HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-16 CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Schmidt 2)Lomeli, Monique
Subject: Cultural Heritage Committee -- today's meeting.
From: Richard Schmidt [
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:02 AM
To: Advisory Bodies
Subject: Cultural Heritage Committee -- today's meeting.
June 27, 2016 -- Re 71 Palomar
Dear CHC,
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUN 2 7 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Meeting.
Item: ..... r..... -
My previous lengthy letter explained background on cultural landscapes as it applies to 71 Palomar.
In this note, I want to emphasize that it appears you as a committee cannot make mandatory findings
required by city law to permit moving the Sandford House.
First, it is an indisputable fact that moving the house will disturb the relationships among the cultural
landscape's features, of which the house is a part.
The National Park Service guidance on this matter is clear: one should avoid "removing or relocating
buildings, structures, furnishings and objects, thus destroying or diminishing the historic relationship
between the landscape and these features." Violating that guidance is tantamount to making a site
ineligible for National Register recognition.
Second, our municipal code strongly discourages relocating historic features, and states that in order
to permit the applicant to move the Sandford House the Committee must make the following
findings, which it is clear you cannot make:
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"
You must then make at least one of the following findings, none of which can be made:
"4. The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's historic significance; or
"5. The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition} on the site and no other
measures for correcting the condition are feasible; or
"6. The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section 14.01.100(J) for demolition of
a historic resource."
do hope that you regard the law with the universal deference it deserves, and will agree that the
mandatory findings required by law simply cannot be made.
We must never ignore the law simply to suit the whim of a designer who prefers not to treat
this unique historic site with the respect and dignity it deserves and his profession requires of
him. The law is the law, and it applies to all.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt