HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-16 CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Cooper)Lomeli, Monique
RECEIVED
Subject: RE: 71 Palomar CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Meeting–LU-1-9- 110
MAR 2 4 2016
From: Allan Cooper [mallto:allancoo a mail.com] Item:
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:19 PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Cohen, Rachel
Subject: 71 Palomar
Dear Rachel -
Would you kindly forward this letter to the CHC before
their next meeting? Thanks!
- Allan
To: Cultural Heritage Committee Members
Regarding: 71 Palomar
From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Rachel Cohen did not include mention in her staff report how 71 Palomar's historic
significance would be materially impaired by relocating it. This appears to me to be a huge
omission. As you know, relocation of historic properties eliminate their eligibility to be
placed on the National Register, materially impairs their significance and is "the least
preferred preservation method". Applied Earthworks initially states that the property
"retains integrity of location".
Nevertheless, Applied Earthworks minimizes the impact of its relocation by stating that the
historic property's new setting will "preserve its prominence". I beg to differ. Reducing the
lot size surrounding this 1895 property from 1.17 acres to 0.33 acres will not preserve the
setting, particularly as the proposed high density housing will be separated from this
historical structure by only 20 feet.
Knowing that it is not in your purview to certify the Initial Study, I would like to nevertheless
emphasize that this study is deeply flawed. Under "Repositioning", the Initial Study states:
"The historic character of the subject property is expressed today in the prominence of the
Sandford House within the parcel." But then the study goes on to cite Applied Earthworks'
claim that this property will remain just as prominent albeit on a cramped parcel one-
quarter its original size. Not only have the transportation impacts been minimized in
Mitigation Measure T-1 (see below) but the Serrano, Palomar and Broad Street residents
have been left out of developing, in cooperation with City Staff, a a traffic calming plan.
have also included below, for your information, relevant passages related to the
relocation of historically listed properties. I urge you consider relocation only as a last
resort. Please recommend that the Sandford House remain in its current location and that
the proposed housing be sited more than 20 feet from the footprint of this historic property.
Thank you.
National Register of Historic Places
Moving a structure would destroy any chance preservationists have for placing the structure on the National
Register of Historic Places.
California Register of Historical Resources
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical
resource would be materially impaired.
City of San Luis Obispo
3.1.4 Environmental review. Development projects on properties that contain listed historic resources, and on
properties located within historic districts shall be considered environmentally sensitive pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and require at a minimum, an initial study to evaluate the project's
potential effects on the resource unless the Director determines the project:
(a) does not involve:
1) a significant change to the exterior (or interior, subject to Section 3.4.5) of a historic structure, or
2) relocation or demolition of part or all of a historic or potentially historic structure, or
3) grading on a listed historic property or identified archaeological site.
58. Threatened Resource: properties or resources at risk of loss of architectural, cultural or historic value due to
physical alteration, relocation or demolition.
B. Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of Historic Resources, or those that
are determined by the CHC or the [Community Development] Director to be potentially historic, is the least
preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with goals and
policies of the General Plan, and applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,
and:
(1) The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic
value of the resource; and
(2) Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the historic district or neighborhood, or
surrounding properties where the resource is located or at its proposed location, and
(3) The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership, long term lease or similar
assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the Director's approval, and
(4) The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's historic significance; and; OR
(5) The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site and no other measure for
correcting the condition are feasible, OR
(6) The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section 14.01.1000) for the demolition of a historic
resources [Economic Hardship provision]
Applied Earthworks:
Location: "The Sandford House is located where it was historically established, outside the boundaries of the City of
San Luis Obispo until incorporation into city limits in the 1950s. The property retains integrity of location."
Setting: "...Since the 196os, urbanization has slowly enclosed the property with 1970s -era apartment buildings to the
north and west and modern single-family residences to the east and south. The size of the property itself has also
been altered from 15.8o acres to today's 1.17 acres. The integrity of setting is significantly diminished."
Initial Study:
Repositioning:
The original setting of the site has experienced significant change since construction of the house in 1895 with the
development of Palomar Avenue, Luneta Drive and the adjacent homes and apartments. The historic character of
the subject property is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. The Applied
Earthworks evaluation found that the proposed repositioning of the house on the site will preserve the
prominence of the structure on the site and its historic orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of
San Luis Obispo. The Sandford House will retain the ability to convey its historical significance and repositioning of
the Sandford House will not materially alter the physical characteristics or immediate surroundings such that its
historic significance would be materially impaired.
Comment:
Reduction of the site setting from 1.17 acres (50,965 sq.ft.) down to a parcel approximately 120 ft. x 120 ft. (14,400
sq.ft.), or 28% of its original size, will "materially alter the physical characteristics and immediate surroundings"
of the property.
Transportation:
Less Than Significant Impact:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Comment:
Broad Street is slated to become a "bike boulevard". The R-1 neighborhoods of Serrano, Palomar and Broad are
heavily travelled by pedestrians.
No Impact:
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
No Impact:
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
According to the City's traffic model, the project is estimated to generate 276 daily trips and 27 pm peak hour
trips. These vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity
to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service the project location
makes it a prime candidate to take advantage of public transportation services located along Ramona Drive and
Broad Street.
Mitigation Measure T -i: The project shall install a series of traffic calming measures on Luneta Dr.
designed to maintain residential speeds at or below 25 mph.
Monitoring Plan, T 1: A plan dictating traffic calming measures shall be developed in cooperation with City
Staff and Luneta Dr. Residents via a series of meetings and approved by the Public Works director or their
designee. Those approved traffic calming measures shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed
by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits. City staff will periodically monitor traffic conditions on Luneta and Ramona to ensure
compliance.
Comment:
Why are the Serrano, Palomar and Broad Street residents not also involved?
City of San Diego:
Proposed relocation, substantial alteration and demolition are discouraged, and would require a historical Site
Development Permit in accordance with San Diego Municipal Code Section 126.0502(d)(E) (PDF) to be approved
by the Planning Commission with a recommendation from the Historical Resources Board. - See more at:
httus: //www.sandiego.90v/clanning/programs/historical/fao /benefits#sthash.vkllGl Rv.dtluf
Santa Cruz County:
In addition to these requirements, no relocation or demolition as described in SCCC 16.42.030(C)(1) or (C)(2)
shall occur unless a historical documentation report is submitted to and approved by the Historic Resources
Commission concurrent with the review of the historic resource preservation plan.
City of Santa Rosa:
DESIGN GUIDELINES - RELOCATION
Generally, the relocation of a historic building should be avoided. Moving a historic structure always negates its
integrity of site and setting and therefore the owner would lose the ability to use a possible historic tax credit which
may become available in the future. However, relocation of a building to the extent that it is practical may be a
desirable alternative to demolition.
m