The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/15/2007, PH 2 - APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AT 1204 NIPOMO council W.,D.� AD aacEnoA Repoat � z 7 Ita�h'umbcr CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner ! �+ SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S . DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AT 1204 NIPOMO (ER 1-07). CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Cultural Heritage Committee's determination that moving the Logan House would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on a historic resource. 2. Direct the application back to staff for preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, should the applicant wish to proceed. DISCUSSION Background Jules Rogoff, applicant/appellant, has proposed to relocate the Master List Historic resource, known as the Logan House, from its comer location at 1204 Nipomo Street to a mid-block site in an adjacent residential neighborhood to facilitate redevelopment of the Nipomo property (Attachment 1). The existing Logan House site is designated C-D (Downtown Commercial), whereas the proposed location is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). The Logan House is a typical Craftsman bungalow that was built in 1919 by Fred Logan, a local carpenter..The garage and storage building just to the east of the historic residence was added in 1920. The structure was originally constructed as a single family residence, and is currently used as an office and occupied by Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County (ECOSLO) and the Sierra Club. The site is included on the City's Master List of Historic Resources due to its architectural merit and distinct Craftsman style. Prior to submitting a planning application for the redevelopment of the site, as well as for the site where the Logan House is proposed to be relocated to, the applicant requested that the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) determine if the structure could be moved without impacting its historical significance. The CHC reviewed the proposal to relocate the building on March 26, 2007, and determined that the proposal was not consistent with the City's General Plan and Historic Preservation Program, nor with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, and would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts (Attachment 2). C Council Agenda Report—Appeal of CHC's determination on the significance of relocating a Master List Historic Resource Page 2 California Environmental Quality Act Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), relocation of a historic resource can have unavoidable significant impacts to the environment if the project materially alters the physical characteristics of,the resource that convey its historic significance (CEQA 15064.5(b)(2)). When this is the case, the only way to legally proceed with the project is through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and for the City Council to make a statement of overriding considerations when taking action on the project. In making the determination that moving the structure would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, the CHC was in effect establishing a requirement for an EIR for the project. If significant adverse impacts cannot be mitigated, then the EIR process provides the findings of overriding consideration to allow the project to proceed.. Cultural Heritage Committee's Determination On March 26, 2007, the CHC was asked to determine if the historical significance of the Logan House would be maintained if it was relocated from its present location, 1204 Nipomo Street. If the CHC supported relocation, their second task would have been to evaluate if the new location for the Logan House was appropriate (Attachment 3). After discussing the historical value of the structure, and how it relates to the site, the CHC determined that relocating it would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the historic resource, and directed the Community Development Director to require preparation of an EIR if the applicant chooses to proceed with the project. CEQA defines "Substantial adverse change" as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historic resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired, CEQA 15064.5(b)(1), (emphasis added). The building is considered a historic resource according to CEQA standards, eligible for listing at the local level for its architectural style, as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. The Craftsman character-defining features of the house include its raised foundation, clapboard siding, deep front porch with brick walls, battered wood columns, broad cross-gables with their decorative curved knee braces, wide overhanging eaves, window pattern and glass enclosed porches. Equally important is the structure's site-specific design, with two distinctly dominant facades facing Marsh and Nipomo Streets, and two distinctly subordinate sides facing the interior property lines. Although the proposal to relocate the structure would result in it once again being used as a residence, the proposed mid-block location would alter the historical spatial relationship of the structure to the street, eliminating a characteristic feature of the Craftsman style. The characteristic detailing associated with the corner location would not only be lost at the proposed mid-block location, it would diminish the importance of the building as a historic resource to such an extent that it would likely no longer qualify for designation as a Master List Historic resource. This alteration of a character-defining feature is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and therefore a significant unavoidable adverse impact under CEQA. Although the Logan House is located just outside the Downtown Historic District, the CHC also discussed the effect that relocating the structure out of the area would have upon the character of the pz—Oz Council Agenda Report—Appeal of CHC's determination on the significance of relocating a Master List Historic Resource Page 3 area and the integrity of the historic district. The majority of the committee members felt that the building had, over time, become a landmark of the western entrance to the downtown, identifying that the area was once a prominent residential area. They also expressed concerns about the "domino effect" of removing the historic structure, which could be detrimental to the significance and continued viability of adjacent historic resources. Reasons For Appeal An appeal was received from the applicant, Jules Rogoff, on April 4, 2007 (Attachment 4). The appellant believes that in considering the historical context of the structure, the CHC based its determination on inaccurate criteria, such as the historical significance of the site or people associated with the site, when their consideration should have been more narrowly focused on maintaining the architectural integrity of the structure. Mr. Rogoff states that staff mislead the CHC and lead them to an unfavorable determination with inaccurate information. In particular, Mr. Rogoff found language in the staff report referring to the "historical location" of the structure to be misleading, and that it indicated that the location itself was significant. However, looking at the context in which this statement was made, it is clear that the term "historical" was used to explain that the house has-always been at the location where it still remains. Neither the term "original location" nor "current location" convey that the building has remained in the same configuration since construction. Additionally, both the staff report and Historic Resource Report (Attachment 5) clearly state that the significance of the house resides in the classic Craftsman style, and not in the location or any significant event or person associated with the site. The CHC determined that there is evidence in the record raising a fair argument that the historically significant architecture of the house is integrally linked to its location on a corner lot. Therefore, they found that there is substantial evidence that relocating the structure will have a significant effect on the architectural value of the Master List Historic resource. Specifically, its relocation to a mid-block location arguably diminishes it historic architectural value as a Craftsman house designed for a comer lot. Given that record, the CHC acted according to state law in requiring. Mr. Rogoff argues that the sole basis of this action was an unsubstantiated opinion about the location itself, as. opposed to the relationship between the corner lot location and the architectural style. However, this argument is not well supported in light of the staff report's discussion of the significance of the corner location to the architectural style. Conclusion The CHC's review was narrowly focused on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the legal parameters established by CEQA. In formulating its recommendation, the CHC discussed the historical significance of the structure, and the impact that relocation would have on the building itself and on the adjacent historical district. It was a discussion about whether the relocation would have an impact on the historical significance of the structure, and therefore be required by state law to prepare an EIR in order to proceed. It was not a discussion about whether the CHC was supportive of relocating the structure. The CHC determined that an interior lot would n �� Council Agenda Report—Appeal of CHC's determination on the significance of relocating a Master List Historic Resource Page 4 adversely affect the historic value of a Craftsman bungalow designed and detailed for a corner piece of property. The CHC's direction to require preparation of an EIR provides an opportunity for further discussion of the impacts of relocating the structure, an evaluation of project alternatives, and opportunities for citizen participation. If the significant adverse impact cannot be mitigated, then the EIR process provides the Council the option of making findings of overriding considerations to allow the project to proceed. Ultimately, the determination of whether the structure can be relocated will be made by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project (from a land use context) is consistent with the General Plan, it will most likely.have a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, and direct the Community Development Director to prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. Deny the appeal, and direct the applicant to not proceed further with the project. 3. Refer the item back to the CHC for clarification about the rationale behind their recommendation. 4. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. The Council should specify the information needed in order to provide staff with specific direction and to return to a hearing at a later date. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. March 26, 2007 CHC findings, meeting update, and staff report 3. Reduced scale site plan of proposed location (provided to CHC) 4. Appeal to City Council by applicant/appellant 5. Historic Resource Report 6. Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the CHC determination of historical significance 7. Draft Resolution upholding the appeal and directing the Community Development Director to prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact G:\JHill\CFIC\1-07CHC ER-H(1204 Nipomo)Logan House\appeal\AP CC 1-07.doe Do ow I t r' c moist t �±,m�. 1 1204 Nipomo Street `GJ�Q`P Existing Location of Logan House General Retail (C-D) O A0ilj 9O O �� F� Cyt �`GS� E Old Town Histori Di t �o QHS 464 Buchon Street Proposed Location of Logan House fledium-High Density Residential (R-2) �S �O 09v �JG =R-H 1 -07. Proposal to relocate the Logan House from its' original ocation at 1204 Nipomo Street to 464 Buchon a -a.5' Attacnme,t 2 I�ill�ll lllllllllllll��i �Ililll IIS - ' smulS OBISPOcity ® a Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 March 30, 2007 Jules Rogoff 2958 So. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ER/H 1-07: 1204 Nipomo Street Review of the proposed relocation of the 'historic Logan house from 1204 Nipomo Street to 464 Buchon Street Dear Ms. Rogoff: The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of March 26, 2007, determined that relocation of the house would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and recommended that the Community Development Director require an environmental impact report for the project. If you have questions, please contact Jaime Hill at (805) 781-7165. Sincerely, NM M �l�E Kim Murry Deputy Community Development Director Long Range Planning cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Randy Dettmer 665 Hill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jules Rogoff 330 Los Cerros Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 r The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. —4:.e l. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Meeting Update _ : ,.: , ,L Cultural Heritage Committee March 26, 2007 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. All members were present. STAFF: Jaime Hill and Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planners, and Jeff Hook, Senior Planner. PUBLIC COMMENT: Elizabeth Abrahms asked if the public could see the interior of the Sauer Bakery building, proposed for demolition as part of the Chinatown mixed-use project. She was interested in seeing the old bakery ovens and any other remaining historic features. Committee members referred Ms. Abrahms to staff to pursue her request. David Brody asked if the City had any established policy about relocation of historic structures. He was concerned that a case-by-case review was too subjective. MINUTES: Minutes of the February 26, 2007 meeting were approved as amended on a 7:0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: At the request of the applicant, the Committee took item 3 out of order. 1. 1117 Islay,Street. ARC MI 4-07; Review of addition and remodel of a contributing historic structure.; R-3-H; Tom Martin, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Jeff Hook presented the staff report and Tom Martin, architect'and property owner, described the project. Mr. Martin explained that he intended to live in the house and that a key project objective was to provide a little outdoor open space'on a front porch. He said he intended to maintain the house's architectural character to-ensure it would continue to be compatible with the historic district: Committee members-liked the project and felt that although the remodel would modify the house's street fagade, the remodeled house would be consistent with the Old Town Historic District. There was no public comment. On a motion by Committee member Wheeler, seconded by Committee member Baer, the Committee voted 7-0 to determine that the proposed project is consistent with the Historic Preservation,.Pi�dgram Guidelines and will not adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic,-significance of the Old Town Historic District, and referred the project to the Community Development Director with direction to approve the project as proposed. -2. 1204 Nipomo Street. ER H 1-07; Review of the proposed relocation of the historic Logan House from 1204 Nipomo Street to 464 Buchon Street; C-D zone; Jules Rogoff, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Jaime Hill presented the staff report and Jules Rogoff, property owner and applicant, described the property's history and briefly outlined plans to relocate the house to anothe —1 CHC Meeting Update, March 26, 2007 Page 2 site in the City. He focused on the changes to the structure that are needed to make it viable for a commercial business. He also introduced Dave Bjerre who owned a residential lot and was interested in accommodating the historic house on his property. Chairperson Crotser opened the public hearing. David Brodie felt that historic buildings can continue to be historic even if their uses change, provided that they retain their original architectural design and scale. He disagreed with the applicant's view that because the house was no longer used as a residence that it had lost its historic significance. He felt the house was a landmark and part of Downtown's architectural character. Matt Rogoff pointed out the changing character of the immediate surroundings, where larger buildings have replaced original structures, in addition to projects that are anticipated to redevelop adjacent sites. The public hearing was closed. Committee members Pavlik, Wheeler, Carpenter and Landwehr felt the house's historic significance was tied to its Downtown location in that it symbolized the Downtown's once dominant role as a residential neighborhood, and that relocation would constitute a significant adverse impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Committee members Breska, Crotser and Baer had mixed feelings but in balance, supported relocation and felt that relocation would help preserve the house as a residential use. On a motion by Committee member Wheeler, seconded by Committee member Carpenter, the Committee voted 4-3 (Baer, Breska, Crotser) to determine that house relocation cannot be accomplished without resulting in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to historical resources and to recommend that the Community Development Director make such a determination in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the project. 3. 868 Chorro Street. ARC 201-06; Review of a 7-unit residential project and proposed modification of the historic Mancillas/Freitas Adobe; R-4 zone; Larry Hoyt, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunmore presented the staff report and Bob Richmond, applicant's representative, introduced Tom Jess and Alexandra Cole, project architect and historian, respectively. Mr. Jess described the project and Ms. Cole explained her historical findings and recommendations. The property owner, Larry Hoyt, spoke in support. Chairperson Crotser opened the public hearing and Diane Duenow, David Brodie, Diane Orrell (owner, 863 Mill), Elizabeth Abrahms and Paul Barrie spoke in opposition to the proposed changes to the adobe. Dr. William Watson urged the CHC to support the project. After lengthy public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Committee members discussed the historic significance of the adobe and associated wood building, and reviewed the slides and historic documentation. The majority of members agreed with the historical consultant's conclusions that changes to the wood building surrounding the original adobe had reduced its historic significance and supported partial ® 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. 2-� CHC Meeting Update, March 26, 2007 Page 2 demolition of the building and restoration of the original adobe, provided that changes to the proposed project were made to protect the adobe and maintain visibility of the restored adobe from Chorro Street, including removal of the proposed Unit 1 and reducing the height and massing of Unit 2. After two motions failed, the Committee took two actions: 1. On a motion by Committee member Breska and seconded by Committee member Baer, the Committee voted 4-3 (Carpenter, Pavlik, Wheeler) to determine that the reports presented by Dr. John Parker and Alexandra Cole accurately describe the significant portions of the historic adobe and to recommend the applicant be allowed to proceed with a development plan that includes demolition of the later wood additions and restoration of the adobe structure. 2. On a motion by Committee member Baer, seconded by Committee Breska, the Committee voted 4-3 (Carpenter, Pavlik, Wheeler) to direct the applicant to return to the Committee with a complete adobe restoration plan, including a structural assessment and recommendations from a registered engineer, to delete Unit 1 and reduce the height and massing of Unit 2, to reconfigure the site plan to maximize open space around the adobe, to consider relocation of the proposed driveway and acknowledge the original outline of the entire structure through paving and site work, to provide direct and separate pedestrian access from Chorro Street to the adobe, to provide photo-documentation for the wood-clad structures, and to use xerophytic landscaping around the adobe. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Agenda Forecast — Staff Staff gave a brief forecast of upcoming meetings and pending projects. Due to the lateness of the hour, no additional communication items were discussed. The Committee ADJOURNED at 9:15 p.m. to the Special Meeting on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., at Cafe Roma Restaurant, 1020 Railroad Avenue, San Luis Obispo. ® 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. _51 - A9M MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Cultural Heritage Commi ow VIA: Jeff Hook, Senior Pla ng Range Planning . FROM: Jaime Hill, Associate Mint MEETING DATE: March 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Item # 1 : ER-H 1-07 (1204 Nipomo) — Evaluation of an Historic Resources Report for the Logan House, and review of a proposal to relocate the Master List Historic structure to a different site. DISCUSSION Background The applicant is developing a proposal for the redevelopment of the property at 1204 Nipomo Street, which would, if approved, necessitate relocating the Master List Historic structure from the comer location to a different site. Prior to submitting a planning application for the redevelopment, as well as for the site where the Logan House is proposed to be relocated, the applicant has requested Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) comments. If the CHC determines that the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan and Historic Preservation Program, and 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 applicant will proceed with the project. The Logan House, at 1204 Nipomo Street, is a typical Craftsman bungalow that was built in 1919 by Fred Logan, a local carpenter. The garage and storage building just to the east of the historic residence was added in 1920. The small, rectangular, single-story structure rests on a raised cement foundation. The low pitched gabled roof is capped with asphalt composition, while the external walls are sheathed with shiplap siding and some brickwork. An enclosed gabled porch faces Marsh street, while the main gabled porch faces Nipomo Street. Wooden tapered columns support this off-center, partly open porch. All of the windows are double hung, with wide wood trim and lugsills and 16/1 glass panes. Both vents are accented with lathe vents in the gables. The door is also framed with wide trim and the upper half has four narrow beveled glass panes. What's Requested The applicant wants to relocate the Logan House to 464 Buchon, in an adjacent residential neighborhood. The CHC's role at this time is twofold; to determine if the historical significance of the Logan House will be maintained if it is removed from its historical location, and if the "/0 4—+— ER-H 1-07 � - 1204 Nipomo (Logan House) March 26, 2007 CHC supports relocation, the second task is to evaluate if the proposed location for the Logan House is appropriate. Should the Logan House Be Moved? Because the property is designated as a Master List historic resource, a request to relocate the building requires consideration of the environmental effects of the project. According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if the project would cause a "substantial adverse change" in the significance of an historical resource, it is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines "Substantial adverse change as physical demolition, destruction, relocation (emphasis added), or alteration of the historic resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA 15064.5(b)(1)), then the project would have a significant adverse impact. This would have to be addressed through preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). In contrast, if the CHC determines that relocation would not adversely impact the buildings' historic significance and could be found consistent with CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, then relocation could be accomplished without an EIR. An Historic Resources Report was prepared which evaluates the proposal. It recommends mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level (Attachment 2). The report concludes that because the significance of the house resides in the classic Craftsman style and not in its location or any significant event, relocating the structure to a site where its former residential context can be regained could be considered beneficial. The writer goes on to point out the precedent in the City for moving an historic building while retaining its significance, with the relocation of the Heritage Inn, several times, to its present Olive Street location. The report concludes that the project could be considered to be mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource under CEQA_Guidelines if the following . mitigation measures are required: 1. All the character-defining features of the house, including the rough-textured raised foundation, clapboard siding, deep front porch with brick walls, battered wood columns, and cement floor, broad cross-gables with their decorative curved knee braces, widely overhanging eaves, 16-over-1 windows, glass enclosed porches, and solid front door with beveled glass inserts shall be retained, or, in the case of the rough-textured foundation, concrete steps, and brick chimney, shall be rebuilt to match the existing at the new site. 2. Because currently this house is oriented towards a corner and therefore has two dominant elevations, and the new site is mid-block, the house shall be offset on the lot so that these two elevations remain dominant at the new site. 3. Final plans for the relocation of the house shall be reviewed and approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee for adherence to these mitigation measures.. The CHC should determine if they agree with the content and conclusions provided in the Historic Resource Report. If the CHC determines the document is satisfactory, staff will use the r �\ ER-H 1-07 1204 Nipomo (Logan House) March 26, 2007 report and comments provided by the CHC to proceed with environmental review. Is the Proposed Location Appropriate? If the CHC supports relocation of the Logan House, the second task is to evaluate if the proposed mid-block location is appropriate, and if so, how the home should be oriented on the lot. The applicant has proposed to relocate the structure from its corner location at 1204 Nipomo Street to a mid-block lot at 464 Buchon Street. Both sites lie just outside the boundaries of the Old Town Historical District (Attachment 1). The house and garage occupy the majority of the 4,000 square-foot comer lot, with public, or dominant facades, along both the Marsh and Nipomo Street frontages. The proposed mid-block location is a larger 7,500 square-foot site. The applicant has proposed to relocate the existing residence on that site to the rear of the property, and place the Logan House at the front of the lot. The existing building on the Buchon property has a simple, traditional design. Significant modifications to this building would be necessary to make it compliment the Logan House's distinct Craftsman style that led to its inclusion on the Master List of Historic Properties. t i �. LJ 1204 Nipomo Street 464 Buchon Street Because the mid-block location reduces views to what is now the Marsh Street elevation, the Historic Resources Report recommends that the house be offset on the lot (recommended Mitigation Measure No. 2). The applicant has proposed to locate a driveway accessing the parking at the center of the site along the west side of the structure, to increase line-of-site to the side of the structure. Although this would somewhat increase views to the side of the building, staff has concerns that this treatment would alter the historical spatial relationship of structure to the street, and therefore be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as listed in the Historic Property Report, page 7. It is a characteristic feature of the Craftsman style that corner lots were developed with buildings with two distinctly dominant sides, and two distinctly secondary sides, a building technique that is rarely seen today. Staff has some concerns about the findings and recommended project conditions associated with the new location for the structure, related to how a corner building can relate to a mid-block location. The CHC should give particular consideration to how the home will be viewed in the new context. ^) 2 ER-H 1-07 1204 Nipomo (Logan House) March 26, 2007 If the CHC determines that the proposal to relocate the historic structure is consistent with the standards for the treatment of historic properties, then staff will proceed with preparing a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with mitigation measures to insure the project is implemented consistently with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and that any archeological materials that may be uncovered are dealt with appropriately. Conversely, if the CHC determines that relocation of the structure cannot be accomplished without significantly impacting the resource, then an EIR will need to be prepared if the applicant wishes to proceed with the request to relocate the building. Action.Alternatives I. Determine that the project cannot be accomplished without creating Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to historical resources and recommend that the Community Development Director make such a determination in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the project. 2. Accept the Historic Resource Report for the Logan House,and direct staff to use the Report, along with all other available resources, as the basis for evaluating the project's impacts on historical and archeological resources. This evaluation will occur as part of an Initial Study of Environmental Impact. 3. Determine that with the following modifications, the Historic Resource Report for the Logan House is adequate in addressing the potential impacts of the project, and direct staff to use the Report and Commission direction, along with all other available resources, as the basis for evaluating the project's impacts on.historical and archeological resources. This evaluation will occur as part of an Initial Study of Environmental Impact. • Modify Mitigation Measure No. 2 as recommended in the Historic Resource Report as follows: Because currently this house is oriented towards a corner and therefore has two dominant elevations, and the n site is wAd block, the house "h"" b offset en the the new site shall be a corner location which allows similar orientation, so that these two elevations remain dominant at the new site. • Add a Mitigation Measure No. 4: Any additional structures on the receiving site shall be compatible in scale and style to the Logan House. 4. Determine the Historic Resource Report for the Logan House is inadequate in addressing the potential impacts of the project and request that additional information or studies be provided by the applicant. 5. Continue the item to a date certain for additional discussion or historical research. Attached: Attachment 1: Map showing current and proposed location of Logan House Attachment 2: Historic Resource Report 2 4- ��a.I ,- 50.0' ' — — — — Ntachment 3 o CO m r me rOV� < I Vam C � o .. CL m 3 ! Porch I -n A u a m 5�_p° Coop I � m -' m - a N � O m fo N � X C A N ( ( m -u a 13 0 O I Cn a e Laun I o A W I I CO) D m Q I 3 m o a I v o� • m v _ N Ir CO S. �' �"o 8 I ° o p � Porch CL a D I 3 o • I N I Cl • I � �• O D (D Buchon Street Department of Communi levelopment City of sa ``wGfliCbnt Qb 919 Palm V64 Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Address 1204NIPOMO Parcel'# 003-521-001 Project Title Legal Description CY SLO MIRY CH ADD BL 6 PTN LT 11 Zoning 1 C-D Zoning 2 Property Owner ROGOFF JULES TRE.ETAL In Care Of Owner Address 330 LOS CERROS DR SLO CA 93405-]272 Applicant Name JULES ROGOFF Day Phone(805)440-4040 Address 2958 S._HIGUERA ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Representative RANDY DETTMER,AIA Day Phone(805)5414864 Address 665 HILL ST.,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405 Appellant#1 Jules Roaoff Day Phone(805)440-4040 Address 2958 South Higuera Street San Luis Obispo Send correspondence to _Applicant;Representative Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary Application# Type of Application Received Fee ER-H 1-07 Review of the proposed relocation of the 1/2/2007 $480 historic Logan House from 1204 Nipomo AP-CC 1-07 Appeal of CHC determination of historical 4/4/2007 $100 ce. Total fees $580 Received By PAM RICCI Fee Paid by Applicant ( 480) Appellant#1 ( 100) Assigned planner JAIME HILL Hearings ER-H CHC Hearing 2/26/2007 �PO0r, loo dc' tab Filing Fee: $100.06 l Paid Date Received N/A A City Or `REFER TO SECTION 4 AIsan lues OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name Mailing Address and Zip Code q�ytj -//0 c-teG� Phone Fax iovD Representati e's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 9.35 Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAU 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer, Committee of Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: .3 2-6 -49] 5", 0 3. The application or project was entitled: r AA�*7 12,o4 IVo s T o 411b8 N s7 4. I disc ssed the matter with the following City staff member a. on ?i ,�2-o / ;Da�. (Staff Members Nenn- rtment) (Date) 5. Has/this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what adtion/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence.you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. i Page/1-of 3 Reason for Appeal continued 1226 SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$1100% which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that-it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. lhrbyagree ap ear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when I is schedu ed r a publi hearing before the.City Council. _ o 7 - - ( ignre o Appellant (Date) ceptions to th fee: 1)Appeals Tree Co ittee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the ity$100 tola peal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8103 Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE Sections: 1.20.010 Title. 1.20.020 Right to appeal. 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. 1.20.040 Hearing- Notice. 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. 1.20.010 Title. This chapter shall.be known as the"Appeals Procedure"for the city. (Prior code§ 1400) 1.20.020 Right to appeal. A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this code, any person objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or entitlement of any nature, the determination or issuance of which is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of such license, permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may appeal in writing to the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such appeal, stating the specific grounds for the appeal. B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department head concerned, and where an appeals board is empowered to consider interpretation and enforcement questions, unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board. C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city official under any of the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, whether the administrative decision involves the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit, entitlement or any other administrative decision. (Ord. 1044§ 1, 19$5: prior code § 1401) 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. The appellant shall file a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the date upon which the administrative decision appealed from is made. In the event the last day of the filing period falls on a nonbusiness day,the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day, and this rule shall apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code § 1402) 1.20.040 Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal in its proper form, the city clerk shall place the matter on the council agenda. Except in cases of emergency, when the council_ may determine the matter immediately, or where state law prescribes a different appeal process, the clerk shall set the matter for hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city clerk. The city clerk shall cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than five business days prior to such hearing, unless such notice is waived in writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252 § 1, 1994: prior code § 1403) 1.20.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified in the notice of appeal why the action appealed from should not be approved. The council may continue the hearing from time to time, and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in the matter. (Prior code § 1404) Page 3 of 3 8/03 -/r i Appeal of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Vote on March 26th. 2007 I am appealing the CHCs decision to require an EIR for the relocation of the Logan house from 1204 Nipomo St . to 464 Buchon St . for the following reasons : The staff report was in error which misled the CHC regarding this project. On page one (pg 1-1 of the staff packet) it states that the role of the CHC is to: "First determine if the historical significance of the Logan house will be .maintained if it is removed from its historical location. " This statement was . misleading to the committee. The location of the Logan house was never a factor in determining whether or not this house should be considered historic. The only criteria for inclusion onto the master list for historic properties, was its architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. When you use the term "historical location", it implies that its location is significant. During deliberations of the project by the committee, the focus of the discussion was on the existing location and what impact would result if moved from that site. Almost no discussion occurred about its architectural style. There was some discussion about the receiving site, but staff didn' t introduce the plot plan for the new site until well after the discussion started and was requested by the committee. The focus of the discussion should have been directed toward whether the receiving site was, with mitigation measures, acceptable, irrespective of its exiting site. Just before the vote, staff also told the committee it might have to consider another potential impact which could result in moving the house from its original site. In question was the , significance of the Parsons family living there because of their "prominent status" as business owners in the community. Again, this injection of an unsubstantiated claim added to the confusion of moving the house from its current location. No historical data exists in the cities historical resource file that the co-founder of San Luis Mill and Lumber (circa 1883) was a prominent business owner or was even alive at the time this house was built 35 years later. I It was stated in the Historic Resources Report prepared by Alexandra C. Cole on pg 6 (pg 1-13 of the staff packet) that : 6. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Its significance rests on it architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. She sites this conclusion based on the city' s own Historic Resources Survey. Staff. 1983. See attachment . The location of the house was omitted since no evidence exists in the historical record of any person or event of significant importance was associated with the house . In the technical advice series of CEQA and historical resources, the following is cited: "Current CEQA law provides that an EIR. must be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued, on the basis of' substantial evidence in the administrative record, that a project may have a significant effect on a historical resource. " In this case, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that the Logan house location should be considered since it has no historical connection to the house either by an event or person. Therefore there is no argument. It goes on to say that: "A mitigated. Negative Declaration may .be used where all significant effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. For example, a mitigated Negative Declaration may be adopted for a project which meets the Secretary of Interiors standards for Rehabilitation and local historic preservation regulations, and so will not adversely affect the resource." The resource is the structure. Our project is to rehabilitate and restore the Logan house as it was when built in 1917 . We want to move it back into its original context of a residential neighborhood surrounded by similar residences of the same era to once again be used by a family as it was originally intended. In Miss Cole' s report on pg. 8 (staff packet 1-15) she clearly explains all of the mitigation measures that we will undertake to assure that this project will be considered to a _�h level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource i . e. the structure. I feel the committee was misled and somewhat confused by receiving inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about the historical significance of the Logan house location . Had the committee known that no substantiated or factual information existed in the city' s recorded data about the location, a mitigated negative declaration would have been granted as the only logical response to our request.. In the law suit, Citizen' s Committee to .Save Our Village v♦ City of Claremont, it was confirmed that.: "The lead agency must determine whether there is "substantial evidence" in the public administrative record to supporta finding of significant effect. Substantial evidence is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21080 (e) as including "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. " Unsubstantiated claims of historical significance do not require an EIR. " In closing, the following shows that the CHC did not follow the proper criteria for determining that this project would constitute a significant adverse impact under CEQA. This is. called the Fair argument The original determination made on the basis of the initial study whether to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an FIR is subject to the "fair argument" test (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U. C. Regents ( 1993) 47 Cal . 4th 376) . In other words, if a fair argument can be raised on the basis of "substantial evidence" in the record that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact - even if evidence also exists to the contrary - then an EIR is required. A Negative Declaration is authorized when the Lead Agency determines that no substantial evidence exists supporting a fair argument of significant effect. A mitigated Negative Declaration applies when changes to the project or other mitigation measures are imposed which such that all potentially significant effects are avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance . SB 919 adds to CEQA a definition of the term "substantial evidence" (subdivision (e) , Section 21080) . Although this does not affect application of the fair argument standard, it provides the Lead Agency a means by which to gauge the quality of evidence discovered during its review of a project . Similarly, a court examining. the actions of the Lead Agency now has a consistent standard by which to judge the quality of the evidence which was before the Agency.. Pursuant to Section 21080, substantial evidence includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts . " It does not include "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which. do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. " Further, public controversy over the possible environmental effects of a project is not. sufficient reason to require an EIR "if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" (Section 2108.2 . 2) . The conclusion by the CHC that the house' s historic significance was tied to its downtown location and symbolized the downtown' s once dominant role as a residential neighborhood is clearly an unsubstantiated opinion based on a social value which does not contribute to physical impacts on the environment. Under CEQA-It is an unacceptable argument . It is clear to me that the report done by Alexandra C. Cole was prepared under the proper guide lines as defined in CEQA. In using all available resources, including the city' s own administrative record, her report clearly has made all of her findings and recommendations for required action and mitigation measures based on "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts . " Therefore, I am requesting that the City Council uphold this appeal and direct. staff to prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with mitigation measures and not require an EIR for this project. Respectfully submitted, Jules Rogoff Appellant cc. Kim Murry 1 Attachment HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT 1204 NIPOMO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA APN:03-521-01 FINAL Prepared for Mr. Randy Dettmer Dettmer Architecture 663 Hill Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805) 541-4864 Prepared by Alexandra C.Cole Preservation Planning Associates 519 Fig Avenue Santa Barbara,California 93101 (805)969-4183;Accole5@cs.com December 2006 - A-tachmcnt 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................1 3. DOCUMENTS REVIEW...........................:...............................................................................1 4. SITE HISTORY...........................................................:.................................................:....:..:....1 5. FIELD INVENTORY.. ..............................................................................................................4 6. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE.. ................:.........:.. .............................................6 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT................................................................6 8. REQUIRED ACTION/MITIGATION MEASURES...................:... .....................................8 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................9 10. PLATES...................................................................:................... .........:...:........ ......................11 i ,/ HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT 1204 NIPOMO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA APN:03-521-01 1. INTRODUCTION The following Historic Resources Report for 1204 Nipomo Street in San Luis Obispo was requested by architect Randy Detimer because the building is,on the Master List of Historic Resources prepared by the San Luis Obispo Community Development.Department.This study was prepared to analyze the potential effects of the project upon the building. Alexandra C. Cole of Preservation Planning Associates prepared the report. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The overall intent of the proposed project is two-fold: to preserve the historical significance and character of the residence at 1204 Nipomo Street through its relocation to an adjacent residential neighborhood,and to build a new mixed use apartment and commercial building on the existing 3,900 square foot lot. The proposed new three-story structure will include four one bedroom,2-level apartments located above approximately 3,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space.This report analyzes the impact of relocating the house from the comer of Marsh and Nipomo Streets to 464 Buchon Street. 3. DOCUMENTS REVIEW The following sources within the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department were consulted in the preparation of this report: The City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines (Amended 1990) Appendix B: "Master List of Historic Resources" and the"1204 Nipomo Street" folder compiled as part of the City's 1983 architectural survey.The Master List rated the house as a 5,meaning it was not eligible for the National Register but was significant at the local level. 4. SITE HISTORY The land where the building at 1204 Nipomo Street lies was lot 11,located in Block 6(now 425) of the City,laid out in 1876 as part of Murray and Church's Addition.This block,bounded by Broad, Nipomo,Marsh and Pacific Streets,was sparsely settled in 1886.A Sanborn Map of that date shows the northeast quarter of the block containing a small house and shed, a blacksmith's shop,and the City Stables,with two large bams containing Livery, Feed,and Stalls. Three small one or one-and-a-half:story dwellings were located at the south edge of the block along Nipomo Street,with the subject property vacant(see Figure 1). By 1891, the City Livery Stables had expanded to include a large corral.As well,two small outbuildings had been constructed on the subject property. By 1903 the block was well- developed,with the addition of a large house on Nipomo Street and three smaller houses along 1 I BROAD STREET � x ! � I I I 1 I I I ' I i � I LLJ L j = i I !, V) Cirr rs LL CI: Q r Q � a i - I I ; I j I I i i I L�r9 � I Say Project location I II so I � I i � so i I j i; NIPOMO STREET Figure 1. 1886 Sanborn Map of Block 6 both Marsh and Pacific Streets. At this time, residences were gaining ascendancy over the horse- related commercial businesses,with the mid-block Livery Stable property replaced with houses (see Figure 2). 2 -�-�0 BROAD STREET r p Awl h --� � q J t \ K \ V v � r � J � \ x a J w \ A - W LU N o[ x 1 ti C R 1 • I� of C' ^ItY < x 1 q project location a K J 1 FY Zs is 6r o v i NIPOMO STREET — I Figure 2. 1903 Sanborn Map of Block 6 Development of housing in this subdivision came hand in hand with the marketing of San Luis Obispo as a health resort with nearby sulphur springs, and an agricultural area capable of supporting stock-raising,dairying,and such crops as barley,wheat,corn,beans, potatoes,hops, 3 sugar beets, tobacco and fruits (Cooper 1875: 4449). The population grew from the 1870s onward,triggered by an influx of farmers, the arrival of the narrow-gauge railroad to Port Hartford in 1876, the Southern Pacific railroad in 1894, the founding of California Polytechnic Institute in 1901,and the growing resort business. According to the.Assessor's Book of 1912-13, lot 11 belonged to Jennie.W.Johnson and it was vacant. In 1919 she sold the lot to brothers Frank and Fred Logan,carpenters;in March that year Fred Logan took out a building permit to build a wood and plaster house at 1204 Nipomo Street at a cost of$2,000.The following year,he,his wife,and his brother Frank took out a permit to build the adjacent two-story garage. It does not appear that they lived in the house at 1204 Nipomo Street. At the time of construction they were living next door at 657 Marsh Street, and by 1920, the City Directory identifies Frank Logan at 1085 Higuera Street with no mention of Fred Logan. From 1919 onward, the Directories list Lee R. Parsons and his wife Ivy at 1204 Nipomo Street. Itis not known when they purchased the property. Their two sons,Gerard and Roy,were bom in the house, and Mrs.Parsons lived there until her death in 1979. Mr. Parsons' father started the Janssen&Parsons San Luis Planing Mill at 246 Higuera Street,later the San Luis Mill and Lumber Company,and now Haywards Lumber (City Directories 1912-1928; "1204 Nipomo Street".folder). The 1926 Sanborn Map shows the house at 1204 Nipomo Street as well as the house at 657 Marsh Street where the Logans lived briefly.. At this time,the block was fundamentally residential,with the sole commercial intrusions being a wagon works and blacksmith shop and storage as well as a private garage and auto truck repair next door on Broad Street,showing both the old and the new transportation modes adjacent to one another(see Figure 3). In 1980, the present owner,Jules Rogoff,bought the property.At this time,many of the residences in the block had been torn down,and the area had become commercial.The house was converted to a commercial space,housing variously the Rogoff Real Estate office, Wollam/Century Real Estate,J. Bates lawyer, the AIDS support network,and presently, the Environmental Center. 5. FIELD INVENTORY Setting The Craftsman bungalow is located at the northeast corner of Marsh and Nipomo Streets,with its orientation facing Nipomo Street. With the exception of the small wood frame house,now used as a chiropractors office, and garage to the north along Marsh Street,the house and the block have lost their residential context. Immediately to the east is a large parking lot serving the Wells Fargo Bank and a shopping mall fronting on Broad Street. Across Marsh Street at the southwest comer is Foster's Freeze, at the.northwest comer is the Country Deli,and at the southeast corner across Nipomo Street is a commercial building which is the planned site for a large mixed use project. The lot is small,with no side yard. The associated two-story garage to the north is connected to the house by a wood deck and a staircase. A disabled access ramp extends from Nipomo Street to the front entrance on the porch. 4 ��" BROAD STREET e t ! ' c .c 4 t Owr1 l N M C Ro I v i-- p F 11Q n q f � n t e � �W d S q b W/ LU R Q l ' ` LU Co to y pp� '° I` ` Q .. �V � Y It i L) co CL Q — - Project location u r-, u •w u u _ 4 A ,I a_ r It 0 n IL - II NIPOMO STREET " Figure 3. 1926 Sanborn Map showing house and garage at 1204 Nipomo Street Description The Craftsman bungalow,clad in wood clapboard siding,is a large one-story rectangular front- gabled building, oriented towards Nipomo Street,with cross-gables oriented east and west. A small enclosed porch extends to the north and a second more dominant enclosed porch extends to the west. It sits on a high rough-concrete foundation. The roof is covered with black asphalt shingles,and the widely-overhanging eaves,supported on curved knee braces, are boxed by fascia boards.A red brick exterior chimney is located on the front porch and pierces the ridge line of the front gable. 5 -�9 A concrete path leads from the sidewalk at Nipomo Street up four concrete steps to the wide recessed porch of the house. The porch roof is supported on battered wood piers which rest on brick veneer walls with wide concrete caps. The front door is solid wood with four narrow beveled glass inserts above a railing supported on decorative dentils. The windows on the non- dominant east and north elevations are one-over-one in flat surrounds with splayed lintels.The windows on the public south and west elevations are a more decorative pattern of 16-over one. The west side of the front porch and the enclosed porch on the west side have 9-pane windows which are cut to fit the decorative.corbels extending from the porch supports. The west enclosed porch,whose wood battered columns rest on a flared clapboard wall, has four. concrete steps leading to the 10-pane French door. The entrance on the north porch is a wood door with a glass upper pane. Alterations Several alterations have been made by the present owner Jules Rogoff.The eaves were covered with fascia boards,the decorative rafter tails on the original gable fascia boards were cut off because of damage, the roof was replaced, the house was repainted,and a handicapped ramp was added at the front entrance. The interior was remodeled to make.the residence appropriate for commercial use. The laundry room was converted to a staff break room, the hall bath and tub were removed,a new public restroom was installed,and the kitchen was converted to an office with all appliances and cabinetry removed. 6. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE The residence at 1204 Nipomo Street was listed on the City of San Luis Obispo "Master List of Historic Resources". The house was rated as a 5,meaning it was not eligible for the National Register but was significant at the local level.Its significance rests on its architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow(Historic Resources Survey Staff. 1983).' 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT CEOA Guidelines for Determining Project Effects CEQA defines a potential adverse effect as one that would cause a substantial change in the significance of a resource. Such a substantial change means demolition,destruction,relocation, or alteration of the physical characteristics of the resource or its immediate surroundings that justify its eligibility for the CRHR or its inclusion in a local register of historic resources (PRC Section 15064.5 (b) (1,2)). According to the latest CEQA guidelines,if a project-irivolving significant historical resources follows The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating, Restoring,and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards) (Weeks and Grimmer 1995),the project is considered to be mitigated to a level of less than a 6 3d significant impact on the historic resource (PRC Section 15064.5 (b) (3)).The Standards are as follows: 1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials,features,spaces,and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features,spaces,and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,place,and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development,such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties,shall not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials,features,finishes,and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,the new feature shall match the old in design,color,texture,and,where possible,materials.Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments,if appropriate,shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. S. Archeological resources shall be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed,mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions,exterior alterations,or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials,features,and spatial relationships that characterize the property.The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features,size,scale and proportion,and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken.in such a way that,if removed in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Analysis of Proposed Project According to CEQA Guidelines The building is considered an historic resource according to CEQA standards,eligible at the local level for its architecture,as a good example of a Craftsman house.The Craftsman character-defining features of the house are its rough-textured raised foundation,clapboard siding, deep front porch with brick walls, battered wood columns,and cement floor,broad cross-gables with their decorative curved knee braces,widely overhanging eaves,16-over-1 windows, glass enclosed porches,and solid front door with beveled glass inserts. The significance of the house does not rest on its location.There are no significant landscape features associated with the house, and it has lost its residential context. With the exception of the adjacent.house to the north along Marsh Street, all the former houses within the block have been demolished and replaced with parking lots and commercial development. 7 -/ "444 , n i The project proposes to relocate the house to 464 Buchon Street,within a residential neighborhood one block south of the Old Town Historic District. The existing house would be moved to the back of the lot and the Craftsman house sited at the front of the lot. Because the present location has lost its context, the relocation of this house to the proposed site where its former residential context can be regained,in my professional opinion can be considered beneficial. There is precedent in the City for moving an historic building while retaining its significance,with the relocation of the Heritage Inn,several times,now at Olive Street. However,according to the above CEQA guidelines, if the relocation would cause an alteration to the physical characteristics of the house that justify its eligibility for local designation as an historic resource, then the project would have a potential adverse effect. If the relocation plans follow the Standards listed below, the project would be considered mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource. 1.A property shall be used as it was historically.or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials,features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The house will be restored to its residential origins once it has been moved. All the interior changes which were made to retrofit the house for commercial use will be removed, and the rooms will be restored to their original residential configuration. Therefore the project meets Standard 1. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces,and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The owner plans to retain the distinctive materials of the house.Therefore the project meets Standard 2. 5. Distinctive materials,features,finishes,and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. The owner plans to retain all the character-defining features of the house as outlined in this report. Therefore the project meets Standard 5. There have been no relocation plans yet drawn up to determine how the house will be moved. In order to insure that the above Standards,which are very broad,are followed in the specifics of the move, the following mitigation measures are required. S. REQUIRED ACTION/MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All the character-defining features of the house,including the rough-textured raised foundation,clapboard siding,deep front porch with brick walls, battered wood columns,and cement floor,broad cross-gables with their decorative curved knee braces,widely overhanging eaves,16-over-1 windows, glass enclosed porches,and solid front door with beveled glass 8 ;.2 inserts shall be retained,or,in the case of the rough-textured raised foundation,concrete steps, and brick chimney,shall be rebuilt to match the existing at the new site. 2. Because currently this house is oriented towards a corner and therefore has two dominant elevations, and the new site is mid-block, the house shall be offset on the lot so that these two elevations remain dominant at the new site. 3. Final plans for the relocation of the house shall be reviewed and approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee for adherence to these mitigation measures. With the required mitigation measures listed above, the project,according to CEQA criteria, would be considered to be mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource(PRC Section 15064.5 (b) (3). 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY City of San Luis Obispo. 1990. The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. Cooper, De Guy. 1875. Resources of San Luis Obispo County, California. San Francisco: Bacon& Company. Facsimile reprinted in A Vast Pastoral Domain. San Luis Obispo County in the 1870s. San Luis Obispo,CA:The Library Associates, 1993. Historic Resources Survey Staff.1983. "Parsons House State of California_The Resources Agency. Department of Parks and Recreation.Historic Resources Inventory. "San Luis Obispo City and County Directory"." 1912,1914,1931-32,1933-34,1938. "San Luis Obispo County Telephone Directory." December 15,1916,October 15, 1919, April 15, 1920,May 1928. San Luis Obispo Tribune. Souvenir Railroad Edition.May 5, 1894. Centennial Edition. San Luis Obispo,CA:The Library Associates,1993. Stickley,Gustay. 1909. Craftsman Homes. New York:'Craftsman Publishing Company. Reprinted in 1979 by Dover Publications,Inc.New York, New York. "1204 Nipomo Street" folder located in the Community Development Department archives Maus 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1903 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1926-50 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 9 -33 ��o City Records Cultural Heritage Committee files.City of San Luis Obispo, Planning Division. Community Development Department Special thanks to Phil Dunmore of the Community Development Department for his help. -3`1 10 � 10. PLATES 11 r ' .r ry�v Anti• �f. S "`t r'i r s 1+ d•_ I .i 4•• s ','l � '! K 'i ! ILII I'•It• Yk If • r • • • • . . M611 MWOM• - • - i .• 1 1 F pfd yV AN If yyt h y if7#+ ,�. r°4Mc..y•.xsi. *fir- r� ry+`� '^F .•,l A• 4�� F., ti.L'�y r� y5 vb• nyycv avyS�gP`5� .x x+`i - - A ��iK�' r' y.fl• r ��tf'�^PokXv�.K+u r« 'i.: Dili A...Y + i r —! pp R L/ p D \ 1 R R R '(: Fri� �•k...: f)L '' T4I .. IF 014[•j �A� y ��Y tl yt f f ,. INN 1,4 �•f`'tj�,�„ 4 Cup?'hyy-psi 1,4 �, ...C{Y'1 d.Y ac d4�3.,+tY , rte_-5�•`I V , �f• �Y�wG L: 1 'l`'�7 w 1{ A 1 �VfL 1 " Ali. V .. w±•�' �i�l 1 J' a ��r .Y..Y �.'• '4 Yip. ! - Rf�M� I � y r �++•+ r �a �5 �•A'Y .K��^i �v � x y _ I S C Y .r Uvr • • - • • 1 .• 111 r , Y ry x h .�/ , A OW Ft { ..� 6 3,r i j{ J ry Ra .YR 1 ar. • . 1• • • • 1 �p� ! ✓t L �•' -45.�r.� ?�awW".ililie� ,r;�i ,a to i �"f�S'. .V � r : F vt t �r ti<rt .1• f�� r Fit r may.. 8Y LEEIR PARSONS Y. ti . ILI all 7-1 � S T: 1 i v • . - • • . /• • • Y • • � .- 11. 1 M . + �3yVilS i�iS'.�iL;-�re�bj �P��'r AO Shit' � 1 fir• / 1.1 • • 1 / 4 � 2 S { 1 l� y 3 i . EE . MI \ E I 'E' ��• I Ile 1 4 i *, r ,�a Rx✓#1"wj� u c cfi7ft1 ��,t F.>ti cr " a. � - � �`,. f � ! ` r. t 1 .�1 ...4 R y'f.'y'�`:9 E � 't-�y�1 ss 5 a k r i � � u y, •4,»`.� .,+. 1 tt � S -}. y'. 4 ��'• � �`' ('�! � f s.��4 'r��rtr j�+p,'+ 7`�/f�%� a-�I d}. .,f.-j_r�.sr'- 1 .�'e 3�''� �� '�. b Tcf'.•n�C�VYj ^#�,�Y `L..IN9�ifur' x�'.'i?�3{�rY��r�u F i .. .. is ._. — t r .r rflla r .moi KSI IV` 'IF ...... V.o rw I,V ........ k; a ............ i pp Ii:: a . Fj v L LTi1iL."' TIN . 4• `1 I _ • • • .1 •' 111 ' b is tt �-'�'1 • �� yr .tj �'Y ✓ '4 I gT �t11�1.� t7 1 • : � • � i • � • • • • 1 �- 111 - r I !• �/ ,� it .1. yl. • �.�." f}t ,'f f;�I 7 �,I ( I t 1 I �.°\S,F "'S.Y.� >+• _ ��'°`�^` �•'1 I y M n " � �1 . � f 1 it `yf,�nf:A�r 11)yf.w r^{ §� 1 I ,t' j 4'S � •'S.re A K" t 1 ta� h Y .al 16'fv{ n AL -tiir,• .'{+� I�•.r... .°''• 1�..' 173 Ir I / 6 RESOLUTION NO.###4-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATION THAT AN EIR BE PREPARED TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF MOVING THE MASTER LIST STRUCTURE AT 1204 NIPOMO (ER-H 1-07) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2007, to consider the applicant's request to relocate the Logan House from 1204 Nipomo; WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee determined that relocation of the house would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and recommended that the Community Development Director require an environmental impact report for the project; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's determination of historical significance was received by the City on April 18, 2007; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law.; and WHEREAS, the City Council at a hearing held on May 15, 2007, has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Denial of Appeal. The request to appeal the Cultural Heritage Committee's determination of historical significance is hereby denied, based on the following findings: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposal to relocate the Logan House is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and Historic Preservation Program, and with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, because it would result in a substantial adverse change such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. 2. Relocation of the house would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the structure and its status as a Master List Historic resource because it would alter the historical spatial relationship of the structure to the street, eliminating a characteristic feature of the Craftsman style. � —yc� i ^GI AP CC 1-07 Resolution to deny appeal Page Z 3. The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, and therefore may have a significant effect on the environment. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo n Lowell, City Attorney C,:UHill\CHC\1-07 CHC ER-H(1204 Nipomo)Logan House\appeal\CC deny appeal reso.doc Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. ####-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR RELOCATION OF THE MASTER LIST STRUCTURE AT 1204 NIPOMO TO ANOTHER LOCATION (ER-H 1-07) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2007, to consider the applicant's request to relocate the Logan House from 1204 Nipomo; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee determined that relocation of the house would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and recommended that the Community Development Director require an environmental impact report for the project, and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's determination of historical significance was received by the City on April 18, 2007; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council at a hearing held on May 15, 2007, has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Approval. The appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's determination of historical significance is hereby upheld, based on the following findings and condition: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposal to relocate the Logan House is consistent with the City's General Plan and Historic Preservation Program, and with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, because it would not result in a substantial adverse change such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. 2. Relocation of the house would not result in significant or unmitigatible adverse impacts to the structure and 'it's status as a Master List Historic resource, because it would not alter the historical spatial relationship of the structure to the street, or eliminate a characteristic feature of the Craftsman style. A,lt �:(i m t 7 AP CC 1-07 Resolution to uphold appeal Page 2 3. With the incorporation of mitigation measures to ensure the retention of character-defining features, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource, and therefore will not have a significant effect on the environment. Condition 1. All of the mitigation measures specified in the Historic Resource Report shall be incorporated into the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and adhered to during completion of the project. On motion by seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this —day of 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney G:VHil1\CHC\l-07 CHC ER-H(1204 Nipomo)Logan House\appeal\CC approve appeal reso.doc o2-y9' Filing Fee: $100.0" / Paid V I �� N/A APR 0 4 2H-1 ,f CM' "REFER TOSEMON4 SLOCITM Rt �. ' SM tins OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION .Tubs /Coo 6 S, h14i 4 -A 6t- Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 1 * Phone Fax , LL -<Z 6p9 Repress e's Name Mailing Address and Tp Code 9.3fzo Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3-26-a7 r 5 J ,gym. 3. The application or project was entitled: 71FV- Z-04CA T DN 0,4 Ca64 -i /204 IViAgo mo s i o Bc � s7 4. 1 disqissed the matter with the following City staff member. (Staff Member's a e n D rtment) '' (Date) � 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: 41A r.• :.r.mr. :nn r.n - _ _ v.. . .._ i r ' ... av a[.•. SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL 4 f 1 i Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100,which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance: Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I h agree ap ear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when 1 is schedued r a publi hearing before the City Council. ( igna re o Appellant J(Date) ceptions to th fee: 1)Appeals Tree Co ittee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the ity$100 to a peal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for /79.4-y /a5, x.66 '7 c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Department Head -rn^%.o05'chccd Advisory Body Chairperson — (✓9-47-SC - ciity C•Igrk(original) • n<C Page 2 of 3 fit'. rr�v,e�-y 8/03 ^ �n(J/�•�� Appeal of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Vote on March 26th. 2007 I am appealing the CRCs decision to require an EIR for the relocation of the Logan house from 1204 Nipomo St. to 464 Buchon St. for the following reasons: The staff report was in error which misled the CHC regarding this project. On page one (pg 1-1 of the staff packet) it states that the role of the CHC is to: "First determine if the historical significance of the Logan house will be maintained if it is removed from its historical location." This statement was misleading to the committee. The location of the Logan house was never a factor in determining whether or not this house should be considered historic.. The only criteria for inclusion onto the master list for historic properties, was its architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. When you use the term "historical location", it implies that its location is significant. During deliberations of the project by the committee, the focus of the discussion was on the existing location and what impact would result if moved from that site. Almost no discussion occurred about its architectural style. There was some discussion about the receiving site, but staff didn' t introduce the plot plan for the new site until well after the discussion started and was requested by the committee. The focus of the discussion should have been directed toward whether the receiving site was, with mitigation measures, acceptable, irrespective of its exiting site. Just before the vote, staff also told the committee it might have to consider another potential impact which could result in moving the house from its original site. In question was the significance of the Parsons family living there because of their "prominent status" as business owners in the community. Again, this injection of an unsubstantiated claim added to the confusion of moving the house from its current location. No historical data exists in the cities historical resource file that the co-founder of San Luis Mill and Lumber (circa 1883) was a prominent business owner or was even alive at the time this house was built 35 years later. It was stated in the Historic Resources Report prepared by Alexandra C. Cole on pg 6 (pg 1-13 of the staff packet) that: 6. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Its significance rests on it architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. She sites this conclusion based on the city' s own Historic Resources Survey. Staff. 1983 . See attachment. The location of the house was omitted since no evidence exists in the historical record of any person or event of significant importance was associated with the house. In the technical advice series of CEQA and historical resources, the following is cited: "Current CEQA law provides that an EIR must be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued, on the basis of substantial evidence in the administrative record, that a project may have a significant effect on a historical resource. " In this case, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that the Logan house location should be considered since it has no historical connection to the house either by an event or person. Therefore there is no argument. It goes on to say that: "A mitigated Negative Declaration may be used where all significant effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. For example, a mitigated Negative Declaration may be adopted for a project which meets the Secretary of Interiors standards for Rehabilitation and local historic preservation regulations, and so will not adversely affect the resource. " The resource is the structure. Our project is to rehabilitate and restore the Logan house as it was when built in 1917 . We want to move it back into its original context of a residential neighborhood surrounded by similar residences of the same era to once again be used by a family as it was originally intended. In Miss Cole' s report on pg. 8 (staff packet 1-15) she clearly explains all of the mitigation measures that we will undertake to assure that this project will be considered to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource i.e. the structure. I feel the committee was misled and somewhat confused by receiving inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about the historical significance of the Logan house location. Had the committee known that no substantiated or factual information existed in the city' s recorded data about the location, a mitigated negative declaration would have been granted as the only logical response to our request. In the law suit, Citizen' s Committee to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, it was confirmed that: "The lead agency must determine whether there is "substantial evidence" in the public administrative record to support a finding of significant effect. Substantial evidence is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21080 (e) as including "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. " Unsubstantiated claims of historical significance do not require an EIR. " In closing, the following shows that the CHC did not follow the proper criteria for determining that this project would constitute a significant adverse impact under CEQA. This is called the Fair argument The original determination made on the basis of the initial study whether to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an EIR is subject to the "fair argument" test (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U. C. Regents (1993) 47 Cal . 4th 376) . In other words, if a fair argument can be raised on the basis of "substantial evidence" in the record that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact - even if evidence also exists to the contrary - then an EIR is required. A Negative Declaration is authorized when the Lead Agency determines that no substantial evidence exists supporting a fair argument of significant effect. A mitigated Negative Declaration applies when changes to the project or other mitigation measures are imposed which such that all potentially significant effects are avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. SB 919 adds to CEQA a definition of the term "substantial evidence" (subdivision (e) , Section 21080) . Although this does not affect application of the fair argument standard, it provides the Lead Agency a means by which to gauge the quality of evidence discovered during its review of a project . Similarly, a court examining the actions of the Lead Agency now has a consistent standard by which to judge the quality of the evidence which was before the Agency. Pursuant to Section 21080, substantial evidence includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts . " It does not include "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. " Further, public controversy over the possible environmental effects of a project is not sufficient reason to require an EIR "if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" (Section 21082 . 2) . The conclusion by the CHC that the house' s historic significance was tied to its downtown location and symbolized the downtown' s once dominant role as a residential neighborhood is clearly an unsubstantiated opinion based on a social value which does not contribute to physical impacts on the environment. Under CEQA-It is an unacceptable argument. It is clear to me that the report done by Alexandra C. Cole was prepared under the proper guide lines as defined in CEQA. In using all available resources, including the city' s own administrative record, her report clearly has made all of her findings and recommendations for required action and mitigation measures based on "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. " Therefore, I am requesting that the City Council uphold this appeal and direct staff to prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with mitigation measures and not require an EIR for this pr t. Respectfully su mitt Jules Rogoff Appellant Title 14 Page 1 of 8 CEOAThe California Environmental Quality Act Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3.Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 6. Negative Declaration Process Sections 15070 to 15075 15070. Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration A public agency shall prepare or have prepared aproposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: (a)The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence,in light of the whole record before the agency,that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,or (b)The initial study identifies potentially significant effects,but: (1)Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by,or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur,and (2)There is no substantial evidence,in light of the whole record before the agency,that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Note:Authority cited: Section 21083,Public Resources Code;Reference: Sections 21064,21064.5, 21080(c),and 21082.1, Public Resources Code;Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988;Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court(1975)51 Cal.App.3d 400.. Discussion:Section 15070 substantially mirrors the language of Public Resources Code section 21080 (c). Under subsection(a)a Negative Declaration shall be adopted when the Initial Study shows that the project may not have a significant effect on the environment. Subsection(b)states that the Negative Declaration shall be adopted when two conditions are met:(1) the project or plan or proposals as agreed to by the applicant prior to public review of the proposed Negative Declaration has been revised to avoid significant effects or the effects have been mitigated 4'�4 down to a point where the effects are clearly insignificant and(2),there is no substantial evidence WV before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect. Subsection(b)reflects the concept of the"Mitigated Negative Declaration"as defined in Public Resources Code section 21064.5.A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not intended to be a new kind of document. It is merely a Negative Declaration prepared in a slightly different situation.The Guidelines would continue to give Lead Agencies the option of allowing applicants to modify their projects so that the Lead Agency could make a finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. The portion of this section dealing with the Mitigated Negative Declaration provides efficiencies in the process where the applicant can modify his project to avoid all potential significant effects.The applicant can avoid the time and costs involved in preparing an EIR and qualify for a Negative Declaration instead.The public is still given an opportunity to review the proposal to determine http://www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cega/guidelines/art6.html 4/2/2007 C.Fair Argument Test The original determination made on the basis of the initial study whether to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an EIR is subject to the "fair argument" test(Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U.C. Regents(1993) 47 Ca1.4th 376). In other words, if a fiir argument can be made on the basis of"substantial evidence" in the record that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact- even if evidence also exists to the contrary -then an EIR is required. A Negative Declaration is authorized when the Lead Agency determines that no substantial evidence exists supporting a fair argument of significant effect.A MND applies when changes to the project or mitigation measures reduce the significant effects to a less than significant level or avoid them all together. According to §21080(d)and (e), if there is substantial evidence of significant effects, even though the full analysis has yet to be prepared, an EIR is required. This provides the Lead Agency a means by which to gauge the quality of evidence discovered during its review of a project. Similarly,a court examining the actions of the Lead Agency now has a consistent standard by which to judge the quality of the evidence which was available. c) keai -mclades✓-facts;reasmable asswnptimwpredkated'apoirfaets,and - { expert opinion supported by facts." It does not include "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated !opinion or narrative,evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or "economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by,physical impacts on the environment."Further,public controversy over the possible environmental effects of a project is. ,not sufficient reason to require an EIR "if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole i befo thg Eeath°. __. -- mzay_have°4 ig ifi 111 r=n] (§ 21082.2). D. Required Contents-Project Mitigation and Revision There are two tests for determining whether a MND can be used. These criteria-distinguish,a.. MND from a Negative Declaration 1. All potentially significant effects of the project can and will be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level by project revisions or other requirements imposed on the project A MND is based on the premise that the project will not result in a significant effect. For example, suppose a project would increase traffic from Level of Service (LOS) B to LOS D where local guidelines have identified LOS D as the threshold for significance. If mitigation can reduce the impact to LOS C,then the project's impact would not be considered significant 2. The project changes and mitigation measures must be agreed to or made by the proponent before the draft MND is circulated for public review and comment In other words, the draft document must reflect the revised project, with changes and mitigation measures.A few agencies require proponents to submit a new project description before the draft MND is released. This procedure is not required by CEQA if the proponent has otherwise agreed to or made the revisions and mitigations. However, requiring or allowing an applicant to adopt prospective mitigation measures which are to be recommended in a finure study, but which are not incorporated into the project before the proposed MND is released for public review, is not allowed (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,supra). 5 13. Condition: Excellent X wod fair_ Deteriorated No iuny_t 'n existence 14. Alterations: 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings_Densely built-up Residential _Industrial _Commercial X Other: . - - 16. Threats to site: None known%Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism Public Works project Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? Yes Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19.. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.) This typical Craftsman bungalow on the corner of Nipomo and Marsh seems to have been built in 1919 by Fred Logan, and a garage added in 1920. California born Fred Logan, carpenter, lived at 657 Marsh (around the corner) in 1919. The property (formerly a livery and .stable owned by R.S. Brown) was purchased from Jennie Johnson in 1919. Later owners appearing on Deed records are Anton L. Gimmetti, 1925, and Lee R. Parsons in 1942. Mrs. Ivy Parsons, .artist and widow, was listed as occupant until her death in the mid 1970's. This bungalow is a good example of the Craftsman houses with its broad gabled roofs, front porches and exposed wood rafters. It has not been .substantially changed over the years. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets,roads, and prominent landmarks): 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture 1 Arts& Leisure Economic/Industrial —Exploration/Settlement. 1 Government .Military Religion Social/Education 21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews and their dates). Deed Title Records o 22. Date form prepared RA -1 J 1583 By Historic Res. Survey -Staff Organization City of San Luis -Obispo_ - Address: P.O. Box 321 City San_-Luis _Obispo Zip 93401 Phon4805) 541=1000" ' /'yl,9.vA EUiC C Retain this document for future Council meeting RECEIVED ZN6� 15' 200 7 APR 18 2007 67XA.1w yct-� Date, if agendized ,Co+vF.