HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC Agenda Report 03-25-13A G E N D A
San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee
Council Hearing Room (Room 9)
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
March 25, 2013 Monday 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Hemalata Dandekar, Jaime
Hill, Patti Taylor, (1 Position Vacant), Vice -Chair Bob Pavlik, and
(Chair -Position Vacant)
STAFF: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not
on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the
Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director,
another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be
appealed.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of February 25, 2013, regular meeting. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. City -Wide. CHC 41-13; Discussion of appropriate review authority for development
projects on historic properties within historic districts; City of San Luis Obispo —
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
2. City -Wide. CHC 31-12; Review progress report for the Historic Context Statement
project; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept., applicant. (Phil
Dunsmore)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Committee
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT ITEM # I
BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner �� MEETING DATE: March 25, 2013
FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning vo
PROJECT ADDRESS: N/A Citywide
SUBJECT: Discussion of appropriate review authority for alterations to historic properties
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend the Cultural Heritage Committee endorse the attached review matrix.
BACKGROUND
Recently, community members have raised questions regarding the level of review required for
projects proposed on historic properties. In particular, construction of an accessibility ramp at
the front of the Master List Barneberg House at 550 Dana Street (Attachment 1) highlighted the
concerns of whether this type of project should have received Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) review. This project was reviewed through the Minor or Incidental architectural review
process and was approved at the staff level. Concerns regarding how the project impacts the
view of the historic resource from the street and whether the improvements affect character -
defining features prompted reconsideration of how projects on properties with historic resources
are reviewed.
This discussion is intended to clarify the level of review authority being applied by the
Community Development Department. During the review of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, a matrix was drafted to guide both the CHC and staff towards the appropriate levels
of review for typical projects. The CHC reviewed this matrix but never took formal action to
endorse it. An updated copy of this matrix is included as Attachment 2 and reflects the
recommendation that most improvements proposed to Master List resources will be referred to
CHC for review.
DISCUSSION
Historic Preservation Ordinance
The historic preservation ordinance provides the basis for review authority. Section 14.01.030 of
the ordinance outlines the actions subject to CHC review. The ordinance also specifies which
actions may be reviewed by staff (Community Development Director). In summary, the
ordinance allows staff to determine that CHC review may not be required for projects that are
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the intent of the ordinance.
Review Authority
Page 2
14.01.030 Cultural Heritage Committee
C. Actions Subject to Cultural Heritage Committee Review.
The Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Director, Architectural Review
Commission, Planning Commission or City Council on applications and development review
projects which include any of the following:
1. Changes to the Inventory of Historic Resources.
2. Changes to historic districts and applications to establish new historic districts.
3. Statements of historic significance and historic inventories for existing and proposed historic
districts.
4. New construction, additions or alterations located in historic districts, or on historically listed
properties, or sensitive archaeological sites.
5. Applications to demolish or relocate listed historic resources or structures.
6. Referrals to the Committee by the Community Development Director (`Director'),
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, or Council.
7. Proposed actions of public agencies that may affect historic or cultural resources within the
City.
14.01.040 Community Development Director Role
The CHC is assisted by staff of the Community Development Department. The Community
Development Director ("Director') is responsible for interpreting and implementing this
ordinance and helping the CHC carry out its duties. Notwithstanding Section 14.01.030C 1-5
and 7 of this ordinance, the Director may determine that CHC review is not required for actions
or projects that: 1) do not adversely affect historic resources, or 2) are consistent with this
ordinance, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and no public purpose would be served by requiring CHC review.
Historic Preservation Guidelines
The historic preservation guidelines also speak to review authority. Consistent with the
ordinance, the Guidelines suggest that all projects shall be referred to the CHC unless the project
is exempt from CEQA and designed so that it is consistent with City policies and the Secretary
of Interior Standards.
