Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2021 CHC Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee Wednesday, February 22, 2021 Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in CHC meetings in the following ways: 1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view: • View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality): ➢ Webinar URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/193284661613743116 ➢ Webinar ID: 233-604-419 ➢ Telephone Attendee: +1 (914) 614-3221; Audio Access Code: 546-995-427 o Note: The City uses GotoWebinar to conduct virtual meetings. Please test your speakers and microphone settings prior to joining the webinar. If you experience audio issues, check out this YouTube tutorial to troubleshoot audio connection issues. 2. Public Comment - The CHC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways: • Mail or Email Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org and will be archived/distributed to members of the Advisory Body the day after the meeting. Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting • Verbal Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory Body Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. ➢ During the meeting – Members of the public who wish to provide public comment can join the webinar (instructions above). Once you have joined the webinar, please put your name and Item # in the questions box. Your mic will be unmuted once Public Comment is called for the Item and you will have 3 minutes to speak. All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE Broadcasted via Webinar CALL TO ORDER: Chair Shannon Larrabee ROLL CALL: Committee Members Karen Edwards, Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Wendy McFarland, Vice Chair Eva Ulz, and Chair Shannon Larrabee PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee on 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. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the December 2, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body or to City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. 2. Review of a request to remove the property at 1136 Iris Street from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (this action i s not subject to environmental review); Project Address: 1136 Iris Street; Case #: HIST- 0020-2021; Zone R-2; Robert and Michelle Braunschweig, owner/applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Recommendation: Recommend the City Council remove the property from the Contributing list of historic resources PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 3. Evaluation of the Mills Act Program (Chris Murphy & Brian Leveille) Recommendation: Review the Mills Act Program and provide comments to staff. Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of February 22, 2021 Page 3 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 4. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates (Brian Leveille) ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting will be on Monday, March 22, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available on the City’s website, http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. You may also contact the Community Development Department, by phone, from 8 AM to 3 PM at (805) 781-7150. BLANK PAGE This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided. Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of December 2, 2020 Page 1 Minutes CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 2, 2020 Continued Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Continued Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 5:33 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Shannon Larrabee. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Karen Edwards, Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Wendy McFarland, Vice Chair Eva Ulz, and Chair Shannon Larrabee Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and City Clerk Teresa Purrington PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None --End of Public Comment-- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.Approve the minutes of the October 26, 2020 and November 23, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 6-0-0, to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting with the following changes to Item A, presentation of the 2021-23 Financial Plan Goal Setting: 1.Contributing Historic Properties list – Evaluate the existing Contributing properties list to determine if certain properties should be re-evaluated and potentially removed from the historic properties list. 2.Historic Significance Criteria – Complete an update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance historic property significance criteria to include consideration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity. Item 1 Packet Page 1 Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of December 2, 2020 Page 2 3. Provide public information (website, publications, brochures, etc.) to increase public awareness on the Historic Preservation program and include information and resources on the criteria and potential for a neighborhood to form a new historic district and to add properties to the Contributing and Master List of Historic resources. Information and resources will include guidance and supporting documents from the City’s Historic Preservation Program. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE CHAIR ULZ, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER EDWARDS, CARRIED 6-0-0, to approve the minutes of the November 23, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. 1136 Iris Street. Review of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a Contributing List Historic property, including relocation of the front façade Project Address: 1136 Iris Street; Case #: ARCH-0470-2020; Zone: R-2-S; Robert & Michelle Braunschweig, owner/applicant. Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries. Public Comment None --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE CHAIR ULZ, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MCFARLAND, CARRIED 5-1-0 (WITH CHAIR LARRABEE VOTING NO) to recommend that the Community Development Director find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance with the following findings: • The relocation and expansion of the front façade is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, since taken together with previous additions and alterations, the buildings integrity and the integrity of the setting would be diminished such that the property would not retain its contributing status. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 25, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2021 Item 1 Packet Page 2 Meeting Date: February 22, 2021 Item Number: 2 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner PROJECT ADDRESS: 1136 Iris Street. FILE NUMBER: HIST-0020-2021 APPLICANT: Robert and Michelle Braunschweig, represented by Craig Smith, Architect For more information contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner: 781-7593 (woetzell@slocity.org) 1.0 BACKGROUND The owner of the property at 1136 Iris Street has requested consideration of the removal the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as described in the applicant’s statement (see Attachment 1). Consideration of this request is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for recommendation to the City Council, as provided in § 14.01.030 (B) (2) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The property is on the north side of Iris Street, between Ruth and Henry Streets in the East Railroad area. It is within the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) and Special Considerations Overlay (S) Zone1 The neighborhood is characterized by single-family residences, many with historical character. The property is adjacent to, but not within, the Railroad Historic District, and the Southern Pacific Water Tower (a Master List Historic Resource) is located behind the property, to the north, on an adjacent lot. The site is developed with a two- bedroom single-family residence in the front portion of the site, and a small duplex building to the rear. The primary residence was built in 1910, and following a City-wide survey that included the East Railroad neighborhood, the 1 Special considerations for the area are elevated noise levels along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way Figure 1: 1136 Iris Street Item 2 Packet Page 3 HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris) Page 2 property was designated as a Contributing List Resource in 2007.2 The style of the house is described in City records3 as “Victorian Cottage.” 2.2 Historic Listing Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies. Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole,4 and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in § 14.01.070. 3.0 EVALUATION The applicant statement, prepared by Craig Smith, Architect, (Attachment 1) discusses the circumstances surround the request to remove the property from the Historic Inventory, as related to the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, concluding that the primary dwelling does not satisfy listing criteria to a degree warranting designation as a Contributing List Resource: The property should be removed from the list as it cannot satisfy the required and appropriate evaluation criteria as a qualified, historic and contributing property. 3.1 Criteria for Historic Resource Listing In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity and satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure on it is found to no longer meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance of this building, the Commission should consider whether, and to what degree, it satisfies these criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment 2 to this report. Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A)) Style and Design. The primary residence on this property, although described as “Victorian Cottage,” exhibits the “Neo-Classical Cottage” style described in the City’s Historical Context Statement: simple house forms or cottages with fewer decorative features than other styles from the period (see Attachment 3). Architect. The applicant’s statement asserts that “no famous architect of importance has designed the structure.” A search of permit records related to the construction of the buildings on the site 2 Council Resolution 9875, adopted February 20, 2007 3 Architectural Worksheet from City historical property information file (see Attachment 4) 4 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property Item 2 Packet Page 4 HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris) Page 3 provides no indication of their architect or builder. Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B)) Person or Event. Similarly, no known association of the property with persons or events significant to local history or evidence that the property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind” event has been identified. As stated by the applicant: “no important or significant person has occupied, owned or used the property.” Integrity The front portion of the primary dwelling retains much of its original form and basic character. A two-story addition was added to the back of the existing residence, providing a new master bedroom and two-car garage. The addition was part of a 2013 project (Fig. 2) which included construction of a duplex building at the rear of the lot. These additions have been identified by the applicant as elements which have degraded the physical integrity of the structure. On December 2, 2020 the Committee reviewed a proposal for construction of another addition, to the front of the primary dwelling, involving relocation of its front façade, closer to the street. In its discussions the Committee noted concerns with the existing conditions and alterations which already diminished the integrity of the building, and found that the cumulative effects of the additions and alterations already made on the property taken together with the new proposed alterations, would further diminish the building’s integrity and the integrity of the setting, such that the property would not retain its contributing status. 3.2 Conclusion The description provided in the applicant statement provide a basis for finding that the primary dwelling on the property does not appear to possess notable historic significance under the City’s Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Its architectural style is not particularly rare, it is not known to be associated with notable architects or craftsmen, and it exhibits compromised integrity as the CHC discussed in December, 2020, which inhibits ability to convey significance. On finding that Figure 2: Rendering of south and east building elevations (2013 additions) Item 2 Packet Page 5 HIST-0020-2021 (1136 Iris) Page 4 the property does not meet significance criteria, the Committee could recommend that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing, based on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Statement (Craig Smith, Architect) 2. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing 3. Neo-Classical Cottage (Context Statement) 4. Architectural Worksheet (City “Yellow File” for property) Item 2 Packet Page 6 crsa | architecture January 07, 2021 Community Development ℅ Cultural Heritage Committee 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Subject: Historical Preservation Application ARCH-0470-2020 (1136 Iris ): Request to De-List 1136 Iris Property from the Historic List Dear Cultural Heritage Committee, Please accept this letter requesting to “delist” the stated and existing property at 1136 Iris Street. This request is based on the inability to establish any conforming findings set by the State of California Interior Secretary’s historical preservation conditions and the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, per the given and established facts with no contributing “historical” significant elements to maintain eligibility. The base summary elements are that no important or significant person has occupied, owned or used the property; no “famous” architect of importance has designed the structures; nor is there an element of any historical use, event or justification that can be made, or determined, to establish any historical significant for the property to remain on the list. Furthermore, the ability to retain existing material integrity, with “original” materials (i.e.: wood shiplap siding), cannot be assured or verified without detailed, investigated and substantiated inspection and verification. This later issue has been found to be relevant in the first two phases of the project and are contributory to this current and proposed phase of work. Removal from the contributing properties list of historic resources, does not change the proposed scope of work for the relocation and expansion of the existing front façade and entry porch. The property should be removed from the list as it cannot satisfy the required and appropriate evaluation criteria as a qualified, historic and contributing property. Sincerely, Craig R. Smith, AIA Principal Architect CRSA Architecture CRSA Architecture – 860 Walnut Street, Suite B – San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 805.544.3380 – crsa@craigrsmithaia.com ATTACHMENT 1Item 2 Packet Page 7 12 Zoning, or remove the 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. 14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria: A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1)Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. (2)Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3)Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: ATTACHMENT 2Item 2 Packet Page 8 13 a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation. b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30). B. Historic Criteria (1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). (2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: (i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. (ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). (3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum). b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel). ATTACHMENT 2Item 2 Packet Page 9