Cultural Heritage Committee Action Update

November 26 ,2007                       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 members were present.  

STAFF:                Kevin Waldron, Planning Intern, Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, Pam Ricci and Jeff Hook, Senior Planners, and Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning. 

PUBLIC COMMENT:   

Paula Carr, 615 Lawrence Drive, expressed concerns about the dilapidated condition of the historic Milestone Motel Inn at 2223 Monterey Street.  She noted much of the original hotel had been demolished and that what remained was in poor condition due to exposure to the elements.  She added that the historic Old Gas Works building at 280 Pismo Street was tagged with graffiti and was for sale.  She was concerned about damage and possible loss of both historic structures.  David Brodie, 873 Chorro Street, recommended that the CHC broaden its analysis to include adaptive reuse, and to identify opportunities where this technique might be more appropriate than demolition of an historic resource.   

MINUTES: Minutes of October 22, 2007 regular meeting.   The minutes of the October 22, 2007 regular meeting was approved on a 7:0 vote.

Chairperson Breska recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest and left the hearing room.   Vice-Chair Pavlik assume the role of meeting chairperson.

 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 

1.        1333 Mill Street.  CHC MA 143-07;  Request to change the property’s historic designation from “Contributing” to  “Master List” and request for a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract; R-2-H zone; Pierre & Terri Rademaker, applicants.  (Brian Leveille) 

Jeff HookH presented the staff report and described the request.  He noted that staff felt this was a prominent and attractive Contributing historic property in the Mill Street Historic District, but that without further information, it was not clear how the property met eligibility criteria for nomination to the Master List of Historic Resources.  Pierre Rademaker, property owner and applicant explained that since purchasing the property several years ago, he has been “unremodeling” the house to remove architecturally incompatible work done in the 1950s and 1960s and return to what is believed to be its original architectural character.  He acknowledged that, as stated in the staff report, there are no photographs or plans to document the house’s original appearance. He briefly discussed the history of the house’s designer, Theodore Maino, and its builder, William J. Smith, and noted both were locally important.  He described one of the house’s early residents, Warren Burch, appointed City Engineer for the City of San Luis Obispo in 1915 and who later served as County Engineer and Deputy County Surveyor.   

Vice-Chair Pavlik opened the public hearing.  There was no public comment, and he closed the public hearing.   

Committee member Crotser felt the house was a pretty strong candidate for the Master List in Eligibility Categories II (items 1 and 2) and V (item 2).  Committee member Landwehr agreed, adding that she would like the applicant to prepare a brief letter detailing how the property met these eligibility criteria.  Committee member Wheeler also agreed the property met eligibility criteria if it is looked at “holistically.”  Committee member Fowler felt more information was needed before he could be comfortable supporting reclassification to the Master List.  Committee member Miller gave a brief background on the Maino Family and on William Smith.  He felt the applicant presented a strong case for reclassification and for inclusion in the Mills Act Program.  Committee member Pavlik agreed that the property was a good candidate for the Master List, but felt the property’s association with the “History – Persons” criterion was weak. 

After a brief discussion, on a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Miller, the Committee continued the item to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return with detailed information on how the property meets Eligibility Category V, Items 2 and 3, and to provide documentation on the garage and the house’s interior.  The motion carried, 6-0-1 (Chairperson Breska absent).

Chairperson Breska returned to the meeting. 

2.        1010 Broad Street.  ARC 111-02; Review the proposed demolition of the Art Center building and reconstruction of a larger facility in the Downtown Historic District; PF-H zone; San Luis Obispo Art Center, applicant.   (Phil Dunsmore) 

Phil DunsmoreH presented the staff report and stated that based on the proposed architectural design, the project was not consistent with cultural heritage policies in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines for new development in a historic district.  Art Center Chairperson Karen Kyle and Board Member Bruce Fraser presented slides showing renderings of the proposed building and described the history and purpose of the project. 

Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing.  Pierre Rademaker, and Joe Kourakis, 1577 Tanglewood, supported the proposed design.  Dan Krieger, historian and former CHC member, also supported the project design.  Hearing no further comment, Chairperson Breska closed the public hearing. 

Committee member Miller said the proposed building’s massing, per se, didn’t bother him, but that he did not support the overall design.  He felt a contemporary design that was more compatible with the historic setting was possible for the Art Center. Committee member Crotser felt architectural contrast can strengthen historic building character and that the juxtaposition of contemporary and historic buildings can be effective.  He gave examples of such contrasts in Washington, D.C.  He felt a high quality building was essential at this location, and that architectural details will “make or break” the building.  Overall, he supported the design approach, but expressed concern about the curtain wall and the storefront on the back and wanted more details on the details.  Committee member Landwehr was concerned with the proposed building’s height, mass and scale compared with the historic Carnegie Library across the street.  Committee member Wheeler agreed with Committee member Crotser and liked the project.  Committee member Pavlik liked the building design and materials, but felt the design was not consistent with City policies on projects in historic districts.  He also liked the Old Mission, Carnegie Library and San Luis Obispo Creek and felt the initial placement of a building at this creekside location was a mistake.  He noted that citizens are concerned about the changing character of Downtown, and questioned whether there was another, better Downtown location for the Art Center which would meet multiple City objectives.  It would allow the site to go back to a more natural condition as an homage to the Creek and resolve the historic compatibility issue.  Chairperson Breska said the City has policies on new development in historic districts and questioned the point of designating historic districts if we were not going to follow the policies.  She felt the glass in the project helped to mitigate the massing and historic compatibility problems and liked the project but felt “torn” in terms of historic compatibility.  Committee members Pavlik and Miller felt that redesign of the building was needed to better reflect the site’s historic context, but weren’t looking for a faux mission or fake historic building.  Committee member Landwehr felt that the Art Center location was good for visitors and enhanced the Downtown with a variety of experiences within walking distance.  She expressed concern about not being able to see the proposed building in context with the existing historic buildings and wanted to see graphics with views from different vantage points (for example, from Chorro Street, looking across the Mission and Plaza areas toward the Carnegie Library and proposed Art Center building.  She was concerned with the precedent that might be set approving such a contemporary architectural design in an historic district. 

On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Crotser, the Committee determined that revised project drawings will be required to make a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission, and that the project design should:  1) include specific changes to more closely address issues raised in the staff  report relating to General Plan and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines compliance, 2) better reflect the project’s setting and place in City history, and 3) include graphics showing the integration of the project with its neighborhood.  The motion carried, 7-0. 

3.        785 High Street and 2015 Santa Barbara Avenue.  ARC 100-07; Review a mixed-use project with eight residential units and ground floor commercial space in the Railroad Historic District;   C-S-H zone; Sally Quaglino, applicant.  (Tyler Corey) 

Kevin WaldronH presented the staff report and gave a brief slide presentation.  The applicant’s representative, Scott Lathrop, responded to the staff report and agreed to the staff report’s recommended conditions calling for true divided-lite windows, vertical alignment of windows and columns, and smooth-textured exterior plaster.  Chairperson Breska asked if the small house at 783 High Street proposed for demolition could be relocated and photo-documented.  Mr. Waldron noted that the City’s Demolition and Building Relocation Regulations require that buildings like this one, that were not historically designated but over 50 years old must be advertised three times over a 90-day period as being available for relocation, and must be photo-documented inside and out.  In response from Committee member Wheeler, Jeff Hook noted that staff had researched the property’s history based on the information available in the CHC library and did not find information indicating the property was historically significant.  A listing of the property’s owners, or “chain of title”, is one piece of information that was not available but that is often included in historic research.   He added that based on age and its architectural design, the CHC could consider nominating the property as Contributing in the Railroad Historic District.    Committee member Wheeler would like to see a chain of title prepared and was concerned the historic research seemed “light” for this property.  Committee member Crotser felt the house may have been overlooked in the 1983 citywide historic survey.  Chairperson Breska observed that the house had structural issues and that the front porch and house were leaning.   

Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing.  There was no public comment, and she closed the public hearing.   

On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Wheeler, the Committee found that the buildings to be demolished do not meet eligibility standards for historic listing, and recommends the ARC approve the proposed demolitions and project, subject to the following findings and recommended conditions.

Findings: 

1.                  As conditioned, the proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are consistent with the architectural guidelines contained within the Railroad District Plan. 

2.                  The project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because the architectural style of the building has similar details to the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot and supports the historic character of the Railroad District. 

3.                  The proposed buildings to be demolished do not meet eligibility standards for historic listing. 

4.                  The proposed mix of residential and commercial uses is consistent with land use patterns discussed in the Railroad District Plan that promote developments that allow people to live near work places and services.  

Recommended Conditions: 

1.                  The siding proposed on the building shall be smooth cement plaster, consistent with Sheet DP3 of project plans.

2.                  The pillars between the first and second levels on the east building elevation (Santa Barbara Avenue facing) shall be aligned, as feasible, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.  

3.                  The proposed windows on the 2nd level that show divided lights shall be “true” divided light windows, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.  

4.                  The Applicant shall provide a chain of title property owner listing as part of photo-documentation for 783 High Street, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 

The motion carried, 7-0. 

Committee member Fowler recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest and left the meeting. 

4.        840, 842, 844 & 848 Monterey Street and 984 & 986 Chorro Street.  ARC 69-05; Review building condition reports and structural analyses for the Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery buildings related to the proposed Chinatown mixed-use development project in the Downtown Historic District; C-D-H zone; SLO Chinatown, LLC, applicant.  (Pam Ricci)   

Pam RicciH presented the staff report and provided copies of correspondence from four members of the public: Richard Schmidt (supports retention of the two structures); Bob Vessely (Indicates adaptive re-use hasn’t been adequately explored); Jim Lopes (general comments about the lack of Chinese motif in the development and concern about display of artifacts discovered during construction); and Betsy Bertrando (indicates a detailed evaluation of feasibility had not been done and that economics of restoration alone shouldn’t prevail as a reason to demolish the buildings).  Architect Mark Rawson gave a slide presentation showing the condition of the Blackstone Hotel building and the historic Sauer Bakery building.  He noted that both buildings had been modified over time and appeared to have significant structural damage due to weathering and deferred maintenance.  Laura Luker, architect and Barry Price, archaeologist, were also present, representing the applicant. 

Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing.  Dan Krieger, 662 Islay Street, historian and former CHC member urged the Committee to preserve the historic building facades of the Blackstone Hotel building and historic Sauer Bakery building as a “gift to the street.”  He briefly described the historic role of the Sauer Bakery and felt the memories and historic roles of the buildings must be commemorated at all costs.  Alex Gough, 964 Chorro Street, showed photos of the two buildings as they looked in the early 20^th century, as the “Quintana Block” building at the corner of Monterey and Chorro, and the original Sauer Bakery building.  He noted he was in favor of the project but felt that to make this the best project possible, these two buildings must be preserved since the grounds to demolish them were not justifiable.  David Brodie read a statement by Professor Randall Cruikshanks recommending the buildings be preserved and adaptively reused, and Mr. Brodie added his own statement about the importance of preserving the buildings as a critical part of Downtown’s urban character and sense of place.  He added that the CHC needs to lend its support and guidance to developers to help preserve historic buildings.  Mr. Brodie also spoke on behalf of Joe Kourakis who felt the buildings should be saved and adaptively reused.  Boz Schrage,1167 Marsh Street, owner of an historic residence and former CHC member, urged the CHC to be very deliberate and base its decisions on historic significance and not on economic feasibility.  He indicated that the vitality of Downtown and its sense of historic character are interrelated and asked the Committee to preserve Downtown’s historic character.  Allan Cooper, 756 Broad Street, noted that he had restored a house in worse condition than shown in the slides of the historic buildings, and on a very limited budget.  He felt the lifecycle costs of preservation vs. demolition were not being considered.  He emphasized that historic preservation is a “Green Building” strategy in that it saves energy and materials and reduces pollution and waste. Pete Evans questioned the accuracy of the applicant’s reports, and noted that although he didn’t support the Chinatown Project, he wanted to see the historic buildings preserved either way.  He agreed with Allan Cooper.  He felt the City was becoming “Wal-Mart style” and was losing its unique character.  Elizabeth Abrahams, 335 San Miguel, said that although the CHC had asked for a detailed rehabilitation study at its last meeting, she saw no evidence that that study had been provided.  She asked why the City appeared to be rushing to take an action.  Bruno Giberti, 3981 Hollyhock, architectural historian and former CHC member, observed that the two buildings’ historical significance was not under debate.  The main question was whether it was structurally or financially feasible to rehabilitate them.  However the questions of structural or economic feasibility had not been adequately addressed by the applicant.  No pro forma was provided to allow a rational evaluation.  He felt the City needs to “raise the bar” on documentation required to evaluate demolition vs. adaptive reuse.  He added that he supports the Chinatown project, but felt it should build on the Downtown’s “torn historic fabric.”  These buildings are part of the City’s urban character.  Christopher Yip, architectural historian with expertise in Chinese-American history, said that based on the pictures and reports provided by the applicant, one must assume that the historic buildings are restorable.  Their size and scale represent the historic development and urban fabric of Downtown.  Joe Abrahams, 335 San Miguel, felt that preserving cultural integrity is critical to maintaining Downtown’s economic integrity.  These two buildings can serve as anchors for the revitalization of Downtown’s character.  Bob Vessely, 743 Pacific Street, noted that the “detailed feasibility analysis” requested by the Committee had not been provided.  He added that past structural reports on the buildings had determined they were feasible to rehabilitate.  He noted that some of the holes in floors and walls shown in the slides of the Blackstone Hotel were ones he had made to do a previous structural evaluation.  Paula Carr noted that the Copelands had purchased these properties knowing they were un-reinforced masonry buildings and subject to seismic retrofit requirements.  She felt one of the her biggest regrets as a former CHC member is allowing the demolition of the historic Loobliner Building and urged the Committee not to repeat that mistake.  She felt the buildings could be preserved.  She also noted that the applicant could take advantage of the Historic Building Code to address some of the concerns being expressed with adaptive reuse of the buildings.

Hearing no further comment, Chairperson Breska closed the public meeting

Committee member Landwehr said she was convinced the buildings could and should be saved.  We should not repeat the Loobliner Building mistake.  Committee member Wheeler agreed with Committee member Landwehr and added that the information provided was not adequate to determine rehabilitation feasibility.  Committee member Pavlik felt these structures possessed historic significance and that based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards, these buildings should be adaptively reused.  This is what the City’s General Plan calls for.  Committee member Miller can’t support the findings in the staff report to allow building demolition.  He felt the Committee’s charge was to preserve historically significant buildings, and that it’s not a question of cost, but rather a question of value.  Committee member Crotser appreciated the public comments and noted that he had a dilemma in determining how much historic fabric was left in these buildings to enable adaptive reuse.  He felt more thorough analysis of the feasibility to rehabilitate these buildings was needed before the CHC took action.  He felt the Blackstone Hotel building might need “reconstruction” to preserve it.  Chairperson Breska felt the CHC did not get sufficient information to complete its review of the demolition request of these two buildings.  

Committee member Pavlik explained that as part of his motion, he anticipated that the applicant would do a detailed structural and economic feasibility analysis and that the CHC would eventually see the results.  Consequently, he did not feel it was necessary to continue the project for more information.  

On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Wheeler, the Committee supported the preservation and rehabilitation of the Blackstone Hotel building and the historic Sauer Bakery building, their adaptive reuse and  incorporation into the Chinatown Project.  The motion carried, 5-1 (Crotser), with Committee member Fowler absent.

 Committee member Fowler returned to the meeting. 

COMMUNICATIONS: 

A.     Agenda Forecast – Staff 

Staff gave a brief agenda forecast for the December 17, 2007 CHC meeting.  Staff asked the Committee to consider several possible dates for a CHC retreat early next year.  Committee members felt February 11^th or March 10^th, 2008 would be suitable dates. 

 Due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee decided to continue the remaining agenda items to the December 17^th meeting. 

B.     Historic Survey Status 

C.    Committee 

ADJOURNMENT   The CHC adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm.