Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/2007, PH1 - REQUEST TO REMOVE PROPERTY AT 460 BROAD STREET FROM THE LIST OF CONTIRBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCES (AR council Mfi�D� j, acenba REpoRt CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REMOVE PROPERTY AT 460 BROAD STREET FROM THE LIST OF CONTIRBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCES (ARCMUER 228-05) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution which: 1. Removes the property at 460 Broad Street from the City's list of Contributing Historic Resources. 2. Affirms the Community Development Director's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. 3. Approves the reconstruction of 460 Broad Street consistent with its former historic character. DISCUSSION Background The residence at 460 Broad Street, which is included on the City's List of Contributing Historic Resources, has structural deficiencies in the foundation, wood framework, roof, windows, and exterior stucco, to the extent that the building could be considered unsafe and infeasible to rehabilitate. The property owner has proposed to deconstruct the dwelling and reconstruct it in essentially the same form and size, with renewed structurally integrity. CHC Review The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the project on February 27, 2006 and again on October 23, 2006, for consistency with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Restoration and Reconstruction. The CHC determined that the project was consistent with these standards and approved a proposal to deconstruct and reconstruct the dwelling. The reconstructed dwelling would contain many of the elements of the historic building's original architecture, and would entail the reuse of many salvageable original materials. However, as a totally new structure, it will no longer meet the eligibility standards for historic listing. Therefore, as part of their action the CHC also recommended that the City Council remove the property from the List of Contributing Historic Properties (Attachments 2 and 3). Addition Or Removal From The City's Contributing Historic Resource List Properties are added or removed to the Contributing List by resolution of the City Council after considering the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). In this case, the I I Removal of 460 Broad St.from the List of Contributing Historic Resources Page 2 historic resource is a small single-family dwelling built in 1931. In 1998 the property was added to the City's "Contributing Properties List" due to its compatibility and contribution to the neighborhood style; rather than for unique aesthetic value, design or relationship of the property itself to historic persons or events (Attachment 5). Conditions of approval provided by the CHC have been included in the final environmental document as mitigation measures. These conditions include the reuse of original materials where feasible to maintain the historic character of the structure (Attachment 8). By complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings the project can be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource. Data Summary Address: 460 Broad Street Property Owner: Roger Zanetti Representative: Jim Newhall, Great Outdoors Construction Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on November 28, 2006 (MOD/ER-H 228-05). Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City Council. Evaluation Staff has evaluated the proposed project with three principle questions in mind. Is the project consistent with the General Plan? Is the project consistent with CEQA and the intent of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic structures? Will the project (and the loss of a Contributing Historic Structure) be detrimental to the neighborhood? The evaluation below is intended to answer these questions and includes an overview of the proposed development plan and the environmental document prepared for the project. A. General Plan Consistency Both the recently adopted General Plan Housing Element (HE) and Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) contain policies regarding the preservation and rehabilitation of historic homes. These documents encourage the rehabilitation or remodeling of (historic) housing rather than demolition when feasible, as well as policies for the preservation of the overall character and quality of life in established neighborhoods. HE Policy 3.2.5 encourages the preservation of "historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features, " and HE Policy 3.2.6 promotes safeguarding "the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life in established neighborhoods". The intent of these policies is to retain the character-defining features of established neighborhoods as much as possible. i-z Removal of 460 Broad St. from the List of Contributing Historic Resources Page 3_ COSE Policy 3.21.2 specifically discusses when demolition may be appropriate, stating "Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible". As documented in the Structural Evaluation and Condition Report (Attachment 6), the residence has structural problems that are beyond those that can be rectified with standard restoration. To reduce the impact of the demolition, the proposed reconstruction will occur with essentially the same design and footprint of the original structure, and reusing salvageable materials. This treatment is consistent with COSE Policy 3.21.4, which states that changes to historic buildings, or new buildings on historically significant sites, "should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained." Given the condition of the home, the proposal to reconstruct the building in similar appearance to the existing architecture is consistent with the intention of General Plan Policies for maintaining historical neighborhood character. B. CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards Chapter 15064.5(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project which may have a significant effect on the environment. The regulations go on to describe that this includes any material change to those physical characteristics that account for the property's inclusion on the local list of historical resources. The property was included in the City's inventory of Contributing Historic Resources due to its compatibility and contribution to the neighborhood style, rather than for unique aesthetic value, design or relationship of the property itself to historic persons or events. Because of this, and because the property is not within an Historic District, those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure will not be adversely impacted. By complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, the project can be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource. C. Neighborhood Character "Deconstruction" as it applies to his project means the methodical and careful dismantling of the structure for the purpose of salvaging original materials for their reuse. Materials that are original to the structure, such as the tejas, canales, and front entrance door with eight glass panels will be retained and reused in the reconstruction. Other distinctive features, such as the built-in cupboard in the interior wall of the dining room will be retained if at all feasible. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable or missing original materials (or newer incompatible materials that have been added over time) they will be chosen to match the originals in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. New materials, such as exterior stucco, windows and doors will also be selected to closely match the materials, colors and textures that would have been used in the original construction. With the exception of a minor addition at the rear, the Removal of 460 Broad St. from the List of Contributing Historic Resources Page 4 reconstructed residence will take essentially the same footprint as the existing structure (Attachment 7). The reconstructed residence will retain the architectural character and features that led to its inclusion on the list of contributing properties. Although the reconstructed house would no longer be a historic resource, its defining architectural characteristics will not be lost if the reconstruction is sensitively executed. Because of this, and the fact that the property is not within an historic district that might be compromised by the loss of a contributing property, the impacts of the reconstruction project on the neighborhood will not be significant. CONCURRENCES The proposed project was reviewed by the City's Building and Safety Division. The Chief Building Official concurred that the building has structurally deteriorated and that the necessary repairs are beyond the capability of standard rehabilitation. FISCAL IMPACT Removing the property from the List of Contributing Historic Resources and allowing the residence to be reconstructed will have no fiscal impact to the City. ALTERNATIVES 1. Retain the building. on the List of Contributing Historic Resources - this would not be consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines because the reconstructed structure would be considered new construction. 2. Deny the recommended action proposed by the CHC and continue the inclusion of 460 Broad Street on the City's list of Contributing Historic Resources. 3. Continue action on this item with direction to staff as to the necessary follow up required prior to a decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. October 23, 2006 CHC follow-up, meeting update, and staff report 3. February 27, 2006 CHC follow-up, meeting update, and staff report 4. Photo of 460 Broad Street 5. Structural History and Evaluation prepared by Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants 6. Structural Evaluation and Condition Report prepared by Dan Doris 7. Reduced copies of the proposed architectural plans 8. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 9. Draft resolution GAMIACH0228-05 CHC ARCMI-ER(460 Broad)\228-05 CC report(Zanetti)deGsting.DOC �-y VICINITY MAP 460 Broad St . _ Attachment 2 Meeting Update AGENDA San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee October 23, 2006 Monday 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Dan Carpenter, Robert Pavlik, Lynne Landwehr, Tom Wheeler, Vice Chair Barbara Breska and Chairperson Chuck Crotser Committee Members Breska and Landwehr were absent. STAFF: Mary Phillips, Planning Intern, Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, and Jeff Hook, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments on items not on the agenda. MINUTES: Minutes of September 25, 2006 regular meeting. Approve or amend. The minutes of September 25, 2006 were approved on a 5-0 vote. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Update on Advisory Body Recruitment. (Audrey Hooper, City Clerk). City Clerk Audrey Hooper noted that four CHC member's terms were expiring in March 2007 and that the Clerk's office was beginning its advisory body recruitment program earlier than usual to find citizens interested in serving. She encouraged committee members to "re-enlist" and continue serving on the Committee or to encourage interested colleagues and friends to apply. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 460 Broad Street. MOD ARC MI 228-05; Modification to previously_ approved request to deconstruct, rebuild and restore a contributing historic property regarding building setback and conditions of approval; R-1 zone; Roger Zanetti, applicant. Jeff Hook presented the staff report and Jim Newell, applicant's representative, explained the request. He noted that the applicant had-taken the new garage through the City's plancheck process and that there was no concern expressed about architectural compatibility with the house at that time. The applicant didn't feel it was fair to require changes to the garage now, after the garage was approved and built. After a brief discussion, Committee members agreed that the architectural differences between garage and house were not likely to be highly visible to the public and that it would not be appropriate to require changes now when the City failed to require them during the garage's initial review. On a motion by Committee member Baer, seconded Attachment 2 CHC Meeting Update, October 23,2006 Page 2 by Dan Carpenter, the Committee.voted 5-0 to determine that the applicant's requested modifications to the project are consistent with the CHC's original action to support the project, and to refer the project to the Community Development Director with direction to modify the conditions of project approval and building setback, as requested by the applicant. 2. 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue. ARC 180-03; Review of a proposal to structurally reinforce and rehabilitate the fire-damaged historic Railroad_ Square building; C-R- S-H zone; Depot Square, LP, applicant. Pam icci presented the staff report and asked the Committee to provide conceptual directio on the applicant's revised plans to preserve and seismically strengthen the historic C nnel Commercial Building. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, introduced the applica 's development and design team: Hamish Marshall, project developer, :Robert Cha 1, architectural historian, Jim Duenow, attorney, and Bill Wallace, structural en gi er. Victoria Wood, a ighbor of the project and former CHC member, spoke in support of the proposed reh ilitation plan. Chris Felatevski, National Trust for Historic Preservation, said sh was there at Robert Chattel's request and offered to assist with National Register nom* tions if the applicant chose to use Rehabilitation Tax Credits. After a lengthy d*scussi of theapplicant's applicant's proposed rehabilitation strategy, the Committee took two. action 1) on a motion by Chairperson Crotser, seconded by Committee member Baer, C mittee members voted 5-0 to support a rehabilitation strategy that favored internal racing with minimal or no visible changes on the building's exterior and minimal u of shotcrete on interior walls, and 2) regarding the more recent wood-clad building a tions, on a motion by Committee member Pavlk, seconded by Committee member aer, the Committee asked the applicant to investigate the history of the add*tions d that if proposed, changes to or replacement of the additions should be consistent with a Railroad District Plan and "open up"views to the sides of the historic brick building. T motion carred, 5-0. 3. DISCUSSION ITEM: Goal Setting and the Budget Process: Identify HC goals and programs for 2007- 2009. After a brief discussion, and on a motion by Chairp on Crotser, seconded by Committee member Wheeler, the Committee voted 5-0 to ' entify the following CHC program goals for 2007—2009, with goal one being the highe priority, and to forward these to the City Council with a request for resources to comple the work during the 2007—2009 budget. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. f� Attachment 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Cultural Heritage Co mmi VIA: Jeff Hook, Senior Plan FROM: Jaime Hill, Associate her MEETING DATE: October 23, 2006 SUBJECT: Item #1: MOD ARC MI 228-05 (460 Broad Street) — Modification to previously approved request to deconstruct, rebuild, and restore a contributing historic residence,including several small modifications to the original design. Situation On February 22, 2006, the CHC reviewed plans to deconstruct and rebuild a small single family residence which has structurally deteriorated. On a 5-0 vote (two members were absent) after a lengthy discussion, the CHC determined that the project was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction and with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, provided that changes were incorporated into the project to maintain the site's architectural character, detail, and compatibility with the Mt. Pleasanton- Anholm neighborhood. The Committee referred the project to the Community Development Director with a recommendation to approve the project subject to six conditions. These conditions were required to mitigate the loss of a historic resource under CEQA, regardless of local listing. They were also applied to maintain architectural design consistency between the garage and the proposed replacement house. On a 5-0 vote, the Committee also recommended that the City Council remove 460 Broad Street from the Contributing Properties List, based on findings (see Attachment 3, 2-22-06 CHC follow-up letter, meeting update and staff report). Council has not yet removed the property from the Contributing Properties List. Subsequently, the applicant decided it would be advantageous to move the structure forward on the lot to provide additional separation between the garage and rear entry. The applicant has also requested that the CHC amend its recommended garage modifications required as part of the Director's action on the project. The CHC is reviewing the project because it involves reconstruction of a Contributing Historic structure. Project Changes Plans previously presented to the CHC showed the residence being deconstructed and reconstructed in essentially the same form and size, with original materials such as the clay roof tiles (tejas) and drain spouts (canales) being retained and reused. The CHC recommended conditions of approval to insure that the physical characteristics which led to the property's �fd ARCMI MOD 228-05 _ ,. Attachment 2 460 Broad Street October 23,2006 designation as Contributing would not be adversely impacted, and that the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood would be maintained. These conditions require the applicant to: 1) modify the recently constructed detached garage to correct features that are inconsistent with the character of the property, 2) replace garage roof vents with canales to match those of the dwelling, 3) install decorative garage light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture in place of the industrial styled fixtures, 4) replace the metal garage door with a stained wood carriage-style door, 5) remove the garage wingwalls, 6) lower the garage roof parapet to match the original garage elevation as closely as possible, and 7) modify the garage's trim to mirror the beveled stucco detail on the front elevation of the main dwelling. These conditions were integrated into the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as mitigation measures. Since the CHC's action, the applicants have decided they would rather not make several of the modifications to the detached garage that were required and have requested that the condition be modified to include only replacing the roof vents with canales and using decorative Spanish style light fixtures (see Attachment 5, letter from the applicant's agent). The applicant also proposes moving the proposed house forward, reducing the street yard setback from 25 feet to about 24 feet. Shifting the building forward would provide slightly more space between the residence and garage. Discussion When the CHC reviewed the proposal in February 2006, the Committee supported the proposal on a 5-0 vote because members felt the project would restore structural integrity to the building, and that with the incorporation of conditions of approval those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure, the house's architectural character, would not be adversely impacted and its architectural compatibility with the neighborhood would be maintained. Although the original architecture of the residence itself is largely unchanged, the historic character of the property has been undermined by the less thoughtful construction of a detached garage that does not respect many of the character defining features of the residence. The CHC determined that modifying the garage to include appropriate details would restore some of those character defining features to the site, thereby reducing the total impact of the project on those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as Contributing and on the architectural character of the neighborhood.Hence, the condition requiring modifications to the garage was required. The applicant has requested to limit modifications to the garage to replacing the roof vents with canales and using decorative Spanish style light fixtures. This approach would reduce the expense of replacing the relatively new garage doors and physically modifying the structure to ,remove the wingwalls, lower the parapet, and modify the building trim to mirror the beveled stucco detail on the front elevation of the main dwelling. The CHC should consider whether the requested changes are consistent with intent of the environmental mitigation measures and the minor or incidental architectural approval. If the Committee finds that the modifications to the garage are not necessary to maintain the architectural integrity of the site they should recommend the Page 2 �—A�l ARCMI MOD 228-05 Attachment 2 460 Broad Street October 23, 2006 Community Development Director modify the environmental document .and architectural approval, and alter the aforementioned condition as appropriate. The applicant has also requested to shift the building forward during reconstruction approximately 1-foot. The residence is now set back from the street 25 feet, where a 20-foot setback is required. Doing so would slightly enlarge the rear yard and make maneuvering into the garage a bit easier. The CHC should determine if shifting the building forward on the site would adversely impact the physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure, and make a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Conclusion The proposed project modifications could save the applicant money and the effort to modify the garage, and would provide slightly more private yard area. However,when reviewing the request the CHC should evaluate the project based on consistency with the General Plan and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Although staff is sensitive to the needs of the applicant and the costs associated with the modifications, staff has concerns regarding the architectural character of the garage and its compatibility with the residence, and the effect it has on the property as a whole. The inconsistent detailing of the garage calls attention to its modern construction and diminishes the character of the property that was intended to be preserved by designating the site as an historic resource.The CHC should consider both the garage design and the details of the residence when discussing the appropriateness of the modifications that were required. Staff has less concern about shifting the home slightly forward on the lot, as it is within the range of other setbacks in the vicinity. Action Alternatives The CHC should consider the following action alternatives. 1. Determine that the applicant's requested modifications to the project conditions of approval are not consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and refer the project to the Community Development Director with direction to approve the project as previously conditioned, but allowing the building to be shifted forward on the site. 2. Determine that the applicant's requested modifications to the project conditions of approval are consistent with the CHC's original action to support the project but that the request to shift the building forward on the site is not consistent with the Historic.Preservation Program Guidelines- or uidelinesor the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and refer the project to the Community Development Director with direction to approve the project with modified conditions of approval. 3. Determine that the applicant's requested modifications to the project are consistent with the . CHC's original action to support the project, and refer the project to the Community Page 3 /` Attachment 2 ARCMI MOD 228-05 460 Broad Street October 23,2006 Development Director with direction to approve the project with the applicant's proposed modifications to the conditions and location of the structure. 4. Determine that the applicant's requested modifications to the project are not consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and refer the project to the Community Development Director with direction to deny the proposed project modifications. . 5. Continue the item to a date certain for additional discussion or with direction to provide additional information. Attachments: AttachmentAttachment t. VtCiTrftY-1VraP A calluilLinity Development Dilectol oil Iftch 9, 2006 Available at the hearing: Photos of existing property and accessory structure GMHRACH0228-05 CHC ARCMI-ER(460 Broad)\228-05 MOD CHC ARCMI(460 Broad)A.DOC Page 4 _ Attachl�l A#- ` �3sz IIII III City � san vu�s OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 9, 2006 Roger Zanetti P.O.. Box 67 Nipomo, CA 93444 SUBJECT: ARCMI 228-05: 460 Broad Street Review a proposed deconstruction and reconstruction of a contributing historic house. Dear Mr. Zanetti: The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of February 27, 2006, recommended that the Community Development Director approve your project, based on the following findings and conditions: Findings A. The property was included in the Contributing Properties List due to its architectural contribution to and compatibility with the Mt. Pleasanton/Anholm neighborhood, rather than for unique aesthetic value, design or historic significance with regard to historic persons, context or events. B. The house's architectural and structural integrity, for which the property was historically listed, have been irreversibly compromised and it is physically infeasible to rehabilitate the house at 460 Broad Street. C. The property is not located within a Historic District which could otherwise be adversely affected by the removal of the original house. D. With the incorporation of conditions of approval, those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure will not be adversely impacted and architectural compatibility with the neighborhood will be maintained through deconstruction, reconstruction to closely match the original structure and through reuse of original materials. E. Conditions of CHC approval will be included in the final environmental document as mitigation measures and included as conditions of architectural review approval. By complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings the project can be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource. E The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �— Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 3 Conditions A. Original materials, including the tejas (clay roof tiles) and canales (roof vents) shall be retained and reused. Construction documents shall include an exhibit detailing how the deconstruction will proceed, how and where the salvaged materials will be stored and protected, and how they will be re-installed. B. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials, they shall match the existing in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. New materials, such as exterior stucco, windows, doors, and roof tiles shall also be selected to closely match the house's original materials, colors and textures. Samples of all new materials used on the building fagade shall be provided to the Community Development Department and shall be subject to prior approval by the Community Development Director. C. The Hollywood driveway shall be maintained. D. Other distinctive features, such the built-in cupboard in the interior wall of the dining room and archways between rooms will be retained if at all feasible. E. The detached garage shall be modified as follows: the metal garage door shall be replaced with a stained wood carriage-style door, roof vents replaced with canales to match those of the dwelling, decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture shall be installed in place of the industrial fixtures, wingwalls shall be removed and parapet lowered to match the original garage elevation as closely as possible, and building trim shall be modified to mirror the beveled stucco detail on the front elevation of the main dwelling, to the approval of the Director. F. A Historic Property Preservation Agreement shall be signed by the property.owners and recorded. on title acknowledging the historical value of the property and accepting the conditions upon which the City has approved the proposed restoration and reconstruction plan, prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permits, or further modifications to the site. Owner shall provide a guarantee to the City to ensure that architectural reconstruction is consistent with approved plans. The guarantee amount shall be based on the Contractor's estimate to deconstruct and reinstall the house's original architectural elements. The decision of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director and, therefore, is not final. The Community Development Director will either approve or deny this application no sooner than March 24, 2006. If you have questions, please contact Jaime Hill at (805) 781-7165. Sincerely, C M�ae'Dr -- ---- -- Recommend Michael Draze - • Deputy Community elopment Director Approval- ARCM I Long Range Planning cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Tom Kowalski 963 Bluebell Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93444 1-13 Attachment 3 Meeting Update l San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee February 27, 2006 Monday 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Chuck Crotser, Sandy Baer, Dan Carpenter, Barbara Breska, Robert.Pavlik, Lynne Landwehr, and Tom Wheeler Committee members Pavlik and Wheeler were absent. STAFF: Jeff Hook, Senior Planner and Arleen Cardenas, Planning Intern PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 460 Broad Street. ARC MI 228-05; Review a proposed deconstruction and reconstruction of a Contributing historic house; R-1 zone;. Roger Zanetti, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Following lengthy discussion, the Committee voted 5.0 to determine that the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction and with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, provided that changes are incorporated into the project to maintain its architectural character, detail and compatibility with the Mt. Pleasanton/Anholm neighborhood. The Committee referred the matter to the Community Development Director with a recommendation to approve the project subject to the following conditions: Conditions A. Original materials, including the tejas (clay roof tiles) and canales (roof vents) shall be retained and reused. Construction documents shall include an exhibit detailing how the deconstruction will proceed, how and where the salvaged materials will be stored and protected, and how they will be re-installed. B. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials, they shall match the existing in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. New materials, such as exterior stucco, windows, doors, and roof tiles shall also be selected to closely match the house's original materials, colors and textures. Samples of all new materials used on the building fagade shall be provided to the Community Development Department and shall be subject to prior approval by the Community Development Director. C. The Hollywood driveway shall be maintained. D. Other distinctive features, such the built-in cupboard in the interior wall of the dining room and archways between rooms will be retained if at all feasible. Attachment 3 CHC Agenda, February 27, 2006 Page 2 E. The detached garage shall be modified as follows: the metal garage door shall be replaced with a stained wood carriage-style door, roof vents replaced with canales to match those of the dwelling, decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture shall be installed in place of the industrial fixtures, wingwalls shall be removed and parapet lowered to match the original garage elevation as closely as possible, and building trim shall be modified to mirror the beveled stucco detail on the front elevation of the main dwelling, to the approval of the Director. F. A Historic Property Preservation Agreement shall be signed by the property owners and recorded on title acknowledging the historical value of the property and accepting the conditions upon which the City has approved the proposed restoration and reconstruction plan, prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permits, or further modifications to the site. Owner shall provide a guarantee to the City to ensure that architectural reconstruction is consistent with approved plans. The guarantee amount shall be based on the Contractor's estimate to deconstruct and reinstall the house's original architectural elements. On a 5:0 vote, the Committee also recommended that the.City Council remove 460 Broad Street from the Contributing Properties List, based on the findings that: A. The property was included in the Contributing Properties List due to its architectural contribution to and compatibility with the Mt. PleasantonlAnholm neighborhood, rather than for unique aesthetic value, design or historic significance with regard to historic persons, context or events. B. The house's architectural and structural integrity, for which the property was historically listed, have been irreversibly compromised and it is physically infeasible to rehabilitate the house at 460 Broad Street. C. The property is not located within a Historic District which could otherwise be adversely affected by the removal of the original house. D. With the incorporation of conditions of approval, those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure will not be adversely impacted and architectural compatibility with the neighborhood will be maintained through deconstruction, reconstruction to closely match the original structure and through reuse of original materials. E. Conditions of CHC approval will be included in the final environmental document as mitigation measures and included as conditions of architectural review approval. By complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings the project can be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to.the meeting if you require assistance. ` - l Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Cultural Heritage Committee VIA: Jeff Hook, Senior Planne� FROM: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Item #1: ARC MI 228-05 (460 Broad Street) The applicant has requested to deconstruct, rebuild, and restore a contributing historic residence and make several small modifications to the original design. Situation The applicant has submitted plans to deconstruct and rebuild a small single family residence which has structurally deteriorated. The reconstruction would entail reuse of many salvageable materials, and would include three modifications to the existing building design. The CHC is reviewing the project because it involves reconstruction of a Contributing Historic structure. Proiect Description The applicant has proposed to deconstruct the dwelling and reconstruct it in essentially the same form and size, with renewed structurally integrity. Original materials, such as clay roof tiles (tejas) and drain spouts (canales) will be retained and reused. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable or missing original features, they will be selected to match the originals in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. Three modifications to the original building plan are included in the request to reconstruct the building. These are discussed in detail below. The proposed reconstruction should be reviewed for consistency with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Restoration and Reconstruction. A focused Initial Study of Environmental Impact is also being prepared and will be evaluated by the Director at a later date prior to taking final action on this project. A history and evaluation of the structure has been prepared by local historic research consultants Bertrando&Bertrando (Attachment 3). California Environmental Ouality Act(CEOA) Chapter 15064.5(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project which may have a significant effect on the environment. The regulations go on to describe that this includes any material change to those physical characteristics that account for the property's inclusion on the local list of historical resources..As is described in greater detail below, the property was included in the City's inventory of Contributing Historic Resources due to its compatibility and contribution to ARCMI 228-05 Attachment 3 460 Broad Street February 27, 2006 the neighborhood style, rather than the aesthetic value, design or relationship of the property itself to historic persons or events. Because of this, and the fact that the property is not within an Historic District which would otherwise be compromised by the loss, with the incorporation of conditions of approval those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure will not be adversely impacted. Conditions of approval recommended by staff, as well as those provided.by the CHC, will be included in the final environmental document as mitigation measures. By complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings the project can be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource. Historic Background Located in the Mount Pleasanton Square/Anholm District between Mountain View and Lincoln Streets, 460 Broad Street is a Contributing Historic Structure(R-1 Zone). The single-story, Spanish Colonial Revival style house was designed and built in 1931 by B.H. Bowen. Although the original owner is unknown, it is known that in 1938 the house was occupied by Southern Pacific fireman Philip E. Philbrick and his wife Florence. By 1941 a clerk in town by the name of G. Dale Atwood and his wife Verla lived at this address. In 1945, the Zanetti family, which still owns the property today,purchased the home as a rental property but never actually occupied the home. Since that time the home has been occupied by R.A. Sirman in 1947, Joseph and Evelyn Gottfried in 1950, Ira and Barbara Bogard in 1960, Don and Jean Lyles in 1968, Denis and Steve Rochholz in 1975, James McDougal in 1982, and Jamie Walker in 1993. In 1998 the property was added to the City's "Contributing Properties List" due to its architectural significance. In a report associated with that action, this property, along with 12 other properties along Broad Street, north of Highway 101, is described has being"Spanish prototype," an architectural style popular in the 1920's and 30's. Like other homes expressing the this style,character defining features include the low-pitched gabled roof, barrel-tile roof coverings (tejas), sprayed-on stucco wall surfaces with rounded edges and comers, wing walls, asymmetrical fagade, use of canales (drain spouts)rather than roof vents, a centered arcaded entry with an arched opening, and wood window and door frames. As was noted at the time of its' inclusion in the Contributing Properties List, the appeal of this property was not as much about the individual house, its aesthetic value, design or relationship to historic persons or events. The appeal was more in the compatibility and the style that creates this neighborhood. Although the area largely retains the 1920's and 1930's architectural pattern, it has not been designated as an Historical District. This notwithstanding, the Spanish prototype, together with the bungaloid style, collectively defines and symbolically represents a period of the history of the City of San Luis Obispo. The detached garage at the rear of the site was recently constructed at the rear of the site to replace the earlier garage which had structurally failed. The project was deemed to be architecturally insignificant and was approved without architectural review or review by the Cultural Heritage Commission. Restoration and Reconstruction A structural analysis of the dwelling identifies deficiencies in the foundation, wood framework, roof, windows, and exterior stucco, to the extent that the building could be considered unsafe and infeasible Page 2 Attachment 3 ARCMI 228-05 460 Broad Street February 27, 2006 to rehabilitate (Attachment 4). Because the structural problems with the building are beyond those that could be rectified with standard restoration, the applicant has proposed to deconstruct the residence. Deconstruction as it is used here means the methodical and careful dismantling of the structure for the purpose of salvaging original materials for their reuse. Materials that are original to the structure, such as the tejas, canales, and front entrance door with eight glass panels will be retained and reused in the reconstruction. Other distinctive features, such the built-in cupboard in the interior wall of the dining room will be retained if at all feasible. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable or missing original materials (or newer incompatible materials that have been added over time) they will be chosen to match the originals in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. New materials, such as exterior stucco, windows and doors will also be selected to closely match the materials, colors and textures that would have been used in the original construction.With the exception of this minor addition the reconstructed residence will take essentially the same footprint as the existing structure. Three modifications to the original building design are included in the reconstruction. The porte- cochere leading to the detached garage would be increased in height and width to allow modern vehicles to pass. This would be accomplished by increasing the opening of the structure from 8-feet width by 6-foot height to a 9-foot width and 7-foot 6-inch height. The total height and width of the structure would remain the same. The second modification from the existing design includes replacing the flat portion of the roof with a gabled roof. The newly gabled roof would utilize barrel-tile clay roof tiles carefully chosen to match the existing. The final diversion from the original design is a 72- square foot addition at the rear of the residence to accommodate modern laundry facilities. Discussion This project does not completely fall under any one of the definitions for the treatment of historic properties, but contains aspects of both restoration and reconstruction approaches-as defined by the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. Any deconstruction, reconstruction, or new construction at this site should be reviewed for consistency with the adjacent neighborhood, the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. According to the Guidelines, changes to the outside of an historic building, including new additions, should complement the style of the historic building, and that new styles or use of exterior building materials foreign to the historic structure should be avoided. The Guidelines further state that elements of the surrounding structures' styles should be included in the new structure and attention be given to the form, bulk, scale, siting and landscaping. For the proposed additions and modifications to the original plans to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, they should "further_promote [the] original style and character" of the main house. In staff's opinion, the proposed new construction, roof and porte- cochere modifications are similar to modifications to other Contributing Historic properties that have been approved in the vicinity, and are consistent with the adjacent neighborhood and the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. Consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the modifications are consistent with the original style and character of the house. Given the proposed project, the reconstructed residence will retain the architectural character and features that led to its inclusion on the list of contributing properties. Although once reconstruction is complete the property will no longer be a historic resource, its defining architectural characteristics will not be lost if the reconstruction is sensitively executed. Because of this, and the fact that the Page 3 / �j ARCMI228-0s `�� Attachment 3 460 Broad Street February 27, 2006 property is not within an historic district who's integrity might be compromised by the loss of a contributing property, the impacts of the reconstruction project will not be significant. To ensure that the deconstruction of the building does not obliterate the character defining features of the property, several conditions of approval are recommended. Recommended conditions include salvaging and reuse of intact original materials, submittal of a plan for how the deconstruction will proceed and salvaged materials stored and then restored, and conditions for final review by the Director of any replacement materials used in the reconstruction. These conditions are intended to insure that the reconstructed property expresses the same style as the original 1930's structure, therefore avoiding what would otherwise be a potentially significant impact. These conditions, and others that the CHC finds appropriate, will also be incorporated into the final environmental document as mitigation measures. As previously mentioned, also on the property is a recently constructed detached garage. Although the new structure incorporates several features typical of Spanish Revival construction, modifications to the exterior treatment are recommended to restore character defining features to the property. Modifications to this structure will further insure that the historic character of the property is retained. Like the aforementioned conditions, these changes, together with others provided by the CHC, will be incorporated into the environmental document as mitigation measures. Recommended building modifications include replacement of the metal garage door with a stained wood carriage-style door, replacement of the roof vents with canales to match those of the dwelling, installation of decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture, and modification of the building trim to mirror the beveled stucco detail on the front elevation of the main dwelling. Action Alternatives 1. Deterrnine that the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, and refer the item to the Community Development Director with a recommendation to approve the plans as submitted. 2. Determine that the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, provided changes are implemented to insure the project will not impact the historic, architectural, or aesthetic significance of the historic property and district. Refer the matter to the Architectural Review Commission or to the Community Development Director with recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions 1. Original materials, including the tejas (clay roof tiles) and canales (roof vents) shall be retained and reused. Construction documents submitted for review shall include an exhibit detailing how the deconstruction will proceed, where the salvaged materials'will be stored, and how they will be restored. 2. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials, they shall match the existing in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. New materials, such as exterior stucco, windows, doors, and roof tiles shall also be selected to closely match the materials, colors and textures that would have been used in the original construction. Samples of all new Page 4 ARCNII228-0s Attachment 3 460 Broad Street February 27, 2006 materials used on the building fagade shall be provided to the Community Development Department and.approved to the satisfaction of the Director. 3. The Hollywood driveway shall be maintained. 4. Other distinctive features, such the built-in cupboard in the interior wall of the dining room and archways between rooms will be retained if at all feasible. 5. The detached garage shall be modified as follows: the metal garage door shall be replaced with a stained wood carriage-style door, roof vents replaced with canales to match those of the dwelling, decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture shall be installed in place of the industrial fixtures, and building trim shall be modified to mirror the beveled stucco detail on the front elevation of the main dwelling.. 6. A Historic Property Preservation Agreement shall be signed by the property owners and . recorded on title acknowledging the historical value of the property and accepting the conditions upon which the City has approved the proposed restoration and reconstruction plan, prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permits, or further modifications to the site. 3. Determine that the proposed project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, and will impact the historical, architectural or aesthetic significance of the historic property and district with findings supporting the determination provided by the CHC. 4. Continue the item to a date certain for additional discussion or historical research. Attachments: }. 'Vicirdry Map 2. Redueed eepies of the proposed mehitecturai pians 4. s&uetwaiEwaftiatioit& euiiditiuriRrpuit Available at the hearing: Photos of existing property and accessory structure Page 5 -� xq...r t 'IL�� M .aa 'ai I' E 15'1' ✓. : L w .qty r ::, f T ^�.•wr...a...��.� ��` � a TN� � '�[�� Fy�. f� [ R1V' AW Rot lvI lit V .Y:y {,� -YL�� - `+_Y�r.�z-v,+Yiie4•^�` TQC ^ .• %r llR�'1 - W' � 1 VIE 01 '� y7_'}�.•� •,v �t .f. .: __ r � ly;• '4.ir „�FAv_yyl'K s'i`r ','JY �� � �� '•.:s'. i- _ ^--.t ' �����: -sz.. s ' A,/7 1 _,tom ,�q "l'� r r,�'r '"q•.. ^ �'•,'. , ( .a.:.. I I Y'+:g .+��,r•fe'veh7s c �,�.r -3r77}�,}������-.y������� �'r., .JYiY•r=:) , �..V r + }\ ^i.'^_'.y�^C Ky�J�...Y.�.}T12S.�YY�.�.f- "*;~,_ 4�7.-rp}�.. �4.\ I� W ti'\ ��• :'^�— �� r y� v-.,c�C' �'�c�,-'4�xv r' 16f,` ',YY`-n r"'•' J E ^�,\ F' � �.�r"C 'q„'`' i rrV+ r�Y n^ i f r 'Tr] ��':1 :.•�.•�.-\ � ry tr I � �3Yn �jV c;a 1� �� y 1"i i 'iv `• '� p- u'1��1"'111[4 y:� , fill'l des ��¢ ,.��� �' ,�•IJ"`�y,S,ar" -�y,, - rirr, yV j, ' ;P�. `�\I� i'�■- _ ��,'%yys.'y �. -A\3 L ..�+ �4 jr�:,may',l� .. �f1 1 f/3."?7 �1\ i4..`r' 2-..e� L f7rh"Y•�",'' Ne :�iN YN4'� I'f6A ki:� �l "\ ♦ ^� ��A A � ,wI y ,t[Xt.-A �"`,.E�.{si iv��T`� ' �* 'q'+Y _ v 1 .l� 1 �J�, � a1��7Y„ ♦ ['+'}Tin q' �`�ie�f��.'v�. {RS�•'- _l- y'yt -[ I�f {�t�'� y � �i�Il�IfiF1�ViJ�ft4f�,'� � •. �� fi �V.d t VL�w;1�w '�y�yy�y�j¢ h } �(� Y Y , �h :\�•1.�� '��^ � �� ''�Y`fid '" fyrJ���wTi11 r i ) r,C �L Z 6 V SSSSS k1, a�,..�"w1'?�\yw� �\��. ' � �i r i. y h�,4�+ r\ ')11•i. i LIS 4� Y _[ a1': s. .�{ n `� �•'1 l` }^� .\ ,:fr �r3'X57 �4 �1f(Yya,� �tt�a. .°-aw.• , �'�?l}v kn�~� 1�•. L� X .�`'Yro'�.• yV1[y •.ti r W f L 1 ..... J .ma N 1 � i I 1 i 1 � ' 1 1 � i " 1 1 • 1 1 11 i1 1 a Attachment 5 ABSTRACT r, On January 3,2006,a request was made by Jim Newhallfor an Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation of a property located at 460 >S: Broad Street in the City of San Luis Obispo prior to a requested demolition a of a residence. This study finds that the residence is listed as a contributing ; property within the Mount Pleasanton/Anhohn Historic District for its architectural significance and as such as been recorded as P40-041177. The proposed plans are to reconstruct the existing residence because of recently discovered structural problems. The plans should be reviewed carefully by staff to confirm that they replicate the footprint of the existing structure, retain the fabric and architectural design of the house,saving and reusing the roof tiles(tejas)and dein spouts(canales). If the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are followed,there will be"no effect"on the Historic District and the original architectural design will be maintained. INTRODUCTION The field work and archival research carried out as part of this study was conducted by Betsy Bertrando who was assisted in the field by Luther Bertrando. Betsy Bertrando has over twenty years experience with the cultural resources of the Central Coast and has completed numerous historical research projects for the City of San Luis Obispo. The field work took place on January 8,2006. The 45'by 169'parcel (APN 00-185-002)is depicted on the San Luis Obispo 7.5'USGS quadrangle topographic map as existing in the City of San Luis Obispo. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND k The first known recorded European contact in San Luis Obispo occurred on September 6, 1769 when the Spanish land expedition led by Gaspar de Portola arrived from San Diego. Fr. Crespi gave the name La Caftda de la Aratividad de Nuestra Senora to the place that three years later would be near the location where Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded. It was s the beginning of the chain of missions that was to connect the out posts at San Diego and Monterey. k In 1850, Surveyor.William Hutton laid out the grid pattern of streets that remains today in the older sections of San Luis Obispo. From the survey, a map was made of the town in 1862. Rejected as a pueblo by the United States Government,the town was finally given title to 640 acres in 1867. With this award,title claims could then be considered. In 1870,a map of the town was produced by Hams and Ward. It illustrates that the town ended at Arroyo de la Huerta or Stanner Creek and land north of the creek was owned by W. 460 Broad St,SLO,CA-1 1 Attachment 5 yi Stenner. On that map neither Chorro nor Broad Streets are shown as crossing to the north side of the creek as no routes north are shown. William Stanner appears to have two spellings for his a name - with either an"a" or"e." Both spellings appear in 1870 but only Stenner is used today. The 1870 Census lists William Stanner, a 67 year old farmer from England living here with his wife Guadalupa and six children ranging in age from four to twenty-two years. He was here much earlier in 1851,the name spelled as Stanner, and he had personal property assessed at $225. (Angel 1979). In the 1800s,Broad Street was the old way north to access the coast. The county road to Rosaville(Cambria)was first surveyed in 1868 by R. R. Harris. To further complicate things the map refers to the creek as Stannard Creek and a residence is indicted near Broad Street on the north side of the creek as"Stannard's". In 1872,Ah Louis set up the first brickyard in the county. Using water from"Steiner" Creek(yet another spelling)he used adobe soil that would have been in the vicinity of Broad and r. Center Streets(Wong 1987). After using up the adobe soil he twenty years later moved the brick t: making business to area near Foothill Boulevard. According to Wong,by the early 1900s,Ah Louis had developed one of his eight vegetable gardens within the Anholm Historic District. 72 acres. The Anholm Tract, the smallest of the farms, situated on property which today is apart of the town. This site supported the brickworks, China Garden and seed farms. Ah Louis used fifteen feet high foot powered wooden waterwheels to lift water from the creek bed into his farm's irrigation system. (Wong 1987:31) A Sketch Map of San Luis Obispo drawn in 1894 illustrates a crossing on Arroyo Huerta Vieja or Stenner Creek allowing Broad Street to become north Broad and continue north to meet Santa Rosa Street. The 1897 USGS quadrangle map for San Luis Obispo shows Broad Street crossing Foothill Boulevard with a slight jog at Foothill.Boulevard and Santa Rosa Road heading west along Foothill to join it on the way north. Chorro Street still does not cross Stenner Creek. Plans were reported fora bridge over Stenner Creek in 1904. This crossing was to be on Santa Rosa Street(Tognazzini 1903). The Historical District-Anholm Addition The triangular Anholm Addition was developed in 1927 and is located between West Street on the north and.Broad Street to the west. The eastern and southern borders of the addition is defined by the meandering Stenner Creek. Three families owned the land;Anholm, Manfredi and Pate. Anholm Family-Chris and Johanne Anholm,George and Kristina Anholm The history of the Anholm family, both in San Luis Obispo and Denmark, has been well 460 Broad St,SLO,CA-2 Attachrr;ent 5 documented by Einar Peter Anholm (Anholm n.d.). The information is available in the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society files located in the Public Room at the Carnegie Library. George Martin Anholm was bom in 1872 in Fole, Denmark and arrived at age 15 to San Luis Obispo in 1888 and began working and leasing farmland with his brother Chris. After a stay back in Denmark they returned to San Luis Obispo in 1918. After they arrived they purchased the Venable Ranch consisting of approximately 62 acres. This was the parcel that later became part of the Anholm Addition. By 1928,Chris and his wife Johanne were living and raising a family at 370 Broad Street. During the same period, George and Kristina were doing the same at 554 Broad Street. Later in 1948,George and Kristina built a new house at 257 Chorro Street where Kristina died in 1959 and George followed her at age 88 in 1960(B. Bertrando and E. Bertrando 2005). By 1950,Chris and Johann owned and lived at a house nearby at 486 Lincoln Street. P. E. Manfredi Pierino E. Manfredi was the manager of the Bank of America in San Luis Obispo. Pierino was married to Irma Ghiringhelli in 1923 and they lived on 371 Broad Street near the project area. By 1935,Pierino and Irma had permanently relocated to Santa Maria. They had a son and daughter who grew up,married and the next generation continues to live in Santa Barbara County. Irma Ghiringhelli was born in 1900 in the Hollister Adobe, currently on Cuesta College land. Pierino died in 1974 and Irma followed in 1996(The Trib 1996). Harold and Mabel Pate Prior to development of the subdivision in 1928,Harold was living at 1624 Morro Street. By 1950,Harold and Mabel Pate were living on 814 West Street,the second house from the comer of West and Chorro Streets. Harold was retired and Mabel was still working as a clerk for Marshall's Jewelry. METHODS Archival Research The house files in the San Luis Obispo City community Development archives were studied on January 6,.2006. Other records reviewed were located at the Public Room at the old Camegie Library as well as the extensive archives of Bertrando &Bertrando Research Consultants. Ownership information was provided by the contractor,Jim Newhall of great Outdoors Construction. Field Investigation f The field investigation took place on January 8, 2006. Photographs of the exterior and interior of the residence were taken at that time. Particular attention was focused on the termite and dry rot damage that had taken a toll on the structure over the years. Notes were taken concerning specific architectural details of the residence that could be retained in the proposed i 460 Broad St, SLO,CA-3 Attachment 5 new structure. A new detached garage has replaced the original garage that was located at the end of the Hollywood driveway strips at rear side of the house. The new garage is located at the end of the driveway further back-from the house. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Effective in February 1999, changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970(CEQA)removed thresholds of significance from the main document and relied upon criteria set forth in Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1 Title 14 CCR Section 4852. These revisions to qualifying criteria for determining the significance of a resource include the following; 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. 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 value. 4. Has yielded,or maybe likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Cultural resources displaying one or more of these criteria,may be considered significant and thereby subject to special measures of avoidance or evaluation prior to any potential impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided then a mitigation plan is normally developed. CEQA directives regarding mitigation of cultural resources are also addressed in the Public Resources Code. The property at 460 Broad Street has previously been listed by the City of San Luis pu Obispo for its architectural significance as a contributing property to the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Historic District under Criterium 3. RESULTS Archival Research The property was added to the City of San Luis Obispo's contributing property list for historical resources as a part of Resolution# 8839 in 1998. The historic district was Mount Pleasanton Square/Anholm Historic District in the northern section of the city. At that time the property owner was listed as Roger Zanetti et al. The property was acquired by the Zanetti family as a rental around 1945. It is still in the family although the family including the Zanetti brothers,Roger and Lorin, never lived in the house at 460 Broad Street. The family lived in Arroyo Grande and Roger is currently residing in Santa Maria. 460 Broad St, SLO,CA-4 i` A aachmznt 5 r The house was constructed in 1931 at a cost of$3000. G. H. Bowen was both the architect and building contractor. The summary of properties form completed by Katrina Rosa, and dated 1997, listed the threat to the property as "changes not compatible with the community character. " It also contained the following information; "460 Broad Street was deeded and built in the new subdivision north of downtown San Luis Obispo, on'land recorded on the Subdivision Map, May 13, 1927, owned by Chris and Johann Anholm, George and Kristina Anholm, P. E. Manfridi and Harold and Mable Pate. This district is considered the only true housing tract and subdivision in San Luis Obispo until after World War 11. It was populated by the new middle class of San Luis Obispo before World War 1,farmers who became wealthy from growing and selling navy beans to deed the troops during World War 1. This structure was built in 'the Spanish Revival Style'popular in the 1920s and 30s and passed rapidly from favor in the 1940s. " Other information in the city file gave family names connected with the original inhabitants in the Mt. Pleasanton/Anholm neighborhood as Roberts,Champlain,Austin,Lewis, Graham, Gianolini,Freeman and Tilton with original owners and contractors Bowen, Wichtendahl and Fuller. The first owner located for the property was a directory listing for Philip E. Philbrick and his wife Florence in 1938. Philbrick was a fireman for the Southern Pacific.. In 1942 a clerk in town by the name of G. Dale Atwood and his wife Verla lived at that address. Not long after that the property was acquired by the Zanetti family and has been a rental ever since. Some of the previous occupants have included; 1950 Joseph B and Evelyn Gottfried-Joseph was the deputy County Agricultural Commissioner. 1960 Ira F and Barbara Bogard-Ira was a State Highway Patrolman 1968 Don G and Jean.Lyles-Don was a programmer with Central Data Processing 1975 Denis Rochholz and Steve Rochholz-students 1982 James P McDougal -Electronics Technician with Vidar,Inc. 1993 Jamie R Walker-Teacher in Guadalupe A city permit to demolish and construct a new garage was issued on July 12, 2005. Field Investigation The style variously named as "Mission Style"(Blumenson 1981), "Spanish Revival" (Carley 1997),or "Mediterranean"(Prentice&Prentice 1986)is architecturally depicted throughout the residence at 460 Broad Street. For the purposes of this report we will refer to the 460 Broad St,SLO,CA-5 1,27 A: ac IP ant structure as a Spanish Revival Cottage. This style of architecture was thrust into the popular design mainly as the result of the 1915 California-Pacific Exposition held in San Diego to celebrate the 1 opening of the Panama Canal (Carley 1997). Soon design elements of this style were found on buildings throughout the southwest and particularly in California. The drain spouts or canales and roof tile or tejas are a part of what makes this style interesting visually. Both are found on the house at 460 Broad Street. Arched walls, openings and Closeap of the front entranm fireplaces that follow this theme are found in this house as well. The small house is a rectangular 28'by 48'structure constructed with stucco over a wood frame. The centered front entry,hidden behind a wall with an arched opening, is located under a small, almost flat,hipped tower roof. The tejas are found primarily on the front part of the facing shed and gable roof lines. Decorative canales grouped in threes are in the tower and front facing offset gable. The windows have been removed from the structure and a new three step concrete stoop leads from the driveway to the front door. The front entrance door with eight glass panels remains in place. Extending over the Hollywood driveway is a vine covered ; arched wing wall. The rear of the small two bedroom,one bath home has no decorative elements but appears as a flat roofed stucco cottage with five steps leading to a small utility room. The Interior Detail wall has been removed from the utility room. The lath and plaster walls have been cleared of k plaster in some areas in the interior as well. Unfortunately,a common problem of the small houses of this style was the roof design. What appears to be a teja roof often hides a flat tar or gravel roof that will hold water behind a parapet with decorative canales. The poorly drained flat roof caused moisture to travel down the exterior walls in particular, which resulted in dry rot and termite damage particularly in the area of the sill plate. Stucco y !' cracking also contributed to leaks that damaged the structure. Sill Plate and Stud Damage 460 Broad St,SLO,CA-6 x-28' Attachment 5 The lot is 45'by 169'without much decorative planting. A small jacaranda tree is near the sidewalk on the south side of the lot. A few mature shrubs and a vine that almost obscures the arched wing wall over the Hollywood driveway are all visible from the front yard. The rear yard follows a gentle slope down to Garden Creek with masses of bulbs along the south side poking their leaves up to ready for spring bloom. They appear to be gladiola and/or iris varieties. A new garage.has been constructed behind the house that sits back in the lot further than the original garage which was even with the kitchen. RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS 's The following is from The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines produced by the City of San Luis Obispo. . "The demolition of a Historical Resource is the least favored option and should be done only when; 1. The condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or people living or working on or near the site, or 2. the project sponsor demonstrates that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site. " For the house at 460 Broad Street a case can be made that would follow the reasoning for the removal of a severely damaged structure. Furthermore it would be financially infeasible to i replace the damage board by board However,because of the listing as a contributing property to the Historic District, the following needs to be addressed in plans for rebuilding the resource. In addition; "Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where possible, materials. "(City of San Luis Obispo Guidelines) This project does not completely nor clearly fall under any of the definitions for the treatment of historic properties,but contains issues from both restoration and reconstruction approaches as defined by the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. "Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history. " Restoration: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property's restoration period. The residence will be used as it was historically. 460 Broad St,SLO,CA-7 All achment 5 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. Certain features should be removed and reused as in the original design. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future use. The proposed project plans to recreate the current building with the exception of a different roof design to prevent the recurrence of the current damage that has affected the residence. 4. Materials,features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. N/A 5. Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved The tejas and canales would be examples of distinctive materials that should be reused- 6. eused6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible,.materials. The degree of deterioration will always be an issue and it depends on the significance level of the structure that is being evaluated In the current proposed project the level of significance is such that replacement for this contributing property is probably the better solution based on financial considerations and the level of significance keeping in mind that the new construction will "match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials." 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features,features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. N/A 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A 9. Archaeological resources affected by the project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed,mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A 460 Broad St, SLO,CA-8 l�o Attachrrznt 5 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed As this proposed project is presented,the only issue will be the necessity of a new roof design. "Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property. " Reconstruction As reconstruction is primarily based on the issues of research to determine what originally existed on the property this project has that evidence visibly available in the existing structure. The six standards for reconstruction have two guidelines that would pertain to this proposed project. 3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spacial relationships. For this property,preservation measures would include preserving and reusing the decorative features mentioned previously. 4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability ofdierent features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will recreate the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. It is strictly the visual quality and character of this resource that is significant and contributes to the neighborhood It does not have qualifying historical criteria that would focus r on people or events. If adjustments must be made on the footprint of the building,the preferred E approach would to have that take place at the rear of the residence so that it does not interfere with its historic character. "The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties embody two important goals: 1) the preservation of historic materials and 2) the preservation of a buildings distinguishing character. "(National Park Service Preservation Brief#17) In this instance; the structure is still standing and will allow for reconstruction/restoration to be accurate and able to follow the architecture and footprint based on plans currently being developed. At the same time as part of the demolition process care must be taken to remove and reuse features that have been unaffected by the deterioration of the structure. The tejas and canales are a good example on the exterior. The interior has some examples as well. If at all practical,the built-in cupboard in the interior wall of the dining room would be an example of an interior feature to be retained. "Thus, any remaining historic materials and features, such as remnants of a foundation or chimney and site features such as a walkway or path, should be retained when practicable, and incorporated into the reconstruction. " (http:www.cr.nps.gov//standguidelreconstruct/reconstruct_approach.ht n) 460 Broad St,SLO,CA-9 1-3/ Attachment 6 460 Broad Sttuctw sl Observation July 8,2005 11 Foundation has cracking at all opener an even'side,due to settlement or fivm previous scaw=event.The aggregate and send in the concrete has impurities which affect the saucMW integrity. The concrete has surpassed it,s life spas and is deteriorating.The foundation cannot support loads imposed by the building. 2] Taus wood fiaanework has severe termite damage and dry wrought on every wood timber&roughout the entire sttvc au% from the foundation to the roof. The building framing has no ability to support the loads imposed by the roc£ 3] The rood stucco and windows no longer provide weather protection due to detdrioration. 4] It is cay opinion that this sauc Lure is unsafe and should be demolished imucediately to protect the neigbborhood,and to avoid any finure liability for the owner and/or tenants. r Y Dan Doris s ? Building Inspector(Morro,Bay Plmmmg/Buil&* By International Code Council General Contractor, #555925 Redevelopment Consulting ww■■ ww■■ d oNMI au .__ __...,. fueuaT � r r St:YYI�YR .��-IBYY NY.i9rsi � I'� ,� ■�aa®a���ww��wala�s�w®�a i'; se to enlne���— ■®!NEI MEMO A■www■■w■wu _; � a ®n■wow■sae■ J�+wwww■w■■wrf®■■®■� ■■■iww■■►=w al��atiabaa®�s��;°a�s�awasa�,: ;i ■aa�aralwwwann aenwww®wr.aiwaka .....t^��.. ,. r►®����■raw • �� L •vrr. v� JCCo]e� gP o ." It I �:lF.'tllDlli/41:i9�P�19f2R�ii.�r;' yqi �f A y C" . ✓Tr ♦ • s"r r „rafillvz- �141'�la >'� ■.�, tl2SNa. r�Y ,tiry nJ t 5i� n � �:1:ry�G���l!},\u la► c, • ialGO!Id�ySdai>{'Vl1ANfCP . d +�_���.+` ITi 7111t•tfaV iii. Ca.�r"Y��.Y[i4!771C. ' a, . x ua., rr vnnl 't} . O � iz I [tt•:Seati[+ It YF J h:. d^' � , � 014IAIMSdu ,v. iLefi O3.y:p atm[ IN -'.mlr+.l 14! [ ff xVY•fWJA C .. / 1 � � t -H Z1/pl l IM 11A Oi9 r I � -a � •• °r X32; ::[G>)A ■L[:\• ■Iii++ �II ■■■����■�■�■IIIIII OE�ii ---=---- d m3'1• .. .dam.•a � _ _ [::- •�Ld J1►\UC.i f►{:t'fpL�k!`�L>iG`b [.]i/E'A'1!x�xPEA'i a.�a tCJC •a�. \it%it �- , ,11 .a iW�a[,c.. 4yfvd� r of®�� I� i!ICI I�p7„Nf tll(M1 •'.f-17 fCY[UT�a1PV i=i. l! tVi7t•Ilk{,w,iF�,Oti 1 ;r :�ft?�P77a�IRp A•.H.:' l '� Iai'�']� raft Y�F\drYii^ '.AA�PCv/diRa.tfU�`r��try!yltliu�ll�P rr + - A[.> •'N11'q'Il��.i� • \w yi-ti:i AY NtiY 'GIw`:•�-.S�{q:l1\.. '-} yL�..wi2.'t111.t:.Fi ill[ �=f1 •.1 tA:irf.'