City of San Luis Obispo - Cultural Heritage Committee Action Update

Cultural Heritage Committee Action Update

January 28, 2008 Monday 5:30p.m.

ROLL CALL: Committee Members Chuck Crotser, Lynne Landwehr, John Fowler, Dean Miller, Elise Wheeler, Vice Chair Robert Pavlik and Chairperson Barbara Breska

All Committee members were present

STAFF: Jeremiah Robbins, Planning Intern; James David, Assistant Planner, Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner; Jeff Hook, Senior Planner and Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long-Range Planning

MINUTES: Minutes of December 17, 2007, regular meeting. The minutes of the December 17, 2007, regular meeting were approved as amended on a 7:0 vote.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

Committee members revised the agenda and took items 2 and 3 ahead of item 1 to allow the project planner to be present.

1. 1160 Marsh Street. CHCMA 153-07; Review a Mills Act contract for the historic Stover’s Sanitarium; O zone; Robin Rossi, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)

Jeff Hook presented the staff report, recommending the Committee endorse the Mills Act Contract and that the Committee recommend City Council approve the contract. Rob Rossi, property owner, and Craig Smith, Architect, explained planned exterior and interior improvements intended to rehabilitate the historic building. Mr. Rossi explained his intent was to use property tax savings through the Mills Act program to return the building to a condition as close as possible to original, within building code provisions.

Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing. Mike Shipsey commented that he had lived in the town all his life and was very familiar with the building. He was glad the building was being rehabilitated to its original appearance. Hearing no further comment, the public hearing was closed.

On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Pavlik, the Committee endorsed the draft Mills Act contract and recommended that the City Council approve the contract, finding that:

1. Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 indicates the City will participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties.

2. Stover’s Sanitarium located at 1160 Marsh Street has been recognized as an historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property. As such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.

The motion carried 7:0.

2. 1500 Eto Circle. ARCMI 185-07; Review proposed landscape improvements for the historic Solomon Forman House; R-1-PD zone; Sue & Steve Lumm, applicant. (Brian Leveille)

Jeremiah Robbins presented the staff report, recommending the Committee approve the proposed landscape improvements subject to findings and conditions that he summarized. Sue and Steve Lumm, applicants, explained the project and landscape designer Stephen Roehrenbeck answered questions about the planting design. Committee members felt the design was compatible with the historic ranch house. Committee member Wheeler was concerned that the proposed minor grading could encounter subsurface historic resources, like old building foundations, privies or other historical features. She asked that conditions be added to require that the applicant retain a historical archaeologist to monitor grading and a standard condition regarding procedures to follow when historical or archaeological resources are uncovered.

On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Miller, the Committee voted 7:0 to recommend the Community Development Director approve the landscape plan for the historic Solomon Foreman house subject to the findings and conditions below:

Findings

1. The project is consistent with standards contained in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the historical character of the house is not diminished or altered by the proposed site improvements.

2. The Opuntia cactus is not considered historical and its removal will not destroy the historical relationship between the building and the landscape, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, because it is not an original historical landscape feature.

3. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. Existing Facilities).

Conditions

1. Applicants will submit a detailed grading plan for Community Development Director approval prior to grading or landscape construction to ensure there will be no potential impacts to cultural resources.

2. Lighting system shall be low voltage and applicants shall submit information on the light fixtures to determine appropriateness prior to construction.

3. Applicants will notify the Community Development Director if an arbor is proposed and submit detailed information about the proposed arbor to allow the Director to review compatibility with the house and gazebo.

4. Prior to grading or landscape construction, the applicant shall submit a monitoring plan, prepared by a qualified historical archaeologist, for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall include at a minimum:

      a.      List of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
b.      Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
c.      Description of frequency of monitoring (e.g. full-time, part time, spot checking)
d.      Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
e.      Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g. What is considered “significant” archaeological resources?)
f.        Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification procedures;
g. description of monitoring reporting procedures.

5. Applicant shall implement the monitoring plan, to the approval of the Community Development Director

3. 3897 S. Higuera Street & 120 Tank Farm Road. ARC 170-07; Review proposed redevelopment & commercial subdivision involving the historic Long-Bonetti Ranch; M-SP zone; Long Street Farm, LLC, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)

Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report and explained this item was before the Committee to provide an opportunity for conceptual review and early comment. Project applicant, Ted Moore and representative, Carol Florence, with Oasis Associates, responded to the staff report. They explained that they feel they have “hit a roadblock” in coming up with a design approach that balances the preservation aspects with the economic and physical realities of preserving the historic structures on-site. The barn, granary, and water tower are dilapidated and may not be able to be restored or rehabilitated. The barn is located in a low spot for drainage and needs to be raised.

Committee member Wheeler felt the entire property is a cultural landscape. The context and relationships of the historic buildings are important to the property’s historic integrity.

Committee member Landwehr noted that the property’s earlier ownership needed to be documented. The property was owned by Hartford and McCoppin who sold it to Grant who owned one of the biggest import firms in San Francisco. In Grant’s published memoirs, he speaks to the feel of SLO at the time of his tenure and specifically mentions this property. She suggested that Grant’s name be added to the title “Long-Bonetti” to more accurately reflect the earlier association and provided an excerpt from Grant’s memoirs to be added to the historic file on the property.

Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing.

Bob Vessely indicated that the additional history mentioned by Committee member Landwehr is important to document and that the time these structures were developed on the property provides a unique insight into the transition of SLO from a rural to a more urban era. The site layout is important – the historic nature of the property is more than just the buildings. He suggested adding an historian to the design team to assist with development of a concept plan (someone who is familiar with these types of projects). The buildings’ structural condition needs to be analyzed and the value of the structures to the community (subjective) needs to be documented.

Craig Lindeman felt that development rights were given to the previous owner of the property in exchange for entering an agreement with the City guaranteeing preservation of the farmhouse and other historic structures. This applicant is still bound by the agreement.

Ted Moore explained that changes have been made to the property since the original agreement. The historic structures are sinking into the ground and there may not be anything left to preserve. He wants to be a partner with the CHC to come up with a solution that works both for the community and economically.

Mike Shipsey felt that if structures are unsound, preserve the shape and context of the buildings. The original lumber isn’t as important as preserving the character and configuration of the site. Reconstruction should be an acceptable preservation method.

Stephan Lamb noted that only a few farm sites are left in SLO. He felt it was important to preserve the context of the buildings on the site.

Jan Marx felt this was a similar situation to the farmhouse on Eto Street which the City Council required to be preserved as part of a residential subdivision. The project needs to preserve the buildings and site.

Chairperson Breska closed the public hearing.

Committee member Fowler questioned when the applicant bought the property (according to applicant, about 18-24 months ago) and expressed concern that nothing has been done to honor the preservation agreement. The CHC is charged with preserving historic properties. Context and setting are important to preserve, although as a Certified Public Accountant he understands the need for the project to be supportable economically.

Committee member Wheeler asked if it were possible to keep the historic buildings in their original locations and cluster new development on the lot adjacent to Long Street. She suggested that the applicant put together a restoration team to help prepare a conceptual plan that protects the historic resources.

Ted Moore responded that the site coverage is fairly low. There is not enough room to get enough square footage on single lot to make it economically feasible unless additional commercial floor area is built. He needs to look at the entire site to develop a new approach.

Committee member Crotser indicated that through adaptive re-use, there may be some latitude for relocating the structures on the site. He appreciated the efforts to preserve the structures and has some specific comments: The locations of the parking lot and driveway that separates the buildings and also the parking lot between the historic buildings and the streets are not appropriate and detract from the historic context of the site. He felt that building additions to the historic structures could be done if appropriately designed.

Committee member Pavlik felt it was possible to do a combination of all levels of preservation on a single site depending on the specifics of each building. The CHC supports retaining the greatest amount of original building materials as possible.

Committee member Miller felt the applicant’s newest proposal, submitted only a few days before the CHC meeting and after the staff report was prepared, was not acceptable. The original proposal doesn’t appear consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and with City preservation policies. The project design team needs to include an historic preservation architect or specialist to help with the proposal. The applicants are not speaking the same language as the CHC and do not seem to understand the City’s adopted preservation goals or terms. This is where a design professional well-versed in historic preservation could help.

Committee member Landwehr suggested keeping the “whole feel and flavor” of the farm complex. Do not relocate structures. She suggested eliminating building A and internal parking. She felt that project design should reflect the historicity of site (on-site) and earlier historic associations with Grant and others.

Committee member Wheeler agrees that building A needs to be deleted from current proposed location and wants to see the historic buildings reconstructed to the property’s original period of significance. Otherwise, the site loses the feeling of a farm site and it compresses the setting. She suggested researching what was located there before and re-create it. Keep the buildings in place.

Ted Moore stated that economic issues will drive the project design and he needs to recoup the money from the new development in order to finance the restoration/preservation efforts.

Committee member Crotser suggested the developer look at the historic uses of the corner of Tank Farm Road and South Higuera Street (although Tank Farm Road wasn’t always there and uses may be part of larger site that was farmed) to guide redevelopment. He was open to creative visuals showing new buildings’ location, but the buildings have to fit context..

Carol Florence said they will involve a preservation architect and will work with the CHC to come up with a supportable project. How do they preserve the people-aspect associated with the site? Their stories are important.

Committee member Landwehr agreed it was important to preserve the story on-site. It was also important to determine the period of significance on which preservation efforts will be geared to. The CHC should be involved in this decision.

On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Crotser, the Committee recommended that the applicant modify the proposal to be consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and General Plan policies regarding cultural resources and continue the item to a date uncertain with the following direction:

1. Site landscaping shall be designed to respect the historic ranch.

2. All historic structures shall be rehabilitated in place rather than relocated unless specific site conditions warrant otherwise (specific site conditions include drainage problems, site distance conflicts, or other significant unavoidable conflicts). If it is determined by the CHC, on advice of a qualified historical preservation architect, that the barn, granary building or other accessory structures are not restorable, then these structures shall be reconstructed on the existing footprints using existing materials and new materials that closely match the original construction materials.

3. The proposed project shall comply with the Historic Preservation Agreement recorded with the property.

4. New buildings shall respect and complement the historic ranch design theme by utilizing agrarian architecture. Materials such as corrugated steel, wood (or simulated wood) siding, and related products shall be used as exterior treatment. Roof forms and massing shall represent agricultural-related buildings such as barns, silos, or other agricultural-related structures.

5. The project shall return to the CHC with conceptual architectural drawings of new buildings, detailed plans for restoring or reconstructing the historic buildings and structures, and an initial environmental study.

6. Additional research to document the historic uses and their location on the site shall be completed and provided to the CHC.

4. 1445 Santa Rosa Street. ARC 166-07; Review of modification to Mitchell Park Master Plan to construct a parking lot for the Senior Center located in the historic Kindergarten School; PF-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo-Public Works, applicant. (James David)

Jeff Hook provided opening comments regarding events leading up to Master plan amendment and explained the CHC’s purview in reviewing the Master Plan amendment. He introduced project planner James David who presented the staff report.

Chairperson Breska declared she is a member of the senior center but has no financial interest in project and will keep an open mind, listen to all testimony and participate in a well-considered decision after hearing input. She opened the public hearing.

Craig Lindeman said that the game of throwing horseshoes has been around longer than parking and felt it was more important to preserve the horseshoe court behind the Senior Center rather than build a parking lot. He felt it would be a poor historical decision to replace horseshoes with cars.

Mike Shipsey, a long-time city resident, said the area was grassland before it was a horseshoe pit. That was followed by bocce, lawn-bowling and other things over time. He felt that the parking lot was needed, especially to serve handicapped seniors.

Stephan Lamb felt that Mitchell Park is part of historic resource – the whole setting and environmental context are historically important. Surrounding the historic senior center with paving is not historically compatible or consistent with standards.

Sherry Fontane said she agreed with Mr. Lamb.

Mary Ellen Gibson opposed building a parking lot; she said the property deeded to the City for recreational use not as a parking lot.

Carmy Parsell agreed with the previous speakers.

Trudy Lindeman agreed with the previous speakers.

Lou Carpine said his grandchildren refer to Mitchell Park as “Nana’s park”. This decision is not about the seniors. It is wrong to support the parking lot for many reasons: historic preservation, kids’ safety and park uses.

