Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-30-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Krieger) Meeting: f I lit/ • 7i ��' From: Davidson, Doug Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:36 AM Item:, To: Bergman, Katelin Subject: FW: ARCH -2193-2015. 71 Palomar Avenue Attachments: ARC SLO 0'-27-2017.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ARC correspondence for tonight's meeting RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 3 0 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Daniel Krieger [ Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 3:54 PM To: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Cc: ' Subject: Re: ARCH -2193-2015.71 Palomar Avenue Dear Doug, Would you please circulate the attached letter to the members of the ARC prior to Monday's meeting? Many thanks! Best wishes, DanK Daniel E. Krieger Professor of History, Emeritus California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Curator, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa Past President, California Mission Studies Association/California Missions Foundation Daniel E. Krieger, Ph.D. 662 Islay San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ( E-mail: Re: ARCH -2193-2015. 71 Palomar Avenue January 27, 2017 Architectural Review Commission Attn.: Doug Davidson City of San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Architectural Review Commissioners I regret that I am unable to attend Monday's meeting in person. I was a member of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee in 1983 when the 1895 Sandford House was placed on the Master List of Historic Resources. Members of the committee, including myself, contacted the Delta Tau House and surveyed its condition. We shared our concern for the preservation of the structure with city officials and staff. We were also concerned that the R-4 zoning would invite its destruction through "creative neglect." Some community members have tried to create an "alternative facts" narrative relating to including the Sandford House on the Master List of Historic Resources. This could not have occurred under the nascent CHC's mandate in the mid -1980's. We were clearly focused on saving the structure irrespective of the site itself. Thirty-four years later, little has been done to protect this late Victorian treasure. I am writing as a friend of that resource. The LR Development Group's proposal to relocate and rehabilitate the Sandford House appears to me the last, best chance for its preservation. While I would prefer to see the structure remain where it stands, the projected appearance in its new location would enhance the house's "gift to the street." I believe that the house would survive the short move. I am not an architectural historian but I have worked actively in historic preservation for more than forty years. I have seen a number of similar structures survive such moves. Some of these moves have involved what were once rural farm 19th/ early 20th century homes into our Old Town Neighborhood where they add to the existing, contributing resources. The planned use of the Sandford House as a community center avoids the dangers shared by many unoccupied historic homes endangered by vandalism and "squatter" fires. I am well aware of the controversies surrounding this project. I know that you will want to maintain the guidelines of the CHC Ordinance in protecting the long term preservation of the Sandford House. Very truly, b4 'r ke-,� Daniel E. Krieger, Ph.D. Professor of History, Emeritus California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA