HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDcodronph5RECEIVE D
MEETING AGENDA
SLO CITY CLER Kcouncil DATES 2-1 t o ITEM #'l1 C
=NU memoianO u
city ok san '`luls o tspa,~amtnlstuatlon t~ a!~tmen t
SEP 1 7 2016
RED FIL E
DATE :
September 17, 201 0
TO :
City Counci l
FROM :
Michael Codron, Acting Assistant City Manag e
VIA :
John Mandeville, Community Development Directo r
By :
Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director
n?.
1At L
COUNCIL
CDD DI RGAG-CPI
FIN DI RA$A$
FIRE CHIE FATTORNEYPW D1 R
CLERKJORIG
POLICE CH F
q DEPT HEADS
REC DI R
UTIL DI R_!
t
0'HR DI R
J N TMES
Ceun1Ctl -SLO CtTzl t4 s
SUBJECT :
Historical Preservation Ordinance Reference Documents (PH-5 )
Council person Marx requested information related to several items . Staff is providing thi s
information to all Council members in the event similar questions arise .
Below, please find a link to the 2007 staff report to the Council that resulted in a General Pla n
amendment affecting Downtown Building Heights .
ht tp :/1www . slocity. org/cityclerk/agendas/2007/020607agn/ph 1 gpamendbldgheight .pdf
The CHC requested staff assessment of the City's eligibility to become a Certified Loca l
Government on 8127/07 . The link to that staff report is provided below :
http ://www .slocity .org/communitydevelopment/culturalherit/staff%20reports/0827072 .pd f
The CHC Whitepaper is attached for Council review .
Finally, Council person Marx requested clarification if TDCs are addressed as part of th e
proposed documents . Chapter 4 of the proposed Guidelines describes possible incentives an d
benefit programs for historic resources . One of the listed possibilities is the use of TDCs and i s
described under 4 .1 .7 (copied below). For clarification, the CHC intended this option to b e
available City-wide subject to Council approval .
4 .1 .7 Transfer of development credit .For projects that preserve cultural or historic resource s
on site, the City may enter into an agreement to transfer developmen t
credit or density to another appropriate site proportional to the commercial floor area or numbe r
of dwellings possible to develop under current zoning if the resource were removed .
G;\Staff1CodronlCouncil Memo Historic .doi
•J1TTNHMENT ~
The Status of Historic Preservatio n
in the City of San Luis Obisp o
1 .Summary
Beginning in the early 1,980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a progra m
formalizing and adopting policies that addressed historic and prehistoric cultura l
resources. The first of the City's historic districts were formed, and the Cit y
Council created the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The City subsequently
adopted numerous policies in its General Plan that addressed the preservatio n
and protection of historic and prehistoric resources .
Today, after the lapse of nearly 20 years, it can be said that the City of San Lui s
Obispo has experienced measurable success with its historic preservatio n
efforts.' Most notably, the City has purchased and partnered in preservation o f
the Butron, La Lorna and Rodriguez Adobes, and has initiated a Mills Ac t
Program . However, the City continues to lose historic resources because .
inconsistencies and loopholes in City ordinances fail to protect them fully . Nor i s
the- City taking full advantage of its cultural resources, which are often viewed a s
astanding in the way of progress" rather than being considered valuable an d
significant factors that contribute to the City's character,livability,and economic
vitality. Ultimately, it is the loss of historic, cultural and archaeological resource s
that will result in a decline'in the uniqueness of this community and make it les s
desirable as a place in which to reside, work or visit . While there are numerou s
considerations including economic development, housing, recreation, th e
environment, transportation, and the like, a development model cannot be base d
on what might be successful in other communities that lack the historic an d
unique character of this city.
As we proceed lnte the twenty-first century, it is prudent to look beyond th e
horizon to anticipate problems may lie ahead . Throughout California, older
established neighborhoods are feeling the pressure of growth and witnessing th e
creation of "monster houses ." Commercial areas are feeling the impact of an
expanding economy and booming development, "Underutilized" sites with
historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment projects, with th e
resulting loss of those resources. San Luis Obispo has already experience d
some of these same pressures, and it is logical to predict that we will continue t o
face similar challenges in the near future . Actions can and should be taken to
address these issues today,so that the City can avoid the heated conflict an d
controversy that is often generated when ambiguous or unresolved issues
proceed unchecked .
To help prepare for these challenges, we recommend that the City council tak ethe following actions :
'3-5
I.rrAbN r
1.Revise the City's regulations and policies to comply with current Stat e
laws and regulati ns.
2.Institute training or staff and advisory bodies regarding the provisions of
CEQA regarding Historic resources and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards .
3 . Promote and advocate "Heritage Tourism" as a valuable asset I n
marketing the Ciy .
The City also create d
Properties, and th e
important examples o
resources, and also c
designers,or periods
properties that are im
district, neighborhoo d
individually significan
The City Council also
to identify and prot e
duty of the CHC wa s
recommend formatio
of the ChIC's work to
-ition award program for contributions to protect Histori c
I funding for consultant assistance to inventory the City's
is resources.
rich cultural heritage and an informed citizenry who hav e
at heritage . As with many areas of the country in th e
s of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo found a
projects threatened the fabric of some of the histori c
ds. Special interest was focused on the commercia l
"old town" Victorian neighborhoods. The histori c
tin the City focused on the creation of "historic districts"
created: Downtown, Old Town and Mill Street . in the
owntown District was re-designated as the Chinatow n
ortion of the Old Town District was combined with a n
e the Railroad Historic District .-
o lists of historic properties - the Master List of Histori c
rrtributing Property List . The Master List contains the mos t
San Luis Obispo's archaeological, cultural, and historic .
ntains structures associated with important personages ,
f our history. The Contributing Property list contain s
octant due to their contribution to the character of a histori c
or the City as a whole, but in and of themselves are no t
4 . Develop a recog
resources .
5 . Provide additio n
potentially Histo a
11 ..Backgroun d
San Luis Obispo has a
valued and protected
1970s and 80s, the is s
larger voice as severa l
areas and neighbor h
downtown area and t h
preservation movem e
and the first three wer
1990s a portion of th e
Historic District and a
additional area to cre
created the CHC as an advisory body whose purpose wa s
the historic resources of the city.At that time a primary
o inventory historic resources in the City and to
of new historic districts . This remains a major componen t
ay .
3~6
O ..ATCHMENT 1
The City also under red the importance of historic and pre-historic resource sin its General Plan by including specific policies aimed at protecting thes eresources including provisions in the: Land Use, Housing,Open Space ,Conservation and Parks & Recreation Elements.
Ill .Recommendation s
The City has established plans and policies regarding historic preservation . Th eprocess for dealing with properties within Historic Districts or on the City's histori clists is clearly defined . The process for-nominating and including properties o nthe City's lists stresses cooperation from property owners, and thus receive ssubstantial support from property owners .
However, there are also some weaknesses in the .City's current procedures :
A .j.ocal/ StateRules("consistencies .-- Recent court cases and changes i nstate law, primarily the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) hav ecreated a situation in which local and state law may not beconslstent . CEQAnow requires that any structure over 50 years old that may be .affected by a
project, be evaluated tv determine if it is °historic'based on the criteri apresented in the CEQA Guidelines . if it is, the effects of a project Must b eevaluated and the impacts mitigated . State law provides that local "lists" o fhistoric properties can be used as a short list to determine if a structure i shistoric, but the absence-of a structure from such a list does not mean it is no tconsidered historic (it may mean it has never been evaluated). In addition ,the definition used to place a structure on a local list may not reflect th ecurrent definition in CEQA .
The City regularly relies on its lists to determine if a project may affect histori cresources, but often stops at that step in its evaluation . The CHC issometimes consulted to determine if an unlisted structure may have histori csignificance.However, in these cases, the information presented is ofte nminimal. Rather than the CHC reviewing information prepared for an Initia lStudy (e .g . historic resource analysis), the CHC is used in lieu of doing th eprimary historic research and analysis .
A second conflict may exist with the demolition regulations when a process islaid out that would seem to allow demolition of a Master list structure .Demolition of a Master List Structure, assumed to be a °historic" resource bythe State's guidelines, would by the'State's rules seem to require preparatio nof an Environmental Impact Report (ERR) in most cases . This is -not reflected .in the current demolition regulations and may mislead some property owner sas to a significant "hidden" step in the process.
3-7
ATTHMENT
es around the requirement in CEQA that the "...whole ofideredintheevaluation of a project. Since demolition ofisministerial (thus exempt from CEQA),a-process ha sevelopmentis occurring in a two step process .First th eRion of affected structures is received (and eventually
the application for the new development is submitted .
ew of the demolition of any potentially historic structures
action of the CEQA requirements. Two recent,examples
e Pacific Home Do-it redevelopment,and the NewThisraises a potential legal question as to whether th e
jest to be "split"thus violating the requirement in CEQA
fan action .
s
unity Development Director and City Attorney to examin eiciesand procedures in light of current stat ecessary,amendments in regulations should be
the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts .
tion of a Historic Resources Element,or Histori c
finance as a vehicle to clarify process and policies .
unity Development Department to fully evaluate potential
s as required by CEQA .
B .Demolition Roots,. r one -The City's demolition regulations set procedure s
that must be follow d by property owners wishing to demolish .any buildin g
over 50 years old . f a building Is over 50 years old, the CHC is notified of th e
request for a demo ition permit, and the property owner must advertise th e
structure as avail -•le for possible relocation and photo-document th estructureper the C'standards .If a property is on the Master or ContributingPropertyList, a p1= must be submitted for review of the CHC and ARC with arequiredfinding of e ARC regarding the feasibility of rehabilitation of the
structure, and corn •atibility of the new structure within the neighborhood .Th e
regulations provid = a measure of certainty of the process for property ownersand developers b provide little protection for structures that may be historic ,but have not yet •: =n ,evaluated for nomination to either of the City's lists .
ns :
unity Development Director and City Attorney to examin e
,policies,and procedures in light of current state
ecessary, amendments in regulations should b eo the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts .
ity Development Director to prepare revisions to th e
cations that provide more consistent protection t oric.structures .
3-8
A third conflict re v
an action ..." be co n
non-listed propert i
evolved where new
application for da m
approved), and th e
This exempts the re
from review and pr o
of this process are
Times development
City is allowing a p
to review the whol e
Recommended Acti o
1.Direct the Corn
city regulations ,
regulations. If
recommended t
2.Consider prepaPreservationQ
3.Direct the Corn
.historic resou
Recommended Act i
1 . Direct the Cor n
City regulation
regulations . If
recommended
2. Direct the Co
demolition re g
potentially hi
XIThCHMENT t
C.inventories .-Many of the older parts of town were inventoried in the 1980s ,
and structures that at that time met the criteria were added to the lists . Since
then no comprehensive survey has been conducted, with the exception of th e
Mt. Pleasanton -. Anholm neighborhood . Properties were added throug h
recommendation of property owners, CHC members, or staff . However ;
related to the demolition regulation discussion above, the CHC has foun d
itself repeatedly faced with demolition requests of structures that have neve r
been inventoried or evaluated for historic listing . This has created a "reactive "
mode rather than a "proactive" mode . A situation has been created in whic h
the Cl-IC is constantly wondering where the next demolition request will aris e
and has had the effect of . diluting the time necessary to complete an y
comprehensive survey . Much of the time is spent evaluating the nex t
"emergency." If the demolition regulations as cu rrently written are to provid e
some protection for historic resources, the inventory (and review of previou s
inventories), and subsequent nomination to the City fists become Increasingl y
important,.
