The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-26-2022 Item 4a, Leveille - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Agenda Correspondence DATE: September 22, 2022 TO: Chair and Committee Members FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Item 4.a. - 1133 Pismo St. (HIST-0171-2022) Designation of Property as Master List Historic Resource The purpose of this correspondence is to provide a copy of a communication between Committee members related to this project for the public record. On May 24, 2022, the Committee heard the request to designate the subject property as a Master List Historic Resource and continued the item to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to specifically identify unique qualities or characteristics of the property which meet criteria of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to be listed as a Master List Historic Resource. On May 28th, while responding to an email from the applicant’s representative, which also included Committee member Ashbaugh, Committee Member Crotser copied Vice Chair Edwards, inadvertently communicating with a majority of the members present for t he May 24th meeting (Attachment 1). Committee Member Croster immediately notified staff of this inadvertent communication with a majority of the members present at the hearing and has had no further communications with members of the Committee about this item (Attachment 2). Staff is including the communication as agenda correspondence for transparency purposes and to ensure a fair and objective hearing. Attachments: 1 - Chuck Crotser, May 28, 2022 email correspondence 2 - Chuck Crotser, May 31, 2022 email correspondence From:Chuck Crotser To:James Papp Cc:Leveille, Brian; Karen Edwards, PhD; John Ashbaugh Subject:Re: Ascertaining the uniqueness of the Brecheen House Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 12:10:48 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. James, When briefly chatting with you after the meeting, I recognized that the Committee should have been more precise in what additional information was expected of you. I subsequently re-read your report, and continue to believe that you provided more than enough information to reach the conclusions that you did, and for the CHC to reach our final recommendation. Your report was extremely thorough and I fully understand the logic of your conclusion and appreciate the extraordinary amount of information provided. Personally, I don't know what additional data would persuade me that this residence rises to the level of Master listing per our current Ordinance and Guidelines as a "most unique and historic property". I simply do not have any constructive suggestions for further work on your behalf. Perhaps you might gain further clarity by speaking with Brian, or John, as the motion maker or Karen, who chaired the meeting. I'm not inclined to have you spend more valuable time simply restating, with nuance, what you've already provided. most respectfully, . . . Chuck On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:55 PM James Papp <james@historicities.com> wrote: Dear Chuck and John, I talked with Brian and Graham after the hearing, and we concluded that perhaps committee members were unable to focus on the distinction of the Brecheen House from other bungalows, with the larger houses serving as a distraction. Brian suggested putting together a comparison data set of Colonial Revival bungalows only. Normally the city considers uniqueness (when it considers uniqueness at all) within a single historic district (e.g., a few years ago, the Theresa Torres True House was Master Listed as the sole Queen Anne cottage in the Mill Street Historic District). I could put together a limited random sampling of Colonial Revival bungalows from the Old Town Historic District (say ten or twenty). Alternatively, I could present the entire universe of Colonial Revival bungalows from the Old Town Historic District's 56 blocks. I would estimate that number at somewhere between 75 and 100. Whatever the data set, I could compare 1. roof type (hip or gable, pitch, straight or bellcast, closed or open eaves, depth of eaves) 2. porch type (symmetric or asymmetric; number, spacing, and order of columns, front or side-facing door) 3. window type (flat or bay; sash or solid; single, twin, or triple; muntined; square- or diamond-paned or other; interior proportions and proportion to the facade) 4. siding (clapboard, novelty, or shiplap; stucco; stone) 5. presence of chimney and chimney design 6. steps (wood or concrete) 7. base (wood, concrete, or other) 8. the combined effect I can focus on the street facade or include side facades, although the east facade of the Brecheen House is obscured from photography by a hedge. It would be beyond the scope of this comparison to establish dates for all the bungalows, which took a considerable amount of research just for the Master List, though useful in confirming longitudinally the development of streamlining. The goal here would be solely to ascertain uniqueness. James James Papp, PhD Historian & Architectural Historian 805-470-0983 Historicities, LLC Sauer-Adams Adobe 964 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -- Charles Crotser Architect AIA Cell: (805) 471-5967 e-mail: ccrotser@gmail.com From:Chuck Crotser To:City_Attorney Cc:Leveille, Brian Subject:Brown act question Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 9:35:02 AM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Attorney, I’m afraid that I made an unfortunate “amateur’s error” in judgement recently regarding an item on our May 24 CHC agenda. The item was continued to allow the applicant’s representative (AR) to provide additional information. Directly after the meeting, the AR approached me and one other Committee member asking for more specific direction. I indicated that I couldn’t offer any immediate thoughts and excused myself as I was heading for another meeting. On May 27, I received an email from the AR. This email was sent to me and the other Committee member I mentioned earlier. The AR essentially asked the same question as before and offered several possibilities for additional research, many of which seemed excessive. The following day I responded via email to the AR, indicating essentially what I had stated in the public meeting. Unfortunately, I not only sent the note as a “reply all” to the AR, but included the City staff person, Brian Leveille, and Karen Edwards, who chaired the meeting on the 24th. I simply wanted to make those individuals aware of my response. In hindsight, not long after I hit the send button, I realized that this very well may have violated Brown Act guidelines and the copies to Brian and Karen were really unnecessary. If I responded at all, it should have been only to the AR and no one else. Better yet, NO reply at all! . . . There was no further correspondence or communication between myself and the other 2 Committee members, however, it would not surprise me that this indiscretion may likely be brought to the City’s attention as a violation. My intent was not to debate and discuss this item, nor would I want to jeopardize the applicant’s ability to have a fair and open hearing when this item returns to the CHC. I’d like to know if there is anything that I should do to preempt any formal claim regarding this situation. If I need to recuse myself from further consideration of this item, I would certainly be willing to do so. Your thoughts and advice are welcome. Thank you, . . . Chuck -- Charles Crotser Architect AIA Cell: (805) 471-5967 e-mail: ccrotser@gmail.com