Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves two local landmark designations and a third after debate over naming
Summary
The council approved adding three properties to Fullerton's historic register. Two nominations passed with little discussion; the third (156 Hillcrest Drive, Lewis E. Plummer House) prompted debate over naming because of allegations about the former owner’s historical ties; staff said the nomination is based on architecture and the council approved the designation with the historic name intact.
The City Council considered a staff recommendation and Landmarks Commission review to add three properties to the Fullerton Plan historic preservation element and local register. Associate planner Andrew Cush presented the nominations: 621 N. Richmond Ave (Suitors House), 538 W. Whiting Ave (William N. Rollo House), and 156 Hillcrest Drive (Lewis E. Plummer House).
Fullerton Heritage spoke in support and described archival research; one member, Ernie Kelsey, said the association had investigated claims about Lewis Plummer and concluded evidence of Ku Klux Klan membership was inconclusive. Members of the public pressed the council to avoid memorializing names tied to alleged historical wrongdoing; others urged recognition of architectural significance.
Council split the three votes procedurally so each property was considered individually. Motions to approve Richmond and Whiting passed with unanimous support. For 156 Hillcrest Drive, council debated a substitute motion to approve the designation but omit the historic name from the plaque; the substitute failed and the original motion to designate the property with the Lewis E. Plummer historic name passed (vote recorded as passing). Staff emphasized the nomination met municipal code criteria for architectural significance and that property owners had authorized the application.
Council instructed staff that plaque language and additional context could be discussed if petitioners or members of the public provided more documentation to consider renaming or additional interpretive signage.
