HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2000, 3 - CONSIDERATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S WHITE PAPER ON THE STATUS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO.council Mae6o8 Date 6.20.00
agcnaa Report h.N..b. 3
C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Direct ;t
PREPARED BY: John Mandeville, Long -Range Planning Mana 66G
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CULTURAL H RITAGE COMMITTEE'S
"WHITE PAPER" ON THE STATUS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
IN SAN LUIS OBISPO.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Review the white paper, take public comments, and give
direction to staff on-follow -up actions, including added public input, if appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On April 24, 2000 the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) voted 6 -0 (Committee member
McDonald absent) to approve the draft white paper, appoint a subcommittee to incorporate final
editorial changes suggested at the meeting and to forward the white paper to the City Council.
Committee members Carr, Schrage, and McMasters completed the final editing. The completed
white paper (Attachment A) and CHC minutes (Attachment B) are attached.
The CHC was established in 1987 to advise the City Council on a broad range of preservation
programs and activities. In preparing and submitting this white paper, the Committee is acting
pursuant to its council - mandated goal to "safeguard the heritage of the City by providing for the
preservation of Historical Resources which represent significant elements of its history." The
CHC's "white paper" grew out of a CHC retreat held in July 1999 at the historic Rosa Butron de
Canet de Simmler adobe, and discusses the status of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo at
the start of a new century. It also summarizes the Committee's recommendations for
strengthening the City's historic preservation program. Then CHC Chairman McMasters drafted
the document with the assistance of all Committee members over the course of several public
meetings.
Background
To provide the Council with a context and background for the CHC's white paper, a copy of the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines has been placed in the Council Reading File. These
Guidelines, adopted by Council resolution, establish the framework for the City's
implementation of its historic preservation goals. A major feature of this framework is how it
integrates into the City's process for approving new or modified development.
Generally speaking, the CHC is included in the review process when projects involve properties
with City recognized historic resources. In addition, the CHC also is asked from time to time to
3 -1
Council Report - CHC White Paper on Historic Preservation
Page 2
comment on other projects by the ARC and City staff when their expertise is desired. Any
proposal to expand that review process beyond the scope of the City's Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines or intent of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines could have a serious effect on how development permits are processed in a timely
manner.
In recent years, the Community Development Department has made well - received efforts to
respond to City Council and public concerns that the development review process had become
too lengthy and unpredictable. In implementing a Council directed streamlining work program,
various procedures in the Department have been fine tuned to create as much efficiency and
certainty as possible while implementing the City's General Plan policies, applicable regulations
and State law. Incorporating procedures for historic preservation and California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) compliance in a way that is consistent with this approach is essential for an
effective, fair and streamlined development review process. For example, City demolition
procedures were drafted with the assistance and support of the CHC to ensure a balanced
approach reflecting multiple priorities.
CEQA defines "historical resources" as those listed on or eligible for the California Register of
Historical Resources. In addition, CEQA recognizes our locally adopted Master List and
Contributing Properties as "historical resources." A third less clearly defined category includes
any other resource that the City determines to be historically significant. The guidelines for this
third category are broad but generally incorporate the same criteria used to determine whether a
historical resource would qualify for the Califoria Register. This criteria includes:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of
California's history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,. period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
Several of the factors for determining historic significance listed above are subjective, based on
an interpretation of local, state and federally adopted criteria. The City's adopted criteria for
determining historic significance are broad and the determination of historical or architectural
significance can vary according to the evaluator, time period, community values and tastes. The
City's experience considering the historic significance of a Pioneer False Front building on
Broad Street is a recent example of this. Thoroughly analyzing and debating the historic
significance of every property or building falling within CEQA's general criteria for historic
significance during development review could add significantly to the time and effort involved in
the City's development review process. This is why determining historic significance in advance
of reviewing development proposals is so important, both in terms of protecting historic
resources and in processing development applications in a timely manner.
3 -2
Council Report - CHC White Paper on Historic Preservation
Page 3
CEQA Guidelines encourage each public agency to develop and publish local thresholds of
significance to aid the agency in determining the significance of environmental effects
(Guidelines Section 15064.7). Listing on the California Register or on the City's Inventory of
Historic Resources establishes two types of thresholds concerning historic properties and
buildings. Locally, a site or building found to be historically significant is placed on the
Inventory by Council action, upon nomination by the CHC. This inventory includes the Master
List of Historic Resources and the Contributing Properties List, currently totaling about 580
properties. Staff uses this list as the primary, but not the only threshold for determining historic
or architectural significance.
