO INITIATE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE HELLMAN AVENUE STREET TREES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE SOUTH OF 19TH STREET TO BASE LINE ROAD I • IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS B. AN UPDATE TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REQUESTED BY MANNING HOMES, ON THE GEORGE AND JESSIE JOHNSTON HOME, A DESIGNATED POINT OF INTEREST, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6998 ETIWANDA AVENUE -APN: 1089-081-20 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS • This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. ?\ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • L1 AGENDA RANCHO DECEMBER 8, 2010 CUCAMONGA . Page 2 IVI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS IVII. ADJOURNMENT I I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 1, 2010, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. r , Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. • Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at • http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonqa.ca.us FliIf you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, • please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Vicinity Map • Historic Preservation Commission Meeting December 8, 2010 in j Cgi i 22,i t T E -0 o c x ! a E u u € > to U Q 2 2 g d _ I j : j rfla • mil' - U I a iippr I A t Is = � m St E �% I I Base Line rJ .. �- ��f�Base Line r 4? Church Rpmer ' t A � ' Church ti r' i oothill roe; . Foothill Arrow c= - i Arrow ! > `� Jersey / `m : 8thi E o / c R. W \ d X ' W ._.•-I. o 0 6th a `_ '- n - y I —p 6th N N L C N .- as Q 2 2 g A 4th .i17 Lth Oa • * Meeting Location: City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive STAFF REPORT L • PLANNING DEPARTMENT "l Date: December 8, 2010 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner • Subject: REQUEST TO INITIATE LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2010-00905-LUANA Y. HERNANDEZ - A request to initiate Landmark Designation of the Hellman Avenue Street Trees located on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of 19th Street to Base Line Road BACKGROUND: An application for Historic Landmark Designation may only be proposed by the City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Director, or the property owner. Therefore, at the September 8, 2010 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, Luana Hernandez requested the Historic Preservation Commission initiate a Landmark Designation of the Hellman Avenue street trees located on the west side of Hellman Avenue between 19th Street and Base Line Road. Her request included a Heritage Tree Preservation petition with approximately 57 signatures to oppose the removal of the "Heritage trees." On October 19, 1988 the Hellman Avenue Windrow located south of La Ronda Street to Base Line Road, • approximately a third of the trees being proposed for landmark designation, were designated as a Point of Historic Interest (Exhibit A and C). Additionally, on December 3, 1980 the City Council voted to retain the curbs and trees on Hellman Avenue as part of a denial of a Tree Removal Permit request and set this as a precedent for the rest of Hellman Avenue. ANALYSIS: General Plan This section of Hellman Avenue was identified in the General Plan since 1989 as a Historic/Special Design Street that should be studied for potential designation of historic significance. The west side of the street is currently lined with a Eucalyptus windrow and palm trees. Eucalyptus windrows and palms are considered to be unique to the character of the City and worthy of protection per the General Plan. Additionally, the City hired Chattel Architecture to evaluate historic properties and draft the Historic Context Statement for the General Plan Update. It was the consultant's opinion that the trees and curbs along Hellman Avenue could be significant and recommended performing a Cultural Landscape Report to evaluate this landscape feature as well as others. This report would be prepared by a consultant as a citywide effort to evaluate possible cultural landscapes (vineyards, water features, trees, fences, etc.) throughout the City. Tree Preservation Ordinance The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 19.08) preserves eucalyptus, palms, oak, sycamore, pine and other trees. An exception of the ordinance relates to the trees located within existing or •proposed public right-of-ways where removal is necessary for adequate line-of-site or if the tree is causing damage to public improvements. Per the ordinance, if a tree is Landmarked (private or within the public right-of-way) a request for removal shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission ITEM A HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT INITIATING DESIGNATION FOR HELLMAN AVENUE TREES - DRC2010-00905 • December 8, 2010 Page 2 • and shall require a Landmark Alteration Permit. The decision regarding the removal request is first acted upon by the Historic Preservation Commission and then is forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. • Landmark Designation The Landmark Designation of street trees has been approved in other areas of the City (Highland Avenue Street Trees, Victoria Avenue Street trees, and Walnut Trees lining Beryl Street). Trees that are Landmarked require a Landmark Alteration permit for removal. There is an exception to this requirement if the trees are unsafe, requiring immediate action for public safety. Conclusion The street trees along Hellman Avenue are currently within the right-of-way that may be widened in the future to accommodate traffic and construction of storm.drain improvements. The trees are not protected under the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance because they are located within a proposed public right-of- way. Under CEQA, once the trees are Landmarked, the removal of the trees is a discretionary act. If removal was proposed as part of a project, that action would either have to be exempt under CEQA or would require analysis to determine the impact of their removal. Mitigation may be required for the loss of the historic feature and the site could be re-designated as a Point of Historic Interest. If the Commission initiates the Landmark Designation application, staff can further investigate the integrity of the trees and their historic significance. • OPTIONS FOR COMMISSION: • 1. Initiate the historic Landmark Designation application and direct staff to compile a report assessing the historic significance and condition of the trees to be addressed as a Public Hearing item at a future Commission meeting. 2. Choose not to initiate the applications at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission initiate the Landmark Designation process. Respectfully submitted, C Jam R. Troyer, AICP • Planning Director JRT/CB/Is Attachment: Exhibit A - Map of proposed designation Exhibit B - Petition Exhibit C - October 19, 1988 City Council Staff Report Exhibit D - November 3, 1988 Historic Preservation commission Staff Report • A-2 _"1'_- • : 1:: r 11 T7`[I •t 1 .._r . 4,:•: ITT'cF T o°_ I 1 1` 1... l-�1 il1GARDEN. ..L L _ GARDENI'z1 r_ k•-I L �:. 1 i (.'4111 EATHER • 1 � ��L :L. j k• . :i.- —.. 1. . -- 'y-iz :.. ' ri •: I ' .. -r� :-L. 1 1 .. �, «mss ( w.f :, -- 1 1 H 1 rilliki II I -tea k1 ll T1. It i I_ .y( 1tt �/� t ISS Y �AA,C LORD W.- _ . HEDGES LI �i I f. r 1 ( k 'z sy - .1J I t m ] ; I_ j t W 1 I - '_ .. ` 1 . .. . .--[ _IW i I 1 t I I ?-r�. MfGNON{TTE ..- .I —1),.. t _ .h� f .�I (: 111 . _-_- u rT 1. 3 'I R'l .. ...cur €� 1.M 1 1 � .. .......... a: �° / __ RAVELE... .tC , tia ,. LEDIG - --� t_-� k:. o i � y =711 n - 1L m nu 11 1 1 :...: .I. r "'2' .. Z! �" IZ f . ... . .J W 1 y 1 1 ':c§:!CSR LLI L[[L\ �`.. .y y J 1 . 4 \ 5 � �o = 1, I4 W 1 I ks, E i'a i oc Z -J� r z 3 E - , �1 � � � • :III ' -:1:1::::1:171'CASAc I • 1,.• 2 1. [- I: S •/.1:,,-......../�' - MONTE VISTA ...m1F \ f r 2:ISi'W _ ' • l f 1 I �iT{ :1-i f x T � t .- • . I::J � 1 � w 1 ! i . r �.:j� 1 ._.�1 � •./ .j ! _ .......t=L4 VINE 'g 111,--- -47/ Viz. ��?�� .....ONkL I^ 4.4 - - - 11 1 ItA.GRAINIDE�_!-- ~ I 1 f-�--- y - 1 ., t & 1::1:: A GRANDE 1 =Ty LAGRANDE �- - 1 riE:rrF� •WIV -'1 I . �O� 1 1 f 1� ( ( t:::;' -1J' 01 :I:: .\ [ :1:11 : J ..I I,rf. L 1 =-L i I LOMITA r 2 - Hl/� / /I'1 fff - _ II, rLOMITA- :::::111.. ..1'�,. ; .1::1 I 1 I ...° 7J ] 7:.:A.,.). II Q - I7 {ems� { . IIt.�...1� I 8r: l j� J J 5+ .i.' L MESA f u L81 -� :: ,;1:4•%:„`'.., r""1 ,i1 - ROBERDS ;w�a' 1 tr I . I t:. i "<.t 1 - .. . fir—. 1..1! : 1 L •4, \ [[ / t _— j . .. _ 1.:. L_ _ ..1 i BASELINE LINE J :::1:1... 1 I L i) : I ..1 � •• „s • • - := Designated Point of Interest sProposed Landmark Designation EXHIBIT A A-3 • HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION 2010 c` • To:City of Rancho Cucamonga t:sp 10500 Civic Center Drive _ "OA Rancho Cucamonga Caifornia,91730 , To:City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department �� 41.••• s People against the proposed removal of the"Heritage trees"located on the west side of Hellman Avenue running south of 19th Street ending at Base Line Road as a result of the city planning to increase the width of said street. Attention: Mayor,City Council Members,City Planning Department and all other interested persons and offices of said municipality. Whereas: Hellman Avenue.The segment of Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and 191h St has been designated for special historic significance.The City of Rancho Cucamonga can have a bright future if capitalizes on its rich heritage preserved for future generations. Be it resolved: That the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other concerned people having an interest in the preservation of the"Heritage trees"and the character of our city.Hereby oppose this action and request the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept.and/or Community Development Department halt any proposals that would result in removal of said trees. For the following reasons: • 1.To preserve the beauty and established character of our neighborhood/property values. 2.To restrict excessive traffic and noise impacts to homeowners/pubic safety. 3. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty,prevent soil erosion,provide shade,wind protection,screening and counteract air pollution. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Print Name Print Address Signatur r ).1,0 in (9 &f.. ; 7033 (- r.wJ f>u6 `�. -r c--13-=1'c; )1IC/1.]YJ 11_1 o5 22,Ci5 V/gLinKjF nr /? 02 41�- fi 'f;-d 1 _ Z ' Aciwlte-)1h Z.t°` �aJ `12((05 I\,�IIr~'1(=1r) i'1■i '- fruf of So _--tom L, /C ���---- z_L A,,,, . 7<-7�.' 4f�-rc4.-t-Ci AN 4CJE - .'(t z>./Ica, 1_5ia (,ed_s_-u 7-..2_, l c cgre ; :J ei Qui, vArpf c( (17.--,14:7 i_l= L\paNN i9/1vitt< 7l °7 14LLLAA1,t /�Vt , 17 ' /- % / I ili \I-eilet` rYe Z -1)-,52-7 dell plan tt7°E \it/Lacii bgw-2 /3//e) lA/V-- l�0Q rES `7z /�GC < 4 v, `�.,.a L 4, 1-,2-�. g,/r_ /)r,, I P----(c li-- 1 I b 'tc , 'IPA `-j t `l` 1; �IV1Ya4v lAr``� - `y L` �.., - F / • 7Pritj 0,,,,:),, j Zt)Z J/3'7 l/t-'C[:,,,, iz'F .- -(_:, /,2 110■1\ ` ititsUck 67S.&l ci_Lki9t'I tlue (/V/ ' L' !R1SCriEFM V1955 fr'SC1 /ICiLDInN ril`L• r,1i.)ebtiLiL 4u i-) 6 - I9 -la Dan4 -e, ta+ cis 4Ma Iielac+,ato at,,c 7 r %/��,..., (;)//v//c .I'1? 4itkirt 1fllit) � MIin iA e- ('JL- �--` tfit)//-c, i Al-(�/ (DR ! Cctto tk1k .{av Ali[ 4; "� r 6;//7/ /c o� zc. 110 iti 1z3y 4661-1114w AL'c% 4; l t /4/ e/iy// • RUC I Ca, . ,e r Jt- (e0III Efel'hlvtit { �' 43 - lc It3 (-fi (tu,Gt,I ,e( &S7''4f 7 me-Ouvucol (4,ra• C, ,cam! -- ' 0 i- 1 Ft ict Ci--T e1 I, Olt 7 (Iel(Ivatt f-Ve toe Cl (0---1 /G 'iokN c�,G 7/ C? FWt- -n"A AvE y— _\ C' )-Y- te 1- ' ' f jtfl$ vt se_ _ - - ? -co t�ls� �w K (Izlh��c� Cc, ail Print Name Print Address Signature T)(-) C- 1 o --C::c Ic ' HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION 2010 l • '% To:City of Rancho Cucamonga ' / 10500 Civic Center Drive - - v�// Rancho Cucamonga Caifornia,91730 To:City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department • __� ��� People against the proposed removal of the"Heritage trees"located on the west side of Hellmain Avenue running south of 19th Street ending at Base Line Road as a result of the city pliinning to increase the width of said street. r Attention: Mayor,City Council Members,City Planning Department and all other interested persons and offices of said municipality. Whereas: Hellman Avenue:The segment of Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and 19t.St has been designated for special historic significance.The City of Rancho Cucamonga can have a bright future if capitalizes on its rich heritage preserved for future generations. Be it resolved: That the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other concerned people having an interest in the preservation of the"Heritage trees"and the character of our city.Hereby oppose this action and request the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept.and/or Community Development Department halt any proposals that would result in removal of said trees. For the following reasons: • I.To preserve the beauty and established character of our neighborhood/property values. 2.To restrict excessive traffic and noise impacts to homeowners/pubic safety. 3. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty,prevent soil erosion,provide shade,wind protection,screening and counteract air pollution. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Print Name Print Address Signature e_ 1 1 E- 7k- 1 ° 4,C- 0 r.re� F( -011 fv.<tAvn jt�, �l�c �—�� 7 i 711 -Aral-Amp) Apt. /�--..� -° ( G; `L_. 10. rr � - Zip- I� IJct9�tluIF✓cr 7R' rF C.737 '��1�� t-civn A 1 — �, et. �- "� t l _y7 /7\c/7 •tc. 4 t G� i %/r n 1-17C1l r Kiwi / (ti'r'"IJ� h q ' 44,&61641-t— �/t� tG'r.i / / i ric /4 )6hry 1,309 La1ji r, i'-/�L y;� zae 1� 2ic 6 • \ec tcv,-,a..2,Y rc`i 66 t\-mil) rvv41'J Avice- A t_ .- c'ti!-- —.„t” -- ` � J` o i/ri2lrL4 '1 I�a,_ / , 'A . /I af r 'i i •,.( T:, a, • Print Name Print Address l _ Signature HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION 2010 • • r To:City of Rancho Cucamonga "r�//'' •10500 Civic Center Drive j�j Rancho Cucamonga Caifornia,91730 To: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 9,---_,, People against the proposed removal of the"Heritage trees"located on the west side of Hellman Avenue running south of 19th Street ending at Base Line Road as a result of the city planning to increase the width of said street. - Attention: Mayor,City Council Members,City Planning Department and all other interested persons and offices of said municipality. Whereas: Hellman Avenue.The segment of Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and 19th St has been designated for special historic significance.The City of Rancho Cucamonga can have a bright future if capitalizes on its rich heritage preserved for future generations. Be it resolved: That the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other concerned people having an interest in the preservation of the"Heritage trees"and the character of our city.Hereby oppose thig action and request the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept.and/or Community Development Department halt any proposals that would result in removal of said trees. For the following reasons: • I.To preserve the beauty and established character of our neighborhood/property values. 2.To restrict excessive traffic and noise impacts to homeowners/pubic safety. 3.Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty,prevent soil erosion,provide shade,wind protection,screening and counteract air pollution. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely; Print Name Print Address Signature L'/3r, HerIm.4.i /1 va--. ✓ vG/iz-jsc/.-• 7i 1114'��A.0 J. Li ��rA to�b.,�i/7 e.¢y.'70/ ) Z� �`�7.— iG (11-/HO _C 'cvei'1S (P77&i�f4/1,' � ` i/7ci E../4,-s.( 4u. (y �� >17Xf / i::: ^ cis. - / (1•//.2/3 /C ��1�1 �� ,4� (.Vii' i .GrYtlw ci/7LJ � fF ��L�� ; L'l'1vJf.7AN pcJ€1Z:' AC;TA Wti Y L11-9/70/ / .i� /0 73/c CAA G Le;€0 Dl. � CZ v G-1_2- io Ev`i_y/t1 PE J[SV� rA 1_ONtA CA 9/ 7U/ Le..- / /` i u 10 WA v1 IG �tt ` C-1 CS rItJI/+tAV� ctw. ,tt'i/10 r / Oc7 7 COO/3;,�' 675 i'-//6-41/MIN. f• S� �J/ 6-i2"ZC/O LAGL9S ei7.53' 6ri-Lt/ C'A y/7G/ 7 g�/ //tie/NAT C'OOPE;e in-7:4 /arltla?N/?t7ic . [.,'-1: 21/0 !.'f•�l, l �iul /ti , L u ,r E `ll?s i /v / 4 - i �� ,. t • `1/ ,Cc Cyc \- , c f' / t of '7A , (4. 7/7a/ m. — f r , /Z/J C .., � (z i / /-y , u.5-1erk. � lia-L.1 &Vi 729.9,,,1 ?lk,,_4 tc\ - r ;— / T- ' / / d /may e _ /-) -/,7 G V" c%` ��il(.E'\\ate �1-��,F�E:? `�11b 1��1''fl'Icty 1\�� - L ..�IY "v�J-..r,- .v..`-1 4_ (._ 1A- 1 ( i-7�\-c y,,e._ `I t 9 ce. \-\S Av l fir�r""Ire-t L �cl��� 1-..-:72A vac c c_Ek.)V 115 L: /-iEL<-i"ti ""' f)tli-' ;J�/_ei,„it ,j.r c,--- G• _/ 1 - 1 (4-1.e IV() A 11th . &R 4i '115 1-(6LLTh n td A vg. �" ic , f f,�e –1.3-- i' • Spa,/ IA VA '1 ►L1c tt��tr\Rrl A,, �- r -/,_ LNy2L0 VA-55 b009 [IELLNfwwc e A/l /Y) 6 13- tV 41,62/1--/.0 V✓'rv`/'J.i 7th/.5— lie,///17 ervt i1,_C�' f'.'-_ r' q .ri co cF'C- /`,_ Print Name i Print Address Signature • • • d`� t:9 •"Ix3 • / — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �t STAFF REPORT • DATE: October 19, 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 HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS WINDROW AS A POINT OF HISTORIC IN(EREST I. RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council designate the Hellman Avenue Eucalyptus Windrow as a Point of Historic Interest. The Commission further recommends that the General Plan retain a "Special Street Design" designation for Hellman Avenue. II . BACKGROUND: This item came to the attention of the Commission because of inquiries from the Engineering Division regarding future • street widening once an underground storm drain is in place and the street is no longer a surface conduit for water. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designates Hellman from Base Line to 19th as a "Special Design Street" ; however, there is no guidance in the plan as to the intent or configuration this designation is to carry. A 1980 City Council had voted to retain the curbs and trees on Hellman Avenue. They also moved that their decision on retaining the curbs and trees on one property should serve as a precedent for the rest of Hellman. However, in February, 1988, the Historic Preservation Commission expressed the opinion that the curbs did not have historical significance. III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission voted 5-1 , one member absent, to recommend point of historic interest designation. A reason cited was that the trees are aesthetically pleasing. The Windrow also met several criteria in the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance. An earlier motion, which failed 3-3, was for the Commission not to designate the trees as a point of interest but to request retention of the Special Design Street designation, and if the trees must be removed, that specimen-sized replacements be used. Several members of the public appeared at the hearing, six of whom spoke on the issue, 3 against, 2 in favor, and one neutral . EXHIBIT C A , CITY COUNCIL STAFF _PORT Proposal for Designation October 19, 1988 Page 2 • Res. - • ully itted, B .d : . City ' annex BB:AB:vc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - September 1, 1988 Staff Report with Attachments Exhibit "B" - Letter from Frank D. Green Exhibit "C" - February 18, 1988 and May 5, 1988 Memorandums Exhibit "D" - City Council Minutes, December 3, 1980 Exhibit "E" - Historic Preservation Commission Minutes, September 1, 1988 Exhibit "F" - Point of Interest Resolution • • A-8 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAa ti STAFF REPORT � r, • , OF 44 MPOirkF DATE: September 1, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS TREES BETWEEN BASE LINE ROAD AND LA RONDA. I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the City Council that the Hellman Avenue Trees be designated a point of historic interest. II. BACKGROUND - CURRENT: The Hellman Avenue trees have come to our attention because of inquiries from the Engineering Division about the possibility of future street widening, and also in connection • with the General Plan update in which the status of the street is being reevaluated. Underground storm drains will be installed in the next year removing the function of the street as a. flood control channel. In February, 1988, the Historic Preservation Commission expressed the opinion that the high curbs are not historical , as is the curbing along Etiwanda Avenue. The trees on this street are not on the survey list. III. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: A. Location: The trees under consideration are the Eucalyptus globulus (Blue Gum) that stand on the west side of Hellman Avenue. The row starts approximately 250 feet north of Base Line Road at the northerly edge of the parking lot of the church at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue, and ends where La Grande forms a "T" intersection at Hellman Avenue, about 125 feet south of La Ronda. North of the windrow a section of the street has been widened to the standard width with a standard curb. A section to the north of the widened area and south of 19th Street has a rural look with abundant vegetation and a variety of trees, including • Eucalyptus. A_9 r) HISTORIC PRESERVAT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS TREES September 1 , 1988 Page 2 • B. Site Land Uses, Zoning, and General Plan Designations: The trees are in the right-of-way adjacent to single family lots, in an area zoned and designated on the General Plan for Low Density Residential use (2-4 units per acre) . Most of the houses adjacent to the trees appear to have been built after World War II. C. Surrounding Land Uses, Zoning, and General Plan Designations: the trees are surrounded by single family houses, and Low Density Residential zoning and General Plan designations, except at the southerly portion where Hellman Avenue joins Base Line Road. Hellman Avenue curves just south of where the row of trees begins; on this portion of Hellman Avenue is a church, which faces Base Line Road, and its large parking lot, which stretches along Hellman Avenue. At the corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue on the east side of the street, the land is designated, zoned and used for offices. Also on the east side, south of La Mesa and just north of the offices are some multiple family residences. D. Description: The 42 large and generally healthy trees form a line along the west side of Hellman Avenue and tower above • it. They add a sense of place to the street. They are only 6 feet from the high curbs that characterize Hellman Avenue, which for many years has served as a storm water channel . The narrowness and very high curbs make the street substandard. The roadbed is too narrow and well-traveled by motor vehicles for children to safely to walk on. IV. ANALYSIS: A. General : The General Plan refers to Hellman Avenue as a "Special Design Street." On page 56 of the 1984 General Plan, in the Circulation Element, under the heading "Special Design Streets" is the following: "Hellman Avenue: The segment of Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and 19th Street has been designated for special historic significance and should be studied to establish street requirements consistent with its historic character." On December 3, 1980, the City Council voted to retain the curbs and trees on Hellman Avenue. At that time an approved tree removal permit for 6730 Hellman Avenue was appealed to the Council . The minutes read as follows : • A-10 HISTORIC PRESERVAT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS TREES September 1, 1988 Page 3 • "Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to retain the curbs and trees on Hellman Avenue and to sustain the appeal . This is to be a precedent for the rest of Hellman Avenue. Also to have a lien attached to this particular piece of property in order to protect the future interest of the property and the City. Motion carried unanimously 5-0." When the General Plan was adopted in April , 1981, the special designation for the street was included. However, as far as staff is able to determine, no designs were ever executed and in the meantime as traffic has increased, the problem of retaining the high curbs has become more apparent. Street Widening: The curbs have been determined not to have historical significance; however, the significance of the trees remains to be determined. If the Commission decides that the trees have no special significance, they would ordinarily be removed when the street is widened from its current width of 24 feet to a standard curb to curb width of 44 feet. At this time, the only trees being discussed are the Eucalyptus south • of La Ronda where La Grande T's into Hellman Avenue because they were identified as a significant windrow on a map accompanying a 1980 tree preservation report, they are fairly healthy, and they help to keep the street's character that an earlier Council wanted to retain. As a way to improve the street while keeping some of the character of the portion between Base Line Road and La Ronda, staff has suggested a modified street section which is attached to this report, along with a memo to the City Engineer which explains the reasoning behind the proposed modification. The concept is to retain the trees, lower the curbs to standard height, eliminate the parking lane on the west side of the street, widen the driving lanes from 12 feet to 14 feet, and add a parking lane on the east side of the street. The parkway on the west side remains the same, 21 feet; the parkway on the east side would be 9 feet wide. B. Historical Significance: According to Commission Member Eugene Billings, the trees are younger than those in many of the windrows which were planted in the last century, but certainly they are well over 50 years old. They were planted alongside orange groves; many of the yards of the lots along Hellman Avenue still have orange trees growing in them that are remnant of the groves. However, staff has not found any records • telling exactly when and by whom the trees were planted. All HISTORIC PRESERVAT. COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS TREES September 1, 1988 Page 4 • It is important to note that these trees have been a familiar feature of one of the oldest streets in Alta Loma for at least 50 years and probably more, that the trees performed the function of protecting the groves from the tremendous winds that blow through this region as well as provided shade, and offered a visual change from citrus groves, vineyards, and brush. C. Tree Preservation Report: According to a report on preservation of Eucalyptus trees in Rancho Cucamonga, ( "Tree Preservation: An Overview" City of Rancho Cucamonga, July, 1980) local farmers first planted Cypress for wind protection after a disastrous windstorm in 1888. After a few years, they began planting an Australian tree, Eucalyptus Globulus known as Blue Gum, because they were fast growing, have long life spans, and were inexpensive to plant. Disadvantages are that they are messy, constantly dropping bark, leaves, branches, and seeds, and they require deep watering and much maintenance to keep them attractive, free of disease, and less susceptible to fire and limb breakage. The report states that other kinds of Eucalyptus are more appropriate for residential areas and that Blue Gum have often not survived when there are adjacent • environmental changes such as new development or new paving that cuts off the water supply and covers their roots. The report also emphasizes that the trees have become a cultural and aesthetic resource, and that the majority of problems comes from unmaintained trees. The report says, "One has to analyze the value of the trees versus the potential hazards and nuisances they create" (page 8) . The report concludes with a recommendation to preserve selectively the healthiest trees and most aesthetically pleasing trees located in appropriate places, and to replace others such that some wind control is maintained. The goal is that streets in the future will be attractively lined and shaded with the maturing trees and that some windrows will be maintained. The result of the report was a revised tree ordinance. The current ordinance states the following in Section 19.08.010 A. , and C. : A: "Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and counteract air pollution" • A-12 HISTORIC PRESERVAT I COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS TREES September 1, 1988 Page 5 • C. "In particular, the Eucalyptus windrows are a unique inheritance whose cumulative value as a windbreak system is a desirable resource. It is the intent of this chapter to perpetuate a windbreak system through protection of selected Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrows and expansion of the system. . ." D. Environmental Assessment: Designation of landmarks and points of interest are exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Section 15308) . V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Staff has not found information from A History of Alta Loma, from City files, or from personal interviews that these trees have specific historical associations. However, the following findings support designation of the windrow as a point of historic interest. A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. The proposed point of historic interest is particularly representative of an historical period and way of life. 2. The proposed point of historic interest is connected with a • business and use which was once common but is now rare. B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. The overall effect of the design of the proposed point of interest is beautiful . C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: 1. The proposed point of historic interest materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed point of historic interest represents an established and familiar visual feature of the cummunity. • A13 HISTORIC PRESERVAT 1 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HELLMAN AVENUE EUCALYPTUS TREES _ September 1, 1988 Page 6 • VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Daily Report newspaper and owners along Hellman Avenue have received public hearing notices. Respectfully submitted, Larry Henderson, AICP Senior Planner LH:AR:mlg Attachments: Memo to City Engineer with Street Sections Plan View of Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and La Ronda Site Photographs Point of Interest Application Resolutions • • A14 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cx3cnnMoN MEMORANDUM 9r%f r_ MD AO z DATE: August 17, 1988 1977 TO: Russ Maguire, City Engineer FROM: OP Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HELLMAN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS As you know, the General Plan designates the segment of Hellman between Base Line Road and 19th Street as a "Special Design" Street and says that it should be studied to establish street requirements consistent with its historic character. We received a memo from Walt Stickney asking about the historical status of Hellman Avenue and informing us that with the future construction of storm drains, the high curbs will no longer be needed and that Hellman Avenue will eventually be widened to 44 feet curb-to-curb, with standard curb height. In February, the Historic Preservation Commission advised that the high • curbs do not have any special historical significance; the significance of the Eucalyptus trees will be discussed at the Commission 's September 1 meeting. According to Jeff Barnes, the trees are in good condition with the exception of a few in front of one property that was vacant for a year or more. A previous City Council is on record as wanting to preserve the trees. The trees we are talking about are located on the west side of Hellman Avenue and just above Base Line Road up to La Ronda Street. To comply with the "Special Design" designation, we are requesting consideration of the attached street design concept. After receiving your input we will present it to the Historic Preservation Commission for their comments and recommendation. As you can see from the attached concept plan, the parking lane would be eliminated on the west side of the street. The dangerous high curb would be replaced by a standard curb which would result in a sloped area between the trees and the curb, a distance of about 6 feet. The southbound lane would be 14 feet wide. The east side of the street would have a 14 foot northbound lane, an 8 foot parking lane, and a standard curb. The parkway on the east side would be 9 feet wide; on the west side it remains the same, 21 feet. This special street section would transition back to standard requirement at La Ronda Street. • A.15 Hellman Avenue Str Improvements Page 2 • Please let us know your response in the next day or two so that we can include your recommendation in the staff report to the Commission. AB:mlg cc: Walt Stickney, Associate Civil Engineer Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer • • A-16 % 0 & e ,, • I ���� �xisnry&, sT1��" 5�c.�rory 4 ,i 0 . ' 4 W E 15 I 6 I a- 4 12- 2' /06- ROW • `I, I 0 ttib 5T5E -llo11 • 14%ItiC5111111 I` z' wi ' --- - E 15 111 L ei I, 14' 1 14 1 e: I q' 66- ROW. F—-- "AN Avg 13:A*4-111r- • A-17 • LA VINE ST. LA RONDA ST. APPROX. 125' LA RANDE ST. TOTAL OF 43 EUCALYPTUS LOMITA DR. TREES EXIST IN THIS AREA x APPROX. 6' FROM FLOODW L' I I • LA MESA DR. CITY HALL APPROX. 225' • BASELINE ROAD NORTH CITY OF imam: 4.1-11104-1 AVE . !n!t IrRO 'RANCHO CUCA.'VIO Tom: PLANNING EXHIBIT: SCALE A-18 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ouCAMO _ MEMORANDUM ��° ; ";n C ori�i C OMs DATE: November 3, 1988 `e Z J is 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: /die—Henderson, Senior Planner BY: Arlene Banks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS INTRODUCTION: The following information is to bring you up to date on events. of They need not bees individually discussed,but ustaff upcoming happy to answer any questions. I. PACKING HOUSE: The large holes in the roof of the Alta Loma Heights run Association Packing House owned by American National Can will be repaired. The 1914 wood building along the track will be made weather-tight, primarily for safety reasons and so that the building can be used for storage. This, of course, will have the effect of preserving it for possible adaptive reuse in the future, although the company hs no plans to change it location at this time. Staff will send a copy of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation to American National Can so they will be aware of how to repair the building properly. Staff has already sent material on the Mills Act to American National Can attorney, Cristina Sierra. Ms. Sierra did not expect that American National Can would be interested but said she would review the material . Because the building was purchased property t xewouldpnotobetasngr was it it would if it had been purchased recently. Or. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: On October 19, 1988, the City Council voted 4-1— o es gna a he Hellman Avenue Windrow as a Point of Historic Interest. The Council accepted the status report that indicated the Historic Preservation Commission 's reconsideration of its recommendation to designate the Thomas House. The Council also III voted to remove the house from the list after the owner documents it with photographs and a plan view of the house. Mr. Combs, the current owner of the Thomas House, felt that he was in a difficult position because if he sells the property, he is EXHIBIT ,D A19 CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE HPC Updates and Announcements November 3, 1988 Page 2 _ • required by law to disclose to a future owner that the house is on the list and could be reconsidered for landmark designation. Theoretically, if it were to be designated as a landmark, the owner could be prevented from demolishing it to make way for a new building on the site. The Commission had recommended to keep the house on the list in case this project fell through and a new owner was interested in designation. In the future, the Commission may want to recommend that in these circumstances, a property would be put in a special category on the list where it would not be reconsidered unless the owner requests it. The Council also voted not to require the owner of the site to do a reconnaisance survey for archeological resources. Staff explained the new owner consent policy in the course of giving the staff report on the Thomas House. The Council made no comment regarding the policy, but concentrated on other issues such as what the implications of designation are, and whether the owner should have to document the building. •III. MINOR HOUSE: It is staff's understanding that the Minor House parcel map is scheduled to go before the Council on December 21, 1988. Escrow cannot close on the Minor House until there is final approval on the parcel map. IV. SCHOWALTER ROCK PILE: A subdivision development on the south side of Highland next to the Rock Pile will incorporate a commemorative plaque into a rock-faced portion of its north wall where it will be able to be seen from the adjacent equestrian trail . V. PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: The Small Town Preservation Conference that was to take place in La Jolla in November has been cancelled. VI. OLD ALTA LOMA: In January, staff will be bringing a map of u ngs n d Alta Loma so that you can comment upon the significance of the various structures and their adaptability to various uses. This will be a first step in evaluating the feasibility of revitalization of Old Alta Loma. The Planning Commission will then take up the matter and lay the groundwork town" character center area, establish a wspeciala streetscape design for the commercial area along Amethyst, and establish • standards for pedestrian oriented commercial developments. Ao - Z • STAFF REPORT � S PLANNING DEPARTMENT v RANCHO Date: December 8, 2010 CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner • Subject: AN UPDATE TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REQUESTED BY MANNING HOMES, ON THE GEORGE AND JESSIE JOHNSTON HOME, A DESIGNATED POINT OF INTEREST, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6998 ETIWANDA AVENUE - APN: 1089-081-20. • BACKGROUND: In 2007, Manning Homes submitted a Preliminary Application for a 15-lot subdivision on the southwest corner of Victoria Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. The George and Jessie Johnston home, a designated point of interest, sits on the 9-acre parcel proposed for subdivision. Staff requested feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding its historic significance on July 25, 2007 (Exhibit A). The Commission supported an alternative to landmark the Pearson home (not a part of the subdivision); to demolish the Johnston home; to • move and preserve the "office building" to a site to be determined (with family furniture and memorabilia); and to place a number of plaques at both locations as part of an agreement with the developer. After the HPC meeting, staff met with Manning Homes in search of alternatives to save the Johnston house. On August 9, 2007, a letter was sent to Manning Homes summarizing the discussion of that meeting (Exhibit B). Staff received a letter dated September 12, 2007, from Manning Homes to the City indicating the developer's concurrence in working with staff(Exhibit C). On September 12, 2007, staff took an update to the Commission regarding the developer's agreement in working with staff for alternatives to save the Johnston house. The staff report and minutes from that meeting are attached (Exhibit D). At that meeting, a Commissioner requested that a landmark status be reconsidered for the Johnston house on a future agenda. Staff forwarded a memo to the Commission on November 8, 2007, regarding the feasibility of landmarking the structure after it is moved to avoid delays in the moving process. The memo is attached (Exhibit E). Since this memo update, the project has been on hold. UPDATE: Manning Homes is ready to purchase the property again and submit their application for the subdivision. They met with staff and submitted a property inspection report of the vacant, vandalized property (Exhibit G). They are now requesting that the Commission reconsider and permit the structure to be demolished due to its current condition (Exhibit F). • ITEM B • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JOHNSTON HOME December 8, 2010 Page 2 • ANALYSIS: Staff is still intending to work with the developer to save the Johnston house. According to the research that was done in 2007, this structure is a very important historical resource to Etiwanda. Staff met with the Etiwanda Historical Society on November 9, 2010, to discuss the project and possible relocation of the Johnston house