3.1 Construction in Historic Districts and on Properties with Historic Resources
3.1.1 Conformance with design standards. Construction in historic districts and on properties
that contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals and policies of the General
Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines,
any applicable specific or area plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties_
3.1.2 Review of development projects. The Director shall refer a development project
application for a property located within a historic district or on a property with a listed Historic
Resource to the CHC for review, unless the Director determines the project is:
Review Authority
Page 3
(a) Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and
(b) Designed such that it would have no effect on Historic or Archaeological Resources, and
(c) Consistent with 3.1..1 above.
CHC Notification
Other than routine construction permits, staff proposes to include a step in the review process to
notify the CHC (and members of the public who have requested to be notified) of discretionary
actions taken by the Community Development Director on projects that were not referred to the
CHC. A copy of the staff determination will be forwarded via email to the CHC chair and to the
"interested parties" list during the appeal period following a staff determination. In this way, the
CHC and interested members of the community may be aware of proposals and staff response
for projects on historic properties or within historic districts.
Review Matrix
The review matrix is not a component of the ordinance or guidelines; however it is designed to
be consistent with these documents. The intent is to provide guidance to Community
Development staff determine the review process for typical alterations that occur on historic
properties. The CHC should discuss the matrix and provide input.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the Cultural Heritage Committee endorse the attached review matrix.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The CHC may suggest modifications to the levels of review within the purview of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Guidelines. It is important
to consider the balance between encouraging historic preservation and potentially
discouraging historic preservation by requiring CHC review for all alterations to historic
properties.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Overview of project at 550 Dana Street
2. Review level matrix
xnoum
council memoa,
DATE: January 24, 2013)
TO
City Council
VIA:
Katie Lichtig, Clty:Nfanager
FROM:
Derek Johnson, Conin-irtnity Development Director
BY:
Phil Dunsinore, Senior Planner
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
S1 IT BJFCT:
Accessibility improveinerits to 550 Dana Strect, 1-TistorieBarneberg House
Council requested information regarding recent changes made to the Property at 5550 Dana Street
tl�e Historic Baryiebero House. Several conirntinity members had qUeStiOned WI1V the chanoes
had occurred without Cultural Heritage Corrinift-tee inpra. This memo Provides an overview to
The Council inclifiry regarding the review process for the change made to the Property, and,
NSPOndS to the qUestion of ho�v properties on the City's list of' Historic Resources may be
repnoved frorn that list,
Review Process for chaiwes to 550 Dana:
llistorically, most building and landscapes were not des1grial to be readily accessible for people
with disabilities. in recent years emphasis has been placed on p-reserviiii-, historically significant
propedies, and appropriately retrofitting these properties C0aSjStCDt with the Secretary of friterior
Standards -for the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Landmarks for new activities and
concurrently making them accessible to people with disabilities, With the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, access to properties open to the public is now a civil
right, Historic properties are not exempt frorn the act, but may request one, No such request was
rnad.c to the City in this instance.
An application to add an accessible rarnp and
staffs to the property at 550 Darla Street was
reviewed by Community Developt-nent staff in
Noveriber, 2011r. Staff approved the project
based on its consistency with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards and the City's historic.
Preservation Program Guidelines. Chapter
3.1.2 of the Guldelines and section 14.01,040
of the Historic Preservanon Ordinarice allows
staff to determine that a p-,,-oject does not
.1-0qui-c CTIC review when it is empt, from CEQA and when it is consistent with the Secretary
i xe
of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties. Staff determined. that this pr6ect
The scope of the pm,.ect only iticlud,-d �cce&s0b!.Q ral,Mps-
� as consis eilt e,vi h thc'se standards and did tint .stilt ill impacts to character -de iiing feawrc—s of
the historic. resow,ce.
The decision to exernpt this proiect from CHC revic v is
sirzrilar to the practice of exeiiiptiiit- downtown seismic retrofit
Mjects from CHC re -view. Pro) -cis that deincinstrata how the,
'.iistoric siv, nificance of a property is preserved while Ii�vti5sary
code requirements aie fulfilled art, given a streamlined review
process. Can TvIarch 14, 200-5. the CTIC adopted specific criteria
as to what types of budditia clianges could be, handled by staff,
rather than requiring review by the CHC. While the criterion`
was for the purposes of reviewiii+� t�R�1 retrofits to fTistoric
Buildings, it has been used for making similar determinations
of when projects cocil.d be re-vie.ved a.di-nirdstraiively rattier
than aoino- through. the CHC revrev" process.
An example of this approach w,is utilI ed. to permit the
conversion of the Historic. Wineni.an Hotel into residential
apartments and retail spaces. The rehabilitation of [lie
Winenian, a resource identified on the City's Master fist of Historic Resources, was reviewed
for consistency with the Secretary of Interior standards, the C:ity's Historic. Preservation
Guidelines and C'EQA pricer to approval of coiistraction perrairs, bu_t NN as not required to be
reviewed by the C ITC or the Architectural Review C'ornmission.
. ��� When staff" initially o iewcd the plairs for the
��� Barnebeny residence, aiefr?ze and after images of
(lie project were analyzed, to determine if the
prczjecit would adversely impact the historic
resoiit'ce and its character-definiii Matures.
The project's accessibility improvernezits replace
i ���sret"I)Wz tra io�i a modern concrete. pathway that islicit considered
__a character-dcfming feature of the residence.
FLutlaermore, it was noted that the original stairs and stonework abutting the new accessibility
ramp woLild be protected in place and covered with a material that would prevent the riew
concrete work from. adhering to there, This was done so that the ramp improvements could be
removed in the feature without detriment to the original structure. A low wall was designed to
conceal the ramp and complement the entry of
the residence.
Mino- extc-rior b"Id im, GIlauges that are Consistent Lhu, SeC;rcla.-y Oi Jnc frac-`ioi `; '..il'andiirds for the T rtatnicnt
C}I'I .l::tt):aEu propert€c' and the City of San Luis Obispo J-d licatiens The i',nninnunitY Design and T-TistoSicu
Yrc scrvaho7 t'ro rain
Two considerations were given to this project that assisted staff with determining it should be
exempt from CHC review:
1. The project implements a code required accessibility requirement, consistent with the
1990 ADA act; and
2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the City's
policies for treatment of a historic property.
On November 10, 2011, the project was approved through the minor or incidental architectural
review process and included the following findings:
As conditioned, the proposed additions will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of persons living, working, or visiting the site or the vicinity because it includes only
minor modifications to an existing structure that conform to the California Building Code.
2. As conditioned, the proposed additions are consistent with the Community Design Guidelines
for commercial project design because the additions follow the same general scale, proportion,
massing, and detailing of the original structure to ensure the front facade of the building
appears relatively unchanged.
3. The accessibility improvements enhance the ability of the building to continue an active
use (currently office), and provide for adaptive reuse, maintenance, and preservation of a
historic building.
4. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties because the new features
complement the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
5. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties because new construction
will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
6. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301), Existing
Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
The pending minor or incidental review action was noticed in the Tribune, the project site was
posted with a sign explaining the request, and notices of the request and action date was sent to
adjacent neighbors. The minor or incidental architectural review action is appealable to the
Architectural Review Commission. No appeals of the action were filed within the stipulated 10-
day appeal period.
How properties are removed from the list of Historic Resources
The Historic Preservation Ordinance indicates that the CHC shall review and make
recommendations regarding changes to the Inventory of Historic Resources. This includes both
additions and removals from the Inventory. Section 14.01.060C of the Ordinance indicates that
"It is the general intention of the City not to remove a property from historic listing. Council
may, however,....remove a property from historic listing if the structure on the property no
longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein".
This means, the proposal to de -list the property would be determined by the Council at a public
hearing after the CHC had reviewed the proposal to remove the property at a public hearing and
forwarded a recommendation to the Council for consideration.
Conclusion
The determination to allow the addition of accessibility improvements to the property was
consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Historic Preservation program
guidelines. The improvements have been done in such a way that they may be removed at a
future date without damage or alteration to the original structure and they do not impair the
character -defining features of the structure that communicate its historic nature. The Secretary
of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic properties support rehabilitation and
appropriate adaptive reuse of historic structures. The structure still conveys its historic nature
and it deserves to remain on the City's list of Historic Resources.
Please contact Phil Dunsmore at pdunsmore@slocity.org or at 781--7522 should there be
additional questions.
M
U)
ro
(n
w- L
L
O
O U
u7
L
C
N
U_
O
LO
O (6
O O
Z
N
O 'N
O O
U
Q
o
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
1>
0
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
>
0
0
0
0
_N N_
� 0
C
7 +
� N
Zi
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
U
N N
>>
O>
\>
>>
>
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0''.
O
>>
O>
O
o
C
U
O
N
O
�
L
m
o�-
C U
N
�-
Q
0)cu
U
ca
°, v�
'c
o N
•�
ai
14 O
U1
r 3 c
•~+
M
O
`
C
`�-
0)
C
U)
a)
0 0
E y..
.0 ,.
0)
•(�i
L-0
O
C
1
a)
N
,
a)
0)
•L
U) (D
•C
in.,.
•�
(B
VV
C
y0,
W
.+t�y..
V
O
t� i
2
a)
U
0 O
j
—
j
L
a)
L° )
0,
0
;
Q L
?
O
L
_
N
C
CU
O
C
�`
O
�
C
E
O
'0
.�
a) a)
CO
N
co
N
IL>
O°
U
N
O
E
c_c
Q
n0-00
ra
tm
aEic�.�.o
.:
,F
W
a) "O
L
o
L
U
-0
-r
Q
a)
E
ac�)
U
O
U
o N
0
OL
U
"m
pD
o
(n
O
Q.
•0,
+ aC
�O
OU
-0
(
C
p
() En
Co C0
2
C_
()
0(n
M
a)
�C
O
s
N a)
a)
E
a)
N
N
-0
U
C )
L
O
Q) Q)
0
C
.�
C
U
N
O
O •E_
•� =
C
V1
"O
C
O
C M
N
C
0
N
N
L O
•r-
0
-O
0
"0
(U
cB
O
L U
0-0
p 0
0
—
�
o
-0
U
0 m
E C
o. C
c
(�
>
rC.
Q
"'
c
C
m,
�
+-
O
(�
E
L
0
0)
C
Q
M
a) U
+_ _
`�
0
C
_>
U
U
N
N
a)
N
-+
-0U)
C
. _ (n
a)
73c0
C
C
��
(6
C
+--
0
a)-0
O L
C'0
-O
O
O
C
N N
N
• C
+"'
V
Q•
a
Q. V
O
o
d
O
O
to
0
O U
N
O
U
0
E
E
"0
a)
C U
O
0
0
O
N C
C
0
C
co
c Z)
m �--
(U
O
CO
O 0
E
C U
`-' L
O
`—
—.cu
U
�, O
M
.0
-0
C
C
N L
0
U
•�
N
a)
(n
� C�-0
0),
CL
O
= 0
'C
O
U
om
i
CO
a)
f�
0)
f6 co
C
_0
v
0)i
i U
-0
p
L
a)
�•
._
07
C
Q)
C
C
0
` m
'FU
U
O .L
0
>
U
N
N
cn a)
U)
•F
_0
O L
C
0
0
(n
'.+
.0
C
a) •C
•U
•L
O
•C
Q (4
1
O` p
1�
C
0
a)
U
a) (D
U,r
o
c�Y
a�i
a�
aEi
a�i0o-�o
3s
�"=c
C_
a
m
Z
It
0
Z`
0
Q
Q
0
0-0
LL
o�
cn
co
Q
QU c
TO O
m
O U
U a)
U
Q �
o
o c
N
•;
O
0 U)
O C
U UO
O
0 C
(DU
QU
0 o
(D
0 �
E
O U
U 'o
0
a� a-
_O 3
c
0
E E
E
0
R
N Q
m
r
0 a)
E 0
U a)
2
U 4)
E
= O
U U
> O