(g'a4'Y ! Moscow Lac) CNI —W/*�141141 Rol I �fll R�II�' �'� 11,co--I R 741--4 am5=;:I t a71 Attachment 8 city of sAn Wis oaspo Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For MOD/ER-H 228-05 1. Project Title: Zanetti House Reconstruction 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner (805) 781-7165 4. Project Location: 460 Broad Street, City of San Luis Obispo, east side of Broad Street,just south of Mountain View 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Applicant: Roger Zanetti P.O. Box 67 Nipomo, CA 93444 Representative: Jim Newhall Great Outdoor Construction 1764 8`t' Street Los Osos, CA 93402 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The 7,760 square-foot (0.18-acre) site is located on Broad Street between Mountain View and Lincoln Streets, and is currently developed with a single-family residence. The residence on the site was constructed in approximately 1931, and is included on the City's List of Contributing Historic Resources due to its compatibility with and contribution to the neighborhood's 1920 and 1930 architectural styles. Also on the property is a detached two-car garage that was recently constructed to the rear of the dwelling. The applicant has requested to carefully demolish or "deconstruct" the residence in order to restore its structural integrity and then reconstruct it using much of the original materials, shifting the footprint of the building approximately one-foot 0 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. -3s- Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 8 forward on the site. Due to the extent of the proposed demolition, the project would also initiate a delisting of the property from the City's List of Historic Resources. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is surrounded with properties designated for low-density residential development, and is correspondingly bordered by other single-family residential development. The parcel located at the corner of Broad and Lincoln Streets is designated Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) and is developed with a small convenience store/deli. Shopping and services are located nearby in the downtown. Although there are several other Contributing Historic properties in the area, this neighborhood is not part of any historic district. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has requested a building permit to deconstruct and then reconstruct the contributing historic residence due to its structural deterioration. To allow this project to proceed the City Council would also have to take formal action to remove the property from the List of Historical Resources. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None MLiachment 8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. This analysis is limited to the potential impacts on cultural resources of the proposed project, as notwithstanding the property's inclusion on the City's List of Contributing Historic Structures the project would be otherwise exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction of Small Structures; and Class 32 (Section 15332), In-Fill Developments, of the CEQA Guidelines. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). / 737 j� Attachment 8 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be Prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s)or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant.to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature Date Pamela Ricci Senior Planner John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name for O Attachment 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead. agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site;cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "PotentiallySignificant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. , 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include reference to the page or pages where the.statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis: C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were-incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 1-3 9 Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Suppor it�ntt nation Sources Sources Pote.._dlly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact MODlER-H #228-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inc orated 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,34, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 7,8,9, 10,11, 12 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 3,4,7, X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 8,9 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 3,4,5, X or site or unique geologic feature? 6,7,8 d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 3,4,6, X formal cemeteries? 8,9 Evaluation a)The project involves deconstructing the existing dwelling and reconstructing it in essentially the same form,style,and size, with renewed structurally integrity. The single-story, Spanish Colonial Revival style house was constructed in 1931 by B.H. Bowen.Although the original owner is unknown,it is known that R.A. Sirman lived here in 1947.The property was added to the City's "Contributing Properties List" in 1998 due to its compatibility and contribution to the neighborhood style. In a report associated with that action, this property, along with 12 other properties along Broad Street north of Highway 101, is described has being"Spanish prototype,"an architectural style popular in the 1920's and 30's. Like other homes expressing this style, character defining features include the low-pitched gabled roof, barrel-tile roof coverings, sprayed-on stucco wall surfaces with rounded edges and corners, wing walls, an asymmetrical fagade, use of canales as roof vents, an arcaded entry, and wood window and door frames. As was noted at the time of its inclusion in the Contributing Properties List,the appeal of this property was not as much about the individual house, its aesthetic value, design, or relationship to historic persons or events.The appeal was more in its compatibility and the style that creates this neighborhood.The Spanish prototype,together with the bungaloid style, collectively defines and symbolically represents a period of the history of the City of San Luis Obispo. A structural analysis of the dwelling identifies irreparable deficiencies in the foundation, wood framework, roof, windows, and exterior stucco, to the extent that the building could be considered unsafe. Because the structural problems with the building are beyond those that could be rectified with standard restoration, the applicant has proposed to deconstruct the residence.Original materials,such as clay roof tiles and canales(roof vents)will be retained and reused in the reconstruction. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials,they will match the existing in material,color, shape, size, texture and patten. New materials, such as exterior stucco, will also be in a similar color and texture as the existing treatment. Four modifications to the original building plan are included in the reconstruction.The porte-cochere leading to the detached garage will be increased in height and width to allow modern vehicles to pass. This would be accomplished by increasing the opening of the structure from 8-foot width by 6-foot height to a 9-foot width and 7-foot 6-inch height.The external height and width of the structure would remain the same. The second modification from the existing design of the structure includes replacing the flat portion of the roof with a gabled roof structure. The new gabled portions of the roof will utilize barrel-tile clay roof tiles chosen to match the existing. The third diversion from the original design is a 72-square foot addition at the rear of the residence to accommodate modem laundry facilities. This new construction is similar to additions to other Contributing Historic properties that have been approved in the vicinity,and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. According to the Guidelines, the design of new additions should complement the style of the historic building,and should not introduce new styles or use exterior building materials foreign to the historic structure. The Guidelines further state that elements of the surrounding structures'styles should be included in the new structure and attention be given to the form, bulk, scale, siting and landscaping. Consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the addition promotes the original style and character of the house. The final change is in the siting of the house on the property. The house will be reconstructed one-foot closer to Broad Street, reducing the street yard setback from 25 feet to about 24 feet. Shifting the building forward would provide slightly more space between the residence and garage. Attachment 8 Em Discussion and Supportii,y InfO,,,Iation Sources Sources Po&.� Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact R H #228-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Also on the property is a recently constructed detached garage. Although the new structure incorporates several features typical of Spanish Revival construction,modifications to the exterior treatment are recommended to restore character defining features to the property. Modifications to this structure will further insure that the character defining features of the property are retained. Recommended building modifications include replacement of the roof vents with canales to match those of the dwelling and installation of decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture. Given the established project parameters,the Cultural Heritage Committee found that the reconstructed residence will retain the architectural character and features that led to its inclusion on the list of contributing properties. Although once reconstruction is complete the property will no longer be a historic resource, its defining architectural characteristics will not be lost if the reconstruction is sensitively executed. Because of this, and the fact that the property is not within an historic district whose integrity might be compromised by the loss of a contributing historic property, the impacts of the project will be less than significant. The recommended mitigation measures will help insure that the reconstructed property expresses the same style as the original 1930's structure, therefore avoiding what would otherwise be a potentially adverse significant impact. b and d)Based on a review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,and the site's proximity to Old Garden Creek and the Mission San Luis.Obispo, the site is considered an archaeologically sensitive area by the City and as having a heightened potential for undocumented burial sites. Because the reconstruction will assume the same footprint as existing development it is unlikely that buried resources would be present, and impacts to known resources are not anticipated. But as the project involves grading,there is a remote possibility that subsurface archeological deposits or human remains may be encountered. A mitigation measure has been recommended to ensure proper treatment of any archeological resources or human resources should they be encountered. c)There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. Mitigation Measures:Cultural Resources To ensure that the architectural character and features that led to this site's inclusion on the list of contributing properties are expressed in the reconstructed property the follow standards shall apply: 1) Original materials, such as clay roof tiles and canales (roof vents) shall be retained and reused. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials,they shall match the existing in material,color, shape,size,texture and pattern.New materials,such as exterior stucco,shall also be in a similar color and texture as the existing treatment. 2)The detached garage shall be modified as follows:roof vents shall be replaced with canales to match those of the dwelling, and decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture shall be installed in place of the industrial fixtures. 3) A Historic Property Preservation Agreement shall be signed by the property owners and recorded on title acknowledging the historical value of the property and accepting the conditions upon which the City has approved the proposed restoration and reconstruction plan, prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permits, or further modifications to the site. Owner shall provide a guarantee to the City to ensure that architectural reconstruction is consistent with approved plans. The guarantee amount shall be based on the Contractor's estimate to deconstruct and reinstall the house's original architectural elements. In the event archaeological resources are unearthed or discovered during any grading or construction activities,the following standards apply: 4) Construction activities shall cease,and the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law. 5) In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains,or in any other case where human remains are discovered during construction,the County Coroner is to be notified in addition to the Community Development Department Attachment 8 Em Discussion and Support:kJIni_ .nation Sources Sources Pot -hy Potentially Less Than xo Significant Significant Significant Impact R-H #228-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated so that proper disposition may be accomplished. Conclusion Chapter 15064.5(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project which may have a significant effect on the environment. The regulations go on to describe that this includes any material change to those physical characteristics that account for the property's inclusion on the local list of historical resources. As is described in greater detail above, the property was included in the City's inventory of Contributing Historic Resources due to its compatibility and contribution to the neighborhood style, rather than the aesthetic value, design or relationship of the property itself to historic persons or events. Because of this, and the fact that the property is not within an Historic District which would otherwise be compromised by the loss,with the incorporation of conditions of approval(mitigation measures)those physical characteristics which led to the property's designation as a Contributing Structure will not be adversely impacted. The City's Cultural Heritage Committee has determined that by complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, the impacts of the project on the historic resource can be considered mitigated to a level that is less than significant. The CHC recommended to the City Council that the property be removed from the list of contributing historic resources in order to allow the project to occur. No further mitigation is necessary. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in detail above, with the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures the project will not adversely impact a historic resource that provides an example of any major period of California history or prehisto b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) Because the site is not part of a designated historic district,it's removal from the City's List of Historic Resources will not be detrimental to the integrity of any unified plan area or neighborhood. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program E1R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable , b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed b Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Supporta. In,_..nation Sources sources - any Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact MOD/ER-H #228-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Not applicable. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994 2. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element 3. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 4. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 5. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 6. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 7. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 8. Project Plans 9. Site Visit 10. Structural Observation,prepared by Dan Doris,General Contractor,and submitted January 9,2006 11. Historical Resource Assessment prepared by Betsy Bertrando,dated January 2006 - 12. Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting Follow-Up,October 23,2006 Meeting REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM 1. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources Original materials, such as clay roof tiles and canales (roof vents) shall be retained and reused. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials,they shall match the existing in material,color,shape,size,texture and pattern.New materials,such as exterior stucco,shall also be in a similar color and texture as the existing treatment. Monitoring Program: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will review plans submitted with a building permit and will ensure compliance with the letter and intent of this requirement by field verifying that the original materials are reused to the greatest extent possible and that new materials are adequately similar to existing treatments. 2. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources The detached garage shall be modified as follows:roof vents shall be replaced with canales to match those of the dwelling and decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture shall be installed in place of the industrial fixtures. ➢ Monitoring Program: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will review plans submitted with a building permit and will ensure compliance with the letter and intent of this requirement by field verifying that the new materials are adequately similar to existing treatments on the main structure. ��y3 Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and SuppoA, In,_.Jnation Sources Sources Pote tally Potentially Less Thannpoa Significant Significant Significant MOD/ER-H #228-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources A Historic Property Preservation Agreement shall be signed by the property owners and recorded on title acknowledging the historical value of the property and accepting the conditions upon which the City has approved the proposed restoration and reconstruction plan, prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permits, or further modifications to the site. Owner shall provide a guarantee to the City to ensure that architectural reconstruction is consistent with approved plans. The guarantee amount shall be based on the Contractor's estimate to deconstruct and reinstall the house's original architectural elements. ➢ Monitoring Program: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will withhold issuance of any demolition or construction permits until the required Agreement and Deposit have been submitted to the City, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources In the event archaeological resources are unearthed or discovered during any grading or construction activities construction activities shall cease, and the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department shall be notified so that the . extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law. ➢ Monitoring Program: All mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project plans and included in the project specifications. It will be the applicant or their representatives responsibility to ensure that the contractor understands their responsibilities and requirements. A Building Inspector will ensure compliance with standards through periodic site inspections dulling project activities. 5. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case where human remains are discovered during construction, activities shall cease and the County Coroner notified in addition to the Community Development Department so that proper disposition may be accomplished. ➢ Monitoring Program: All mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project plans and included in the project specifications. It will be the applicant or their representatives responsibility to ensure that the contractor understands their responsibilities and requirements. A Building Inspector will ensure compliance with standards through periodic site inspections during project activities. Attachment 9 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 460 BROAD STREET FROM THE LIST OF CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCES (MOD ARCMI/ER-H 228-05) WHEREAS on February 27, 2006 and October 23, 2006, the Cultural Heritage reviewed and recommended that the Community Development Director approve the reconstruction of the residence at 460 Broad Street in light of the structural deficiencies that are beyond those that can be rectified with standard restoration techniques, subject to archaeological monitoring and specific requirements for it's reconstruction; and WHEREAS on October 23, 2006, the Cultural Heritage Committee also recommended that the City Council remove the property at 460 Broad Street from the List of Contributing Historic Resources; and WHEREAS on November 28; 2006, the Community Development Director approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation to remove the property at 460 Broad Street from the List of Contributing Historic resources and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public testimony, staff recommendations and reports thereon, finds that: 1. As conditioned, the project to reconstruct the residence is consistent with Housing Element Policies 3.2.5 and 3.2.6, as the property will retain the character-defining features of the established neighborhood. 2. The deconstruction and reconstruction of the property is consistent with Conservation and Open Space Policy 3.21.2, which states that "Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible". 3. As documented in the Structural Evaluation and Condition Report, the residence has structural problems that are beyond those that can be rectified with standard restoration. 4. As conditioned, the project will reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures, and maintain the street appearance which contributes to the neighborhood's architectural character, as encouraged by Conservation and Open Space Policy 3.21.4. 5. The property at 460 Broad Street will longer meet the eligibility standards for historic listing, and consequently, is not historically significant. Attachment 9 Resolution No. XXXX (2007 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby amends the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines to delete the address "460 Broad Street" from the List of Contributing Historic Resources, and adopts said Negative Declaration (MOD ARCMI/ER-H 228-05), with incorporation of the following mitigation measures: 1. Original materials, such as clay roof tiles and canales (roof vents) shall be retained and reused. Where new materials are necessary to replace unsalvageable original materials, they shall match the existing in material, color, shape, size, texture and pattern. New materials, such as exterior stucco, shall also be in a similar color and texture as the existing treatment. 2. The detached garage shall be modified as follows: roof vents shall be replaced with canales to match those of the dwelling and decorative light fixtures consistent with the Spanish style architecture shall be installed in place of the industrial fixtures. 3. A Historic Property Preservation Agreement shall be signed by the property owners and recorded on title acknowledging the historical value of the property and accepting the conditions upon which the City has approved the proposed restoration and reconstruction plan, prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permits, or further modifications to the site. Owner shall provide a guarantee to the City to ensure that architectural reconstruction is consistent with approved plans. The guarantee amount shall be based on the Contractor's estimate to deconstruct and reinstall the house's original architectural elements. 4. In the event archaeological resources are unearthed or discovered during any grading or construction activities construction activities shall cease, and the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law. 5. In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case where human remains are discovered during construction, activities shall cease and the County Coroner notified in addition to the Community Development Department so that proper disposition may be accomplished. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attachment 9 Resolution No. XXXX (2007 Series) Page 3 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of January 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED: Cityy Jonathan Lowell G:VHhI\CHC\228-05 CHC ARCMI-ER(460 Broad)\228-05 CC Reso De-listing.doc i y �