According to CEQA Guidelines, whether or not a property is included on a historic list should
not be the sole determinant of historic significance. Other reference tools, such as city
documents, historic maps, and surveys may also be used to better understand a property's
significance. Nevertheless, maintaining an accurate and up -to -date historic inventory is vital to
minimizing the case -by -case subjectivity and review time for individual development projects. If
the historic inventory becomes outdated, either due to the passage of time, changed conditions or
annexations, the City is less able to accomplish its overall preservation and education goals. The
intent is that the inventory be a dynamic tool and updated as needed by the CHC. This is why the
CHC's primary task and work program goal is to update the City's historic resources survey and
where appropriate, add properties to the Master and Contributing properties Lists. To help
accomplish these tasks, the CHC and staff have recommended increased funding for this purpose
during the current budget process.
In the process of determining buildings and property to be historically significant, the City has
encouraged property owners to participate in that determination. The CHC and the Council hold
advertised public hearings before including properties and structures on the Inventory of Historic
Resources to allow the broadest possible range of community input into the decision - making
process.
Evaluation
The white paper is a valuable assessment of the status of historic preservation in the City by an
advisory body whose Council- mandated role is to focus exclusively on. preserving the City's
cultural (both historical and archaeological) resources. Implementing all the City's goals and
policies often involves balancing multiple objectives and involves the input and judgment of
several advisory bodies. The information presented should be reviewed in this context.
3 -3
Council Report - CHC White Paper on Historic Preservation
Page 4
Several of the recommendations made in the white paper are already in the process of being
implemented. Staff is nearing completion of updating the development review procedures for
projects involving historic resources. Recent changes to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) are being incorporated into the Community Development Department's CEQA
procedures. These changes will be applied to the City's demolition procedures as appropriate.
Also, staff is using increased funding for background research to support CHC efforts to maintain
the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. A request for proposals to conduct a new historic
survey of threatened, potentially historic resources was approved at the CHC's May meeting.
The Community Development Department regularly makes training available to staff members.
A CEQA workshop regarding updates was held in the Council Chambers in 1999. A majority of
planning staff attedded this update. Regular CEQA updates and training is an important practice
and will continue to be supported. Training on specific topics, such as the Archaeological
Resources Preservation Guidelines also occurs as new procedures are implemented. A general
training session on the Department's updated CEQA procedures could occur once the updated
procedures are distributed.
CONCURRENCES
The recommendations set forth in the CHC's White Paper have not been reviewed with other
advisory bodies or community "stakeholders ". If, however, the Council wishes to entertain any
suggestions that might substantially alter the City's current development review process, other
interested parties should be advised as a part of any follow -up analysis /report to the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Receive and file the white paper. Do not recommend follow -up actions.
2. Continue the item for additional information or study, and specify the additional
information or analysis needed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CHC White Paper: The Status of Historic Preservation in the City of San Luis Obispo
2. CHC Minutes excerpts, July 1999 and April 2000 meetings
COUNCIL READING FILE:
-City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
CHCwhitepaper
3 -4
ATTACnMEMY
The Status of Historic Preservation
in the City of San Luis Obispo
Summary
Beginning in the early 1.980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a program
formalizing and adopting policies that addressed historic and prehistoric cultural
resources. The first of the City's historic districts were formed, and the City
Council created the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The City subsequently
adopted numerous policies in its General Plan that addressed the preservation
and protection of historic and prehistoric resources.
Today, after the lapse of nearly 20 years, it can be said that the City of San Luis
Obispo has experienced .measurable success with its historic preservation
efforts. Most notably, the City has purchased and partnered in preservation of
the Butron, La Loma and Rodriguez Adobes, and has initiated a Mills Act
Program. However, the City continues to lose historic resources because .
inconsistencies and loopholes in City ordinances fail to protect them fully. Nor is
the City taking full advantage of its cultural resources, which are often viewed as
"standing in the way of progress" rather than being considered valuable and
significant factors that contribute to the City's character, livability, and economic
vitality. Ultimately, it is the loss of historic, cultural and archaeological resources
that will result in a decline in the uniqueness of this community and make it less
desirable as a place in which to reside, work or visit. While there are numerous
considerations including economic development, housing, recreation, the
environment, transportation, and the like, a development model cannot be based
on what might be successful in other communities that lack the historic and
unique character of this city.
As we proceed into the twenty-first century, it is prudent to look beyond the
horizon to anticipate problems may lie ahead. Throughout California, older
established neighborhoods are feeling the pressure of growth and witnessing the
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 the
resulting loss of those resources. San Luis Obispo has already experienced
some of these same pressures, and it is logical to predict that we will continue to
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 and
controversy that is often generated when ambiguous or unresolved issues
proceed unchecked.
To help prepare for these challenges, we recommend that the City council take
the following actions:
3 -5
,..,?�,TTAuHME NeT,
1. Revise the City's regulations and policies to comply with current State
laws and regulations.
2. Institute training for 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 in
marketing the City.
4. Develop a recognition award program for contributions to protect Historic
resources.
5. Provide additional funding for consultant assistance to inventory the City's
potentially Historic resources.
II. Background
San Luis Obispo has a rich cultural heritage and an informed citizenry who have
valued and protected that heritage. As with many areas of the country in the
1970s and 80s, the issues of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo found a
larger voice as several projects threatened the fabric of some of the historic
areas and neighborhoods. Special interest was focused on the commercial
downtown area and the "old town" Victorian neighborhoods. The historic
preservation movement in the City focused on the creation of "historic districts"
and the first three were created: Downtown, Old Town and Mill Street. In the
1990s a portion of the Downtown District was re- designated as the Chinatown
Historic District and a portion of the Old Town District was combined with an
additional area to create the Railroad Historic District.
The City also created two lists of historic properties — the Master List of Historic
Properties, and the Contributing Property List. The Master List contains the most
important examples of San Luis Obispo's archaeological, cultural, and historic
resources, and also contains structures associated with important personages,
designers, or periods of our history. The Contributing Property list contains
properties that are important due to their contribution to the character of a historic
district, neighborhood, or the City as a whole, but in and of themselves are not
individually significant.
The City Council also created the CHC as an advisory body whose purpose was
to identify and protect the historic resources of the city. At that time the primary
duty of the CHC was to inventory historic resources in the City and to
recommend formation of new historic districts. This remains a major component
of the CRC's work today.
3 -6
AT11CHMENT I
The City also underscored the importance of historic and pre- historic resources
in its General Plan by including specific policies aimed at protecting these
resources including provisions in the: Land Use, Housing, Open Space,
Conservation and Parks & Recreation Elements.
III. Recommendations
The City has established plans and policies regarding historic preservation. The
process for dealing with properties within Historic Districts or on the City's historic
lists is clearly defined. The process for nominating and including properties on
the City's lists stresses cooperation from property owners, and thus receives
substantial support from property owners.
However, there are also some weaknesses in the City's current procedures:
A. Local / State Rules Inconsistencies — Recent court cases and changes in
state law, primarily the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have
created a situation in which local and state law may not be consistent. CEQA
now requires that any structure over 50 years old that may be affected by a
project, be evaluated to determine if it is "historic" based on the criteria
presented in the CEQA Guidelines. If it is, the effects of a project must be
evaluated and the impacts mitigated. State law provides that local "lists" of
historic properties can be used as a short list to determine if a structure is
historic, but the absence of a structure from such a list does not mean it is not
considered 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 the
current definition in CEQA.
The City regularly relies on its lists to determine if a project may affect historic
resources, but often stops at that step in its evaluation. The CHC is
sometimes consulted to determine if an unlisted structure may have historic
significance. However, in these cases, the information presented is often
minimal. Rather than the CHC reviewing information prepared for an Initial
Study (e.g. historic resource analysis), the CHC is used in lieu of doing the
primary historic research and analysis.
A second conflict may exist with the demolition regulations when a process is
laid out that would seem to allow demolition of a Master list structure.
Demolition of a Master List Structure, assumed to be a "historic" resource by
the State's guidelines, would by the State's rules seem to require preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in most cases. This is not reflected
in the current demolition regulations and may mislead some property owners
as to a significant "hidden" step in the process.
3 -7
ATTACHMENT
A third conflict revolves around the requirement in CEQA that the "...whole of
an action..." be considered in the evaluation of a project. Since demolition of
non - listed properties is ministerial (thus exempt from CEQA), a process has
evolved where new development is occurring in a two step process. First the
application for demolition of affected structures is received (and eventually
approved), and then the application for the new development is submitted.
This exempts the review of the demolition of any potentially historic structures
from review and protection of the CEQA requirements. Two recent examples
of this process are the Pacific Home Do -It redevelopment, and the New
Times development. This raises a potential legal question as to whether the
City is allowing a project to be "split" thus violating the requirement in CEQA
to review the whole of an action.
Recommended Actions-
1 . Direct the Community Development Director and City Attorney to examine
city regulations, policies and procedures in light of current state
regulations. If necessary, amendments in regulations should be
recommended to the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts.
2. Consider preparation of a Historic Resources Element, or Historic
Preservation Ordinance as a vehicle to clarify process and policies.
3. Direct the Community Development Department to fully evaluate potential
historic resources as required by CEQA.
B. Demolition Regulations — The City's demolition regulations set procedures
that must be followed by property owners wishing to demolish .any building
over 50 years old. If a building is over 50 years old, the CHC is notified of the
request for a demolition permit, and the property owner must advertise the
structure as available for possible relocation and photo - document the
structure per the City standards. If a property is on the Master or Contributing
Property List, a plan must be submitted for review of the CHC and ARC with a
required finding of the ARC regarding the feasibility of rehabilitation of the
structure, and compatibility of the new structure within the neighborhood. The
regulations provide a measure of certainty of the process for property owners
and developers but provide little protection for structures that may be historic,
but have not yet been evaluated for nomination to either of the City's lists.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct the Community Development Director and City Attorney to examine
City regulations, policies, and procedures in light of current state
regulations. If necessary, amendments in regulations should be
recommended to the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts.
2. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare revisions to the
demolition regulations that provide more consistent protection to
potentially historic structures.
3 -8
�T1ICHMENT I
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 the
Mt. Pleasanton — Anholm neighborhood. Properties were added through
recommendation of property owners, CHC members, or staff. However,
related to the demolition regulation discussion above, the CHC has found
itself repeatedly faced with demolition requests of structures that have never
been inventoried or evaluated for historic listing. This has created a "reactive"
mode rather than a "proactive" mode. A situation has been created in which
the CHC is constantly wondering where the next demolition request will arise
and has had the effect of diluting the time necessary to complete any
comprehensive survey. Much of the time is spent evaluating the next
"emergency." If the demolition regulations as currently written are to provide
some protection for historic resources, the inventory (and review of previous
inventories), and subsequent nomination to the City lists become increasingly
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 is
increased focus on use of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Structures (SOI Standards) to analyze changes to
historic structures and to develop adequate mitigation measures. Staff and
decision- making bodies are currently basing decisions and findings on a
limited understanding of the requirements and provisions of these laws. In
addition, historic resource regulations have become and will continue to
become increasingly complex, especially as State and local regulations
collide.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct the Community Development Director to institute training for staff
and decision - making bodies (i.e., Architectural Review Commission,
Planning Commission) on the provisions of CEOA and the SOI Standards.
E. Heritage Tourism / Education — The City has recently received the Great
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 "historic
fabric" Yet, those in charge of promoting the City seem, at best, to ignore this
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
3 -9
47k HM
increased. Incorporating this even into development projects such as the
Copeland's project should be encouraged.
With the Copeland's example, if the project proceeds as planned, the project
will unearth (for all to see) the largest slice of the City s that has yet been
seen. Significant historic and prehistoric artifacts will be encountered. With
help from local groups, the necessary archaeological investigations could
become a major draw for tourists as well as local residents and school
groups. The entire community should be educated as to how the historic
fabric of the community plays an important role in the character of the city we
all cherish.
Recommended Actions:
1. Request that the Downtown Association and Promotional Coordinating
Commission include heritage tourism and a focus on historic resources as
potential "selling" points of the City.
2. Direct the Community Development Department to consider heritage
tourism opportunities as potential mitigation measures for large projects
that may affect cultural resources.
F. Recognition Awards — The City may want to consider recognizing projects
and individuals who have made the extra effort to contribute to the
preservation of historic resources. This would be a way of encouraging future
projects to make the extra effort in dealing sensitively with historic resources.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct staff to work with the CHC and appropriate City departments to
develop a recognition award program for contributions to protect historic
resources.
V. Conclusion
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has recognized San Luis Obispo as
a "Distinctive Destination the only in California so recognized. The revival of the
City's economy and its increasing popularity as a tourist destination is due, at
least in part, to its historic nature, character and appearance. The resources that
contain these qualities are becoming increasingly valuable as time and progress
take their toll. It is critical to keep in mind that these resources are non-
renewable. When they are gone, they're gone forever.
The time has come to preserve and protect the City's significant historical
resources of all types: residential, commercial, and industrial. We should assure
that these resources reflect the full spectrum of San Luis Obispo's cultural
heritage — from the ornate Victorian residences of prominent citizens to the
modest structures of the working classes. The Cultural Heritage Committee's
recommendations will go a long way toward ensuring the continuing quality of life
3 -1®
ATfACHMENT
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 historic
structures so San Luis Obispo continues to be in the words of the National Trust,
"...a striking altemative to Anyplace, USA."
3 -11
CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of April 24, 2000
Page 4
ATTACHMEN r
Devin Gallagher explained his request. a noted that a detached dwelling behind the main
house appears to have been built sh y after the main house and should be considered
historic. He said it needs renovati n and repairs and he needed to know if the building were
historic before deciding whether t keep and restore or remove the small building.
Committee members reviewed current an storic photos of the property and other
documentation provided by the applicant. On motion by Committee member Wheeler,
seconded by Committee member Carr, the 96unittee voted 6-0 to confirm that the detached
dwelling located at 1717 Santa Barbara t was included in the property's historic
designation and is to be considered of the property's historic significance.
• Review "White Paper" on the status of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo and
forward the-report to the City Council
Chairperson McMasters presented the item. He explained that he had. incorporated most of the
changes suggested at previous CHC meetings.
Committee members generally liked the changes and felt it was ready for approval, with some
minor editing to be done before forwarding the White Paper to the City Council.
On a motion by Committee member Whittlesey, seconded by Committee member Pavlik, the
Committee voted 6-0 to approve the White Paper on the Status of Historic Preservation in San
Luis Obispo and appointed a subcommittee composed of Committee members Carr, Schrage
and McMasters to incorporate the changes discussed at the meeting and to forward the revised
White Paper to the City Council as soon as possible.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND
On a motion by Commi member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Carr, Bob
Schrage was nominated as rson. Committee member Schrage accepted the nomination
and on a unanimous vote, Bob SchFagewas elected Chairperson.
On a motion by Committee member McM s, seconded by Committee member Wheeler,
Bob Pavlik was nominated as Vice- Chairpe n. Committee member Pavlik accepted the
nomination and on a unanimous vote, Bob P was elected Vice- Chairperson.
INFORMATION ITEM
• Follow -up on the California Pr rvation was
Conference held in Monterey,
California on April 13th throu 16th, 2000.
Due to the lateness of the hour the Coffee continued this item to the May 22, 2000 CHC
meeting.
3 -12
CHC Minutes, Special Meeting of July 17, 1999
Page 2
a
was closed and discussion by Co ttee members followed. The applicant was not present
but had previously asked the mmittee to act on the item in his absence. After a brief
discussion and on a motion b Committee member Carr, seconded by Committee member
McDonald, the Committee d termined that the proposed Broad Street entry canopy, fire
sprinkler riser and meter enclo es and related improvements were architecturally compatible
with the historic Manderscheid se and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Treatment of Historic Pr rties, provided that the following design change or
addition was incorporated into the project:
1) Site lighting, if installed, shall be
gas lanterns originally located in the F
The motion carried, 6 -0.
Mr. Hook explained that the
Development Director and possit
DISCUSSION TITMS
d%cturally consistent with the historic post - mounted
and Broad Street front yards.
action would be forwarded to the Community
jitectural Review Commission for final action.
1. Preservation Issues and Changing Philosophies
Mr. Hook gave a brief background on the CHC - why and when it was established, and its
many accomplishments since its start in the early 1980s. He noted that while the CHC's
actions are advisory and generally not final, the Committee has played an important role in
historic preservation and has been effective largely due to its active, hands -on approach to
preservation and its public education and outreach activities (e.g. workshops, publications,
preservation counseling).
Committee members presented their views of the main preservation issues and challenges
facing the City and agreed that the original focus of historic preservation - that of preserving
the City's most notable historic buildings - should now be broadened to recognize people,
buildings and sites which show the diversity of the City's history. Other key points that
emerged from the discussion included:
• Preserving the Community's "Sense of Place" and enhancing "Heritage Tourism" are
important emerging roles of the CHC.
• The City should continue to emphasize public education and incentives over regulations to
encourage historic preservation, however both the "carrot" and the "stick" are needed for
an effective program.
• Preservation is a constant, continuing process. It is never complete, since community
values and resources continue to change and evolve with time.
3 -13
CHC Minutes, Special Meeting of July 17, 1999
Page 3
.ATTACHMENT Z
• The rate of development and change is increasing in San Luis Obispo, and to be effective,
the CHC needs to anticipate change, be more pro-active and work more closely with staff,
other advisory bodies and the City Council.
• The potential for loss of historic resources is highest in commercial and annexation areas;
however established residential areas may also lose historic resources due to teardown of
smaller, older homes in. historic districts for the construction of "monster houses", a
growing trend in other urban areas.
• The City's current land use data base and environmental review procedures may not be
keeping pace with preservation needs and with changes to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
2. CHC Preservation Program Priorities
Committee members suggested program priorities to address the above issues, some of which
were not already part of the CHC's approved 1999 -2001 workprogram. These included:
• Expand and update the City's Inventory of Historic Resources, possibly by first identifying
all properties at least 50 years old;
• Work with staff to clarify historic preservation goals, procedures and requirements;
• Insure that developers provide detailed historic inventories as part of new annexation
proposals;
• Expand public education programs;
• Solicit and monitor citizen opinions regarding historic preservation so that the CHC's
programs reflect and implement community and City Council values and direction;
• Publicly recognize and thank people, businesses, and projects for outstanding achievement
in historic preservation;
• Use a "habitat approach" in identifying important historic resources. That is, recognize
that the City's history embodies a diverse range of sites, people and architectural styles, not
just "Victorian" or "California Spanish" influences; and
• Complete the CHC's - "unfinished business ", i.e. uncompleted programs from previous
workprograms, such as the update of the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines and the
Post - Disaster Historic Preservation Guidelines.
The Committee then adjourned for lunch outside in the Adobe's gardens from about 12:30 to
1:30 p.m. Mr. Mandeville joined the Committee for lunch, and left shortly after.
3. Community Preservation Action Plan/Update CHC Goals and Work Program
Committee members listed the following specific actions or programs to be undertaken within
the next year:
3 -14
CHC Minutes, Special Meeting of July 17, 1999
Page 4
ATTACHMENT Z
A) Public Education
• Plan and conduct a workshop on Community "Sense of Place" or Heritage Tourism.
• Co-sponsor a Heritage Home Tour of Mills Act properties with community groups.
• Recognize outstanding achievement by individuals, businesses or projects in historic
preservation.
B) Communication
• Work with staff and other advisory bodies on historic preservation objectives,
procedures, requirements.
• Establish improved communication with the City Council and CHC subcommittee.
C) Historic Survey and Inventory of Historic Resources
• Complete the Mt. Pleasanton/Anhohn neighborhood survey.
• Expand the Citywide historic resource survey to include additional commercial and
residential areas.
• Improve the City's land use data base for historic resources.
D) Complete unfinished CHC business
• Adopt revised Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
• Adopt the Post - Disaster Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• Complete the Mt. Pleasanton/Anhohn Historic District.
• Revise the Demolition Regulations.
• Expand the Mills Act Program and re- initiate Historic Rehabilitation Loans.
E) Prepare City Council "White Paper"
• Describe emerging historic preservation issues and changing philosophies.
• Update the City Council on the CHC Retreat.
• Identify goals, issues, action plan for preserving historic resources in the new Century.
Chairperson McMasters volunteered to draft the Council "White Paper", after which other
Committee members would be asked to review the draft and include their comments. The
White Paper would then be forwarded to the City Council as a special report on the status of
historic preservation in San Luis Obispo at the beginning of a new century, and include
recommendations for program changes or improvements.
4. CHC Meeting Schedule Change:
of canceling the July 26, 1999 meeting.
Chairperson McMasters reco endbdtIlEt the regular CHC meeting scheduled for July 26,
1999 be canceled. On a motion by Comm-11tef member McDonald, seconded by Committee
member Carr, the regular CHC meeting sch ed for Monday, July 26, 1999 was canceled.
3 -15