Jan Marx said the historic use of the site is as a park and playground for children. Teddy Roosevelt spoke on a bandstand in the park in 1903 and Mitchell Park is historically important as a public gathering place. The Community use of the park is the historic use. The Council decided to update the master plan in 2001 to show community gardens in this location and it was inappropriate for the Council to include the parking lot in a CIP program when it was clearly inconsistent with the Mitchell Park Master Plan. The third phase of the existing master plan is to install the garden and that is what should happen.

Dick Rawl, past president of the Senior Center and current vice-president said the Senior Center has approximately 325 members from the ages of 55 to 90 plus. There are monthly luncheons, deliveries of food to distribute to low income families, and all sorts of volunteer activities. Their handicapped members have difficulty in accessing the Senior Center and the parking lot is needed.

Lisa Quinn, director of SLO Regional Rideshare, said they are working with seniors to identify transportation options. It is important to use transportation services available and to be more efficient in transportation services and resources rather than having individuals in separate cars. The small van service is available for $2 each way by reservation. She felt that a 19-space parking lot was not sufficient to meet the need.

Suzanne Power – Wanted to know the status of the parking survey received in November from Public Works regarding the Old Town District. Staff member Jeff Hook responded that Public Works is still working on the survey and results are not completed.

Hilyard Wood felt the ultimate historic resource is the land and it needs to be preserved. The garden and park use is the more historic use. He felt the parking lot was a “band aid approach” and that senior needs should be addressed but not by replacing a park with parking.

Ginny Griffin agreed with the previous speaker. She is a neighbor and did not receive notification of neighborhood meeting. She said don’t take parkland for parking.

Louis Ortega said he lives across the street from the park and loves the area. He has brought his children and now grandchildren to the park to play. It is important to have this green area for the community and opposed the parking lot.

Agatha Reardon, president of the Senior Center, noted that many seniors are able-bodied, but many have physical limitations that make it difficult for them to walk any distance even though they may not qualify for a handicap parking pass. The area around the senior center was fenced off and secluded/private to the senior center until the playground renovations were completed. Using this area for parking would not be taking away from park since it was never publicly accessible until this last round of renovations. The fence needs to be replaced. The current drive to Santa Rosa does not have a separation between the children’s play area and the senior center. This is a potential safety issue for the children playing in the park. There are many volunteer activities that occur in the senior center that benefit the community at large. The seniors use both the center and the Ludwick center for some activities, although the Ludwick center is not appropriately designed to accommodate the volunteer activities nor for the senior activities. Anyone who will use the building in the future will need parking.

Frank Little agreed with the previous speaker.

Robert B (Ash) said that activities at the Senior Center also happen at night when bus service is limited or not available. There are safety issues where seniors who leave after dark are not comfortable walking in the dark to a remote car or bus service. The kitchen expansion will result in an increase in demand for use of the building and this demand will also lead to a demand for parking. The seniors are currently parking on the street and a parking lot will help free up those spaces.

Cynthia Simmel felt the seniors’ needs are great and growing as the population in SLO ages. There are other options – provide senior citizen parking permits for street parking. The problem won’t be solved by provision of a small parking lot.

Marie Wilson said she is in charge of the volunteers at the senior center and these workers have difficulty in getting to work at the center. The volunteers need a place to park – she supports the parking lot.

Ursula Bishop said she does not support the parking lot. The City should develop a new senior center to meet the seniors’ needs. Depending on how the CHC votes, she would hope a comment could be added to have the Council direct staff to find a better solution and respect the previous decision made by Council.

Betty Culp said there is no grass now in the area of the proposed parking lot. All buildings in the City are required to provide on-site parking to serve the building. The need for the parking lot is large and she supported the proposed parking lot.

Meg Kirkendahl said that she was a neighbor and did not receive notice of the October neighborhood meeting. She likes the original master plan and does not support a change. Installing a parking lot is a band-aide approach and she personally doesn’t like the idea of seniors driving.

Steve Linder asked the CHC to preserve the historical and cultural continuity of the City. Is this primarily a park or a senior center? How much of the park should be sacrificed?

Wallace Henry said he is a long-time senior center patron who supports the parking lot. The area was always fenced off and not used as parkland.

