HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1988, 1 - THE EVOLUTION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: ITS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. nNG AGENDA
DATE -'PF1 2i ITEM #
'ii.'.ilnr Il!I.��III�I; I I1'I IIIIhA.I I��I��III I ofsAn1, iB
li
'ISI ill
= Ta ispo,
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
April 5, 1988
TO: City Council and Cultural Heritage Committee
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: The Evolution of the Cultural Heritage Committee: its roles and
responsibilities.
THE SITUATION
On April 25, 1988 at 4:00 p.m., the City Council will meet with the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC). The general purpose of the meeting is to develop a mutual understanding
of the roles and responsibilities of the CHC and consider various procedural issues.
The Cultural Heritage Committee is the city's newest permanent advisory body. It was
created by City Council Resolution 6157 in February 1987. However, as a technical
committee, the CHC has existed since 1981 and was responsible for completing a city-wide
survey of historical resources.
The following paragraphs (1) present the history of the committee and its development of
the historical preservation program, (2) comment on CHC activities since May 1987, and .
(3) reference procedural issues described in attached materials.
PROGRAM HISTORY
Over the years ideas about what should be emphasized by the city's preservation program
and the perceived role of the CHC have evolved. The following paragraphs outline the
program's development.
1. The Survey Years, In 1981, the city received a matching grant ($21,000) from the
State Office of Historic Preservation. The grant was used to hire a program coordinator
and to conduct a city-wide survey of all buildings constructed before 1941.
In November 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution 4660 that created the CHC (see
Exhibit A) as an 11-member technical committee. The CHC was directed to: (1) establish
criteria for identifying historic buildings; (2) complete a comprehensive inventory of
historic properties; and (3) develop guidelines for review of applications for permits to
rehabilitate, remodel, remove, develop or significantly affect any council-designated
cultural resources.
Resolution 4660 also included a sunset clause stating that upon completion of its
responsibilities or the adoption of a Cultural Heritage Ordinance, the CHC was to be
terminated.
Page 2 -- CHC Background
The CHC completed the survey and submitted its Completion Report to the City
Council. The council accepted the Completion Report (Resolution 5197) in July 1983. The
report contains a specific listing of Historical Resources (the list of 152 properties)
and presents preliminary recommendations for establishing historical preservation
districts.
2. Early Work On The Ordinance. After the survey was completed in 1983, the CHC
worked with staff to outline the concepts to be included in a preservation ordinance.
One of the most significant concepts proposed by the CHC was the creation of new
development permit and review procedures for projects that affect historic buildings or
properties within historical districts.
The CHC felt that a permanent Historic Preservation Committee should be created to
oversee the city's preservation program. The permanent committee should formally become
part of the city's development review process with authority to review, and in some cases
to take final action on certain types of development projects. The new committee would
also be responsible for research, information development and public assistance programs.
3. Early Concept Review, The CHC's concepts (presented in draft ordinance form) were
reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission in 1984. The
focus of this review was the extent that the new Historic Preservation Committee would be
involved in the development review process -- more specifically, how a new committee
might interact with the Director, ARC, Planning Commission and City Council to review
development projects.
In fall of 1984 and winter of 1985 the City Council reviewed the concepts presented by
the CHC and comments made by the Planning Commission and ARC concerning the review
process. Again, the focus of council review was the level of authority a new Historical
Preservation Committee should have to act development permits and demolition
applications.
After substantial debate, the City Council adopted preliminary Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines in May 1985 (Resolution 5680). A excerpt from these guidelines
showing the "historic preservation review process" is attached as Exhibit B. The purpose
of the 1985 guidelines were to act as a "— source of information for program
implementation." It was the council's intent that the guidelines inform the public about
the program's structure and emphasis.
4. Discussion of Benefit Programs. As part of its discussions in 1984-85, the City
Council was concerned about the regulatory character the preservation program -- too
much stick and not enough carrot. The council asked the CHC to evaluate various benefit
programs that might balance regulations with positive benefit programs.
The CHC reviewed 21 types of benefit programs outlined by staff and forwarded
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The 1985 program guidelines
approved by the council identified the following benefit programs:
Rehabilitation loan program
Alternative building code
Inspection services
Page 3 -- CHC History
Local landmark program
Free application process
Tax benefit information
Pre-application conferences.
5. Writing and Reriewine the Ordinance. After May 1985, the CHC and staff prepared
an ordinance that would create a Historical Preservation Committee, establish its roles
and responsibilities, and create new development permit requirements and procedures. The
adopted 1985 program guidelines directed the content and structure of this ordinance.
The CHC completed its work on a draft ordinance and sponsored a Town Hall meeting in
January 1986 at City Hall to present its proposal to owners of historical properties.
About 120 people attended the meeting. The public comments were critical of the proposed
ordinance.
In March 1986, the CHC presented its program to the Planning Commission at a public
hearing. The meeting was well attended. The CHC's proposal included:
A draft Historical Preservation Ordinance
Recommended Historical Preservation Districts
Amendments to the Municipal Code (ie. changes to the demolition permit regulations)
Refined Historical Program Guidelines ,that identified benefit programs.
Affected property owners strongly criticized the proposed program. A petition signed by
several hundred people objecting to the program was submitted to the commission. People
testifying at the meeting wanted "voluntary" activities and not regulatory programs
mandated by the city. They did not want another layer of city government involved in the
development review process. They felt that city involvement was not warranted because
property owners had been doing a good job in preserving historic buildings for years
without city restrictions.
In response to this adverse public reaction, a member of the CHC suggested that the
committee reevajuate its proposed program strategy. The Planning Commission continued
its consideration of the draft ordinance and directed the CHC to further study its
proposals.
6. A Change In Program Direction. After the Planning Commission's initial hearing the
CHC worked with staff to restructure the program. It was considered necessary to delete
all regulatory aspects of the program to gain public, Planning Commission, and eventual
City Council support. The "new" program embodied the following three concepts:
Avoid creating a new laver of review. No new review body would be created. The ARC
would continue to be responsible for reviewing projects affecting historical
resources. The CHC would continue as a technical committee, sponsor
educational/promotional programs, and oversee the administration of program benefits.
On request by the ARC or as part of the normal project routing process, the CHC would
comment on projects that affect historical properties. However, no new permit
process would be created.
J -3
Page 4 -- CHC History
Benefits After Review, The CHC would oversee the proposed rehabilitation loan
program. All activities would have to receive CHC approval prior to approval of a
loan.
Historical Preservation Zones as Areas of Benefit The purpose of the historical
preservation district would be to identify properties eligible for various benefits
offered by the city. All benefit programs would be voluntary. Properties within
districts would not be subject to new regulations.
The CHC presented these new concepts to property owners at a workshop at City Hall in
June 1986. Twenty-six people attended the meeting. The revised program received
cautious support from the people attending although there continued to-be significant
concern for city involvement in the actions of property owners to change historic
properties.
7. Approval of the Revised Program In July and August 1986, the "new" program was
presented to the Planning Commission and ARC. Each commission suggested minor changes to
the CRC's proposal and forwarded recommendations for approval to the City Council.
Between October 1986 and February 1987, the City Council held public hearings to consider
the proposed Historical Preservation Program and the Planning Commission's and ARC's
recommendations. In February, 1987 the City Council took several actions:
Approved Resolution 6157 (see Exhibit C) which created the CHC as a permanent
technical committee. A primary function of the committee is to provide public
assistance and oversee benefit programs.
Approved amendments to the sections of the Municipal Code that affect the city's
demolition permit regulations. More stringent findings are now required prior to
ARC action to approval of the demolition of any historical resource (the listing of
152 properties).
Created three Historical Preservation Districts (changes to the zoning text and
map). The purpose of these zones is to identify parcels, areas or structures that
(1) are architecturally or historically important, and (2) may be eligible for
benefits offered through the city's Historical Preservation Program.
Adopted new Historical Preservation Program guidelines that identified benefit
programs.
In the winter of 1987, the City Council advertised for and appointed members to the new
CHC. The CHC held its first meeting in May 1987 and has been holding at least one
meeting per month since that time.
In sum, the city's historical preservation program has gone through several phases of
development:
The survey phase (1981 - 1983)
The regulatory phase (1984 - 1986)
The benefit program phase (1986 - 1987)
Program implementation (1987 - present)
Page 5 -- CHC History and Status
OBSERVATIONS
The attached copy of the CHC's annual report for 1987 (see Exhibit D) identifies the
principal activities of the committee. Base on review of agendas for the past year,
staff has the following observations:
1. The largest part of most CHC meetings has been spent commenting on development or
rehabilitation projects or demolition proposals.
2. CHC concerns with rehabilitation or development proposals are similar to comments
and concerns raised by the ARC. However, the committee has some difficulty
articulating its concerns -- although its ability to form motions and provide
specific direction is improving.
3. Little time has been spent providing advice to people interested in rehabilitation
projects — mostly because no one has asked.
4. Procedural concerns sometimes detract from the flow of the meetings. The
attendance of council liaison sometimes seems to encourage a more formal atmosphere
and might affect the communication flow.
5. Work on long-standing CHC projects (eg. library development, file maintenance,
summer walking tours, archaeological guidelines) is going forward. Most of this work
is done by CHC subcommittees that devote non-meeting time to these projects.
6. Most committee actions have been unanimous or with a strong majority. The CHC's
action on the "Loomis Demolition Proposal" and related actions had the most divided
response. Like all groups, committee members continue to learn about how to deal
with dissent and differing opinions.
7. The planning staff continues to develop procedures for fitting the CHC into the
development review process. Given the current membership of the committee, its
interest in being involved in reviewing projects will continue to be high.
8. If the CHC becomes more involved in development review, additional staffing will
be necessary for project review, staff reports, minutes and meeting attendance.
9. The CHC has stated a desire for more comprehensive information (eg. project plans,
elevations, perspective drawings) to be provided to committee members for their
review of development projects. This may require an increased commitment of staff
resources.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
At its March 1988 meeting, the CHC tentatively identified work areas to pursue in the
next year. Further discussion of the work program will be a future CHC agenda item.
However, work areas identified so far include:
Update the Master List of Historical Resources.
Establish a preservation library.
Update the filing system.
Prepare guidelines for conducting archaeological surveys and research.
Page 6 -- CHC History and Status
Develop direct outreach programs involving groups such as Cal Poly students and civic
organizations.
Prepare a list of oral history resources.
Administer the Rehabilitation Loan Program.
Prepare administrative procedures for other benefit programs.
The CHC is continuing to work on these programs and discuss other areas of research and
involvement.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
In the fall of 1987 the CHC reviewed a proposal to include the Loomis Building on the
National Register of Historic Places. Its action on this proposal sparked council
concern and interest in procedures used by the CHC and its ability as an "advisory body"
to communicate directly with external agencies. In October 1987, the CHC sent the City
Council a memo that outlines the steps the committee should take to address procedural
concerns. This memo is attached as Exhibit E.
The City Council should review the attached materials, and provide any additional
direction that it feels appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
At the joint meeting of the City Council and the CHC, the following should happen:
1. The council should review this memorandum and related materials and ask questions.
2. Council and CHC discuss basic expectations concerning CHC roles and
responsibilities.
3. Consider the CHC's memo on their procedures and resolve any residual procedural
issues.
4. Discussion of the future of the City's historical preservation program.
Attachments: Exhibit A -- Resolution 4660 (1981) creating the CHC as a temporary
technical committee.
Exhibit B — Excerpt from 1985 Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
adopted by the council.
Exhibit C -- Resolution 6157 (1987) creating the CHC as a permanent
committee.
Exhibit D — CHC Annual Report (1987)
Exhibit E — Memo on CHC procedural issues.
SOLUTION N0. 4660 (1981 Serie-c. XMIBIT A
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ESTABLISHING A CULTURAL HERITAGE COMPIITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Council preservation of the cultural heritage of San
Luis Obispo represents significant economic, aesthetic and educational benefit
to the community; and
WHEREAS the City Council recognizes the need for a comprehensive and
coordinated program for preservation; and
WHEREAS the City Council has determined that it is beneficial and, for
some purposes, necessary to adhere to established state and federal guidelines
for historical preservation; and
Whereas, the City Council is committed to the establishment of a Cultural
Heritage Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to immediately establish a committee which
will undertake the necessary studies to establish a Historic Preservation Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that:
SECTION 1. An eleven (11) member technical Cultural Heritage Committee is
established. The members shall be appointed by the City Council in a manner
determined by the Council.
SECTION 2. The Cultural Heritage Committee shall have the following
principal responsibilities:
A. Establish criteria, subject to approval of the City Council, for
designating structures and areas, within the boundaries of the city, as
historically or architecturally significant;
B. Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey and create an
inventory of such properties;
C. Compile, and make available to the public, information on the history
of these significant properties;
R 4660
Resolution No. 4660 (196 Series)
Page 2
D. Recommend to the Council the designation of certain properties
(hereinafter referred to as cultural resources) on the inventory as historically
or architecturally significant according to the criteria approved by the City
Council;
E. Develop guidelines for review of applications for permits to
rehabilitate, remodel; remove, develop or significantly affect any Council-
designated cultural resource;
F. Investigate and report to the Council on the use of various
governmental and private funding sources and mechanisms available to promote
cultural resource preservation. p
SECTION 3. The Cultural Heritage Committee shall be composed of eleven (11)
members and should include representatives of preservation-related organizations
such as historical societies, museums, heritage groups and civic clubs, as well
as members of professional bodies such as architects, attorneys and urban planners.
The committee shall specifically include at least one person trained and experienced
in structural rehabilitation. All members must have a demonstrated interest in and
knowledge of the cultural heritage of the city.
SECTION 4. The Cultural Heritage Committee shall report to the City Council
on its progress every six months following its appointment, and shall make every
effort to complete all the responsibilities herein established within two years
from the time of its appointment.
As the Committee completes phases of the cultural resource survey and
inventory, it shall promptly submit its recommendations to the Council
Resolution No.4660(1981 Series)
Page 3
for consideration as properties to be designated as historic structures , sites or
districts.
SECTION 5. Upon completion of the Committee responsibilities established
herein, as determined by the City Council, or upon adoption by the Council of a
Cultural Heritage Ordinance, this technical Cultural Heritage Committee shall be
terminated.
On motion of Councilman Settle , seconded by CnItnrilman Renin
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Dunin, Dovey, Griffin and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _a.IL day of NnvPmhPr
1981.
Mayor lie nie C. Billig
ATTEST: j
City Clerk Pamela Voge�
APPROVED
T
Acting ,City Admtnistr ve Officer
� � I
city Attorney
Community Ve
velopme Director
/- 9
�, , THE
HISTORICAL- �'IIESERVA&ATI0 ROCGRAM
E)WIBIT B
THE H=RIC PRWMWATION REVIEW PROCESS
Type of Project Who Decides
1. Demolish an rxn-historic building Director
2. Demolish a building in an Historic Director and Historic
District Preservation committee (a)
3. Demolish an Historic Resource Historic Preservation
Committee
4. Making a "minor" change to the Director (b)
outside of an Historic Resource (d)
5. Making a "major" change to the Historic Preservation
outside of an Historic Rescuree(d) Committee and the Arch-
itectural Review Commis-
sion
6. Building a small structure on Director
an Historic Resource site or
in an Historic District
7. Building a new structure on Historic Preservation
an Historic Resource site or in a His- Committee
toric�istrict (where city codes
don't require architectural re-
view) (c)
8. Building a neer structure on an Historic Preservation
Historic Resource site or in an historic Committee and the Arch-
District (where city codes itectural Review Cammis-
require architectural review) sion
NCTES:
(a) The Director makes the first decision then it is verified as a
"consent" item by the Historic Preservation Committee. The committee can
make a decision that is different than the director's.
(b) If the Director decides that the proposed "minor" change may alter the
historic character of the building, the application is sent to the
Historic Preservation Committee for action.
(c) In most cases these types of permits will be for single family houses.
(d) A list of "major", "minor" and "exempt" changes is included in the
appendix.
Source: Historical Preservation Program, May? 1985 (Resolution 5680)
APPENDIX A JHIBlf C
RESOLUTION NO. 6157 1987 Series
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DEFINING HISTORICAL PRESERVATION GOALS AND ESTABLISHING THE
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AS A CONTINUING SPECIAL PURPOSE
ADVISORY BODY.
WHEREAS, The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) was created in 1981 as a temporary
committee to complete an inventory of community historical resources and oversee the
development of a Historical Preservation Program; and
WHEREAS, the CHC completed an initial inventory of the community's historical,
architectural and cultural resources in 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted resolution 5197 (1983 series) that establishes an
official listing of historical resources; and
WHEREAS, the CHC, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, City Council,
city staff and the public have evaluated numerous alternatives for establishing a
Historical Preservation Program; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 1986 the City Council adopted Resolution 6097 which
:ablished preservation program guidelines and directed staff to prepare ordinances and
other materials needed to establish a preservation program; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to establish the CHC as a continuing special purpose
advisory body to help administer the program; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to set forth the goals of the city's historical
preservation program
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1: Intent of Historical Preservation. It is in the public interest to
protect and preserve historical, architectural, and cultural resources including
monuments, sites, objects, structures, buildings and other designated areas
Section L Historical Preservation Goals. The city's Historical Preservation
Program should:
.v
,
4`•
Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series)
Page 2
A. Foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the
recognition and use of Historical Resources;
B. Promote the enjoyment and use of Historical Resources appropriate for the
education and recreation of the people of the city;
C. Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the city's past;
D. Safeguard the heritage of the city by providing for the preservation of Historical
Resources which represent significant elements of its history.
E. Protect property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the city
and its inhabitants;
F. Protect and enhance the city's attractions to residents and visitors;
G. Encourage architectural styles within Historical Preservation Districts which
reflect established architectural traditions.
H. Conserve valuable materials and energy resources by continuing to use and maintain
existing buildings.
Section 3: Cultural Herita¢e Committee (CHC). The CHC is hereby established as a
continuing special purpose advisory body.
A. Membership, The CHC shall have 11 members. The members of the CHC shall include
a person knowledgeable in local history, a person with training or experience in
structural rehabilitation, and a person with knowledge of architecture (a minimum of
three people
The membership shall include one city resident from each of the three Historical
Preservation Districts created by Ordinance No. 1086 (1987 Series).
At least eight members shall be residents of the City of San Luis Obispo.
B. Terms. The terms of committee members shall be two years. Terms of three
original members shall expire on March 31, 1988, and terms of two original members
shall expire on March 31, 1989. Terms shall expire thereafter on March 31st at
two-year intervals.
C. Functions and Duties. The CHC will:-
(1) Collcct, consolidate and make available information about Historical Resources
and Historical Resource Sites and promote, participate in, or sponsor education and
interpretive progiams.
(2) Provide advice and guidance for the restoration, alteration, decoration, ;
landscaping or maintenance of Historical Resources or properties within Historical
Preservation Districts.
Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series)
Page 3
(3) Review the Inventory of Historical Resources and recommend to the City Council
any amendments. .
(4) Assist property owners with the preparation of National Register applications for
for Historical Resource Sites.
(5) Help to administer benefit programs approved by the City Council that are
directed at preserving Historical Resources or resources within Historical
Preservation Districts.
(6) Publish and maintain Historical Preservation Program Guidelines which present (a)
benefit programs sponsored by the city; (b) procedures for adding properties to the
Inventory of Historical Resources or for establishing a Historical District; and
(c) other information concerning historical preservation.
(7) Review actions proposed by public agencies and provide information on how such
actions may affect designated or eligible properties within or adjacent to Historical
Districts. i
(8) Cooperate with local, state, and federal agencies in the pursuit of historical
preservation.
(9) Function within the guidelines and policies of the Advisory Bodies Handbook and
perform other duties as assigned by the City Council.
Section 4: Definitions. The following words and.phrases shall have the following
meaning:
(1) Historical Preservation District Any area which has been so designated under
Chapter 1754 (Zoning Regulations).
i
(2) Historical Resource or Historical Resource Site!
it Any improvements, buildings,
sites, areas or objects of scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural,
architectural or historical significance that have been designated by resolution of
the Council and included in the Inventory of Historical Resources.
Historical Resources or Historical Resource Sites are classified as follows:
Priority #l: Already placed on the National Register.
Priority 02: Determined eligible for the National Register.
Priority 03: Eligible for the National Register.
Priority #4: Potentially eligible for the National Register.
Priority 05: Not eligible for the National Register but significant at a local
level.
(3) Inventory of Historical Resources, All properties listed by address in the
Completion Report (approved by City Council Resolution No. 5197, 1983 Series) and any
other properties subsequently added to this listing by resolution of the City
Council.
Section 5: Resolution No. 4660 (1981 SeriesL that established the temporary
Cultural Heritage Committee, is hereby rescinded.
Resolution No. 61513 (1987 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing reso as passed and adop d this day of February
1987.
ATTEST: Mayor Pro-Tei&*Robert E ri fin
CiClerk Pamela Vog
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Alto ey
Community Development Director
i
i
i
The Cultural Heritage Commit -
S tee (CHC)
Role The CHC oversees educational and technical assistance programs aimed at preserving
historic and cultural resources. Key committee activities include maintaining the Master
List of Historical Resources, advising people interested in restoring historic buildings,
and commenting on actions that affect historic buildings, sites and districts.
Membership. The CHC has eleven members. As of December-31, 1987 the committee's
membership included:
Gloria Heinz (Chairperson)
James Fickes
Priscilla Graham
Mark Hall-Patton
Daniel Kreiger
Jerry Michael
Patricia Nicholson
Leo Pinard
Wendy Waldron
Bruce Sievertson
Charles Quinlan
Activity Highlights. The City Council established the CHC as a permanent committee in
April of 1987. Since May, the CHC has met at least once a month. Activity highlights
include:
Adopting procedures for reviewing and commenting on (1) development proposals within
historical areas of the city, and (2) proposals to demolish older buildings.
Reviewing five demolition proposals (a house, a duplex, the Rodriguez Adobe, the old
city-county library on Palm Street, and the Loomis Building), the remodel of the city's
recreation center on Santa Rosa Street, and five other development projects -- mostly in
the downtown. The CHC's recommendations were forwarded to the ARC or to the department
Director. In reviewing the proposed demolition of the Rodriguez Adobe, the CHC
determined that the adobe is a significant historical structure that should not be
demolished but should be preserved at its current location. The property owner intends
to present a long-term strategy for preserving the building.
Completing a survey and listing of all properties with the city's three historic
districts. This task involved the field evaluation of 858 individual properties. The
survey listing will be sent to the City Council for approval. Properties within
districts are classified as either ontributing, non-contribution, potentially
contributing, ormodern contributing. (For a description of these classifications
and what they mean, contact the Community Development Department.)
Conducting walking tours of the historic downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods
during the summer months on Sunday afternoons.
Developing guidelines for administering a rehabilitation loan program intended to assist
property owners with the restoration of historic houses.
Beginning work on establishing a preservation library intended to help people with
research or with getting information about methods for restoring old buildings.
Reviewing and commenting on a proposal to include the Loomis Building at 65 1/2
Higuera Street on the National Register of Historical Places. L!
EMOB IT E,
IIIII city
of
sAn tuis OBISPO
990 Palm StreetiPost Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM Gloria Heinz, Chairperson, Cultural Heritage Committee
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Administrative Procedures for the Cultural Heritage Committee
The Situation
On October 26, 1987 the City Council reviewed an appeal by Mr. Richard Schmidt concerning
an action taken by the CHC. The CHC had prepared comments to send to the State
Historical Preservation Officer concerning the national register nomination of the Loomis
Building at 65 Higuera Street. In his letter of appeal, Mr. Schmidt did not support
those comments and cited other administrative concerns.
Mr. Schmidt's appeal and subsequent council hearing highlighted the need for a look at
the committee's procedures for handling various kinds of cases. The council asked staff
and the CHC to report back on possible procedures for addressing the various items that
will be coming before the CHC.
The CHC appointed a subcommittee that worked with the staff to prepare administrative
policies and procedures. The subcommittee's work was reviewed and approved by the CHC at
its December 3, 1987 meeting. .
Summary Evaluation
The attached procedures address a variety of administrative concerns:
Notification of meetings Distribution of agendas
Meeting Schedules Preparing reports
Public participation Roll call voting
Preparation of minutes Follow-up communications
Comments to "exterior" agencies Use of the 1983 survey
CHC representation at the ARC or City Council information
Activities #1 - #5 listed on the attached chart represent the types of "development
review" items that the committee has been commenting on since March 1987. Procedures for
Activities 07 and #8 were established as part of the Historical Preservation Guidelines
(February 1987). Most of the others reflect how the CHC has been operating.
The attached procedures are consistent with the CHC's bylaws and the Historic
Preservation Guidelines.
Page 2 — CHC Administrative Procedures
Communications With External Agencies
One issue specifically raised was the CRC's communication with outside agencies. At its
October 26th meeting, the City Council indicated that it wanted to review these types of
CHC communications before they were transmitted to exterior agencies. The council needs
to determine whether this should be the long-term strategy.
One strategy might be to enable the CHC, consistent with its bylaws, to provide
information to other agencies but to report on and refer all policy matters to the City
Council for final action. For example, requests for information about the history of
buildings or sites in the city would be an information item handled by the CHC; comments
on whether a building should be preserved or not would be a policy item reported on by
the CHC and referred to the council.
Determining the difference between "information" and "policy" will require judgement on
the CHC's part -- judgement that will develop as the committee becomes more involved in
preservation activities.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Clarify how it wants the CHC to communicate to exterior agencies; and
2. Move to support the attached administrative procedures.
Attachments: Draft CHC Policies and Procedures
G
T ro
O
N = Cd ! r
y 691 u La u
b
ci
y L C
Uapr
cc
v ¢ ¢ p U W v s v a
= y y y d d
40 d ALi N y .
J 40d c
y _
x - -
O L L N O te ro O O N
O O W W
H W
Qd Y O Y d O d Y0 a d Y O Y pd d O Y C
V C C c C C C C C C O C
.•+ O O a O O �I O O O O LI 0' G O
W Z t C Z C t L C L L C t'O O C L L L C L L ro i
I-w 6 6•-- 6 d Y O. d
H d Y r Yd Y •+ d Y +.+ Y Y d
r N N r r +✓' ap
Y 6 Y Y O J J •10 J J 2
L L .LY
Y C
G •N N ... .... N N
d r r Y W�+
L D u y 0 u u u O �. y u y u
o .0 L s a s L s a
� i c a c v > L. = o a o N 3 0 �
.+ ..• s
O O +-+
C T T C T C C
Y ro N r ro N r ro d +� ro ro ro
J L yJ ro L " ro = Y ro u Y ro _y Y -
Y •- .L.y. - Y N r. y d ^ Y 6^ .L 6•- d
W d •- y O V C C a C O. 1 C a O •� O d C O O. C O.
6 C d S C d
.a
Q. CM i ¢ co arcm arc? ¢ Q- a s ¢ cn c)- ¢
.W 7
i40
ro Y
u u u y v
u
io r ro o L L
o 0 C
N ro v a o y o y A �
L L O YI
c91 y Y d X31 Y aT 'O iJ
G L C f0 y Y 7� in L f L C L
d Y d• S.- L d L Ir N t N t -• ro ro
= OI Y C1 Y N O 6�+ Y �a L .•• C d
CI.0 fll•� •� i O � 6 y d Z
C �11 C d 7 U U
.y Yu d O V O U d -a ro 4 G^ ro J N
7 a 7 i L N c
v v .L+ .+ � r .di i c m y ro d ro v c •�
.L.• V ? U .0 ro .0 ro �+ L fl+ f d r a ^ i1 0 .✓
a
On ro d
ro ro x .w x d o v •- o i oa c.7
V U'�' u N x O. a a s x a ro
W 2 +•� S ++ O O L d U vl N O 0 O " U O t
= V u U u " L O L 7 �+ C Y •+ L �+
+� 6 ++ 6 N J C •� L L O +'+ 6 C � 7
p - O u 7 0 q O C ti
Z p 1 p O ++ O +1 U ! 7 Y N CI N
a f C C f N
W W •� 6 a O. ; Y d Y U O
W sro L ro L u 0 C C41 W
'O d
s
S 40
ro N d L ti 0 L •- J d N r
ti t Y N S d C d C 0
� cn i - cn to cn ro v w s v io ul . a
vu
C
!10y I I
v
i O: N � G ^ 111 � •L N ^
r N _
I � CI ro 7 ro N
N N N ro L d
I CC t 4YN c • O ro ro
VO x 2 L d
ya Y +••
I :J N -• 1 r X W fr x �+ y D
O N N C[!J DI 6.0 Y W O O V N - J
V rp= O
O i C N N L L C J .- tr L i O
O
i .•-. O LI � u � N u M d d C r �
m
O N C O v O J= W H O .c .-
cn 0 N y Y ... d
r N O..- C
gm ro C C .+
03
QG d C +' O .- •- `p u i a• C u C uu d N
IWO
` ` i N we L`p C L pip LLro ro J f7 .b •O ro
c b 0 3 O x O �+ .api !. O U r U V
N = - N N N 7 W • .VI • V r .O
.... y N x ►J
r x -C Y7 Q •O 1� cc m C O+ `m y
r
r M
d •t `c O c
,OO �
y� Y
-
6 • d c y .d. W (.
SSs • .. o
ow
= s .000
22 9
U2 20Q O M 100
d ' m
yp _«
IN
IN
Gto 1 O 6 C p d ~
r
c 1 7 �CC 1 as
_c L r C 10 6 c I�pO
O, c �s ^n
m C - a 8
_ p }d
-75
• r OI
O J YI ll fi-
_ Crs
yy
t K Y _ U J m L m a = ` 6 t m § N
m Cy W o may+ •p
J + O L + L r C p ppp> tl O c C m T
OC6 34.1
M d .Vr Y L a s 'O d � O m O s > •I mO m 0
V y m m m d 7 • -
X �0 y m m d to O Q LO '� G C cN m c O
Jo 49
L N d
t O I L u L CIm
O .� Y V FS W op LA m N �+ m $ .
• + 7 w ►- y " an d �7>i .=%$ a m L d d 0 an d
t TL. to 77m
06 y
a v L _ m m L y v� N —,'w p cc.+ o u
v n. o� o c
CC j � N O
m ^ m J m Y 9 .r •� Y �. L Y m
Y 1 d Y C m C $_ O L = CI a� L N b d1
n. �`` may► m c > > L d .r O m C C ~ d
N N rI O .L + M O m Li N
O L L m N m C > _
r; L o m an d m � oa
m iv u
y .+ pp r+N a
X O J % I DM ..L. ^ N b L coC 7
1�0 L Y 6 -p W I mm`m d m 4 �+ r •� d T
N O W L m •C N 1N0 L. L i d d 0 -2c V ` m M .L..
C 1�0 � y c '' t L .- a M D N > 6 6 N
C S .~i L O q d c .73 d G y C d C
O O 1 c t D m f a d r� a 6 .•+ m 7� c •�
N �pp yM s
C0
s `d d 0 d c m N y m �+ a L 7
C 9 C Y 6 m Y - L•. m I Y_ CA
L u m e aa+ m °1 d a � m re
a •a � �
y9 L m m o - ` o
G C c W m �+ .J O W udi Y r m a + t p L ALO L
w s ` a N N d 7 i.1 �+ a 6
°' r d ym+ d W 1 M L' `° p m
m C .c C 6Y � OC d_ �_ � a
a � ; J � d � MO�e t �.M 6 y 40
m a m > s
GoNor i C + N O1 rs 7 ,LO m
�J • c � mdW T `d � • gSi 'd amd � V ` ` `
• $ Y m m 5 Go
m •�yp rd �► p LCL. yp
• a Y -C_ L L 10 m N 7 L 6 m .0 d .�
O +
Abu, L y m 9
73 _ _ £ 6 - m � " �
W wi C M � `m L''
Z D . Z M 7C —p L � `p p
Y O g : ti M1 6 b +
010
yy � � 5 y d d
m
m M Y y ��•• yy
6 t W r may+ 1i L 1L� A H
H cm r 0 m G Y c mpp t0 .�. CL. ['V�p ..q vs
M /+f V O IA m •O .�. •� C� m v c v •. ~ N
�-lq