HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/1993, Item 3 - 40 Prado demolition ��IIiuIIpNI�IIIIII��I III MEETI 0 TE:
city o1" san tins oBIspo 5�.�9s
Oft COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBERS
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director r,. h
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Determination of which action takes precedence in a case where the Architectural Review
Commission's action to require structures to be retained in a project at 40 Prado Road
conflicts with a preliminary development plan approved by the City Council (GP/R 1516;
PD 1517).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Allow main house to be relocated to another site and other structures to be demolished with
the following conditions:
■ Photo-documentation, as well as additional historical research, would be
required prior to issuing demolition permits consistent with the adopted
negative declaration for the office project;
■ The property owner would advertise the availability of the house.to the public.
If no one was willing to move the house within 90 days of initial notice of
availability, then the Chief Building Official would have the authority to issue
a demolition permit for the house.
BACKGROUND
Previous Review
A turn-of-the-century house and other accessory buildings of various ages exist on the
property at 40 Prado Road (north side of Prado Road,just east of Elks Lane). Because the
buildings have become an attractive nuisance, a request for demolition of all buildings was
filed. On March 15, 1993, the request for demolitions was denied by the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC). In denying the demolitions, the ARC required that the
buildings be retained on the site. The 3-15-93 ARC report is attached to provide the
Council with additional background information including the Cultural Heritage
Committee's (CHC's) review of and staffs evaluation of the demolition requests.
On September 1, 1992, the City Council approved a general plan amendment and PD-
rezoning for the 40 Prado Road property. With approval of the PD-rezoning, the Council
approved a preliminary development plan for a phased regional office complex which did
not include the retention of the existing structures. The initial environmental study for the
project incorporated an archaeological investigation which discussed and evaluated existing
structures at the site. The initial study concluded that the structures were not unique, but
included mitigation that the structures be inventoried and photographed prior to their
demolition because of their age. A negative declaration was adopted including this
mitigation measure along with the PD-rezoning.
���� i�HiIUIIIII�I�ialIIUIII MY Of San tins OBISPO -
MON COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Demolition Policy Issue
Page 2
Situation
Final development plans for the office project have been filed. Staff is faced with resolving
the processing dilemma that the two actions described above present. The Council
approved a development plan showing that the existing structures would be removed, and
the ARC has required that the structures be retained. This fundamental conflict needs to
be resolved before staff can provide direction to the applicant regarding the submitted
development plans for the office project. In other words, will the City require the structures
to be incorporated into the project or can they be demolished or relocated?
The issue is further complicated by the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC) which indicated that the structures could be relocated - a
recommendation that is different and less restrictive than the ARC's action. In addition,the
Chief Building Official has determined that all the structures are structurally unsound and
pose a safety hazard.
Since the ARC's review of the project, a City resident has indicated that he is interested in
moving the house to a compatible neighborhood within the City limits. The action of the
ARC to require all structures to be retained on site may have been different if the
relocation option appeared more viable then.
DISCUSSION
This section is organized to include issue statements followed by related discussion to assist
the Council in focussing on the overall processing question.-
Issue
uestion:Issue No. 1
The ARC's action to require the buildings to be retained on the site is inconsistent with the
approved preliminary development plan and different from the CHC's recommendation
(allowed buildings to be relocated to another site). The issue of demolition needs to be
resolved before the final development plan (ARC plans) for the office project is reviewed.
This is the fundamental question that needs to be resolved before staff can continue
processing plans for the development project. A memorandum is attached from the City
Attorney which indicates that the City Council has the ultimate authority to make a
determination contrary to a previous action or plan approved by the Council. Therefore,
the matter has been transmitted to the Council.
With evaluation of a project by several reviewing bodies,there is the potential for conflicting
direction or requirements: However;it is importantrto,remember that the approval of the
preliminary development plan does imply that the applicant has a right to develop the
— property in substantial compliance with that plan. Extensive staff time goes into the
evaluation of the preliminary development plan to complete the required environmental
3-
����i�i►�IIIIIIUI�hAI��d�U city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Demolition Policy Issue
Page 3
studies and staff reports for the Planning Commission and the City Council. In the
particular case of this project, there was analysis provided in the environmental document
regarding existing buildings, although specific review of the demolitions by the ARC and
CHC had not occurred.
Issue.No. 2
If the rationale for finding the structures significant is their context, then how is that
significance of setting retained with development of a modern office complex on the same
property?
The CHC indicated that the hay barn, water tower and house were the most important
structures on the site and were .historically significant because they reflected the
development of San Luis Obispo in the early 20th century. The CHC also indicated that
the structures could be relocated to another site.
The existing ARC guidelines provide the Commission with the ability to require the
submittal of replacement plans prior to approving the demolition of significant structures.
The requirement is intended to insure that any replacement structures are at least as
compatible with the neighborhood as the strictures to be demolished. As was pointed out
in the attached ARC staff report, the review for neighborhood compatibility at this remote
location outside of a historical district is not particularly relevant. Beyond this, staff
questions how retention of the structures in the office project would preserve the historical
context of the setting.
Issue No. 3
If the buildings are deteriorated or even dilapidated, can we force the property owner to
repair them? When do we rind that the costs associated with remodeling are unreasonable?
The memo attached to the ARC staff report from Chief Building Official Tom Baasch
indicates that on-site buildings are structurally unsound and pose a safety hazard: He
indicates that a portion of the house's foundation has failed and that underfloor members
have extensive dryrot and termite damage. The concerns of the Building Official also raises
questions for the viability of incorporating the structures into the project because of their
deteriorated condition.
Conclusion
This report was prepared to get specific direction from the Council on this particular
demolition request because of the processing dilemma that has been created. In updating
the ARC guidelines, a more in-depth analysis of demolition issues and processes will be
prepared.
- 3-3
Demolition Policy Issue
Page 4 -%
ALTERNATIVES
1. Endorse the ARC's action requiring that the structures be retained on the site and
incorporated into the project.
2. Continue consideration with direction to staff on specific information that is needed
to render a decision.
Attached:
Memo from City Attorney dated 3-29-93
ARC follow-up letter dated 3-18-93
3-15-93 ARC minutes
3-15-93 ARC report and attachments
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
March 29, 1993
To: Councilman Romero MAR J O 199j
PROK: Jeff Jorgensen 'CRYO �NLUisCSlsao
rry ,. �.
sUBJECT: ARC Review of Demolitions
_This is in response to your March 26, 1993 memorandum concerning
ARC review of demolitions. The specific authority of the ARC is
found in Chapter 15.36 of the Municipal Code. (A copy with the
relevant provisions highlighted is attached for your information. )
With respect to the 40 Prado Rd. Project, there appear to be at'
least two primary questions. The first is the actual condition of
-. the structure. The Chief Building Official feels that it is in a
dangerous condition. The Community Development Department does not
feel the structure is worth preserving. .Apparently the ARC feels
otherwise. It would seem that an accurate assessment of the
building's condition should be a key element in any analysis. Even
assuming for the sake of. argument that the structure is sound and
worth preserving, the second primary question is whether it must be
retained on site or may be relocated somewhere else. Closely
related is whether the ARC has the authority to impose a
requirement that the building remain on site, particularly in a
case such as this where the Council has already approved a
development plan which does not include the structure. My initial
analysis is that the ARC does not have such authority and that any
determination inconsistent with the previously approved plan would
have to be made by the City Council. You may wish to explore this
further with the Community Development Department, as I understand
they may appeal the ARC action.
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to.
contact me at your convenience.
JGJ/sw
cc: City Council
John Dunn
Arnold Jonas
Ron Whisenand
Pam Ricci
15.,6.120—15.36.150
twenty feet from public property lines, adequate 1536.140 License requirements.
protection shall be provided for pedestrians and Contractors engaged in demolition and mov-
publie property,to the satisfaction of the building ingwork within the city shall have a valid Califor-
official. (Ord. 920 § 2 (pan), 1982: prior code § nia State Contracting License and a city business
8800.11) license.
Exception: One story, wood fume buildings,
1536.120 Damage to public property. maybe demolished by the owner thereof,provid-
Asacondition ofobtaining aper-mit todemol- ing the distance from the public sidewalk or
ish; remove or move any building, structure or right-0f--way to the building is equal to one-half
utility, the permittee assumes liability for any the height ofthe building measured to the highest
damage to public properly occasioned by such point on the roof,ortenfeet.whicheverisgreater.
moving, demolition, or removal operations. (Ord.956 § 1 (part), 1983: prior code§ 8800.14)
Applicants for demolition permits shall provide
information and plans when requested, for pro-
tection of public property. Information (and Article II. Demolition to Buildings
plans) shall be specific as to type of protection,
structural adequacy and location. Approval to 1536.150 Permit—Required—Application—
use or occupy public property shall be obtained Contents—Processing
before proceeding with demolition work. (Prior procedure—Expiration.
cM § 8800.12) A. Permit Required. The work of demolish-
ingany building or structure shall not commence
15:36.130 Disconnecting service lines. until a permit has been issued by the building
-A: Electrical Service.The power to all electric official in accordance with the provisions set
seIMce lines shall be shut-off and all'such lines forth in other portions of this chapter.
cut or disconnected outside the property line B. Application for Permit.All applications for
before demolition or moving work is com- permits to wreck,demolish.or raze a building or
menced. Prior to the cutting of such lines, the structure shall be made to the building official
property owner or his agent shall notifv and and every application shall state:
obtain the appro�al of electric service agency. 1. The precise location of the building or
B. Other Service. All gas,water,steam,store structure to be wrecked:
and sanitary sewers,or other service lines shall be 2. The type of equipment to be used to wreck
shut-off and capped at the property line or curb the building;
before demolition or moving work is com- 3. The length, width, height and principal
menced.Priorto the shutting off ofsuch lines,the materials or construction of the building;
property owner shall obtain the approval of the 4. The length of time required to'cornpletethe
utility service agency or department involved• proposed work:
C. Temporary Service. If it is necessary to D. The name and address of the owner(s) of
maintain any power,water,or other lines during the building;
demolition or moving, such lines shall be tem- 6. Proof of permission from the owner(s)and
porarily relocated or protected on the satisfac- other vested interests to do the proposed work;
tion of the construction regulations division and 7. Method(s) of demolition.
utility agency and in accordance with all applica- C. Procedure for Processing Application for
ble ordinances. (Prior code§ 8800.13) Demolition Permits. Upon receipt of a demoli-
tion permit application for a primary structure
located on a property listed on the Inventory of
351 assn Luis Obispo 7.87)
_ . . . 3•-4
I
15.36.150
Historical Resources, as may be amended from b. Upon making this determination, the
time to time by council,the building ofncia]shaR architectural review commission will direct the
inform the applicant that provisions of subset- building official toissue the demolition permit.If
tion D of this section shall apply. this determination cannot be made,the demoli-
Upon receipt of an application for a demoli- tion permit shall not be issued.
tion permit for structures on properties not listed 4. Exceptions. Upon determination by the
onthe Inventory of Historical_.Resources, the building official that the structure to be demol-
building official shall refer the application to the ished is a dangerous building, as defined in the
architectural review commission for placement Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
on thiir next open agenda. Buildings, the building official may, with the
=1'Nonsignificant Structures. If the demoli- community development director's concur-
tion project is not in conjunction with a replace- rence, issue the demolition permit without the
mentproject and the ARC cannot determineany architectural review commission review and
historical, architectural or aesthetic significance findings set forth in this subsection. Accessory
to the community,the ARC shall refer the matter buildings, sheds, garages and similar buildings
back to the building official with direction to will not need architectural review commission
issue the demolition permit:The demolition per- review
mit shall be effective on date of issue. D. Demolition of Historical Resources.
s 2; Significant Structures. 1. ARC Review Required. A complete.
;a:: If the structure to be demolished is deter- application forthe demolition ofa primary struc-
rnined by the ARC to have historic,architectural ture located on a property listed on the Inventory
or aesthetic significance to the community, the of Historical Resources shall include architec-
ARC.shall direct the applicant to submit plans aural plans for a replacement structure or strut-
for ARC review pursuant to subdivision 3 of this tures. The Demolition Permit Application and
subsection. the plans for the replacement structure or struc-
b. Within ten days of the ARC determination tures shall be reviewed and acted on by.the Archi
J i :.
that an. application to dernolish involves asignifi- tectural Review Commission(ARC).
cant structure,the city clerk shall place an adver- 2. Public Notice.Within ten days of receipt of
tisement in a newspaper of general circulation in a complete demolition permit application, the
the city, announcing the proposed demolition. city clerk shall place an advertisement in a news-
The ad shall show the location of the structure on paper of general circulation in the city,announc-
a vicinity map with the street address. The city ing the proposed demolition. The ad shall show
clerk shall also, within the aforementioned ten the location of the structure on a vicinity map
days, notify by first-class mail, any persons or with the street address. The city clerk shall also,
organizations that have asked to be notified of within the aforementioned ten days, notify by
application for demolition permits. first-class mail,any persons or organizations that
_. 3._Findings Required. have asked to be.notifred of application for dem-
a. When a significant structure is proposed for olition permits.
demolition, plans for its replacement shall be 3. Findings Required.To approve the demoli-
submitted to architectural review commission tion permit, the ARC must determine that:
for'review and approval prior to the issuance of a a. The proposed replacement structure is as,
demolition permit. The architectural review or more, compaiible with neighboring develop-
commission must determine that the proposed ment than the existing structure consistent with
replacement structure is as,or more,compatible ARC guidelines;and t
with'neighboring development than the existing b. (1)The condition of the structure to be
stricture,consistent with ARC guidelines. demolished poses a threat to the health,safety or :}
352
lSan Luis Obispo 7•S71
15.36.160-15.36.170
welfare of community residents or people living into the storage space before commencing the
orworkingon or nearthe site,or(2)the applicant removal of walls and floors in the story next
has demonstrated that it is financially infeasible below. This requirement shall not prohibit the
to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the his- demolition of.a structure in sections if means are
toric nature of the site. taken to prevent injury to persons or damage to
4. Exceptions.Exceptions to this section shall: property.The use of other methods are permitted
be as presented in subsection C4 of this section. when approved by the building official.
E. Bond. As a condition for issuing a.permit B. Protection of Openings.All floor openings
to demolish a building or structure,the applicant and shafts not used for material chutes, shall be
shall provide the city with surety bonds as fol- floored over or enclosed with guardrails and toe-
lows: boards.
On all demolition projects, a cash deposit, C. Protection of Pedestrians. On all demoli-
certificate of deposit or bond payable to the city, tion projects,where the distance from the public
in'an amount set by the building official as a property line to the building is less than the
reasonable estimate for the guarantee set forth height of the buiding being demolished, there
herein,but not less than one thousand dollars or shall be provided, on or adjacent to the public
twenty percent of the value of the demolition, sidewalk, pedestrian protection as set forth in
contract price,whichever is greater,to guarantee Chapter 44 of the Uniform Building Code,latest
tfie'dompletion of the demolition, removal of all edition.(Prior code § 8810.2)
debris,cleanup of the site,erection of barricades
when required and filling of depression below 1536.170 Removal of materials.
adjacent grade. A. Through Chutes. Materials shall not be
Exceptions: dropped by gravity to any point I.zng outride the
1. On wood frame, one and two story single- exterior walls of the building except through
family or two-family residential buildings, the enclosed wooden or metal chutes. )
city building official may reduce the amount of Exception: Where the distance from the city
the cash bond to not less than five hundred dol- property line or sidewalk to the building is equal
lars to or greater than the height of the demolition
2. On single-story structure not exceeding five ;work,materials may be dropped by gravity to the
hundred square feet, the building official may ground provided dust control is maintained in
reduce the amount of the cash bond to two hun- accordance with the provisions of other portions
dred fifty dollars. of this chapter.
3. NO bondvall be required where the demoli- B. Through Floor Openings. If debris is
tion is permitted as part of a redevelopment dropped,through holes in the floor without the
project.(Ord. 1086 §2 Ex.B, 1987;Ord.956 § 1 use of chutes,the total area of the hole cut in any
(part), 1983; prior code § 8810.1) intermediate floor (one which lies.between the
floor that is being demolished and the storage
1536.160 Methods. floor) shall not exceed twenty-five percent of
A. General. Except for the tuning of holes in such floor area.
floors forchutes and holes through which to drop C. Control of Dust. All dust caused by mate-
materials, preparation of storage space, and rials dropped through chutes, floor openings or
other necessary preparatory work,demolition of by other methods of removal,shall be controlled
'Exterior walls and floor construction shall begin in accordance with subsection E of Section
at the top ofthe structure and proceed downward 15.36.090.
"and inward, and each story of exterior wall and D. Building Rubble and Debris. All building
floor construction shall be removed and dropped rubble and debris shall be.removed from the
353 iSan Luis Obispo 7.67) _.)
3--8
7
15.36.180-15.36.190
demolition site to an approved point of disposal. F. For the purposes of this section, certain
Exception:When requested for and approved words and their derivatives may be defined as
in advance by the council of the city, rubble and follows:
debris may be neatly piled and/or stacked on the 1. "Foundations" means the structure, usu-
site for eventual sale or salvage.The time allowed ally of concrete, resting on or in the ground,
for.on-site storage shall be established by the including the footing, on which a building is
council. erected.
r E. All foundations, concrete slabs and/or 2. "Foundation wall"means the walls ofcon-
building substructures shall be removed to at trete or masonry which support a building.
least thirty inches below grade. 3. "Footing" means a projecting course of
Exception: concrete placed under a foundation wall to dis-
1. Foundations, concrete slabs on grade and tribute and transmit loads directly to the soil or
building substrt:ctures may remain provided all the piles.
of the following conditions are met: 4. "Slab" means a flat piece of material, usu-
�a: A tentative redevelopment plan for the ally of concrete,placed on the ground for use u a
property is submitted and filed with the commu- building floor, patio, driveway, walk, ball court
nity development department; and/or similar uses.
b. Redevelopment of the property shall occur 5. "Substructure" means the foundation of a
within two years from the date the demolition building or structure including the piers and
permit is issued. A one-year extension may be piles. (Ord. 956 § 1 (part), 1983; prior code §
$ranted by the community development direr- 8810.3)
ton No additional extensions will be granted.
Requests for extensions shall be made thirty days 1536.180 Stairs and ]adders.
" prioi to expiration; All stairs and ladders shall be maintained in a
C. The property shall be maintained clean of safe condition and at least one stairway shall be
weeds and debris at all times, and shall be accessible as each floor is demo lished.(Prior code
screened to the satisfaction of the building of-11- § 8810.4)
tial;.
d. The owner(s)shall file,with the city,a writ- 1536.I90 Premises to be left in a clean,
ten guarantee, and a performance bond in the smooth condition upon completion.
amount of five thousand dollars to assure the Upon completion of the removal ofthe build-
removal of the foundation(s),slab(s)and/or sub- ing, structure or utility, by either demolition or
structure(s).The bond shall be for the two-year moving, the ground shall be left in a clean,
period and shall be extended when an extension smooth condition. Holes in the ground, base
-
meats or cellars, shall be filled with inorganic
oftime is granted;
e. The property shall be fenced when the material;provided, however,the top one foot of
building official determines a hazard would be fill shall be clean earth.The filling ofsucti excava-
c caused by allowing the foundation, slab or sub- tion may not be required when a building permit
structure to remain. has been issued for a new building on the site and
Exception: the construction thereof is to start within sixty
2. Foundations, concrete slabs on grade and days after the completion of demolition or mov-
building substructure may remain when the ingoperations.The holder of the building permit
rimoval thereof may endanger the structural shall provide a temporary barricade protecting
integrity of adjoining buildings. The use of this the excavation on all sides as specified by the
°.exception requires the erection of a solid six foot building official. Temporary barricades.may
~high fence,as a visual barrier. remain in position for a time not exceeding five
ISan Luis Obispo 7.57) 354
:_. -
3- 9
t
'il[��1NII������� �l�l��11111►1111�'lil�ji� _ tuis OBIScityO sAn
�
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 J
March 18; 1993
Mr. Warren T. Hamrick
641 Higuera 7--r'L200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 4-93: 40 Prado Road
A request to demolish a house and accessory structures
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting on March 15, 1993, denied the
demolition,requiring that the buildings be retained on the site with the following conditions:
a. The property owner shall secure the house to deter further deterioration, including
trimming overgrown vegetation around the house for better visibility.
b. Prior to site development, the property owner shall conduct additional historical
research to provide context, as a supplement to the existing archaeological
investigation, or as a part of any new historical/archaeological studies.
C. The property owner shall pursue a monitoring program for pre-historic or
archaeological artifacts as described in the archaeological investigation.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten days
of the date of this letter. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of
the commission.
Minutes of this meeting will be sent to you as soon as they are available.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
on d G. Whi enand
Development Review Manager
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V Telecommunications Device for the Deal (805) 781.7410.
i .
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, California
Regular Meeting - March 15, 1993
PRESENT: Commrs. Woody Combrink Madi Gates, Jim Homer, Curtis Illingworth,
Bruce Sievertson, and Chairman Mike Underwood
ABSENT: Commr. Allen Cooper
OTHERS
PRESENT. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, and Ron Whisenand, Development Review
Manager
PROJECTS:
1. ARC 4-93: 40 Prado Road. A request to demolish a house and accessary
structures; O-PD zone; Warren Hamrick, applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
commission approve the proposed demolitions based on findings and with conditions as
noted in the staff report.
Warren Hamrick, applicant, responded to the staff report, and indicated he was available
for questions from the commission. He noted that the property had been under its
present ownership for about a year and a half and that the site hasn't deteriorated much
in that time frame.
Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official, indicated that there had been no complaints or.
referrals on this property. He indicated that the Building Department's role is one of
mitigating safety hazards. He noted there were no ordinances which required repairs to
the structure. He talked about the building.code provisions relevant to this case.. He
noted there was a tremendous amount of termite damage and dry rot.