Ellen Peck said she is a senior center volunteer who will be 82 years old next week. She had heart surgery and is unable to walk a long distance. She hostesses twice a week and volunteers three times per month for the food distribution to low income families. She has an ADA sticker but there are no available ADA parking places on the street. Landscaping will hide the parking and so it’s possible to keep the park beautiful while still getting a parking lot for the seniors.

Diane Wood objected to the parking lot. A bigger senior citizens’ center is needed that meets the seniors’ needs.

Chris Hoover said neighborhood-wide parking is an issue. The neighborhood parking effort and the senior center effort should collaborate. Senior’s exiting the driveway onto Santa Rosa Street could cause problems.

Larry Hollis felt that converting a century old park into a parking lot is a bad idea.

Chairperson Breska closed the public hearing.

Committee member Landwehr said she worked for 5 years at San Luis Medical Center and observed that people who work downtown take up the four hour spaces around the Park. Why hasn’t the City addressed this? Need to work constructively to find a parking management solution.

Committee member Crotser felt there was a need to look at the problem from different angles. The master plan is a long-term vision. The amendment needs to reflect this. While the parking lot is reversible (historic preservation guidelines could support), it doesn’t seem to reflect the long-term goal for the park and is only a short-term benefit. He would feel more supportive if there was a full senior center development in the works and this was a limited-time parking use. He didn’t support amending the Master Plan for the parking lot.

Committee member Fowler said he was not in support of the plan amendment. He agreed with Committee member Crotser.

Committee member Pavlik said the proximity of parking to senior center doesn’t necessarily mean a negative impact to the building itself, however the historic building is in the context of the larger park. Introducing car parking where historically it has not been before impacts the site’s historic setting, feeling, and association (part of the criteria for the national registry). Other alternatives need to be explored.

Committee member Miller felt other solutions could make the situation better than it is now, even if they wouldn’t completely solve the problem. Under the Secretary of the Interior Standards, placing parking directly adjacent to an historic building is not recommended. A delivery area exists and van service can be used. He does not support the amendment to accommodate a parking lot.

Committee member Pavlik suggested using public parking structures and a shuttle service to make it easy for seniors to access the center. Look at other solutions.

Committee member Wheeler had nothing more to add to the discussion – she agreed with points being raised by other committee members.

Chairperson Breska felt that Mitchell Park is an historic landscape. It has transitioned from a children’s school to a community park. She cannot support the parking lot and feels a community garden is the more appropriate use for this area in terms of historical character.

Committee member Landwehr felt that adding a parking lot is not compatible within the historic context of the park.

On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Wheeler the Committee voted 7:0 to recommend that the City Council deny an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to construct a parking lot, based on the following findings:

1. The project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties because it significantly alters the setting of the historic property by introducing an element (parking lot) that is not consistent with the historical context of the site.

2. The project detracts from the Old Town Historic Preservation District because the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan does not promote the historic character of the area.

DISCUSSION ITEM

5. City-Wide. Update the Contributing Properties list; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook)

Jeff Hook presented the staff report, noting that the Contributing Properties List needed updating because some historic buildings had been removed and some property addresses had changed since the historic list was adopted. Committee member Miller asked about the historic status of 1256 Mill Street. He questioned whether it was on the updated Contributing Properties List but not on the original list. Mr. Hook said he would check on that property and get back to the Committee.

On a motion by Committee member Wheeler, seconded by Committee member Crotser, the Committee voted 7:0 to recommend that the City Council:

1. Remove the following addresses from the Contributing Properties list: 1153 Buchon, 585 Dana, 595 Dana, 969 Islay, 1228 Mill, 680 Monterey, 970 and 972 Nipomo, 1419 Osos, 1423 Osos, 1249 Palm, 1302-06 Palm, 1334 Palm, 1352 Palm, 1365 Palm, 533 Pismo, 1020 Pismo, 1028 Pismo, 1036 Pismo;

2. Add 1022 Church to the Contributing Properties List; and

3. Replace 1018 Islay with 1022 Islay.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Agenda Forecast – Staff

Staff provided an agenda forecast.

Due to the late hour, the Committee unanimously decided to continue the following items to the February 25, 2008, meeting:

Historic Plaques

Historic Survey Status

Contributing Properties List Maintenance

Committee

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.