Recommended Actions :
1 . Provide additional funding for consultant help to inventory the City's
potentially historic resources .
D.Education of Staff and Commissions - The recent changes in State law
have, in effect, created a "new" set of rules for dealing with historic resources .
The State and many communities are recognizing :a broader definition of
"historic" including streetscapes, signage, and landscaping . There i s
increased focus on use of the Secretary of the interior Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Structures (SO1 Standards) to analyze changes to
historic structures and to develop adequate mitigation measures . Staff an d
decision-making bodies are cur ently•basing decisions and findings on a
limited understanding of the requirements and provisions of these laws. I n
addition, historic resource regulations have become and will continue to
become increasingly complex, especially as State and local regulation s
collide .
Recommended Actions:
1 . Direct the Community Development Director to institute training for staff
and decision-making bodies (Le ., Architectural Review Commission ,
Planning Commission) on the provisions of CEQA and the SOl Standards .
E,Heritacie Tourism I Education -The City.has recently received the Grea t
American Main Street Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation .
in addition,Sunset magazine's recent designation of San Luis Obispo .as
"Best Downtown" (in the West) was awarded in part because of its "histori c
fabric." Yet, those in charge of promoting the City seem, at best, to ignore thi s
aspect of the City and, at worst,. seem willing to sacrifice it if development or
parking interests are at stake . The focus on heritage tourism should be
1 T
increased . !nc orpo ting this even into development projects such as th e
Copeland's project ould be encouraged .
With the Copeland '
will unearth (for all t
seen . Significant h i
help from local gr o
become a major d r
groups . The entire
fabric of the com m
all cherish .
Recommended Acff o
1.Request that t h
Commission i n
potential "selli n
2.Direct the Corn
tourism opport u
that may affect
example, if the project .proceeds as planned, the project
see)the largest slice of the City's that has yet bee n
oric and prehistoric artifacts will be encountered . With
s,the necessary archaeological investigations could
w for tourists as well as local residents and schoo l
ommunity should be educated as to how the histori c
nity plays an important role in the character of the city w e
s:
Downtown Association and Promotional Coordinatin g
ude heritage tourism and a focus on historic resources as
points of the City .
unity Development Department to consider heritag e
ities as potential mitigation measures for large project s
ultural resources.
F.Recognition A:1ds -The City may want to consider recognizing project s
and individuals wh' have made the extra effort to contribute to th e
preservation of hi oric resources . This would be a way of encouraging futur e
projects to make t e extra effort in dealing sensitively with historic resources .
Recommended Acfi ns:
f .Direct staff to • rk with the CHC and appropriate City departments to
develop a reco nition award program for contributions to protect historic
resources.
V .Conclusion
The National Trust f o
a "Distinctive Destin a
City's economy and
least in part, to its h '
Contain these qu a
take their toll . It is cri
renewable.When
Historic Preservation has recognized San Luis Obispo a s
ion'', the only in California so recognized . The revival of the
increasing popularity as a tourist destination is due, a t
oric nature, character and appearance . The resources tha t
are becoming increasingly valuable as time and progres s
cal to keep in mind that these resources are non -
are gone, they're gone forever .
The time has come t
resources of all typ
that these resource s
heritage -- from the o
modest structures o f
recommendations wi I
preserve and protect the City's significant historica l
:residential, commercial, and industrial, We should assur e
reflect the full spectrum of San Luis Obispo's cultura l
ate Victorian residences of prominent citizens to th e
he working classes . The Cultural Heritage Committee's
go a long way toward ensuring the continuing quality of lif e
340
%FTACHMENT '
that we have come to associate with visiting, living in and doing business in San
Luis Obispo . We should err on the side of conservatism in the fate of histori c
structures so San Luis Obispo continues to be in the words of the National Trust ,
"...a striking alternative to Anyplace, USA ."
341