�L SLO CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Romero; April 16, 2007 Thank you for returning my call concerning the appeal of the CHC s decision requiring me to get an EIR for my project at 1204 Nipomo St. I am enclosing a copy of my appeal (in short form) for your review. As you can see, the appeal is based on legal issues found in the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA) and concerns regarding staffs injection of unsubstantiated claims in its report and presentation to the CHC. I hope you have an opportunity to review it prior to the May 15th Council meeting. Should you have any questions regarding the appeal, I would be happy to meet with you, at your convenience, to answer and discuss them with you. If you decide that you have adequate information and do not need to meet with me, I'll see you at the meeting on the evening of May 15th. I'll do my best to keep my presentation under the 10 minute allotment! S' erely, Julr# 440-4040 Cel Off -1010 Appeal of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Vote on March 26th. 2007 I am appealing the CHCs decision to require an EIR for the relocation of the Logan house from 1204 Nipomo St. to 464 Buchon St. for the following reasons: The staff report was in error which misled the CHC regarding this project. On page one (pg 1-1 of the staff packet) it states that the role of the CHC is to: "First determine if the historical significance of the Logan house will be maintained if it is removed from its historical location. " This statement was misleading to the committee. The location of the Logan house was never a factor in determining whether or not this house should be considered historic. The only criteria for inclusion onto the master list for historic properties, was its architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. When you use the term "historical location", it implies that its location is significant. During deliberations of the project by the committee, the focus of the discussion was on the existing location and what impact would result if moved from that site. Almost no discussion occurred about its architectural style. There was some discussion about the receiving site, but staff didn' t introduce the plot plan for the new site until well after the discussion started and was requested by the committee. The focus of the discussion should have been directed toward whether the receiving site was, with mitigation measures, acceptable, irrespective of its exiting site. Just before the vote, staff also told the committee it might consider another potential impact which could effect the CHC decision in moving the house from its original site. In question was the significance of the Parsons family living there because of their "prominent status" as business owners in the community. Again, this injection of an unsubstantiated claim added to the confusion of moving the house from its current location. No historical data exists in the cities historical resource file that the co-founder of San Luis Mill and Lumber (circa 1883) was a prominent business owner or was even alive at the time this house was built 35 years later. 1 It was stated in the Historic Resources Report prepared by Alexandra C. Cole on pg 6 (pg 1-13 of the staff packet) that: 6. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Its significance rests on it architectural merit as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow. She sites this conclusion based on the city' s own Historic Resources Survey. Staff. 1983. See attachment. The location of the house was omitted since no evidence exists in the historical record of any person or event of significant importance was associated with the house. In the technical advice series of CEQA and historical resources, the following is cited: "Current CEQA law provides that an EIR must be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued, on the basis of substantial evidence in the administrative record, that a project may have a significant effect on a historical resource." In this case, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that the Logan house location should be considered since it has no historical connection to the house either by an event or person. Therefore there is no argument. It goes on to say that: "A mitigated Negative Declaration may be used where all significant effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. For example, a mitigated Negative Declaration may be adopted for a project which meets the Secretary of Interiors standards for Rehabilitation and local historic preservation regulations, and so will not adversely affect the resource. " The resource is the structure. Our project is to rehabilitate and restore the Logan house as it was when built in 1917 . We want to move it back into its original context of a residential neighborhood surrounded by similar residences of the same era to once again be used by a family as it was originally intended. In Miss Cole' s report on pg. 8 (staff packet 1-15) she clearly explains all of the mitigation measures that we will undertake to assure that this project will be considered to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource i.e. the structure. I feel the committee was misled and somewhat confused by receiving inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about the historical significance of the Logan house location. Had the committee known that no substantiated or factual information existed in the city' s recorded data about the location, a mitigated negative declaration would have been granted as the only logical response to our request. In the law suit, Citizen' s Committee to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, it was confirmed that: "The lead agency must determine whether there is "substantial evidence" in the public administrative record to support a finding of significant effect. Substantial evidence is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21080 (e) as including "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts . " Unsubstantiated claims of historical significance do not require an EIR. " In closing, the following shows that the CHC did not follow the proper criteria for determining that this project would constitute a significant adverse impact under CEQA. This is called the Fair argument . The original determination made on the basis of the initial study whether to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an EIR is subject to the "fair argument" test (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U. C. Regents (1993) 47 Cal . 4th 376) . In other words, if a fair argument can be raised on the basis of "substantial evidence" in the record that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact - even if evidence also exists to the contrary - then an EIR is required. A Negative Declaration is authorized when the Lead Agency determines that no substantial evidence exists supporting a fair argument of significant effect. A mitigated Negative Declaration applies when changes to the project or other mitigation measures are imposed in which all potentially significant effects are avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. SB 919 adds to CEQA a definition of the term "substantial 1 evidence" (subdivision (e) , Section 21080) . Although this does not affect application of the fair argument standard, it provides the Lead Agency a means by which to gauge the quality of evidence discovered during its review of a project . Similarly, a court examining the actions of the Lead Agency now has a consistent standard by which to judge the quality of the evidence which was before the Agency. Pursuant to Section 21080, substantial evidence includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. " It does not include "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. " Further, public controversy over the possible environmental effects of a project is not sufficient reason to require an EIR "if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" (Section 21082 . 2) . The conclusion by the CHC that the house' s historic significance was tied to its downtown location and symbolized the downtown' s once dominant role as a residential neighborhood is clearly an unsubstantiated_ opinion based on a social value which does not contribute to physical impacts on the environment. Under CEQA-It is an unacceptable argument. It is clear to me that the report done by Alexandra C. Cole was prepared under the proper guide lines as defined in CEQA. In using all available resources, including the city' s own administrative record, her report clearly has made all of her findings and recommendations for required action and mitigation measures based on "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. " Therefore, I am requesting that the City Council uphold this appeal and direct staff to prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with mitigation measures and not require an EIR for this project. Respectfully submitted, Jules Rogoff Appellant cc. Mayor Dave Romero Page 1 of 2 CGuncil,SloCity From: Dean Miller[demiller9903@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 5/13/2007 5:07 PM To: Hook,Jeff Cc: Council, SloCity Subject: "Logan House"appeal Attachments: RECEIVE D Jeff, MAY j 4 2007 In looking over the agenda for the upcoming Council meeting I see the SLO CITY CLERK applicants appeal of the CHC"Logan House" decision continues to mis-attribute the name of the house at 1204 Nipomo to the Logan Bros. As I mentioned several weeks ago I believe the proper attribution for the house is to Lee R. Parsons who built it in 1917. I feel this should be corrected for two reasons; 1) use of erroneous fact in historic discussions harms the integrity of the planning process in a general sense. RED FILE 2)The Logan brothers did not contribute to the historic or cultural MEETING AGENDA fabric of the City to the degree that the Parson's family has over the DATE-6-IsLwVITEM #29 last one hundred years. There are two building permits in the City of San Luis Obispo's Building Permits (1906 -1937) archived in the Special Collections, Kennedy Library @ Cal Poly. Both pertain to Block 11, lot 6. One was granted to Fred & Frank Logan to build a one story, "wood & plaster" residence costing $2000 in Feb. 1919. A preceding permit was issued to LLee R. Parson for a "frame construction", "dwelling", costing $2200 on COUE:1D CDD DIRFeb. 19th, 1917. FIN DIREEl FIRE CHIEFIn a conversation with Gerard Parsons he affirmed that his dad built CLERe PW DIRthe house at 1204 Ni omo in 1917, the ear before he was born in 1918. POLICE CHFP Y REC DIRIt is his recollection that the Logan Bros. built one or two houses adjacent to the family home, on Marsh St. He does not recall with i UTIL DIR certainty if the office of Dr. Rudolph A. Poe at 657 Marsh is one of HR DIR their projects but he thinks it may be. Both of those permits correctly e.c C described construction on lot 6, Block 11 but only one describes * � construction of the house at the corner of Marsh and Nipomo, 1204 Com' Nipomo.The correct attribution should be (and to my knowledge has been, since at least 1973)the Parsons house. Austin Frank(A.F.) Parsons, C.E., was a surveyor whose signature occurs on old property maps of numerous county properties. His son, Lee Roy Parsons and his sons Gerard &Roy(?) Parsons were owners of the San Luis Mill for many years and supplied milled materials, moldings, windows and construction materials to the "trades" throughout the 20th Century until the Mill's purchase by Hayward Lumber. Lee Roy would therefor have known more than your ordinary craftsman about what would be considered "quality construction" and he and his sons were in a position to influence the built environment in the City and County. I feel correct attribution should be made here since, in addition to the characteristics of the style of architecture that have made this property significant to San Luis's "sense of place", people significant to San Luis Obispo's (City and County) sense of place are associated with this family home. Introduction of erroneous facts in the City's planning deliberations should, of course, be discouraged and eliminated if innocently introduced. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci 1/Inbox/%22Logan%20House%22%20appeal.EML?Cmd=... 5/14/2007 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Dean Miller https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci l/Inbox/%22Logan%2OHouse%22%20appeal.EML?Cmd=... 5/14/2007