to the Isle house site. They were not favorable to it being moved to the Isle house site, and felt that it should be retained in place. Additionally, the Society did not support demolition of the structure. The Property Inspection report shows the damage that has occurred to the interior and exterior of the structure because of the vandalism and deterioration. However, it is not an analysis of the structure's stability or historic integrity. A structural report may be needed to determine if the structure can be moved. Should the Commission feel that landmarking the structure is necessary at this point; the Commission has the authority to initiate the application. Landmarking the structure now would require a Landmark Alteration Permit if the structure is moved or altered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission review the information and consider if initiating a landmark application is appropriate. Respectfully submitted, g_ dwe4/ • Jam R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:MN\ds Attachments: Exhibit A - July 25, 2007 HPC staff report and minutes Exhibit B - Letter dated August 9, 2007 from City to Manning Homes Exhibit C - Letter dated September 12, 2007 from Manning Homes to City Exhibit D - September 12, 2007 HPC staff report and minutes Exhibit E - Memo dated November 8, 2007 from staff to the HPC Exhibit F - Letter dated November 9, 2010 from Manning Homes to City Exhibit G - Property Inspection Report submitted by Manning Homes • • • • B-2 • T H E C I T Y O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report . DATE: July 25, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE DRC2007-00458 and DRC2007-00473 — MANNING HOMES — A review of historic and cultural significance and a request for feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission for the George and Jessica Johnston Home, a Designated Point of Interest, in the Very Low Residential District, located at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1089-081-20, and the Pearson Family Home, a Potential Local Landmark, in the Very Low Residential District located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1089-081-18. • BACKGROUND: A. Abstract: The applicant, Manning Homes, is in the process of purchasing the property located at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue for a future submittal of a Subdivision and Development Review application. A Preliminary Review application has been submitted for staff review. The proposed plan consists of developing the site with 15 single-family lots and may involve the demolition of an existing structure, known as the George and Jessica Johnston Home. The structure located on the site was designated as a Historic Point of Interest by the City Council on January 7, 1981, per Ordinance No. 129. The applicant approached staff regarding a request for demolition of the structure. B. Site Characteristics: Lot 1 (Johnston Home - 6998 Etiwanda Avenue): The Johnston Home site is a rectangular shaped parcel (approximately 1.06 acre) located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, approximately 250 feet south of Victoria Street. This parcel, along with the larger surrounding parcel of approximately 8.44 acres, is proposed for development of a 15-lot subdivision. Both lots are zoned Very Low. Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and are surrounded by mostly single-family residential development and vacant land to the north, south, and west and Etiwanda Intermediate School to the east. The larger parcel is planted with approximately 8 acres of grape vines. Lot 2 (Pearson Home - 6956 Etiwanda Avenue): The Pearson Home site is a rectangular shaped parcel (approximately 0.38 acre), located approximately 50 feet north of Lot 1. The lot is zoned • Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). This lot is not intended to be developed with the proposed subdivision and the home will be retained. EXHIBIT - A B-3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00458 — MANNING HOMES July 25, 2007 Page 2 • ANALYSIS: A. General: - Lot 1 : The Johnston Home was originally constructed in 1888 as a duplex and was approximately 1,200 square feet in size. Later, several additions were built to the rear and side of the dwelling unit, thereby, increasing the current square footage to approximately 1,542 square feet. The attached site drawings (Exhibits C1-C3) shows that the dwelling itself was first built in 1888-1889 as a duplex and around 1896, the house was converted into a single-family residence. Much later, (around 1980) the structure was remodeled with the addition of a service porch on the northwest elevation of the structure, removal of the southerly porch, and relocation of the kitchen. According the one of the family members, Jaimie LaPointe, the additions were built by her brother in the 1980's. The house appears to be designed in the Victorian style with elements from the Romantic era. The home is of wood frame construction that displays a combined hipped-and-gabled composite shingle roof with open rake framing. A bay window is on the front elevation, along with double hung windows with rectangular sash details along the rest of the house. According to Craig Kozma of Manning Homes, the "foundation of the house is comprised of a combination of wood framing, steel poles, and some masonry which all appear to be in a state of decomposition." During a site visit and a brief meeting with the family on June 13, 2007, Jaimie LaPointe informed staff that the home is in a deteriorating state and has been hard to manage. She is aware that the home is designated as a Historic Point of Interest but would like to proceed with the demolition of • the house because of its current state. The family also owns the home located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue, which is listed as a "Potential Local Landmark" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Site list. Ms. LaPointe expressed that the home located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue (Pearson home) is in great condition and that she would like to keep the house as part of the proposed plan with Manning Homes. Ms. LaPointe is part of an historic family in Etiwanda. Her mother was Phyllis J. Pearson who married James Clark. Phyllis was daughter to Athelia K. Johnston and William Pearson. Athelia was daughter to George F. Johnston and Jessie Spencer. The Johnston/Pearson/Clark family has been living in the Etiwanda area since George F. Johnston came to settle in 1888. George F. Johnston was well-known throughout the States for packing and shipping table grapes to the East, South, Midwest, and Canada. He owned many acres in the West End and his crops were prepared at the old packing house in Etiwanda. The original site of this packinghouse is where the Isle House currently sits, located at 7086 Etiwanda Avenue. He was very prominent and active in the community as indicated below: • Started the Literary Society at the school, and was a referee for all the games. • Held a seat on the school board. Most meetings were held at the Johnston house. • • Was a member of the Masonic and Shriners clubs. • B-4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CuMMISSION STAFF REPORT • DRC2007-00458 — MANNING HOMES July 25, 2007 • Page 3 • Was a member of the Board of Directors for the Home Telephone Company, the Water Company, the Cypress Hall Association, and the Etiwanda Fruit Company. • Was the owner of the old packing house in Etiwanda. • Called upon by the University of California Agriculture Department for advice on processing grapes. Based on the information that has been collected, staff has concluded that the Johnston house not only fits the Point of Interest designation criteria but also the Landmark designation criteria as stated in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Exhibit D). First, it characterizes distinctive qualities and perpetuates historic, architectural, or engineering significance based on the age and architectural style; second, is associated with persons significant in local, state, regional, or national history; and third, contributes to the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of the City through the grape industry and Etiwanda history. Lot 2: The subject structure, located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue, also known as the Pearson Family Home, was built in approximately 1920 and is a 1,563 square foot pre-fab Sears house which retains most of its original material. The structure is composed of wood framing with front porch and many out buildings constructed at a later date. According to an old file from the County of San Bernardino Assessor's, George F. Johnston owned this property from 1920 to 1934. After 1934, his daughter Athelia K. Pearson, along with her husband William C. Pearson, became the legal owners. A succession of Pearsons took ownership of the property thereafter, followed by the • Clarks in 1991. According to the Etiwanda City Directory of 1934, William C. and Athelia K. Pearson were active in the Etiwanda Service Club. William G. Pearson was a rancher and John "Doc" Pearson owned the Pearson Filling Station and Garage which once stood on Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. This structure was demolished after much debate and was rescinded as a Local Landmark and made a Point of Interest. The Johnston-Pearson family is deeply associated with the cultural fabric of Etiwanda history. The Pearson Home is in good condition and also encompasses characteristics to be eligible for Landmark Designation as defined in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. At this point, staff would like to request feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission for determination on the level of significance of the Johnston and Pearson houses. If the Commission recommends that preservation of the Johnston Home is appropriate, staff has provided possible suggestions for consideration. 1. Alternative 1: Leave the structure on-site and incorporate it as part of the tract map on a 1/2-acre lot (100 feet by 200 feet). 2. Alternative 2: Offer the house in the newspaper to any interested party as a house move; provided buyer covers costs associated for the move, finding a site, and rehabilitation. 3. Alternative 3: Move the house to the Isle House location at 7086 Etiwanda Avenue, just a few hundred feet south of the project site, as a possible caretaker's unit (Exhibit E) or to the site of • the Etiwanda Pacific Electric Railway Depot located at 7089 Etiwanda Avenue. Manning Homes could be required to move the house and provide the foundation as part of the proposal. B-5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00458 — MANNING HOMES July 25, 2007 Page 4 •• 4. Alternative 4 (suggested by property owner): Landmark the structure located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue (Pearson home) as part of an agreement to permit them to demolish the structures located at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue (including the Johnston Home and any . additions). 5. Alternative 5 (suggested by property owner): Donate the "Office Building," which is approximately 300 square feet, where the family claims most of George's work was operated. The "Office Building" is located on the south elevation of the Johnston Home. • The family (Jaimie, Jennifer, and Tracy) met with staff on July 2, 2007, and expressed their thoughts on staff alternatives (Exhibit F). The family does not wish to have the structure remain on site for.economic reasons and has suggested alternate Solutions such as preserving and relocating the "Office Building" only, which is identified on an early plot plan (Exhibit G). If the case of economic hardship is to be claimed, the family will need to provide proof as necessary. B. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Issues: If the Johnston Home is to be relocated or demolished, Planning Department staff has determined that the project will not be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. Demolition, removal, and/or relocation of the subject structure may have a significant effect on the environment, and upon completion of an Initial Study, may be subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission determine the level • of historic significance of both structures located on Etiwanda Avenue. Furthermore, to request feedback on the alternatives listed above, regarding the structure located on 6998 Etiwanda Avenue, identified as the George and Jessica Johnston Home. • Respectfully submitted, Ja es R. Troyer, AICP • Planning Director JRT:MN\ma Attachments: Exhibit A - Department of Parks and Recreation Form with photographs, Sketch Map, and Site Location Map of the Johnston Home Exhibit B1 - Photos of the Pearson Family Home (6956 Etiwanda Avenue) Exhibit B2 - Early photos of W.C. Pearson and the Pearson Home Exhibit C1 - Johnston House Original Plan of the Duplex (1889-1890) Exhibit C2 - Converted Plan (Single-Unit Converted around 1896) Exhibit C3 - Present Plan (Single-Unit Converted around 1980) Exhibit D - Landmark Designation Review Criteria Exhibit E - Section of the Isle House Caretaker's Unit approved plan Exhibit F - Family Thoughts on Staff Recommendations submitted by Jennifer Dorgan on July 2, 2007 • Exhibit G - Geo. F. Johnston Co. Plot Plan • • B-6 State of California-The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial • NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 5 *Resource Name or#(Assigned by recorder) 6998 Etiwanda Avenue,APN#: 108-908-120 P1. Other Identifier: George and Jessie Johnston Home *P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication ® Unrestricted *a. County San Bernardino and (P2c, Pte, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5'Quad Date T_ ; R_ ;_ 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec_; B.M. c. Address 6998 Etiwanda Avenue City Rancho Cucamonga Zip 91739 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g.,parcel#,directions to resource,elevation,etc.,as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, conditions, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This asymmetrical 1888 one-story residence was originally constructed by George F. Johnston as a duplex. The home was remodeled into a single-family residence in approximately 1896. The wood frame structure currently displays a combined hipped-and-gabled roof with open rake framing. A bay window has been placed on the front gabled portion of the structure along with double hung windows with rectangular sash details along the rest of the house. The front porch is oriented to the north; it sits directly above the three step staircase entryway supported by plain style porch supports. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2:Single Family Property *P4. Resource Present: ❑ Building ® Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site ❑ District ❑Element of District ['Other(Isolates, etc.) • P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,accession#) Front/Side view. f ,Te:• '�► , '�"� May 2006 1t *P6. Date Constructed/Age and � 41 _ w�.t • Source: ® Historic ❑ Prehistoric ��• IMF r:bi'f •�✓J '"�„ r a ' +^ Ktat�- .•1. e� ❑ Both ktiyf.0 ,L^x`a.e k F ,, yt ao �^ isrit �a ufast:: �( r ;;. 7 Sit. s g,Molit'gr 1988)/ 119 years old / Hickcox ;v ;bfi J} .,;;;..1462.:::'"'� i, a " t ", +fit rr P7. Owner and Address:•) �l�j� � ' Pearson Family Trust, �,I+ ` 1r 2i; s' l :, 6998 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga CA. 91739 *P8. Recorded by•%; �� ` i ,( t r s ,' .„ ( !.; (Name,affiliation,and address) Angela Landaverde, City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Aide Y ti n t� - -- *P9. Date Recorded: May 2006 /Revised June 14, 2007 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive Survey *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"none".) Designated as a Historic Point of Interest in 1981. DPR recorded in Mav 2006. Resurveyed in June 14, 2007. *Attachments: ['NONE Location Map ZContinuation Sheet Building Structure, and Object Record • ['Archaeological Record ['District Record ['Linear Feature Record ['Milling Station Record [Rock Art Record ❑Artifact Record ZPhotograph Record ❑Other(List): EXHIBIT A , _ Fico c u 4c. { 05 -,1) *Required information B-7 State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD *NRHP Status Code • Page 2 of 5 *Resource Name or#(Assigned by recorder):6998 Etiwanda Avenue, APN#: 108-908-120 _ 131. Historic Name: George and Jessie Johnston home B2. Common Name: Old Home B3. Original Use: Multi-family residence(duplex) B4. Present Use: Single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: RomanticNictorian, Vernacular(after converted into single-unit,features from an array of styles were added). *86. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) , - Originally constructed in 1888 - 1896, converted into single unit - Additions were added approximately in 1980 • ' *B7. Moved? CI No ❑Yes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: sheds,farm property B9a. Architect: Charles H. Jones b.Builder: Unknown *810. Significance:Victorian era home Theme: Residential Architecture Area: Etiwanda Colony Lands . Period of Significance: 1870-1910 Property Type: Single Family Property Applicable Criteria: N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) George F.Johnston was one of the pioneer families in Etiwanda. He was instrumental in promoting the table grape crops in Southern California and owned a local raisin packing house and stemmer. He was also involved in local government. . (see continuation page) B11. Additional Resource Attributes:(List attributes and codes)HP2: Single family property • *B12. References: -Documents on file in City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. -Hickcox, Robert.L.A History of Etiwanda.1981 -White, Beverly,et al. Etiwanda-The First 100 Years. RC Land Company, California, 1982. -White, Beverly J. Etiwanda Young and Old. Compiled and edited ' by Mrs. White's 1977-1978 Sixth Grade Class at Etiwanda (Sketch Map with north arrow required) Intermediate School. 1978. -San Bernardino County, Office of the Assessors N B13. Remarks: i ` *B14. Evaluator: ;1. E Recorded by Angela Landaverde-Planning Aide `i) Revised byMayukoNakajima-AssistantPlanner _ -11"City of Rancho Cucamonga I 10500 Civic Center Drive : ' -- Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7 *Date of Evaluation: May 2006/revised June 14, 2007 0 /a n`, (This space reserved for official comments.) I I .,‘;/. 63 ? ■ \ ‘;` : I I I Tt o r • • DPR 523B(1/95) B-8 *Required information State California of Californi —The Resources Ac :y Primary# • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECRE...aON HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial • age 3 of 5 *Resource Name or#:(Assigned by recorder) 6998 Etiwanda Avenue,APN#: 108-908-120 ecorded by: Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner,City of R.C. •Date: 6/11/06 Continuation ®Update George F. Johnston was born in Canada on December 23, 1864 and came to Etiwanda in 1888. He purchased land and had double houses built for him and returned to Cincinnati. He returned in about 1889 or 1890 and the family moved in. Geo's Family • Bride: Jessie Spencer • Bride's mother. Sarah Spencer • Bride's sister. Susie • Geo's father. Father William • Geo's sisters: Tillie & Florence (who married Carl Brownless) The House: • The original plan was a duplex with a total of 3 bedrooms, 2 living rooms, 2 kitchens, and a porch. • Around 1896, the house was converted into a single-family residence with a more complex plan which included 3 bedrooms, a living room, a sitting-dining room, 2 porches, a kitchen, bath, and a cooler room. • Another conversion in 1980(?) represents the present plan which has 3 bedrooms, living room, a dining room, closets for the bedrooms, 2 baths, a study area, kitchen, a porch, a service porch and a cooler room. How they lived: • Geo and Jessie took the north side of the house when the house was constructed as a duplex. •• Father William, Tillie, and Florence took the south side. • Sarah and Susie Spencer rented the old Garcia house and later the Isle House. His Accomplishments: George F. Johnston was well-known throughout the States for packing and shipping table grapes to the East, South, Midwest and Canada. He owned many acres in the West End. He made raisins out of table grapes and had them dried on wooden trays to be prepared at the Old Packinghouse. He also"introduced the field pack, where the white natural bloom of the grapes is preserved." With this technique, the amount of handling was reduced and by leaving this natural bloom intact, it served as a preservative for shipment for longer and fresher produce delivered to the eastern and southern markets. He had mastered the processing of girdling Thompson Seedless grapes so that it retained its sweetness. They were such a hit that they earned the name"Johnston Seedless"when they were shipped to New York (White). He had planted a row of cypress trees along the ranch as well as four huge umbrella trees, a rose garden and fruit trees all in front of the house. • Started the Literary Society at the school, and was a referee for all the games. • On the school board and most meetings were held at the house • Member of the Masonic Club and Shriners • Board of Directors for the Home Telephone Company, the Water Company, the Cypress Hall Association, and the Etiwanda Fruit Company • Owner of Packing House • Called upon by the University of California Agriculture Department for advise on processing grapes • DPR 523L(1/95) B-9 * Required information , urc The Reso State of Califor '—Primary# � ` ^„HR1# .R5/�. )y N Trinomial AmDRGC mayu 0~ oNTKNUATIO *Resource Name mrn.u.i�� �P|anno'.Ciof 5 ��Page * kuwaima� ���^� °�oawu�e) �� ��odu���.APN� *Recorded El 0/1107 10 ;'::!81 ; Ooon�nva�on t Figure1� Fron(yandlandscaping Figure2� Driveway (South e|evnton\ • • il gra rt / kkes Flguro3� Fron� Facadoofhuuse Figuoe4�"[f�naBui|ding" unyuuthe|ovaton It Figura5� /\rn�ySurp|unburninbuokofdhvevvay Figuon �� Vaoan� |and \u\hovvos�ofdhepnupeAy - DPR523L(1/g5) B4O ^R�quirpdinfvnno�on State of California 0 The Resources Agency Pnmary# ' DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION. HRI# - _ LOCATION MAP Trinomial • Page 5 of 5 Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder): 6998 Etiwanda Avenue, APN#: 108 908-120 *Map Name: S.B. County Assessors Map `Scale: 1"-100' *Date of map: August 2004 . r Pin. Etiwanda Colony Lands, M.B. 2/24 cur of Rancho Cucamonga 1059- 0B la Role Area 15022 I 51 " 4 - b1 a g,) - 1 —41.144-11-_ __-511441 nl1r �. .. 1 n. y VIII ...a 2 1, E m O I O ' it O O Y I T 'e e: —--. --Om(-----onl-_`--1 - e l°�SS " I- '1 IC 0. e I „\l. - ® - • ® © o j LOT 2 1 _ I I II ® —--—.--lrsiIF'—--—croon=-- a LOT 1 "> “ - x • n T ion 1. ,. B1 Cl 11 Axx,,sor'o kw ' Book 1089 Pogo 05 ..a.n acor Pln. It gal No. 15915. N,B. 275/47-50 San Bernardino Counl7 • • DPR 523J (1/95) B-11 "Required information r":13•Fai-- -----r•":". -"--:----rxiv.gr..,.-ft.'.1:a.T.iiiki..3,16,4:0 e1-70.41::BiLti_stril5F-42,,-;--; 1,...t4'1.,4,-;--Til.V!ii,cio-f•ri'iSIT.6:'91.4.,..:va.x.ctri:,?„,_1/4„,is r-1/4tw4,•::,E;a•F.:16--47.4 :S-='frfli-A 71.511$ $••4.-tlY4.-Z-Ast'-',.••••",*?•"gs.,' strrle.:c7nksikkrg;,,in,Pk•E'.-.7':„Z ..4.4.0estrti.7.%.;• !,..,.-e.t-• r'ZL'''.;.;;;;• ;AWIS:_. .S.-;•:•:;:•-•,.; -' "s,'.:•&•%•Hisk -a:C4.t.• -''''••••4•V1/2*.c.. •"•'.°,-FMW•trs's-gansAr':•-1•.- •-7•?.',•'?:,.6., Nout,s‘•51,,t4,7E :::::TGL,-,•;1*.;y:E 40,:k24,..4.‘, 4.'r•-•;•.".:-:., . -..,. l',4..vii: itve, l 44,-.Britr;,,:it .,.,:rtz, 7-,,-13 ;•-..-t..., ,,,•A,:. v.,:44r,AS"-,g•t..t- "rei..:.,:m41,,,q4iWiric,4 '''..--:-.::::,i;•34:•,.V.4C1,-,1-2'•,' . -- • •: .--",'',.::agicii,;;IttS'aZg tr.-:-.---'''''-±1-. •"' i !,'"-' (4-114 ',..rig,1E.0 Sit '1fr..;4':ffaktirLiii'l L'•-•;.•:-‘6 36661T .r.;r ' r.j1 6:4,..e.rarIN::',fita7A5:4 ;461 ,.i. :.‘ f .' . r 6' .: $6.1 '1,r 6Fhrec 1/46V 01'Yk“:6.6.±.t:01‘,41Pktr:inl rr 7.:....1t :rrri rt_ ,r 6 1 Or'a 1...;,:fiez-4,,,:n::-.,,w-. p2.09,2::;51-al.' •;rf•i-:';-''-f.:-• 'V---.": ••:,,t'::::? :'t:I.,rttitAxt;&,OPrt4:t3;,firl. . r.:‘",-::••••:.-:.:/••••? d- -:' t; -ta.• •e.-7%,-ig-nist;v14,93,, q:•,,:nly.it.pArp....r.., ) • ;-';':••••;.,:f'6'7-'••,c'E-6.:A.....,6.L's?1:05-5i:: v: 5•1;$141447$,: ;.•,?.;:r.qi: :','..--:•-•‘'-•- - '..•.;f„ -..F=4-'4 i:0;Str.Tr'41,tr t.'r,'1;!: frL"'-:" ■-•T . ..t. ;.6.664:1a6 6C:., VjP,1‘1.::4.,6, ""4:12.41;a::: Nktit,„ ,........._,;_,..„.„.„,..... . , ,,„,„..!..,[4.: s ..2:,...i.. p1-6:••=lifir4.tit gz,-1;:-..".1 ',..:-.'s!s•-,;,,,,t,,?,•,,.7.,:2. :- ,,,,,, ,.., ,: ilt:fr-tt&a:;•;1,i,•; ..•CM11:-'1.- 74-s±: --,` .Anna^t6A:3,05 :,-.-f.:r--- ...../1,V:kt-: 1.tz h;zi::,-,/,'le, .•-,..: . 40-4,s9,--T,01-,,_ :1.t.:',..s--",i:PS•,if.J.41 thit4,a....4K7sa,_-., „,,,-':5;51pig'.-#54;csa.- ,--3 . -Ef. • K,,:saval •,„ . tat,' s.. t-t-.....,,,,- ,..c.,,,,,IL tarr'.. '1,4fn •-•*--.'''•-14- ••-' ',"4,-.3=7-sz•-•..Jsz=nagsifilLTIV=r•ze.:7=1.4.: . ••••", '14'4-br,...i..v.j..&r:412.,,,---,,=.-T.T-,•Itt--!7-5.1r-awr-:44ba:rals,'W•I r..,-&-.1'.•:;:t1 '.,q1citgpWA. Ali....,, ...;,!VQ11.:it,i):::4.-,...,::;•.:•:g:t."5:.;..:;$-:.7. ----,-.---; -_,-iir....-.ter,,,..,..z.,:-.)zat...14.-•,......lit-s.,„$. 4%arcinhc,..iN..,44 tc,,,F.e...20.:.,-",,,,T.v•-•-t-s:*-_ ,..tri.c.41,',•4v,ittele.gwalraziov•, E:•-•'-=•., '..".....A1.1ftlifiliti:Li:',1• :.:---,';',-:;..'4t: .!::".•:::* *:h.4::•..g ... ...„..,1 • "nr,,..)a.„,....ife-47.-Ttrii•saav,-..-vf"&..,b,e6,,rsi.c,scmitia.rAts„,trytvitr.4,;,,tr: '...t:".±•,..:1;••25;:ad::,-,---„,-;,......w.•;-Aiazir Li 0.144-,•. 7.:•.i.::i,,,. .,•;,:.:•.,..t,-,.• Eit_H:4,-,..„.‘,....-rarorlirs, ..„..... - ,.-tie-iv,.' c..4.:.. :;•scLmitr.E.,.., ,,..,..? a -`1; b.,:sitt•-",=.7-777.t.:.,,tt.i•A2:::t.ttiri7174....,....itia7.'5.4. sifv.74:441,410.;_gg,"--•;77,7 4.•,--:;,..1,-•?.. .r1:-,Wir7T V'''?'.?",F:14,75--ill'hafAirrAgiV: r(IFi•;TATrier 'Cleril`e'ar:te"*.M.S'S..rT-ViSIACICIrre441.2. 641104',It .t-V"A;;:f.'76■:6■11:1;-kaViler**■::4-i4Sic-SC:t.g.Itt*L,: ..,,:41/I tra•Eil'i'll ":3'774:''' ' ' 8..i ''' ."'rt.:".'"..ter'WEL ' .t.-34.},r, -1-der-if-c,7-fs,-.!--rc,41:".7:1::tirSiET.4,4,'.Le•tAI•r:re,;-s--4t.:t...:7:e....laVfr-r■• ',Lie,s6 :-9:k.T.Zz.-7-tfal-ttait-r--:- -;€-...1",ktS-to:til.,- .." '-toi, --•,,,;- *-111WF-,41t14-`, 44-t-trMe?e§tk")0.if±-arrAtirt.tet-i3#35'St-, I,.a -1.:::•?:241,.i'.zi:"f,E.: •:;,,42t",„„ t--_,7,-0-" ent-,---7--.52.a* - _..- . ___;,.. ',-- ,,....n.14,0,,?.11fg',;,,..-.0.%.,-.“',,,-t,^--.---•-• -- F4-----Asci--25:1_ 4:4?*-..:4,11,71:1t:4-3.•;."-12-:::]-4-C'Stie--- •' de-ri .1:4--fl'•-ftz-192,,_.ct-_-9-,AMS,r-17,-;-“Tr-y.:^,-, ,,.. ,-'-•-tt!..tve . , • _ --.0:17..ra•z.-••-.a.t.r,r- - 4•14,..tors_ tre-S4',21.--;54;&-.A"..ac.,..,...4....L.: - - • , . Phil:nwSpanedn:eAy.ronhunse,ron Geo.F.Johnston Home 6998 Etiwanda Ave Built 1888 • • . . • , • , 4 i:Eli-'• '•.:s.c ', 4•L'Ir!'- 43.127;fc 44.14,..IWY ,. , . -.. ... • ' • , -...,t,--",'-,,, • ....:acAlici"M" - -'- '4..,,,--4,Nrs , .6 1.' Geo.F.Johnston grape 411 packinghouse about 1960. •i---al,"493- iliiinl.i•:fr.- . ...., ,"'' ,.■% nr2.1.4P-Aes:“. ••P ...,4•N s•'„4gISMi.,kliilliW 11 ^s,..!..,j):=%:-• '''' ' ,,,,An'T- • ' s",-gktgsrLits •gg,•:•••Irktri • ..i's,.......---r, ,, • l',•••zhtf:Pnhijk-rea ''-• . ; . ,,c4;if ...... .. .,,,,,r,o.oVreV?,e,P944,P1:16•Mik IF 6 6 6.6g.i;46,e ,,..v4',1•;•,....r.,•,-:,'Llti?': '4''''‘g..'4,kiitf.Pecg, );•=0:1;.'fr3W-?.?a•':••4:11,1c., trlag441 ,rnsm.n t., .i.r.,,i4-x.44:ilsit>12q,...*„. 1;!..4.k„.,.....,-1 , . NI - .. ';';',',sisg41.1.;Pri•'. • -• ,;,,...."...:.:,,rci.i.1,R71: - - -.,--"rtrnFITTeitariaill14-74-47541'r5 - ......., _,. . ..... ._ 6 ri;,,WIC3NI3.36t46:4% 'Y14 WIFT :re'.'1 4Vi6.17tiV4. L6094,Viatr .4S.T741in.kF4•1,lfeS9:71i1e-±;:gathtilg: i-:.01, r r a r m 66 4•g .r l•••.;1•g.1e?0.1/4•■\....X' k ri41r V.„'10.a%;4144g-ig.*iiv.:lqx; •t::rr L c: 1131,ligekilk." f.:; " :: . .. ,- . ,r: :1- .:, 1:4"::*. tri 4-r-i:::'''''..-,4„:.dii.;- -4*.!c- tas v,,smic.,i -,...j.,;4•1414,1:•: :• . ,:„.,0■•_...... ' .-4.4.:,, .,,,. ..: •e•& . . -_..4.t—•-•,-.-: f-, -...",-.14±,z...,.:•,..,.... ..,,i•-••-•;,,, ??,•• -,.-- .,..! •.4.: ; Slk41,1 , .04':WO 2s.4 .2q, ...:*,-,;7,i-?._,A4s-sr.ai-tz:: --S--,,'S 7..T:'4:2-''‘.*':,-.•:: ttc-411itr,fl 41.,,,7,5,1•11; .,-.5..V?:" •,:. '4 .- .lyili.,4,lllg ''iiiiii.ij Vat'','errritif. ;l:Alti ,-,.-_--s-iii itill;-,-3-44:1/24,..,;:ill''', _54:rt.,:. i -. •-.jiff% ti,; ',-dristi.1.,,-,--.77,141:: '.',i1-..,:-"r--•:-.-ifit .'il,:tft, ..fitt WA 04: • e'-'.1-irre:'::4.1.-Iti:- /1'4;404,174 , :.-lit''."....? ••-•• ••• tz ., -Thsss•-• " ' st ; .0 ,., s'•-•`' 0.:,I; 2 .-,•.•;:••• '34.-.-i-S.cf rt.,. • 42,, 1'Vi--4.• 4'1::-,'"'r va it.-- t ais14-_r:;344-'-' e -.44.,..,,Lti..... .7. .,-,'be • ,-2,1-.1! t• s;'7,•••€••• •. ; ••ilo.;:i:lii..:4 kw.. ;$,V0:1, riff4-, IT 1 .,,,r,e,/ .:si.,-; *vs.— ,:.;:saik L' 4,1,W., . ..4.....yed:• :”,- 42.4t•• A4 4-7:41:04e1;,,. ..ti &.111a,C4t.,_,.,, aS11.44.-2• ,:kr '4-- Y; -r‘V 1.."&f.„:611 •l'.:,..S. -..-;-----..7f ' .-1 iiMP -• '. 1 .., :,*:,, keeTcgt_ -tell .,-•11"11:1 ,-1:',e' ,' r,12!■_./ ;77,-,..--.77,-; -i ' .,,,,14.4i4=t,'A.,,Ist - ''''.i',-- - ' • - -t-A,S:WP:-f.,::::',,,,,r' ".',- ,:,.(re,',•iit' r•-•,..--,....4R4.'" al,- -1...'-k-'s,. Rtilte•Lf-E:W-5?-',51.$1, ealk trill-0' ."'z' - Sram'.4., __. - ;"•:- .7.',,F.,'.1.. t. •:.,-•'-i,-...••:..-1. . • _. •:. - •4,',1,11,64:1A07:4L-5.5''" -1;:'rcC:S.;4-4pt:"T--:''t „ “'-;i,--./-t:''''.;-': ..-' A• .-:•,,: pari'..&-7.i''' •"--.:0.14,A%-,-.?..,-41:‘,,. 44erS,-41,-;i1S.I.''-1,1 ,'--i-1`44:-:,,---,'6441 Z.:"..4''''" -, .'•Ckitt-ht:Ite tn#,"-4.?ifrieritI4-- 7,15%4: •- 4-..,..<4••, .,,,.; :7,4kylikr thrkliatti:itt -•ABE3Thf-a- 4-7--,..:.".MIL;,:•;.12.t";:..r.•,' '''''co-firairt.ltin...ant,-; ...•.1.1...‘ -,.,..:.•:,./.tiVe......."-,..,4;r'''' l 1 frtr: 4., t:•-'-E,7-‘-.;;;.''',."77:1=1,--•cf_,%*-:,75-:,,:,:.•c",--;:,-4.;Al„--Tr.,7„,,". • ,..,„ -'''' t.' 4..A4.-fr, ..4.• .,, 1 __ , A/.0.404-.. .^.,,, .-.4.,.,A In. 0 .':- ''.i:l.,'1:::2:147:4160.,;;"i.,;■-4 .-,,,., • ..:. V,,,;7■2 ..:.- igsg.,•::,,,,,-,-,•• -,,,,,,,,,,..„ i....it,:,,,,•:=, -_,„ ,,•,.-•••••••••„".•„.• .„. .• - e „•,•••,,,,,•„...1,....-„ t, • - -• )7..tteic, ••,42,, .s..,kr:77.-tis-.7.:1 ai,•••,.i:••,.;•-,-, :-,--,:qq, : '•=.=;-:11,414:2:11* ' , ."!:. ."..:'•*•';::, .1;L;:•c..:,■:.•3 '''al.'11%:.'"?'616'4%'. StirSIL:st . .' l't g•i?l5P0/...it.a. 0 6 Y•66 .''::.:Cf.,.1,:1 i 6.. e":464k61:31'1..Tcj 1 4 6:21eata; 'f:Y:.1.,;:- P::' ,4 1.. . ■. PnregiV4VS91: "■ .6 ltiLlrit :41LISCISM2f ail Ltt6S6 The 1913 baseball team. Prit)Sekft,-Se'l'r". ":.6.5.-ltairniti.it-,ii,.,_...i., Geo. F.Johnston, Grower, and Inspectors checking fieldpackcd grapes. c-B-12 HGlieckncSohxep,hAeffird,:d.Suptemnancerpjohnhnsjothonn.sHoenthaebnatPboncye:Harold Ross,?,?,Mark • ; ......:„Th... .,, -,..., . ..,...„-.• ... ....„....,. ...s.- ;.-- -, ......-..,,,,-.. -..... .' • ... - . • - --••,,..--- -:.• .. • . . ::::•::=-5.:7.4...-...‘..t:/-;t•Ts'•-r-IS:7*771. . '-' 7. T-;!: -- 7.--fr..-•-•.-S2 7,--t."---. L•''''. ;.;'7-'::. 4.-- .- g : :;;.-1 i '.' • 0 •••-::•7:,;:r..'..\:..„2--.:..:;;;:.:::[..;,11.: :s..,:.-y.:-.....z.:.-:•••,< ,-: , .; •••••-:,..-:.?,;,,,:!-::,:_q::,...---,--:?.:7--:•-;-:.:::;:t).'s ----,::.:-•:: -1".• cr-::::•:.,::-$ 'ti.--- -:-.• 1 ! .i.Tf".t.r'. ....:..7t::::-.:: :'-':-. . :. 1. Tbit:--=2"•: .:-. 17.-iii.ka .:41.7,A-::" ' I 4.-1:::V. ;::-:: Ti-:::-1:-;.: ::::.;-. , tif:;•;-::' ; - • .:"..i.,..,::.,....y.t:..zc. X ;,&:-..-, , r:E.,,,-.11-.. _.-e. , ram, ..... -•-,s-A 6 :--s .--4fr; :"' -4111."1"• • / LaSt. 'I''.5- T 1 P74 : ;ST:a.1521, . :::::' -,?•■•`'.....1: , '-a-t.:S...tr;4.-.. I 4 - ' 2-is7n.... 1 ' .- - --',.:-. A'440 VA''- ir;74':<?::-.-ttZ ;1..! t"tik;i": ,:i.:::4:::Q.1',5141'—' ;- - 1'. ."... 1;4,{.:It.: •-, 1 . ,'.71 s:".".eritg,ri-:.:`pc 94;-:".127i-..117-•.:. j ,.:Nkra-lt--,-, .:-.): gi75:14 -11 I i: r411 tli, TA igi :,:t5T.g.Ck.. . 1i:PI E" , ______.-,-..7- ..- .;,: ::,.'' 1: ,,, :nt„, ,.. ,c_...„.__ • ca...., _ ,...„ ,„ ,:, ,,,, 4,.....,:}„...; ::,,,,,,:•,.:„.„ . ,,,,,...,,,:i.,:f„,,.....-4, _ iti, .,,,,....a„...„..4„:„ :„„...,„ ;., „..„:„.. .. . ,:::: ... ..-Aii,„:-.:::,,,,:•:, ,:„..„,,..„:::•,,..„:•:•:., . , a •4. 9,zzA,.„.;_....,_,,. .: .-.,_=,:41,-sEisi- i-!.-..;,1 , . ...--,...-7:..,:.„.:,,,....:.;.. SpS-.7.-;:54;-d.t.r,.-7•:;;j17 4-0, 4 I •'. &---us.",." ----"e"?-' -- . --!'r'..''.-.-'3.,-:' :::•-'2..ist'rThfs'SVr; •-::e. 11.816.-=.-t:FS-1-ci :-s 12 ' p II •,•;.--: a■ - 's-..:Ss.!1•-2.",4 " ;""....:- .51/4%.-1, -..:,•%.•-•terrmeticr..,,•...r..a-- CS;:41.7‘n L-w-.41..:7;,.+.-re,;(j.,':,;;P.::,;:,..,..'i i:', s.:-....•'E:tte. t ,.7.*'Ci:gtv--'7. ,....! - lisL-,s,..---::,a..---t:-..- -----r-S--... .__.-asetr-st•-• .. .,...a..,... .,.....-4-4.e.:;-:;:',02@;::‘,17..;•'--: 2.7-....: .-::-.---::••■'•':;'2';:iS...SS..t.... IC---s- INIE -I.--'T-. ---i .., -..,..,----tt‘ts•s---- - - - • 44-ssr•-.;;Y:`;t±;;-th..?!;;;;S.,:-.,• . .....2-;--.“ -t4;t1;.*-1-. S': -. '7.4.:•-■ - sr--1-:".:;..--s-- =----7 " - -• ___-,1 "; c."-÷•'it::...- ,„ ry,::-.:::>;,f,-::., . •. :",-.-.:,,,,. .W./.•%:t:4•V•".g4",;4•,1.%?;;;Z•1:::::: --. -74.4.,---A-•• - •.-."-----,-.7:-_•1- `g.- .--,__=t=t,,._ .-It . -.-.7:•;•. ,,,t,;.;,,,i,„ •,. • ,.„-,,,.."---A,;:.,4.5.-..::',7,"?*--.77,•;, 'rt:-.1.- :: --astrass h. -st- - / 4--c-52/75/e , .... ,,..-- • " • ' 1- • • pie f-, • -,i i_o r__01-/f-er-C.::le,,,y e- _ ,---7:teen-C)E-Hrkte-tr c4c.,c mr, _ • a6oll t /9/&) _... - • • • 0 _ : . - . • • . , ___.. _. i • _ _.. . . . : • ______ ---- _ - -. • _ , . , _. - •— - --- — i ,_ : - , •:- . : _ i•• i.:•. .;.; , . • .• .. .,; , • .. .. • . : • 11:04A.b..,,-.. • ---1- ' 4-::-"- 1 - --- - • --..--”ettt: ' - :_. • Pc."-,- .1?‘-■44.- , ;.TiZ:"4:S,35,7.--. .f" . • ---- ' ' • ...-1L.: " • .. . ...,,. . r, lit:1'4 • f!--A,::€•:'. -iir. ----yr,„ .,,,--• ,• .. -. 1,• -• . •. p---- Flir : ..r„, ,,s. ,., ,:•.- --:,..-:- - .--„,A.-4 PT .-:4-:t1:-. .-,-- tal.titatv:•-•ViSre;'CZ:4=14' . It . r -2-floses. -a-,--- - -;- -'-ii, r-- $.-Fiega.41.047...4,. ...:a. J., ,...c_,,-/„...-_,_20*,-... . • • ,- t-;- -alt.:-.. ".....4=.1--_tetcr4r-4:: ; ",:....S'ise• : .. -Traage,:nlip- • aa...,,,,, C 1,...,""' = ■."Or . . 1;;;;• M47:2"tb II' ' *•-Al-iivett-ax-r. .41.11.1..trir . • L.r?a,ns,..,45:,,,,,a;: - - -a.A.r.,,,,-,..o.,t,..- .441,.-: ,if.3.-1b?,:t - .- i ,....- ,A.5,t;,,„.Tra...t2ar, L Et:. sa-c,..%:5,-.ZA4--•""-;-•--,er,'T ,,eridi,_A...,-,:z.-1.-,-,- . :-, • ;.-- kiLlea4-- =-7. •II.41.-1M----1S474:` ,WAA.E;47.!:Snt.- i argls-s:ste '";. ' irss-C.p.s.?•,-,.':::=AstIslaspAs!,-:: . ; t ' ..0":‘, ' .A97!'41. -• '44*•■ :ft-43A'''--' '''- i • El l ." . it ir. ttr.46/-4;t1F ..r:".?"' - 7= ..a "•••■r 464 ' n- irt-ir •-.)t 7- -- „.....• ,......--) . Er--- :v.— -: -. • 1 - - •-,-;--‘ ' - -4 . ...- ?' . i •4--'.-"...".L • -r17' 11 ' i . -4- " . 4- -; ', ,, -• ,,, " <- .'.•-.1_,;J:-..---`,: ,%TS, • .' . . • _a--- _ - - - . . . . - - - . - _ ---- _.• /, 9 — : - 3/ c i a ISer o Aange 3/7 4__/. 0d 7.) 4 t• Pr? Li 4-4 --' Peary 1 Family Home - 6956 Etiwant Avenue p{Y.t rr,+rL: , i!t r fc ,, s:: ay¢y' y ; t'kT Cf r ::,:;::0Y-1,‘.r` ,. Sed'- Z_S"h. F Ti ` \4 , 1 '{,. a`I 'irr l r 3 a! a °' .y@ l" t° as w�d r u zyy `. r, r •✓ ik .,4v 41 ii 1• -,�'6 o\� {`�{ .: ,' Lr ..r Anil' lrY . eA f < f [n/y r '� e° �r r TAt 1 sn ty rir j lsift6a?+':'V t ' ]t Y: r •eae C SS Sa},1 k • .r:a .115 ; 1� nT_`� !), r,{ { :Ai:: dip 7j �l k ' '� rr x d ii �e I • G. w IL i s� •it' .j •• 1dt• :... 7.r :. r � �.a v'�p v1r?' � k f —.- ?F a .+•rK., 'y • M•♦ .r'3%u.:'d ]'" C Rh' �t3 y•/31uAM.. `F` j} w .'IL �-�+9� s k ^hn° �' .1:: 9r Apr M : ier yS`:J` w.,r„ _ pp�� 'i s -T -yr ';,e..,R �''.�°• ` J .i J. w„1a � ,$s..�. % tt ..,i 1 Y: . a , ',•ih51 t" ;: t'�S y .+A .wx 4 'z.."' O S i� `k rl , a.It. 1' 7f�f xe } �fi kt` k� .,� �yy�r^^t1 +fir. K .n�ro d 1 1.y vY PG s >✓t1 {�7� ,t / ` "t t `� k't f I �6�' t ,4 a �- ^� i i „xfi Sr.F� r�.. �y ., • z�e�i'�" Front Facade of Pearson Home (East elevation) • u�z'�`WsdVv f"`'� 4W`+'" x .C^^"yFq'V'S#. ' m r N .m''d'., "3Rw' rffe,nwari iatr z 'trir*.�%• vezi ,ds>�' >c.q°k . Tr 1t`ca Ra +wt'.. r 'ron� ! r r Try tar r l w ,9 c`.iP rtariL f c fi i,"'.. r d #6V Y 4 re -r . 3r da +„ 444 R $5:14�r.4 rw,v;". ....,i3 h, 4 `Att F¢i-*t _ 0 4 rOfi 1zklit~ ]{a t,h �`i(fir S �3 ri try rn $ #'i� . P .44.`� i '� l ie4 4 fr-�P` l�''r �'A�'J * 'i' p1C�i" ' , 41 {�' MF 9 � + n Yi r u o f v i �� [ v .�4Y &V +r,.a �' , 'y� 2q,ntY� Rt�.,d� -0l m��+�4, ,i�r � �"�„�`, '�#�� �}�.�� "r' M, Lt"-4e kp„ ' s.x�¢}}'.J' 1P474 v40 b r`� Fvµ^55'd;`''Fri ` I k7� rr a `41: ' +`a-# 1 ) ryr«w ,aajl, c k ���'x1 t1;f41 14"i 4,1 i� JY�yi 4 i r (t�� �i f 1 4..• � 4 4 f6Nt r Vypii 681 ,e7.-w t °� d b , { il, P- , Pk rqi�± t�: ��`rO eg , r' `' d ' 4, v l�}�)Y� 4 ��rL '�4� �.1 � { � �. �1 �I �S ( l'l!{ �'n �` vf'4F� P � .1� y ���$ • w:? f'a ri•.p.1 m f aD4041 ,1k ( � k , +I" �, r 1 '1 Apr ' R4Ht �k 1I 4 r if 1f AFt to �y.„ y at ))�'rCY� ,µ I � 'i R4. � i YZ S � � i ' t ,.•iakr'd p W tr ' xr`I, 1 C V t t± r R�r"�y'is nY�'1"4 11v a iF a''U4 .0 c. '. ' 5 hr ��,� 9b A n e p(f7�'. AA�� W tN >t z fi �< dl 14s+��yr.A s sr>yt t rr f C r '`a `1k'+ k�, iy � , PIAli ' yu'r� 04: 1, HI'P�'1 {i;l r.rl l•t ;a a ,17i tle X4v(„, #,.4 M ,{ ,14 t0 i 14iy rb6� 1 , �) � y xrvv15 A" tlta'V4 aa"1I4v m �"" Y�Pr'd �Y?r,}, ar .,a " Ijx p Yrt � ��t �'4rvha� rr at{f 'E'" Gnin �ilari`yNkfRi},i„"L S r lYP& it i r' &t ENVOI 14 �;, 3l4 , yr� r 11. t 441h 4.0 ak Y ''�'a Y. 1 F rw , a n1 nl n, �' li1 q 11 tY`Y "�'�11rW �,� rR ,3 uT �.3. ,� 4v V '(•{l4/ V i' ��t77R b h ",�' ik$ µ "'� s%` v�'`�,w i°�4u A �g p $ " �dx, � 1 �t r'� gS � ,�x ru v n. , , iV1n „i tN tkrit N�i l ��", G tr .fr--" Vn"" �0'.. ' 1k nr11'i4Y ,art°ro G S �r u rt B A r 1, ,k { si tsg Ss r (idk tt 'i : k X 5 yI 1w ' �) J^5 yrs``�"Y -" /ham "` .w p ` ry `i� 4r If '. f1 ,',A:,,,al["t s a d v 1 i t y. e r f W1 141` ! h 1 c n l < r 12 i4 iei -0xx6it� �YT.,.� ' ti1 • y r rf i� w 1 �i_.�u� `ttpn J r+ l or e ..ww��F '^Cb rr dJ 'n K >wn'"rnw p rJ X11 c -'`e1 r-ytsa r• @ e� .a 1 m { ';• s 'r; .--i °V'k r ,1 pF' ..w,4` v,, i a. i rt . .T f r I11 °�.)wg7,n;t•R rge 1)^d^lSIC .cikfy�i if catM1" ° --,t..\0,1,' fit i r 4 e `�?wtri }�, h r �$e d+rs Y , a }/ ,rks '�Sw`f"..n,� .y t.``r� 3 "?try P' yV-i ` Y� r 17']. 'Gs 1 a.,i^ , v'+�'a,°.,«sr�• aH ., ,t+. ry�, i a, �� d r r'sr.,i,. y xtl i..• rv'f . `+-�{ v.> :E. fx � e.,fa .: rot e.fr3« r " "`ie 4 `� l '' ..da•t" y""' t3r".� e ", ig J w:7sfd.u ' ' �2V.kentl Wrt#41 14• -3e?.ha"jp}, " �i� �' y, a °� �r+F� G ���( ''�'y°C 4Ftka.".q.Yy s..-�I wt d^''i r5- ''� ' '' � ' � �Y1.A may. '' , 4"t&:• SrE$4-{ E'�.y'• i"° c, s ,' € 'F:1 F' 1 5 Lao q$y' 'y",S rt t r rn 'i ( g.,r '.0 1 * agt,1 C t,e r� a -e• "} 4:3' eyF N+'^ : ..< .ar„u .r. am �r 4. f er, i7F3't�r�ts at al e a��•W ;sut.vA Y. � r. . {�LF,.aA++ ','• -t, a1�• p`St'k�`;.c.w `ty @2 �'d,.; `£ ipv. . * �.•'r4.< r `",- .- -4 S ' r 3 K� Off. 4rkl. :. ��"i 3 . ' ,.3Ti S i 1.5 }_1Y .,� q .• , '4.4.4 '• a„ .� `o-*xi . .*:4•a i ' c XHIBIT B I � 5�'r" L4 ^S( eF�sr " f.t�r,r u79:Ta ? Y nE. ._ }}�c V ��t I rj� ..�7 Vineyards to the north and west of the Pearson Home B14 • • g,?„, Nt�7 ,.p• .�f it. ! e, S'.• ,..4r 1>.h it tvr., , ,'�•? r .eft I. +, rs rn y ,r . �" nt,...Th4CC.--77.1+, lz.'-..-:-4. f v ' . . t ' ty Y r�a 1 F ;.1-47&,': r i $•n^ • i[. , t 14 y t ?a ,34..' "f r w si,11 .f (rt .•. a -,x --t- ' ..t .x 4',`$ `• , d If r•- r � u 4 at .$ zyr. . Y 1 ` I t ' Y. 9s S 4 �ry" 1 : it l! t ' ,1.f . ,. I .17 '� Y` v1 '- II. L • c .:a 1J .,∎0 1 ti • ,C•• i r j t •, f 'Y Y C� II J% (y� 1 \ •,'°` uw.rw 'la n++'isw Yr�1 w•+., t a-,...,... '"` 7,V t r yQU�•MyY J.. �$,_ .y6tl In S \ '"'r ,.. `41 c .., uW ;., kg., r� vt tiro t f f. wa .9.T �� t< 4 ^Y4h+.... .� of tn ..,.9att` o`..,. tit Front yard '1 t y^ 'f.S+:l� y'4ciftrA ' 6 i V'.t:tr h-..S'`."t ro50 a•1:4an#V dd 3r "-i pn sa A•• .r f -' ^f'Ff.Y^ 14r, t p. A o \y2' s.' y11 de 7^ d n S f .w, �� f�t��i"�.n •�., 4 v! � t i �s•� � 10-'.1".• +I�tu: ",,�° � .cd''�f'�+,rW. 1?th� a � ie„i• y� t"� �#9 1. '��t 1 1 rn�� fr "a s.,1" s Yr / Sn 0.H' ' f., r` �f',0 rr 'k'm y �x'3h.i{1 f �J "1. +i O '•, h rl fro A�) Q�J..'t ,t+ •t t y,� • f t^� y r y''rl W'y ,. M. t.l'L " J )I . 'tlf 'd t•J R{,�r .y T 4 K "\; !J'dl. �, .!? '"W r S ` ,) *'r 1 Ig T' x�.y,, .r ng 'r a 'tJ y / L ", 4,r 1 r A/ rY f r °T"+ fi• .4 9N' �'f} f^ry IQY �'r' •.W...r. 1' ��"i"v '7, ,:.1.p' P n " •u_,<0*, `,,y ° y �.7 - , n ,Fw »Ayr Ix(r 3-'`.,,t•.".a y V":V.'A'- 1:.•4p1J k . Y s 'fp: aJ ap1u.F.d ° 471i^�` cP,i. .`r .Mt ry ` Nib 1 r L: it•,' '1,1;'r1 Y. '•,`i,-;y'¢,G 1 vy r'�.\+ w r , y.;., iMt•Ys S:yW y_ . . kb: W : qa; y)e1.l4,."i " d'xv •s- 5yP 1, . „ , �.,, I rf fir! A ^ t rr: r ! ° ";'1YyLt^•ti,.t L Kt� yyyyfl �y.�,. .,:.th t e• „+ :,,tl y1 774.1, .t∎17,A. a w. i. � — e +V��"y� Fri ' r iy t+^ ?;'- µ rv* f;; i r�. " Y'� . "y4Tf q,. n + ft" •.a11w ♦i 1 ` u'ij F''th #` G +mr ['Ye'�'i a r 11 I ' it kq dk x .7+ 5^ us '^ t" e .- ma. ",---"•• —• r y t�• - q4 i\b4•v • 417.1-1 - . ^s':am•' - T 3a n t xro t _ - r •-..,.11- s. .J N Garage,i 5 north elevation • 1111"11141--11:* 4.44.44l;t:h47f1;hh7IY1W1h-PC&51riC,IS r. tr1/4211:!"`" ”Irli-rAl?;2';-.1; :l'EnICI.:144-'4^"Vr:vitt),‘'''''',ir■I t% ..,:,..:a C'N;11 ' 'Z.? ' ,"-7411r.' •.;'''' ..4411;t4-- ..t. A* .1/446.“. ' 1114,-, fiii-•- :to..4,,,,1.0, tr .., . .j.k._. .„SS 9...-4 41‘"in. • (..'el.:44et'.1 '' i r1441:t '' ,.r:tre'N'lik,k4hn 14N"' 4 .-1,1:44i5 ah-lii ' .iitsith 1 i'+''''S • !--mat-irrt 1 ' ''4,44' .444444 7.,._ .. ' -..1z.-1.14041,11,541e 4.1/ Salk A litritts9itd9141,41.Aigaikid.1\grril rhh4'..? . ' " .t',d'ITc1iiKitatrrhA4ha;it Vit4494211,444n1KMik;a14.t''441* h ....?'4iVirrif::.:4:111Sititt4c1,111401,141/ittiliderriaise,,.0 Eh? 4:,,-1,1:1114.414‘,Ing.r45- 74141kni kil1,1:7.:14.4aii':11.1.1:1 .1. aggirlill 11.41 1.. 5:11.0'11:2W;y:i.' i'• •:' •.'firi,,M.C„,li•Th•r.'.'a:a-TO ;.•:. . Of.M.n.,-- ,, _ 7:1,C2iii4a•hp••.1.45.7:44/..;J. ;, . .i.,t4„1,:.74.:%., ,,• ;,..1.10.. .-L„..',,.' : .. . ..ic,...".41.,1.1 W C Pearson home on Euwanda Ave.Built 1920 E.4,4„.4, ... 1,,,,tir, •t-#14,i'a....VnIt'ilit'2' , . .. 1,....W.4i.. 0.4A.T;;;?: '• . . MM. 'tyn ' '44 al. geirl,N;SWA ' 8t11.2.444 .aLV-17•4-;g tu.-' Sok- • NP..li tsWire.. Pittir4.:... ,. . kw.g:.:darlsk, Stitet4Atift-44,4%.I___, _el,"T..A :,..- -6.6....?.%Pl-'-----6-1/44^'- 't--P----: -- V400 :.: W5'.1.Vr•T- ..:, i •, -. .: m . ''.,=1.-14.•• ••+., ,,,.•.-....-:. - . •.t •FIW--.::.-..77.---J 7- ' • .,;',7- ...-_,...._otrt;:::.--hri- •-• - . . .v .,....ris. rs, ............................. --;• --7.-1,71.T4-vizt.itait#:,:ten 602.6.4,:tiv.ment....--.te, . ,• - "mptisttZ.4.AF.W.4,-4,,,,kkagrsmi-,.... tifTfirgAdithasthely.,%co.;., 4.,,... • - - '-';'ic:t.:ers-L-k-t'..,dg--44nAty...za, _,......... . . . • It t ,.. .,. ..:. .„ ., • ., ... ,,, „pi,. 'k ' # ii,1,:fr' , ,, ZO' '‘.•;,,,A:7'..9 • .1.4,; ' ,..j•, . ';', (•' ., !:<;::: I! • . W ibst 1.0.171A N. . 9%,.. '.. ' '. l'7.•::...:-.7;:t7,:i77'714S7r'f'”7:‘"t'''•: ' T'41it %RI- "4 ''' %14.r: • ' ' I .. , ....:-.16.44.:t L... - . ,r i..,... , . . "va.,,,4.,......... aw.:,,;k1s.is4. .4..,1, .4:i1F:::;:;':‘,4 . — "."tiLL.+6*..".4fir • 7= trS.itlAiMAlia li,L 5 ' . AP...1W f ttilfiga""`w" - f'1%.74tt k 1,611.4141.q2.1. ' , "1.3%,.. 4r,t-..v, . 74 3494,N ,,„samcgaokAstem35,p ...ilq .... -•'44)444 ' o',l ,,...rnins„Bistja* c44/40.021"figi411141114111!,11111.;44,4; .4.::. `1,4:04, . ,r, 4.4-r.,:vt:t.;,,,,,,,,Aorotaloishototkolk,142,11.g.. ,g,s . R.;41`1.7*- "Z`e ! irvom:,tltozrdfirflpive-A2 t‘6. \c„. eti....ttti...........$00 -flat. , ... WC.Pearson's firstautomobile, 1919 • Ill%. ehtsocief. — -the vif sA-- \W ieMS If EXHIBIT B2. B-16 A sg_ ti-A?cfp- 1- P• 5-- al - i I 2 4' --T! I k b I 1 v I k . q I 4: 1 n Z N..9 C) I TO g n 44 CI J , �F i Z k r i \.9 rrK C V I �' 1 i- —–... _ 31_____________t T_________HI , t a I L! J u O N EXHIBIT C I B-17 HRH si s 1 � t 4 } U I H v h . I v ; =-F «-= k < q CL \} .Th. 4 ! , // al j k 1 k T 2 Y. � Iji 1 i v I o 0 t � a _ W 1 ...--/ 7_____---..--.. EXHIBIT Cl • {-\ p c- p\-k-(5- -1-2 5-51 B-18 • 4 e4. VI , '—'■ u . � 1 y0. i ‘a ti IN qZ 41 k a t- ti -4 �' Id L i Z V _ I* q a L 9 0 9 Q `k1 v U Q. C . k � V C 0. 7 AHIBIT C3 OP t-A-\-(s -1 -25-o1? B19 • LANDMARK DESIGNATION REVIEW CRITERIA • [RCMC Section 2.24.090] LANDMARK DESIGNATION REVIEW CRITERIA: "When designating a landmark, the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council shall consider the following criteria as a guide in making its determination" [RCMC Section 2.24.090]: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. Findinq:The proposed landmark is particularly representative of a historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Facts: The house identifies the historic period of the late 19th century when the Etiwanda Colony was founded and when vineyard production was growing. 2. Findinq:The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare. Facts: The proposed landmark embodies characteristics of the Victorian architectural style, a style that was popular from about 1860 to 1900, but is now rare. 3. Findinq:The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. • Facts: The approximated construction date is 1888, making the structure the third oldest home in Etiwanda. Notable designated local landmarks nearby are the Isle House (built • • 1883), the Etiwanda Congregational church (built 1902), Chaffey-Garcia House (built 1874), Norton-Fisher House (built 1895), and the Etiwanda Railway Station (built 1914). 4. Findinq:The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Facts: The house was built for George F. Johnston who was among the early settlers of the Etiwanda Colony. He was instrumental in promoting the table grape crops in Southern California and owned a local raisin packing house and stemmer. He was also involved in local government. 5. Finding:The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use that was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: The proposed landmark is connected with the grape and wine industries which was once common but now rare. B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. Finding: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. • Facts: Although converted in 1896, the structure's original use as a duplex adds to • the unusual design standards of today. EXHIBIT D yr IA (3- 1 -a5 7)-7 B-20 C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: • • 1. Finding: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Facts: The structure is located within the stretch of historic Etiwanda Avenue that contributes to the setting of early life in Etiwanda. The structure is just a few feet'north of the cluster of Designated Local Landmarks such as the Isle House, Etiwanda Congregational church, Chaffey-Garcia House, Norton- Fisher House, the Etiwanda Railway Station, and the Pacific Electric Corridor. Finding: The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact/s: The subject structure sits on a parcel of land which is part of a larger parcel grown with vineyards. The vineyards, the location of the house, and the location of the Pearson house that is approximately 50 feet north of the subject structure illustrates the establishment of the Johnston/Pearson/Clark family, one of the pioneer families in Etiwanda. • • • • • • B-21 I —_— - Y •_psi — y • l — tR � / : I I \"t;',\ `'/ / I 1 1 \ J, w ILI I c T r z LLI Q s r N . I N•1 — 1� -s5 it //� I Y _,1 h V • t i1 6f T, z o 1 3 ¢ m I K� • - i i v Ddi i> N. r N ri n I w , >95 ` __— IQ I Ci F 2 J 3 I ; = 1 \ I w 1 V 1 • EXHIBIT E \\- '; _--- I *---7 I .-1 B-22 6998 Etiwanda Avenue • Rancho Cucamonga, California 91739 Per an email dated June 19, 2007 from Planning Staff, Staff is considering the recommendations listed below. Beside each recommendation the family has compiled their thoughts regarding the residence located at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue: Staff Recommendations Family Thoughts 1 "Structure to remain on site and This alternative is not acceptable to the family. incorporate as part of the master plan The family does not wish to retain the home or on a ''/2 acre lot (100' x 200')" invest in the property. The proceeds from sale will be used to pay estate taxes associated with Clark Trust. 2 "Offer the house in the newspaper for The family is willing to donate the structure for $1.00 as long as the buyer covers relocation provided that there is no cost or value costs associated for the move, finding a discount to the family or the Buyer. Given the site, and rehabilitation." condition of the structure and the costs of relocation and renovation it is the family's opinion that this alternative is unlikely without significant investment from the City, Redevelopment Agency, and/or the Etiwanda Historical Society. • 3 "Move the house to the Isle house The family is open to this alternative provided that location at 7086 Etiwanda Avenue,just there is no cost or value discount to the family. a few hundred feet south of the project site, as a caretaker's unit. Manning • Given the size of the parcel and existing structure Homes would move the house and location and placement on the site, it is the provide the foundation as part of the family's opinion that this is not a viable alternative. proposal. Staff is currently working on acquiring rehabilitation funds from The Johnston structure is blighted, obsolete, and affordable housing allocations from the in severe disrepair. The interior and exterior has Redevelopment Agency." been altered significantly and haphazardly throughout the years. The floor plan is not attractive or marketable. The City, Redevelopment Agency, and/or the Historical Society may want to consider the relocation of"The Office" building only. The business was operated from this building. The relocation would be less onerous and costly. The building totals no more than 500 square feet. EtHIBIT F 1IAVS Th ;L5-o1 • Clark Trust B-23 Staff Recommendations Family Thoughts • 4 "The homeowner suggested to The family plans to retain the Pearson residence Landmark the structure located at 6956 located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue and is willing to Etiwanda Avenue (Pearson home) as designate this home as a historical landmark in part of an agreement if they could exchange for the demolition of the Johnston demolish the structures located at 6998 residence. This home is livable and charming. Etiwanda Avenue (including the Additionally, George F. Johnston often slept and Johnston home and any additions). It had his meals at this residence to spend time with seems that the Pearson home would his daughter, Athelia Katherine Johnston Pearson. be very eligible for a Landmark Designation, but further research would have to be done to establish for certain." • • July 1, 2007 Clark Trust B-24 V, craRia /R1vE • PLo PLAm.J /� Cr; CL-O. F. JC . NSTOi1 cc. P. O. BOX 133 FTIWANDA, CALIF, /tat/ _E-� nA E k MS He E .fb x S$ , t Aar i5'X a4 rib ig A dY- 50 echr l-rtJSE SotX 72 (Sf a4c..E' aAtLYJ u�r / X Ls- ICE 12 X a'f R fad "'r. It !LER 3 PC 3o P..34I S/fl e REPLACEMCN7 Tear ER iF 1. 177,tHcz1 wer e.nN THLs LcT- l f 6 , r 1 I 'I WANdA 0, Lc MI LANJS • t3LC & K �dt : EL x7 lei or ee ILL 4 ,27 ic ) of .� / 5 alla 4 Ed 1 330 (' rn/ C E Al , . I cc LOI XHIBIT G B 25 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES • Regular Meeting July 25, 2007 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, France Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Pei-Ming Chou, Associate Planner; Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Michael Diaz, Senior Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer, Rina Leung, Senior Planner; Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist; Mayuko Nakajima, Planning Aide; Jennifer Nakamura, Assistant Planner; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner • . * * * ANNOUNCEMENTS James Troyer, Planning Director, welcomed the two new Commissioners, Frances Howdyshell and Ray Wimberly. * * * * * APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, Stewart abstained. Legal counsel advised that the action could be approved with 2 in favor and 3 abstentions (Stewart, Macias {retired} and McPhail {retired}, carried 2-0-3, to approve the minutes of May 9. 2007. * * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR A. CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE DRC2007-00458 and DRC2007-00458 — MANNING HOMES — A review of historic and cultural significance and a request for feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission for the George and Jessica Johnston Home, a Designated Point of Interest, in the Very Low Residential District, located at . 6998 Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1089-081-20, and the Pearson Family Home, a Potential Local • Landmark, in the Very Low Residential District located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1089- 081-18. B-26 • Commissioner Munoz asked that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mayuko Nakajima presented a staff report outlining the significance of both homes, family significance and gave several options for the property noted in the staff report. She noted a letter • was received from Jim Clarke stating his opposition to allowing the property to be turned over to developers. Chairman Stewart commented that significant alterations had been done to the Johnston home and that she believes the only remaining original element is a few windows and that it is in a great state of disrepair, She added the foundation is eroding and she asked if the house is able to be moved. Ms. Nakajima reported that according to Merry Westerlin of the Building and Safety Department states that it is; the original roof, floor, windows and fireplace exist. She said the sill plates and foundation are rotting, but like others such as the Norton Fisher house, it is movable and . preservable. Chairman Stewart asked if the other home had as many alterations as this one. Ms. Nakajima said it did not. Chairman Stewart asked if the cooler (where kitchen goods were kept) could be moved. Ms. Nakajima reported that Merry Westerlin has said the cooler was not in movable condition. Jim Manning, Manning Homes stated his company had remodeled the Toews House with great success. He reported that his company is buying the property from the Clarke Family Trust. He said the Johnston home has been significantly changed and is in severe disrepair. He noted this house is totally different. He said it could be moved, but would have to have great bracing inside and out because of a lack of a foundation and all the additions. He said it would be a financial • liability because it has to be sold; therefore it would have to be a first class job. Chairman Stewart asked if the rock fireplace and mantle are original. Mr. Manning indicated that he believes it is. He indicated that moving any masonry material is extremely difficult. Chairman Stewart invited the family to speak. Jennifer Dorgan, 6826 Etiwanda Avenue stated she is representing the family of great-great grandfather of George and Jesse Johnston. She said the family has taken a loan on another property to pay the taxes and that they have dealt with this property for years. The family associates the structure with uncomfortable feelings and they would like to see the structure razed. She mentioned that her mother has submitted a written statement for the Commissioners' review. She said they are honored that the City would like to recognize and preserve the family history. She said he uncle died in the house and that he was very unhealthy. She said the children did spend time in the "office." She commented that they are caring for the vineyards. She added that they received an extension on the taxes to August 13. Chairman Stewart confirmed that she has photographs that could be donated for the community benefit to help understand the importance of the home and family history. • Ms. Dorgan thanked those that visited the property. She added that the family has meticulous records and they have worked with the Etiwanda Historical Society. She noted that the family has • items to donate such as a typewriter, furnishings and the stove that heated the office as well as HPC Minutes -2- July 25, 2007 B27 pictures and office records. She said they met with Donna Kendrena and Jim Frost. She said she believes the Society met about this matter and that they said they would respect the family's wishes. • Commissioner Munoz commented that he respects the family and their situation but that it is part of the goal of the Commission to review these structures to determine if they would be better preserved rather than demolish them. He commented that this home, according to the report, does meet the criteria for preservation. He said he believes it should be saved even though demolition is more convenient and economical as others have been found in worse condition. He said he would • entertain any of the options to save it and move it. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he walked through the house and he wished to offer the opposite view. He said they should look for some substance to the structure and-that this house is different than the Toews home. He said preservation is about a nice home/structure that is livable and has good memories. He remarked that this house is a "mishmash" and that the expense that would be incurred is not worth the preservation. He added that they need to be reasonable, and that typically the family has pride in the preservation of the structure and that this is not the case here. He added that the Etiwanda Historical Society apparently do not have strong desires to move and preserve it either. He commented that he would support alternative #4 and also noted that the "office building"could be moved and with history and artifacts, could be a nice economical gesture for the developer. . • Commissioner Howdyshell stated she also toured both homes. She said it was difficult to comprehend what it would take to restore this home to period quality. She said she was concerned about the costs and the fact that the family wants closure. She added that the Pearson home has been cared for but the family just wants the Johnston home to be gone. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and added that although the house does reflect some of the historic structural elements, it would not be economically feasible to restore and preserve the • structure. He noted that the Pearson home is a remarkable structure that has been well kept and loved but the Johnston home has not. Chairman Stewart commented that she believes the home should be destroyed and yet she recognizes this is not something we like to do. She said it has had so many alterations and that she feels only a few of the windows are original. She said it does not appear that with holes cut into walls and door hung over other spaces that it may not be able to be brought back to the original. She added that the Pearson home is beautifully kept. She said the family needs to move on from the economic burden and difficult memories of this house and that she respects that. She commented that she would like to bring forward the landmark designation of the Pearson home, move the office and preserve it to a site to be determined; to outfit the office with the historic memorabilia representative of the Johnston home and have Manning Homes place a plaque on their site somewhere reflective of the Johnston home and another plaque be placed on the "office building." James Troyer, Planning Director, stated that the Commission did not have to determined the exact future location of the "office building" at this time, that the Commission could simply give staff the direction to develop alternatives to be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at a later time. Chairman Stewart called for the motion. Commissioner Wimberly stated he supports alternative 4 with direction to staff to move the "office building" be moved, that staff would return with alternatives to implement that and to have the appropriate plaques placed at the site of the Johnston Home and at "the office," and that • HPC Minutes 73- July 25, 2007 • B-28 memorabilia will be placed in the "office building" for the benefit of the public as well as move forward for the landmark designation of the Pearson home. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher,to give the direction as noted. Motion carried • by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: MUNOZ ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0,to adjourn. The Historic Preservation Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • James Troyer, AICP • Secretary Approved: August 22, 2007 • • HPC Minutes -4- July 25, 2007 B-29 • Mayor DONALD J. KURTH, M.D. • Mayor Pro Tem DUNE WILLIAMS Counrilnernhnr • u y!Sy 1,• REX GUTIERREZ res" L. DENNIS MICHAEL SAM SPAGNOLO City Manager :r THE Cm OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JACK LAM,AICP RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 9, 2007 James C. Manning Manning Homes 20151 SW Birch Street Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Subject: Johnston House meeting with Planning Department Staff Dear Mr. James Manning: Thank you for meeting with The Planning Department staff on August 2, 2007 to discuss working with the Planning Department in preserving the historic Johnston House. During that meeting we discussed the following alternatives for saving and preserving the Johnston House: 1. Community Development Block Grant funds — The City has the ability to use these CDBG funds to move the structure. These funds would have to be re-appropriated with approval from City Council and justified why these funds should be used on the Johnston House instead of the Isle House or the Etiwanda Depot during this fiscal year. To use the CDBG funds, ithe • structure would need to be designated as a Landmark. 2. Annual Redevelopment Historic Preservation Funds ($50,000) — Must be in the project area, and it must be adjacent to Rails to Trails, but does not have to go to City Council for final action. 3. Density Bonus — The density bonus would permit an additional lot if the Johnston House stayed on site. The unit may either be rented or sold, as long as it follows the agreement of affordable housing. This option must be approved by City Council. 4. Fee Credit — The developer would be responsible for moving the structure and building the foundation in return for fee credits towards future building permit fees. Building permit fees are credited back approximately $35,000. If the City and Manning Homes is unable to secure the move of the Johnston House, then the previous recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission may permit the demolition of the structure. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mayuko Nakajima, at (909) 477-2750; extension 4307, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or by appointment. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your associates toward preserving a part • of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's history. Si cerely, r tal Candyce B. nett • Senior Planner • EXHIBIT - B ho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807•Tel 909-477-2700• Fax 909-477-2849 •www.ci.rancho-cucarnnnga.ca.us • B30 09/12/2007 09:33 9492509008 JC MANNING PAGE 02/02 MANNING • HOMES • September 12, 2007 Ms: Candyce Burnett Senior Planner • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Rancho Cucamonga, Ca, 91729 Re: Johnston House Dear Candyce, I have received your letter dated August 9, 2007, and the Staff Report dated September 12, 2007, regarding the Johnston home at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue. I am willing to cooperate with the Historic Preservation Commission per one of the alternatives mentioned in the August 9, 2007 letter. • If we decide to move the house and build the foundation we estimate it to be around the $40,000. - $60,000. range. We can get bids to get a more definitive price as we progress. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, • James C. Manning President • • . cc: Mayuko Nakajima, City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department • EXHIBIT - C Newport Beach CA 92660 I TEL 949.250.4200 I FAX 949.250,9008 I WEB www.manninclhomes.com B31 • . z it • g too y i T H E C I T Y O F I P A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: September 12, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission • FROM: James R.,Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT:. An update to the Historic Preservation Commission on the George and Jessie Johnston Home, a Designated Point of Interest, in the Very Low Residential District, located at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1089-081-20. BACKGROUND: On July 25, 2007, staff requested feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the historic nature of the George and Jessie Johnston Home. At the meeting, the Commission supported an alternative to landmark the Pearson home; to demolish . the Johnston home; to move and preserve the "office building" to a site to be determined (with • family furniture and memorabilia); and to place a number of plaques at both locations as part of an agreement with the developer. UPDATE: Since the initial meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, staff has been working with the developer, Manning Homes, and the Etiwanda Historic Society to create alternatives to preserve the Johnston House. Mr. Manning's original concern was with the • rehabilitation, economic viability, and safety issues if he was responsible for retrofitting the structure to make it marketable. . Staff has discussed with both Manning Homes and the Etiwanda Historic Society the potential for the following alternatives: 1. Execute an affordable housing density bonus, 2. Accept from Manning Homes a donation of a lot from the proposed tract to retain the structure in place in return for a Park Fee credit and lot density bonus, • 3. Allow Manning Homes to build a foundation, and move and place the structure on that foundation in return for fee credits, or . 4. Use City funds (CDBG or Redevelopment funds) to move the structure to the Etiwanda Depot site or the Isle House site. Although retaining the structure on site would be the ideal solution, this may not be the most feasible option for the developer at this time because of the complex issues regarding affordable housing agreements. Additionally, staff has not determined if the lot density bonus for donation • of a lot for park use is permitted by the Development Code. • EXHIBIT - D B-32 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT JOHNSTON HOUSE UPDATE September 12,2007 ' Page 2 • • Manning Homes' preferred alternative was to relocate the structure to the Isle House or Depot site paying for all costs associated with moving and building a foundation for the structure (approximately $48,000), and in return, would receive fee credits towards future Building Permit fees. Manning Homes is acceptable to this solution if the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council will support an agreement for the fee credit in exchange for the relocation of the structure. In 1999, staff utilized the fee credit system to obtain the Isle House site from Woodside Homes for a total fee credit of up to $135,000. Additionally, the park requirement for the Victoria project was accomplished through the donation of the Chaffey-Garcia site by the William Lyon Company. Incentives and mutual agreements such as these have helped the City and the Community preserve historical resources from demolition in the past. During the time of writing this staff report, the exact type of incentive to be used has not yet been confirmed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission receive the staff report and file for future reference pending a future update. Respectfully submitted,S E ��'t, • • r�?rIJ�L D James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director • • JRT:MN/ge • • • R • /$33 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES • Regular Meeting • September 1 2, 2007 Vice Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman Fletcher then led in the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: • Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: Pam Stewart, • STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Pei-Ming Chou, Associate Planner; Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Michael Diaz, Senior Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner; Corkran Nicholson,Assistant Planning Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Denis Sink, Office Specialist II; James Troyer, Planning Director R RV: RR ANNOUNCEMENTS • None t R R R R APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent),to approve the minutes of August 22, 2007. R R R R R DIRECTOR'S REPORTS A. AN UPDATE TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON THE GEORGE AND. JESSIE JOHNSTON HOME, A DESIGNATED POINT OF INTEREST, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6998 ETIWANDA AVENUE -APN: 1089-081-20. Mayuko Nakajima presented the staff report. She mentioned that staff and Manning homes favored a plan by which they would pay for a foundation to be built and the associated moving costs in • exchange for fee credits. She noted there may be other options using City Funds such as CDBG or Redevelopment funds if no agreement can be made. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if anyone would like to comment. • • B-34 John Anicic, President of the Etiwanda Historic Society, reported that he finally had an opportunity to walk the property and that the society is in agreement that the building is worth saving but he expressed concern about some of the "extensions" being moved. He said he did not feel the City should pay for the moving expenses, if necessary; the developer should pay for them. He said he • thought a possible site would be located behind the Isle House as a caretaker's residence. He said he thought the structure should be along the wall, facing the trail. Most important feature is north and east which is the front porch. He said the personal items found for sale on e-bay were sold to Orange County for $1625. He said he contacted them in hopes for a response for them to agree sending him anything they did not want, as the society is willing to store the items. He noted the family has already contacted the Society and the City about the donation.of the items with a list of things they want to put in the Office Building, and he feels is appropriate for them to go get it and store it, since it is in walking distance of the Chaffey-Garcia house. Vice Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing and asked for the Commissioners comments. Commissioner Howdyshell confirmed that the family offered to donate their furnishings for the Office. Mr. Anicic said that is correct that a list was provided including a desk, chair, paperwork, photographs, and other items. Commissioner Munoz asked if there was already an offer to move the "office building." • Ms. Nakajima said that the direction from the last meeting was that the builder would move the office building but that things were still under discussion and they are working with the developer, but that this was just a consensus of the Commission's direction and preference. Commissioner Munoz asked that staff bring back to the Commission the Johnston property for reconsideration of landmark status. He said that the report is required and already done, and that we need to look at it again, and per his prior comments, this home meets all of the criteria. He • asked for a report and that it be agendized so they can discuss it. He cautioned that in the • meantime, no demolition permits be issued, until they have had a chance to consider it. James Troyer, Planning Director, replied that a demolition permit is not going to be issued. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there is a timetable in place. He said it is good that these conversations are taking place between the developer, the City and the Historical Society and that it is important to preserve when we can. He felt that it is important that we are preserving historical sites and not creating history of what is left of Rancho. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, commented that since the building has not been demolished, and if the majority of the Commission is in support, they may look at the possibility of landmark status for a second time. He believes that since this decision was already made, it would be appropriate to do it soon so that it does not impact the approvals and development permits that have already been issued. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, (4-0-1, Stewart absent)to bring back as an agendized item as a report initiating another review of the Johnston property for reconsideration for landmark status, in the interim be cautious to the issuance of any demolition permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE • ABSENT: STEWART, - carried • • • HPC Minutes -2- September 12, 2007 13-35 * * * * * B. UPDATE AND RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE • AUGUST 22, 2007 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. The secretary received and filed the report without further comment. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Anicic, President, Etiwanda Historic Society, reported that all the Johnston buildings have been vacated and left open. He expressed concern about the possible loss of artifacts and the dangers of an open site. He noted the developer does not take possession of the property for another two weeks. James Troyer, Planning Director, commented that Code Enforcement would be contacted and that following an inspection, the owners can be required to secure the buildings. COMMISSION BUSINESS None * * * * * • ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to adjourn. The Historic Preservation Commission adjourned at 7:20 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, 7iffret-44--)James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: November 28, 2007 • HPC Minutes -3- September 12, 2007 B36 rtyt4 r ;. � • . r r r T H E C I T Y O F P A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Memorandum DATE: November 8, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE GEORGE AND JESSIE JOHNSTON HOUSE — located at 6998 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1089-081-20. BACKGROUND • On September 12, 2007, staff presented to the Historic Preservation Commission an update regarding the developer's interest in working with staff on preserving the Johnston Home. In response, Commission directed staff to bring back the Johnston property as an agendized item for reconsideration of landmark status. UPDATE At this time, escrow is still pending between the property owners and the developer. At the closing of escrow, staff will work with the developer in obtaining an approximate cost for moving the structure and building a new foundation. Once this estimate is received, staff will work with the City Attorney to draft an agreement between the City and the developer. The intent of the agreement would give fee credits to the developer for future permits or various fees assessed by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and/or the Building and Safety Department. The exact terms will be specified in the "Agreement." Additionally, staff has met with Craig from Manning Homes to assess the Isle House site and John Heller (architect working on the Etiwanda Depot) to determine the extent of the additions to the original structure to be moved. If the Johnston House is designated as a landmark prior to its relocation, a Landmark Alteration Permit will be required to move the structure. Additionally, the structure will be landmarked based on its current condition, location, and setting. Staff feels that it is more appropriate to move the structure to the new location and then Landmark the structure. Additionally, a parcel "tag" has been placed on the property in the City's Tidemark database prohibiting a permit for demolition of the structure to be issued. This system is accessible to the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and the Building and Safety Department. If the Historic Preservation Commission still feels that landmarking the structure prior to its move is • preferred, staff will bring back the Landmark designation to the December 12, 2007, Historic Preservation Commission meeting for consideration. EXHIBIT - E B 37 MEMORANDUM REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE GEORGE AND JESSIE JOHNSTON HOUSE November 7, 2007 Page 2 • Respectfully submitted, 14,(11-1-7 Jame R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT/MN/ds Attachments: Attachment A — Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 12, 2007 (Draft) • • • B-38 • • MANNING H OM E S • November 9, 2010 Mr. Larry Henderson Principle Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: 6998 Etiwanda Ave. - Johnston Home • Dear Mr. Henderson: On July 25th, 2007 at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, a staff report was submitted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department on behalf • of Manning Homes to request feedback on the historic and cultural significance of the Johnston Home at it related to a proposed 15 lot subdivision on the southwest corner of Victoria Ave. and Etiwanda Ave. At this meeting, it was concluded that the Historic Preservation Commission would permit demolition of the home. In weeks following this determination, further discussions incurred between Manning Homes, the City, and members of the Historic Preservation Commission about other options including possible relocation of all or part of the home. Due to worsening economic conditions and the housing downturn, the application for subdivision was not submitted and the purchase of the property was put on hold. Manning Homes is once again in the process purchasing the property and planning to submit an application for subdivision of the property. Since the summer of 2007 the house has been vacant and un-maintained by the property owner. The home has been severely vandalized and suffered further deterioration since it was last visited. The house is empty and does not appear to contain any furniture, appliances, or other items of historical or cultural significance. Manning Homes is requesting that the Historic Preservation Commission re-visit the subject of the Johnston Home be at the December 8, 2010 meeting. We are requesting that the Commission re-confirm their previous determination that the Johnston Home can be demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. • • • • • • EXHIBIT - F • ,ori Beach CA?296CBE39L 949.250.4200 I FAX 919.250.900E I WEB www.manninghome.s.ccrn We've included a home inspection report recently completed by a licensed home inspector, the previous staff report and correspondences from 2007, and photos of the • home taken on November 4, 2010. Manning Homes looks forward to continuing to work with the City and Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely, Craig Ko Manning Homes Cc: James Manning - Manning Homes Mayuko Nakajima - City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning • Enc: Home Inspection Report dated 11/6/10 Additional Photos of home 11/4/10 Staff Report dated 7/25/07 City of Cucamonga Memo dated 8/9/07 Staff Report dated 9/12/07 • B-40 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 1 of 22 10309-1.pt5 • Table of Contents Definitions 2 General Information 2 Lots and Grounds 3 Exterior Surface and Components 5 Structure 6 Roof 7 Electrical 9 Plumbing 9 Garage/Carport - 10 Attic 11 Fireplace/Wood Stove 12 Bathroom ' 13 Living Space • 14 Bedroom 17 Kitchen 19 • Laundry Room/Area 20 Crawl Space 20 • • EXHIBIT - G Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright©1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. 6-41. Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 2 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Definitions • Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power, inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tem requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. General Information Property Information Client Name: Manning Homes Property Address 6998 Etiwanda Avenue City Rancho Cucamonga State CA Zip 91739 Inspection Company Inspector Name Neil Mattson Company Name Pro Inspections Company Address 11031 Appomattox Court City Alta Loma State CA Zip 91737 Phone 909-999-2773 Fax 909-980-05E37 E-MailInspectitneil @msn.com File Number 10309-1 Conditions • Present No Others Property Occupied Vacant Estimated Age 118 Years Entrance Faces East Inspection Date November 5, 2010 Building Type Single family Start Time 8:50am End Time 12: 15pm Water On No Gas On No Electrical On No Weather Sunny Soil Conditions Dry Temperature 75 Degrees Please Note • This report contains technical information that may not be readily understandable to the lay person. Therefore, a verbal consultation with the inspector is a mandatory part of this inspection report. If you choose not to consult with the inspector, this inspection company cannot be held liable for your understanding or misunderstanding of the report's contents. If you were not present during this inspection please call the office to arrange for your verbal consultation. This report is prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the client named above. The acceptance and use of this report by any other person other than the Client named above shall be deemed to be a retention of this firm for the purpose of providing an evaluation of this property at a fee equal to the original fee for the service provided on the date of this inspection. • The report should not be construed as a guarantee or warranty that the components inspected are defect-free, or that latent or concealed defects may exist at the time of the inspection, or may be discovered in the future. The report is limited to the components of the property that were visible to the inspector at the time of the inspection and his opinion of their condition at the time. The INSPECTION AGREEMENT and the CREIA STANDARDS of PRACTICE provide additional details. PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY. • • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009,PDmB, Inc. 6-42 . - Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 3 of 22 10309-1.pt5 • Lots and Grounds __I Soil condition or stability is not determined during this home inspection. Should you decide to obtain a geological report of the site condition you might contact a geological inspection firm through your real estate agent or a non profit association of geotechnical engineers for referral. Our limited review of the sprinkler systems does not include adequacy of coverage or condition of buried piping. The system is not tested,visually observed only. Reviewed tem was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tem was not present at time of inspection. . Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. 1. Safety Ground Area: There are a number of detached structures noted on the property that don ' t appear to be permitted. These structures have damaged roof, sides, foundations, disconnected exposed electrical and are unsafe structures f/ xl: „ , :A✓. .4 t -1' iI i . ^yr bra. a Yt./ stt r I Y\ Irc i 1 r 14.4 ''' ' , Y.. 10,,f r.4.. s I' , ".vri 'k r ',€,, v 'f{ E,kl t,�.—�e.-1 S e �A b bpr [I � .An b� :l'4 I r ,,,,, 'I .a+Ivn II ILf{' `'1 i"f { FI ^'# P44:^ F.+,s . t C„ t, { ' nr(:,1,A , { i I I .t7 .. a N A ♦^Y 2^f l` {: r r`° 3,ory37` 1 .dt y (it y�11. \'}Lk.. 'ii':. °t•. ........ .�...,.n."a rho ::= 'Ai- Yr i,. ..-i .r..?,i . ' ' yr .. ' M ruY�:Y j :;,-.1 14 ry :4'4,1.7 FS s o P4A' h. ' I' yr 90,64 4rft.% 'x"i” I Ir 'I 1�5 Ifn 14 r'�� 4 5G r; E Ii+tird.W� i ''a i kf(. IYI `t {5 [4i t,fY i {Lt 4 -- , .•:ilM r'..r. —� — A V i a €�>r y�' f ,� 111 ilary9 SIC,,'. tl t I D° , k ` ti i'y ` - Ii ( r a e 4 r,S a , Y , .k 7y c i> ; f nc,„ y , �. y j9 {4� p*e)4im i a .Tz Icy rt AA { j, c 7i -",i 9. 05, ° a ,-..- ii.: is f - f,;4,* R'�. La! Q,r4`� ,F .. y* ev"4 t) 1, 1 { 4 Ir �TM�G k{ fix. - "3A" u1l$ . �.. :. jt iinh ' 10l 4 tfe 4 9 �c R a u qyy,: 'i v�{f 40:1-,i{ �, .�I' a ,�{ ° r 4Vri IMj,01, .'.ui 4 ' .-..• hx` l "II Ralf { it f y 1 .1, 4 t � r', 1 m , � , L !. i e p p +r i a l .�a y • {� ( rI 2ti " :, I fi. ,. %, „' '` .4SvtlP< r �'..:. . iYp ati' l r.. 6W.1f' .uu u �.'AA IIII Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B 43 • - Pro Inspections - 08:41 November 06, 2010 ' Page 4 of 22 10309-1.pt5 LLots and Grounds (Continued) • Ground Area: (continued ,..,...Aa.legAY.F,Mt.,'%fs.= -,e -----7,4.--:-.',„:•-::::.:- -- . .. . • 1 •;-t-tiVetaLori.:4:;,...-12v.-vr,z-,-,;.;::::kr,1 ,,K;W:fit . • r.... , , ,- . .. - , . --__---.----'...... -- 1 . ,... -. ,,..;•?-; l'• '' C.:"..r?.?..,rt5.- ._ 1 I\-,--,I' I- ,.•' : :, % • 1.1%, . . At ". . rzer eth,--n- -.tlz.%/- ,: . ., ,:. ., !-.. .,;,..,. , ... , :',... a. . YI cti,,,,113,,CAN45,1%M7(.52.64};(11.4,%71/ Tt ' IRLivcIt IS.,-;;4:1..efolync•foit.r,i4i ,,,, gr. fr ?,„ ., it rtli2.11.•Y:44414,41111i ji ?V 93; ,V4,1•FWV04,keiAl '1. ,Iff.f it ii.4.4,,,,„ viLveim4.,[kri,.:., d . ,,, ; ,, 0.,04gol .,,, ....0 . 11; 14,1119DP,AMAli-si•rte, : '; - i 4 .1W.YttN,±4tuv, t'c,p3i,4 0/ i ri,ivfLeitstaxi*341"44,„ .;., 1' .4114 44 ki .7“114,1?7$4..i 44,ii4 :1"fl, 1-- :" it: &',!;t"6'1.1.4•KI. , „Sitcemo4P4, ■e1"'" . .44gr, Ai :it .7 1,,t-:tr:,:,,,i,.,,+zfr,,I .: . ,-..,_ f,, , , -as r:4-4,4tfrxylii•-,Y :,-' 71nm ,f -4. ; 4 ,tv,,o,; ,, ow. ix,; ,.... ,, tlit "7- '• A ,'"' I; 1,,,AL,,d.'.1.1., .t:trelAlit ;41-- '" , ...1-4',,t`iS,-...1,1.,..;,;.1,'2,--..- ....''' , 42:4t1 ;;;.-°14, Oft 1111:111.4'71it*ir ..,-“lit'l"li-t: ;114,141.#5,4' 5:%;:747.‘acr' 1 —..-. ..;;:4-E,t3 .,. FaNI W.4-1*;Cirsqi2F V1/41i,,?.. 1.1 .t.r.isaci ..”:214.ttst.".1;1,1''il,,,4S:5i-,S tA6 .14.1.:1 4'2' i'-7 1 l 4APC;11; $.N>i ¶jj 64. 1, r (eii?',,.: 2. Safety Steps/Stoops: Front porch cover has wood rot, damage roofing material, caving in, unsafe structure 14 1%,. mt_Okisr.:jyx---„Ap:417 , , .::* Santeraf-u'ciirSarrAITESA:lar)iry 1 . 1h441^M."-:..= 7a-- t,mcii.4a 0 ' 7.....7'.44 '..."-.. •..,4..] '',7at,•,-'14,-0,Q.:3.S447‘H-.47t0-4-.:4-4,:f"'" : kiffa.--:*:titti-'1-t-alt",1,P,...-1, Se/4:— .,,Aer.F.-‘ • '7,kat,tX-•„erfC:', .,;:2;t4tfrat...N4..sat!,e• 11711s,•12. 4 I-'t,',...tV."—:`, .,,er'•• 1::7*-"•.-Q2. - :,------t--T---- -.12-1-,-tt-trife4 ft•taf;Alt.tsalpt:-- n;,;2e.,:.,,--t- i-I , .. • 4 .1. I tt' . .--;.c.::.2--=.--2-t=10.9C-H, .1;!. 1,,,,,.. s,----E-`:',.-11:'::`,... -,4r,.-..--..5'4.4---r-- - . js.- 1.,,,,,,epe2 .-- --" , .-r...../tq. -:i;c-29:' -.;w.'17---, I:. . • ,, • -- „., Y.,v4tAizil...,ix,',14:::; gsge -. . - 41,,;..;; , j: ;,;.:",' t• I.-, ' -,41,:"..t.054)LM,P,t7r: Kr..-"s- ' -''' le..1. 11:ndril'.4 1 i .12.'''%- 4-f t-, ', ' i..'i...;it.4,,T. -...-' .,• Vii! ' P,i41.41 1 ,t.cato• .v .-4,. 1`.?--v71 .4-1.1 3. Safety Deck: Broken boards, missing handrails, Missing and broken steps \via,..17,Prirstrii -,..70....5gicl? ., OITA' '1041,0c--41 lisprig 4.41 A , ,,, 40.QP4it.W.t" .11;11gPilet;,:, . ‘-'34:7-t--ii-f-en-P, 'Al • 11 '." ' '.'., ... b. tRykittie, 1/4 „',J)2 ..,,:14,(1)m,cit.m. ....A%.,...11,..;-..,,,,toje,...emeAt.,,,,,, --,. r, ,_ grAnr100 4,4t•n-•—^-1 La'.z 1il irfiti; S ti Ve --1.Tha-ri;14 .4gLIL-tizriAl;1;70:4: - te-E-,...L.----•- ,,j,...„..,...-A,V04601,1;;•,”/ ----,..-.--, .",..,;44,il■-:'',.:W.,`1,‘,.e, ''le,..r.,,-',C4:4,',41Eall'i,,,,L't'itrgett4.-:- -- ----4 oii 171A44,:i;ttn:. Ft4;, a‘tIF:Fht:a.C,r-,4. '4 . .V.,V(ti‘lir'riC. .114tt'l ei;;'''':'1:1Pi i;•;: '4. I I ..•■■•■ ' ,:-t'.:. .476.'rAC l't t :L*41.:1.' ,..0 its.., - • . t,....",,isqc,14.4p. —...efitt144.0:;22 ,- - L ir , - 0.-,t--e P - -,1•714-0:a.iG &,. - ......, ,,,...-.....1. - -,,,C, : l,161i,„,.# .,.i.h..s pc ,,,.:4 1.flicti-,..?,:g - tc --'-4- • ' A.— • . „ 1 .:4* I::Atel .61 o vi:,,::a dili,4 1-4-,:*1- . 4. Defective Grading: Flat to negative grading noted within 6 feet of foundation 5. Defective Gates: In need of repair 6. Defective Fences: In need of repair 7. Safety Sprinkler Valves: Anti-siphon value not proper height above sprinkler heads • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright @ 1998-2009,PDmB, Inc. 844 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 5 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Exterior Surface and Components Inspection of the exterior and surrounding areas is limited to visible and readily accessible areas,Areas hidden from view by vegetation or stored items can not be judge and are not apart of this inspection,taking into account typical wear for properties of this age and type. Evaluation of presence or existence of insulation and/or vapor barriers in exterior walls and soffits is beyond the scope of this inspection. Stress cracks in stucco are common and may not be reported in this report. Window and door seals are not water tested for leaks and is beyond the scope of this inspection Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tem is a potential and/or safety hazard. Exterior Surface 1. Unable to Inspect: 10% 2. Defective Type: Wood- A number of missing boards noted causing water intrusion, Soil to wood contact, Wood rot noted 3. Defective Fascia: Wood- Wood rot noted, Missing boards fi,f.'�" tl..-„ .wu't' + ;r? Bart'111-`1`r77. r. t!! 5 » pf ' O, r nc,Pr t Ip41 Sri n v 0 Defective Soffits: Wood- Wood rot noted 5. Safety Windows: All windows have broken glass and frames a f �s y \ :: k s =z . 1) 9 , .! 21- .i :, #fig kj a t A ?•.• „ '•1' - l : ry sa I m Ire z - r� eY, / IV b) -wr-2 .) N 43 its". h. Lj 4e41y� i +a n i+-1 n t' J. .r. ;z ;".1 441^16••;A�a. ria yip s^ -Te .m(121= 6. Defective Exterior Lighting: Broken light fixtures 7. Safety Exterior Electric: Missing water proof cover over receptacles, Open wire splices • • Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright© 1998-2009,PDmB, Inc. B-45 Pro IKkspe-ct^4Nns 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 6 of 22 10309'1.pt5 Structure |III Slab or wood floor structure io not inspected when floor covering(ca,pet.vinyl,tile,em.)are present. |foho �od0000/ooc/owyvumwovothe floor coverings ona slab�oorand�ndmaokoin the:onom\oitisacvmmendod that these cmckobn�||edbo/om rep|acing 8uoring. Reviewed ten was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time ofinopecinn. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power, inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. Structure 1. Safety Structure Type: wood frame- Unsafe structure noted, coc dueon' t a*weazu to been permit for main house or an addition ,,q1 L. �����ms~�.�^��`���: �# ��^u8�x.:�� .. lP:��������,`` r�'�;a� [...____,, 4 Pi 2. Safety Foundation: foundation not d house. to be ,sitting on soil ' . ���i 0 Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright Q19S8'2U09, PDmB. Inc. O46 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 7 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Structure (Continued) Foundation: (continued "F7 it, "IV#41-435-1.0t.`' 4-itN r-'- 4J e sr v* ,-,.�--",, ,,, aw c ' • Sj F r�L e' "i • 3. Safety Anchor Bolts: Unit is not anchored to ground 4. Safety Floor/Slab: Wood- Missing and broken boards noted Roof We do not walk on any roof where we could damage the roof material or be unsafe to the inspector.This roof inspection is to report on the type and condition of roofing materials,missing and/or damage material,and attachments(excluding antennas,solar systems,etc.).This does not constitute a warranty,guarantee,roof certification or life expectancy evaluation of any kind. Roofs and/or Skylights are not water tested for leaks. For further evaluation and a roofing certification we recommend you consult a qualified licensed roofing contractor. Reviewed tem was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. • Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. Pitched Roof Surface 1. Method of Inspection: Ground level using binoculars 2. Unable To Inspect: 10% 3. Defective Material: Asphalt shingle- Missing or damaged shingles, Patching. noted, unable to determine cause, Asphalt shingles are installed over wood shingles and without tar pa•er Holes noted in roof deck y}"k�1 2 ..fir e14 ..+«s -i.._."'''rtactraSF"C! �s n-^"7Sitt r144 y fir. fi'°.°..--c i " � ,,`r .w.4arit'ts+l�b=T p,,, y 3'"s.,„, d �'"a t :� ""Yarn~"-'r . 4y�"``1=F�,.,� �'7r°`-"' .^ icafim . ".,,c9"".`.'- n;' .,,:? ffj:• t "t°£`Zi_.�¢.•F it s' L" "y�'y'915 osr. G:S ''-I�`"r` _ ..am'"f"�" r t5 is '2 ,45MI � cS'.74 rani ru�A {r , .' rt t• g' k 4,.? i, , >`�or ,xis. ,.,, s `� w ,o,i...r 5 '' mk,.a4M„1 rurit P �L2$..ffc' .S4 rg4,- t v1,1 �nx., aH'.r'1b ; ww+h44A " � ."r'„ Pm *st "Si01„} n Nr S .; , r9� N✓r r w:`r G" ,yam l,M;tiYC^`gr4741 .it Of i s n r ,ti, t •. ",n. 7«G..w t.. r ;8= I+"i ,ilp-.r..0 '.+may ,,xyl .+'k ' -nr,A, 14:VA w y g. i t ����yy,�, ¢ Y r' 1 e "Y`u•."'g�Lt4;•-zi .F ° , v, i•�`a• ?yid ` .v/+ 'fd,�F"9 ' :..7 in ' t -4 7 a< w, z 1 i..,..1•1 ,6 t v t It a ArS ' nt-ra• I 4 ., r v .y, tin .,,. ' ,�,y Ufa • - 5' �Sx . ' 4 3 P�t& r - yy +I TM�yy? 1••,4...,Y4�15. t.) S k`., modd• it (`d4:•;•. \ Ww�pi4E•$ v t7 "�✓�E A y ' G,, • Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-47 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 8 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Roof (Continued) I • Material: (continued ' .7:f err e..74 y �,3t�'k"i: , `c dU 1/77;51,1 - y ' �Ssrt, 6 t hSps w asv v �k s � ' .4; ,,11:,-F3:1;;.:14 r ! 1� JHrnr S FM Pn r< , 'tqTY , Fa [JIW " ? w " .r '• 6 z k 4r r ''Erg 7 t16 .11r S ; T ,. ' 2 Y .4 rr Nn T f . 4. Approximate Age: Unknown- 5. Number of Layers: 2 to 3, Most cities only allow 3 layers of roofing, To re-roof this unit you must remove all roofing material before you can re-roof. Low slope Roof Surface 6. Method of Inspection: Unable to view 7. Unable To Inspect: 100% , 8. Not Inspected Material: Built-up Unable to view 9. Approximate Age: Unknown- 10. Number of Layers: Unable to determine 11. Defective Flashing: Rusted flashing 12. Reviewed Valleys: 13. Defective Plumbing Vents: Heater vent cap missing Mkt. r 3 r`�f ,rr� l 4 .:(1.:1: -■ ¢, ' t r4 ��i'f� �r�Y , S ■ i..�,+rte-d.1.4 i w jl Tom, -{ r ft 14. Safety Electrical Mast: Mast pulling loose Chimney 15. Method of Inspection: Unable to view 16. Not Inspected Chimney: Brick- Unable to view • • • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PomB, Inc. B-48 Pro Inspections - 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 9 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Electrical Electrical amperage or voltage adequacies are not within the scope of this report.If such detailed information is required,we suggest contacting appropriate specialists.We also suggest any repairs be made by a qualified contractor. Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter devices(GFCI)afford additional protection against electrical shock. GFCI protection are typically found in newer home. Ceiling fan note: If ceiling fans are present,we are unable to determined if the junction boxes mounted in the ceiling are secured enough to hold the weight of a ceiling fan. Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tem was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tem was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tem did not perform its intended function. Safety tem is a potential and/or safety hazard. 1. Electrical Panel Location: North side 2. Service Size Amps: Unable to note Volts: 220-290 VAC 3. Reviewed Service: Over head copper gyrz'socttd ,.z , ^a 1 awl V.0 w 4. Safety Panel Box: Missing dead front and front ..;4„q i$sF i:t94t t6:40 a ; covers . '�`'; �reTa 'r ,°{`5.44. * m F ed kt4;*"1 PS.; j is i - 4 11SI, , ‘C - A I f Y p= y ] IV f I PP ,ft ry 9 ,% r-f4�G�11lA.lai umber of Breakers Off: All ! Safety 120 VAC Branch Circuits: Copper wire- Wiring been removed 7. Safety 240 VAC Branch Circuits: Copper wire- Wiring been removed 8. Safety Grounding: No grounding noted r Plumbing 0 We do not inspect the sewer system below grade of the home or grounds. If you are concerned about the sewer system check with the seller about the history of the sewer system. Having all drain service company service the main line to be sure it is open and flowing is good advice also. Shut off valves located in bathroom and kitchen are not turned,these valves tend to leak if they have not been operated in awhile.We recommend that these valves be operated on a monthly bases to insure proper operation. Reviewed tem was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tem was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tem requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. 1. Reviewed Main Water Shutoff: East side 2. Defective Visible Water Lines: Rusted and disconnected pipes noted, Water was off at time of inspection 3. Not Inspected Visible Drain Pipes: Water was off at time of inspection 4. Reviewed Visible Vent Pipes: 5. Not Inspected Gas Meter Missing meter noted 6. Safety Gas Service Lines: Rusted pipes noted Water Heater iUnit Location: Outside cabinet Approximate Age: Unable to note- Appears older than 12 years, According to the industry experts, the average water heater life in the U.S. is 8 to 12 years . Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright©1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-49 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 10 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Plumbing (Continued) I• 9. Approximate Size: 30 Gallons 10. Reviewed Cabinet/Stand: 11. Safety Seismic Bracing: Earthquake support straps are missing and should be installed before the close of escrow 12. Safety Water Heater Operation: Rusted unit, needs r. agat, 4 Vs n�3 t replacement r4 Q - r e - r 1 4 f- 1 R i C SV['t M1� i {{ l L 1,,,,424:0,1 13. Not Inspected Supply Lines: 14. Safety TPRV and Drain Tube: Missing drain pipe from T&P valve to exterior of building 15. Energy Source: Natural gas 16. Reviewed Fuel Line: 17. Reviewed Flue Pipe: 18. Reviewed Combustible Air: Garage/Carport Numerous devices in homes that operate with remote control are not within the scope of this inspection. For information about these devices we • first suggest that you obtain a list of all the remote controls from the seller. The operation of the garage door opener will be tested using the permanent control button provided in the house or garage. Many radio controlled devices have changeable codes which you may want to consider altering your use and safety. You may wish to contact the installer or manufacturer for additional information and evaluation. Reviewed tem was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tem was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tem was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tem requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tem did not perform its intended function. Safety tem is a potential and/or safety hazard. Garage 1. Type of Structure: Detached Car Spaces: 9 2. Defective' Exterior Surface: Wood- Broken and missing y 9 boards, soil to wood contact `f f 1 ' (, . �r`..y .0770:7;" eh) Ii S asp• N � .. fit /� 4 .w, :, • 41! 3. Defective Roof: Metal- Rust noted 4. Reviewed Roof Structure: 5. Reviewed Anchor Bolts: 6. Reviewed Floor/Foundation: Concrete- • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. 8-50 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 11 of 22 10309-1.pt5 10 Garage/Carport (Continued) 7. Safety Electrical: Missing plate covers over M %.---°'� S "'{ receptacles and/or switches, Exposed fir ' unprotected wiring noted below 8 feet, No t�`r.a..r ` `� ,,1.x power in receptacles w . .: �„"" :,er-rl,�.;„,� ;' y_ ' ..ice r • H ' Ito- ilk, "`....:1+�..`J'.u:ri 8. Reviewed Exterior Service Door: Garage Doors: 9. Reviewed Garage Door: F Attic I The Inspector may not have entered the attic area if in the opinion of the inspector,are not accessible or where entry could cause damage to the building or inspector. HVAC ductwork was not inspected for air quality or potential contaminants. It is recommended that you have the air ducts cleaned by a qualified contractor to insure environmental hygiene for you and your family. Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. - Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. • Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. Attic 1. Attic Access: Bedroom 2. Method of Inspection: In the attic 3. Unable To Inspect: 25% 4. Safety Access/Area: Smoke and fire damage noted 5. Reviewed Roof Framing: 2x9 Rafter, 2x6 Rafter 6. Safety Sheathing: Charred wood noted 4.' F o wtbkx`✓ A .SAY J.tl :4.121".:4774.- RftA 4 4k. 7.i 4 Lr. "R . +y i� i �' f? P `Cb r ` Y 5 ,�Ru 1 fi y y ,rte I\ 1 it.,ii .'_ 4 t .::::14-;:-.4,7-3' y si,30 JS r P .t rpm 7. Reviewed Ventilation: Gable vents 8. Insulation Type: None • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-51 - Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 12 of 22 10309-1.pt5 L Attic (Continued) • 9. Safety Wiring/Li•htin•: Knob and tube wiring noted, O.en wires splices :71,7 ts,:. • f • i y_• v. .� iF 10. Reviewed Flue Pipe: [ Fireplace/Wood Stove The gas lighter and/or gas logs are not tested and are beyond the scope of this inspection.,Inspection of the flue is beyond the scope of this inspection, if you are concerned about the interior of the flue i t is recommended that you have a Level I I inspection from a qualified Fireplace inspection company. Reviewed tem was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tem did not perform its intended function. Safety tem is a potential and/or safety hazard. • Living Room Fireplace 1. Type: Brick 2. Safety Smoke Chamber: Missing grout between bricks , + vtt .{. t, k't+Ma,� a $ s j .. {"�rGM1„ -t + ' .il dye �SlQi y� 't y 1i 3. Safety Flue: Concrete block noted in flue for unknown '"-Y`x ;.% 't y reason ° ��kr?F • c R W L f*Art, rc �k •:u 4. Not Present Damper: 5. Not Present Glass Doors: 6. Reviewed Hearth: • Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright©1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-52 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 13 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Bathroom Plumbing pipes located under sinks may be bumped and broken by seller during move out,this may cause leaking. It is recommended that you run water in sinks and check for leaks before storing items under sinks. If the house was vacant for a period of time leaks in faucets and/or drains may occur from seals drying out or not being used, Shower pans are not tested for leakage during the inspection Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power, inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tem requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. - Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. East Bathroom 1. Reviewed Ceiling: 2. Reviewed Walls: 3. Defective Floor: Floor slopes ,MA•I61ar Er1'�'R . tart y»', ' S! z°L h SY � �� v 4. Defective Doors: Hole noted in door eviewed Windows: afety Electrical: Missing light fixture, Electrical V 9T `y' 4%%e i titl {f p, was off at time of inspection r ti4{� Py " 3 ; { R,F,�"'�hkµ T `3ty tiCt °� s3/4y�� + ' ,t6 t91 1 E7 ,1Y �a rt i 'x: v �u- M:414 2��t x��41; 7. Reviewed Counter/Cabinet: 8. Not Inspected Faucets/Traps: Water heater was off at time of inspection, unable to determine if hot water is located on left side or drainage 9. Defective Shower/Surround: Missing faucets handles, Water heater was off at time of inspection, unable to determine if hot water is located on left side or drainage 10. Not Inspected Toilets: Water heater was off at time of inspection 11. Reviewed Ventilation: Window West Bathroom 12. Reviewed Ceiling: 13. Defective Walls: Holes noted 14. Defective Floor: Floor slopes 15. Defective Doors: Missing hardware 16. Defective Windows: Broken glass 17. Safety Electrical: Light fixture hanging from wires, Electrical was off at time of inspection •efective Sink/Basin: Missing Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. 6-53 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 14 of 22 10309-1.pt5 LBathroom (Continued) • 19. Defective Tub/Surround: Missing overflow cover, Water heater was off at time of inspection, unable to determine if hot water is located on left side or drainage �+r. Y '? t rtyir r j6.,.}�i' i-< r'jv n,, W 1 � \ A� f t sM 1 'O�% t z ^ ',An; 3 f #y am v i 1 A a P - �lir e ,�y y g Lx'F .'- , Ft t x :4 11 n p '�c ➢ � ga� � i Y t.t t � 1 LF �� Y�1l1 F s" �'i1C+i0.\\I RM1II it 1 m $ K n 4i 'r, r° � i y!L r Eg pvM, \1 �Fi / � 41 g 51 fi z 0{fps it� n��*'.P � .9.�i d'1�,:�he<,,,au,. � 1 tri b�}ti° 20. Defective Toilets: Broken tank and bowl !' r q .. Al,�� #t psi.r,F :s�"krw ��}'+ !' n [ d»#�'q y0.` s7 ' t �( ` x 4 I 21. Reviewed Ventilation: Window Living Space I• Only accessible electrical receptacles were tested,listed below is the number tested Reviewed tem was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power;inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tem requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. Living Space 1. Room Description: 2. Defective Ceiling: Holes noted, Water stains noted, „ 4i possible roof leak e 41,14r31/24102:4!.:2'',.. 3i glSd .1 rY t i r at. 1 4-n5S: -. f7.1 ' } "t m4 • Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright©1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-54 � - Pro Inspections - . 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 15 of 22 103084.pi5 111 | iV�OO !�D@C�� /(�0�ti�U��d\u / ^ `'' \`' " °/ 3. Defective Walls: Holes noted . 4. Defective Floor Floor slopes, Holes noted 5. Safety Exterior Door: Missing and damaged doors �� � ��i , ,� � '� 'mmwnw,, ..w`, .° .r'.,;n wm~- • 6. Safety Windows: Broken glass �� ��1 �. �' `,- ' � � 4�pv' , rz., 7. Safety Electrical: A number of open junction boxes noted, Electrical was off at time of inspection Living Space 8. Room Description: Dining room 9. Defective Ceiling: Cracks present ����0 ���r Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright®<O08'2009.PDmB, Inc. B-55 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 16 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Living Space (Continued) I • 10. Defective Walls: Holes noted my raL' kti` 4 i �y° `t'1%4,,.. ,� z' • 41 3p 141:14,1,,g y/ � ,,:,F.1tF ,lgi4i, 11,Mitkitil: '. ( pp! , I 11. Defective Floor: Floor slopes 12. Safety Windows: Broken glass 13. Safety Electrical: Missing plate covers over receptacles and/or switches, Missing light fixture, Electrical was off at time of inspection Living Space 14. Room Description: Den 15. Defective Ceiling: Holes noted, Water stains noted, possible roof leak 16. Defective Walls: Holes noted 17. Reviewed Floor: 18. Safety Doors: Broken glass 19. Safety Electrical: Missing plate covers over receptacles and/or switches, Electrical was off at time of inspection s .+m.�2 M-c� , 20. Defective HVAC Source: Wall heater- Missing parts .21 k Y �s`^ , • ,,, , P- ; • s� lr ,,y r"- I�i-i�:!f s 1.41 ay ��:? i . wip a'{p-�+1st 11 1 ,�F y q, Living Space 21. Room Description: Room addition 22. Reviewed Closet: 23. Defective Ceiling: Cracks present 24. Defective Walls: Holes noted ,;',, ZPra t ,'l`W'.",' �s I rk t z tio.£ l ,f P1 ur Y "L^Z<s t'� m� •p t6 br}i (iy" �s3 25. Defective Floor: Floor slopes 26. Safety Exterior Door: Broken glass noted, Doesn' t latch when closed, Doesn't fit frame, Wood rot noted, 27. Safety Windows: Broken glass 28. Safety Electrical: Missing plate covers over receptacles and/or switches, Loose • receptacles noted, Electrical was off at time of inspection Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-56 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 17 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Bedroom Smoke detectors are not tested by the inspector. The built in test button only verifies proper battery and horn function,but does not test the smoke sensor. We suggest that the units be tested with simulated smoke at move in and that fresh batteries(if applicable)be installed.The batteries when present should be tested monthly and replaced every 6 months as recommended by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If the house was built today it would require 1 smoke detector in each bedroom, 1 in the hallway and 1 on each floor,it is recommended that you upgrade to this new standard. Ceiling fan note:If ceiling fans are present,we are unable to determined if the junction boxes mounted in the ceiling are secured enough to hold the weight of a ceiling fan.Only accessible electrical receptacles were tested,listed below is the number tested Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tem was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tem was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tem is a potential and/or safety hazard. East Bedroom 1. Defective Closet: Doors off track 2. Defective Ceiling: Holes noted g 'd 'h c j ti 3a5 ' 17 � � fps, 5,r } R Defective Walls: Holes noted 4. Safety Floor: Holes noted N '•'u,siesrike'z '` i t.7 7,-.7.i. e K t i :, S +( s om , r s o — l ,YP �,p f ` ex yin` �jw,�S.:.y it -a�y r 5. Defective Doors: Missing hardware N•; T Yr ^ i'`"",'�'" +fw F I .t R� ) i L '4 y� Cf 5 F � � s�� 1°� r Im{G� 7dM�vi�; 2+' 7t(i 1 IOW F t �d d'7'IY if r, rxSkis. r qi + } 12 .!. # \�� St'? 4� �, ' 3Cu b 'ti t.. Rte i� ! • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. 8-57 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 18 of 22 10309-1.pt5 • . Bedroom (Continued) I • R 6..Safety Windows: Broken glass , I ' i ` is Iij iii 1 H { 1 ` I II I. 9 A . il:It . i ', f { , I , r. .v3 � k.;„ i t I d a 1 7. r � `i c. 7. Safety Electrical: Missing light fixture, Electrical was off at time of inspection South Bedroom 8. Reviewed Closet: 9. Defective Ceiling Holes noted Water stains noted, •ossible roof leak '�+ I s , Y Y sta�`r, �,r( . yt��v k �t .d -z 2� £�B a i P r ,� lx^ \ b atr 4' t3'v. '�l bf.4l++.a' 77alt r- - �� � � � its ` lca, 'ti -,y0 l � ,ito: r,„; 'r ark*., f`,� ,.0 s it i +r At " t, Cr'" A} c140:49 7,1 rl x 1 w n 1 5,407.�I�$1"ar1 g'ivF' h s4 S+ ak. A x 2' 11 n 91.4:4 Rv r 7+ h a a . I J�i m d f F �" +"La i. ' 5a. I'f°4 Ll iy 4. i t ,y5��&�;k v U,.;"'i� r A.h A� Slh 3 q �5 q � s 1 4� W^tir sl l'e`a lam„1 H t t � i s it�y a■s . r,1 i� ,J +'^'Nr 1 �" u + r 7 ;, r i°7 ti .. PA 'il ra+ ," 1 Sri I F k 1 I4 ., �� 1Ve re y': 'r rte �'le t4 L� 0 h x '�3,«0 dr, 2A":49!”. k "11 1 t s 1IS>R.14'.ri' ':& <'i�fiE . I')S ib.L�'a ,r.h1+Q. ��_�� JAFIA.,5Y�1�ry'". 1. r R?s+p f9.y�y{(��N��PP :eJ lI � [�.'P r"'' 4 'T.f'E{eaelil-�.YiF ^ i§Yj 4"f.F in TO i,lt t `rt:Ac 11 .^..' �'N( V. aw l 1w' 1 IS {9. �1? N,AY` ' 1 ..6t-:./� ' {p de tis11 }'I +' k a' 9N"',¢�t�� r1 Gt' VeT1'' u uC I'W t 6.44 a{ y`'p, rt,xh.+`�F4.s-i�"f'..+,� re. tthW ilikk- `w{,n,.Ei Ana )IYk`F.:51,,1, 10. Defective Walls: Holes noted 11. Defective Floor Floor slopes 12. Defective Doors: Doesn' t latch when closed 13. Safety Windows: Broken glass, Missing frame 14. Safety Electrical: Missing plate covers over receptacles and/or switches, Electrical was off at time of inspection . • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-58 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 19 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Kitchen Kitchen appliances are checked for normal operation only,testing for microwave or gas leakage is beyond the scope of this inspection.,Water Filtering and instant hot systems are not tested and are beyond the scope of this inspection. If the house was vacant for a period of time leaks in faucets and/or drains may occur from seals drying out or not being used. Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tem was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tem did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. Kitchen 1. Reviewed Sink: 2. Not Inspected Plumbing/Fixtures: Water was off at time of inspection, unable to determine if hot water is located on left side and drainage 3. Reviewed Counter Tops: 4. Reviewed Cabinets: 5. Safety Electrical: Missing plate covers over receptacles and/or switches, Light fixture hanging from wires, Electrical was off at time of inspection 6. Reviewed Ceiling: 7. Defective Walls: Holes noted .�u _ yr•-" A K2r„ ? or s 4r1 r .7 1 P , t yrt , � f r {I^D r 3 t1�^ ` r� VwT.r:P t f ?r Rxr p� a , 1 � 43 I x i A : .'r.: *t" v refP a>< ,f y I i�, , -`i�' `_� i• rel-, atgr .L4#' > , x-"`y�'�"' ✓ ^^ .� tJ yy r -xGcgG 6 ., Mc y� � i+ ,`: • rais::7F•gif l ..�NSJ s `i 1 S.r211X y 124 '1 t vy •w• aki t,4 ; F.(; !•‘-;f Yx"` "t' Ff inr`��kc,n.r,SS'fxzrmrn'L.l.. r'.. . 8. Defective Floor: Damaged flooring 9. Defective Doors: Damaged door ' ' /, J.., L t t J a 1' v z, °•i �y,ii a ,rt' * r r al MI ;114:4 t tatS Hill, ilk lilt , Obi'. It1r:1k..1" r ri7,1 1 3. 'r��l Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009,PDmB, Inc. B-59 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 20 of 22 10309-1.pt5 Kitchen (Continued) • 10. Safety Windows: Broken glass -• ; • Et 1 i', It trot,z p I r psert Cr 11 i 100 Argo Laundry Room/Area • Hose bibs in the laundry area are not turned.,Clothes Dryers is the third common cause of home fire(over 14,000 per year), It is highly recommended that the vent pipe be cleaned out before you put your new unit in place.Flooring under machines may be damaged. Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tem was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons, lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tem requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tem did not perform its intended function. Safety tem is a potential and/or safety hazard. Laundry Room/Area 1. Defective Washer Hose Bib: Missing 2. Not Inspected Washer Drain: • 3. Not Inspected Washer and Dryer Electrical: 110-120 VAC 4. Safety Dryer Vent: Dryer vent terminates in under house and should terminate to exterior 5. Not Present Dryer Gas Line: 6. Defective Ceiling: Holes noted 7. Defective Walls: Holes noted 8. Defective Floor: Floor slopes 9. Safety Exterior Door Broken glass noted 4 " 4+' '; fi , gyp, 4IS / fij firr} at 4 { r� I4 Ell Pt r der e lye) t, r � fill _ _n,. „ 3a2Fil~f"'�lr�t4Mv 10. Safety Windows: Broken glass 11. Not Inspected Electrical: Electrical was off at time of inspection Crawl Space HVAC ductwork was not inspected for air quality or potential contaminants. It is recommended that you have the air ducts cleaned by a qualified contractor to insure environmental hygiene for you and your family. • Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright© 1998-2009, PDmB, Inc. B-60 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 21 of 22 • 10309-1.pt5 • Crawl Space (Continued) Reviewed tern was reviewed and appears to function adequately. Not Present tern was not present at time of inspection. Not Inspected tern was unable to be inspected due to safety reasons,lack of power,inaccessible or disconnected at time of inspection. Maintenance tern requires maintenance,servicing,and/or monitoring. Defective tern did not perform its intended function. Safety tern is a potential and/or safety hazard. North Crawl Space 1. Method of Inspection: From the access 2. Unable to Inspect: 25% 3. Defective Access/Area: Grading allowing water under house . ro+ jS a 4 /iii. {y>;4 4. Not Present Insulation: 5. safety Foundation: No foundation noted, house appears to be sitting on soil 6. Safety Anchor Bolts: Unit is not attached to ground 7. Defective Joist: Sagging joist noted ^gin Defective Piers/Post: Post are not connected to soil �"< ,.� ," `��>,�xd 1asyz , i t �Y T '�4; t k g 4 ti� tw: : r • ,xac�_ 9. Defective Wood/Soil Separation: Soil in contact with wood. • Palm-Tech Inspector, Copyright© 1998-2009,PDmB, Inc. B-61 Pro Inspections 08:41 November 06, 2010 Page 22 of 22 10309-1.pt5 LFinal Comments • NOTE #1 In reading the Inspection Report you may find items listed as "Maintenance" , " Defective", "Safety", or "Not Inspected/Not Present", If you are concerned about any these items it is RECOMMENDED that further evaluation and/or repairs be made by an appropriate QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL before the close of escrow. , NOTE #2 If areas of the home are inaccessible or concealed from the inspectors view, then an inspection of that area did not take place. 1) Request that any information about hidden problems be revealed to you about these inaccessible or hidden areas from the seller prior to the close of escrow. , 2) Return to the property prior to the close of escrow and perform a walk-through inspection of your own after the owner' s belongings have been removed. 3) If your inspection or information reveals hidden damage or concerns contact a qualified specialist or your inspector for a return visit. , NOTE #3 Re-inspection ' s are only performed on items not assessable at the time of original inspection or that were unable to be inspected due to utilities not turned on. Should repairs be necessary we suggest they be performed by appropriate persons and that work complies with applicable Law, including governmental permits, inspection, and approval requirements. Buyers should obtain from seller receipts for repairs performed by others, a written statement indicating the date of repairs performed by seller and provide copies of receipts and statements of seller prior to final verification of condition. (Ref: Residential Purchase Agreement Form RPA-11, page 4 item 10 . ) , NOTE #4 If you are concerned about code violations or building permit information you should: 1) Contract with a company to research permit information available at the appropriate building and safety office. 2) If you have additional concerns with regard to code violations you may contract for a code compliance survey of the property. A typical home inspection is not such a service. , NOTE #5 Mold, mildew, fungus and other toxic organisms commonly occur in areas that show • evidence of or have the potential for leaking, moisture intrusion and/or inadequate ventilation. The identification of the organism is beyond the scope of the inspector. Any area or item exhibiting such conditions can be a health hazard to some people. If concerned about this possibility, we recommend further investigation be performed by a License Industrial Hygienist to determine if there exists an ongoing climate for incubation or microbial .contamination and that steps be taken to eliminate this climate. , NOTE #6 If you are concerned about "Recalled appliances" we recommend that you check with the "Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) at www.cpsc.gov for an updated list of all current recalls . NOTE #7 It is recommended you ask the seller for the operating manuals for all appliances including the water heater, Heater and air conditioner, Many of these manual are available on the internet. NOTE #8 If pictures are included in the report they are only samples of the item, in other words, there may be more than one open junction box in the attic but the report only shows a picture of one. NOTE #16 Lead paint and asbestos is common in older homes, testing for these are beyond the standards of this inspection , if you are concerned about lead paint or asbestos we recommend you contact the appropriate professional, NOTE #17 It appears there was a room addition added. We recommend that you check to see if permits were pulled and signed off by the city or county building department . NOTE #18 If you are looking for ways to lower your energy cost you may want to check . out these web sites . www.consumerenergycenter.org or www.dca.ca.gov/energychallenge.org or you can call the California Energy Commission @ 1-800-772-3300 . NOTE # 20 There is a number of detached building on the property that was not inspected. • Palm-Tech Inspector,Copyright©1998-2009,PDmB, Inc. B-62 A i CrIONGA fitatata AN UPDATE ON THE GEORGE AND JESSIE JOHNSTON HOME, A DESIGNATED POINT OF INTEREST, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6998 ETIWANDA AVENUE - APN: 1089-081-20. ��� r.r. i, . I;►, . t'- - 1r- .. I 1 �� s n , f'_ r ' . r 1. r ," 1 .. 1 r y ., - '- �gfi k t ms „.. e _ 40,3� n r F► l•Q � yr f. 't I /l . , .N • S ` ' �� i � A a- .* 01# Jr ii Pc- .... iiii 9 R, r 1 j Background CCSA V1o!r1;tt (A43Bt JA • 2007 -Preliminary Review application submitted • July 25, 2007 - Commission determination • August 9, 2007 - letter from City to Manning Homes ,t , Al a f yr" 7 ` ', fl / 1� C�. b s , t t A t�J ��I 0 b � ' {, in � r1 �, "�.iiii:.* , E Y � 1 t IN ill • September 12, 2007 - letter from Manning t, .,�,.; Homes to City r .16 • September 12, 2007 - staff update to the Commission • November 8, 2007 - staff memo to Commission �m v v C I111 t H , AYXY. 1 "r,N } 41 I ' l ; . Update RA\:1w CLC 1.r10!.Gn C'RL.1'vr.ti;A • Manning Homes is ready to purchase the property again and submit their subdivision application. • Request for Commission to reconsider and permit the structure to be demolished due to its current condition. • Manning Homes provided a property inspection report. • May need structural report to determine if it can be moved. Ground Area Iht �►VCiiO � #.�±_ A}1QIrGA ALtbLIL\H � 2010 Property , y Inspection ` ; Report r submitted by Manning '� �, ., • Homes -- 3 , . . . i . "...- —.• . --- , - 1■.J'1 ,-, -... _ ... RANO lt) , ppipor.. . , .Irrie./..), i , .. - .... • . ., .,...-.,... , . -lr ...::,............Rill ,41 # • — • • -, steps stows .••,. _ •, ,.., ... -.....- _- .... • ,_..-- [ ' I _ • • • Deckn: -•, - • •. . . 4.1.1 z, :.;.,4.^. ,....L....I, 1-I • .i'li ..1 -.'..-' . ' , I ■ 7. . k t,' • .• 1/4,04 - r.„ ,,,,,,...... ......_ ..., NA.,ifleie., .. ,-,,,,,,, ..... ., "... _h. 1 ... _.. Type.t-!::•,c:::t- " R.,1,3cito -asoa CirhotOinam' • ,,• '-' ...p.z,:e,pe,- :,•. •— .1 ,• :4:',.•,.e'' ,:'',i'r.-",.,- ':/•:',..'hi:t,',,,,,i'...?, . . •. .•.', ti4;',•7,i'.:.''.,',1,,,i..:.r, l',.a..,.$3,,,4'..''..,;.'.': ,:,i,. ::,:t Soffits.w z.:i.- Windows:. , • *".... ' IA\ ' .- ;• ,..f*: . 4,, , ■ , : ,...,_.,,,... :: , ,_, • ' _ ,,iit. . -,.... • .,-, . , .. . . ,•- . . i'''4 ; -,• . -,:-.,,..;••-,-, ,.".. . Exter or Lighting: Exter or Electric. _- _•.• .•._.• 4 ill ,,... 4111111P1k, '4i .t'.azs lrez ...... ti- :- • ... .. _.,_.. III i!,'''''..',13E',,,.'''.4,i1 r j _ 5...z.- F at,i,t, ] 5 . . . .. f.r • c-- •,.; 1' • toil ,. .... ,_ n • t . :.. :.: .'1:..:.r- ......_.. :'L-':r'.dr.._?3 ::.'... ._ Sri_:' .... _ 5h.: :3? ?C .suing: ,,.'slls: z . r 4 I; .� ' `° Material'Asphalt sh:ngle- •8 4 7 ,. x Xa ry ,x' • yam.... A. 1. , 1 te il'� 1b ■ y 5 � Visits :a i 6,. . Y' Floor Exterior Door .. -xr'wr Windows . - i Electrical:. -n .a :___ ,- .1 +a? ,:fC Analysis • Staff is intent on working with the developer to "' `A save the Johnston house. According to research done in 2007, the home is an important historical resource to Etiwanda and meets the criteria for a historic landmark. • Staff met with the Etiwanda Historical Society on November 9, 2010: — Discussion of possible relocation of the house to the Isle house site. — The Society did not support demolition of the structure. — Not favorable to it being moved to the Isle house site, and felt it should be retained in place. 6 • WONCA Landmarking the structure now would require an alteration permit if the structure is moved or altered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission review the information and consider if initiating landmark application is appropriate. 7