Chairman Underwood noted that the City of Boston has eminent domain procedures for
structures-that have been neglected. -
Commr. Illingworth indicated that because of the site's location, he could support staffs
recommendation.
In response to a question about relocating the house from Commr. Homer, Tom Baasch
indicated that the house is too unsound to relocate effectively.
1
1
ARC Minutes
March 15, 1993
Page 2
Commr. Combrink supported the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation.
Con=. Gates wanted to see the house incorporated into the office project. She
suggested reusing and saving materials that are architecturally interesting.
Chairman Underwood felt the structures were significant but would allow demolition
because they are a nuisance. He suggested incorporating elements of the existing
structure's architectural style into.the new building design. He would like to see the
commission's earlier comments forwarded to the City Council and incorporated into new
demolition guidelines.
Commr. Sievertson felt that the property owner was not taking responsibility for securing
the house. He felt that photo-documentation was not adequate mitigation.
Commr. Illingworth moved to approve the demolition of the farm house and water tower
structures with the finding that they are historically and architecturally significant with
the following conditions:
a. The buildings shall be photo-documented prior to their demolition.
b. Prior to demolition, the property owner shall conduct additional historical
research to provide context, as a supplement to the existing archaeological
investigation, or as a part of any new historical/archaeological studies.
and to approve the demolition of the other structures existing on the site based on the
finding that they are not historically, culturally or architecturally significant.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commr. Combrink moved to deny the demolition, requiring that the buildings be.
retained on the site with the following conditions:
a. The property owner shall secure the house to deter further deterioration,
including trimming overgrown vegetation around the house for better visibility..
b. Prior to site development, the property owner shall conduct additional historical
research to provide context, as a supplement to the existing archaeological
investigation, or as a part of any new historical/archaeological studies.
ARC Minutes
March 15, 1993
Page 3
C. The property owner shall pursue a monitoring program for pre-historic or
archaeological artifacts as described in the archaeological investigation.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
AYES: Combrink, Gates, Homer, Sievertson
NOES: Illingworth, Underwood
ABSENT: Cooper
The motion passed.
2. 1 ARC 24-93: 973 Foothill Boulevard. A request.for a new monument sign,
directory sign, and tenant signs for Foothill Square; C-N zone; JB Enterprises,
applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, noted that staff and the applicant need additional time to
review the sign proposal before coming to the commission. She indicated that staff
recommended that the commission continue the item to the April 5th meeting.
Commr. Sievertson moved to continue consideration of ARC 24-93 to the April 5, 1993, .
meeting.
Commr. Combrink seconded the motion.
AYES: Sievertson, Combrink, Gates, Homer, Illingworth, Underwood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cooper
The motion passed.
MINUTES
The minutes of February 16, 1993, were approved as written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM r ,
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner l'K MEETING DATE: March 1, 1993
FILE NUMBER: ARC 4-93
PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Prado Road
SUBJECT: Architectural review of the proposed demolition of an existing house and
other accessory buildings located on the north side of Prado Road,just east of Elks Lane.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve proposed demolitions based on findings and with conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant wants to demolish an existing house in deteriorated condition because it
has become an attractive nuisance to the property owner. A hay barn, water tower, three
sheds, pump/well house, chicken coup and garage are also proposed to be removed.
Previous Review
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed proposed demolitions on February 22,
1993 (see attached CHC minutes). The CHC took an action to recommend to the ARC
that the house, water tower, and hay barn are historically and culturally significant
because they reflect the development of San Luis Obispo in the early 20th century; and
that the structures.not be demolished but be relocated to another site. The CHC also
directed that the following measures be taken:
(a) The property owner shall secure the house to deter further deterioration, including
trimming overgrown vegetation around the house for better visibility.
(b) Prior to site development, the property owner shall conduct additional historical
research to provide context, as a supplement to the existing archaeological
investigation, or as a part of any new historical/archaeological studies.
(c) The property owner shall pursue. a monitoring program for pre-historic or
archaeological artifacts as described in the archaeological investigation..
The ARC reviewed the proposal on February 1, 1993 and continued action referring the
demolitions to the CHC. The Commission directed the CHC to review proposed-
demolitions
roposeddemolitions with the archaeological study• focussing on the cultural and historical
significance of the structures and setting (concerned with preservation of existing trees).
i
ARC 4-93
Page .2
Two members of the public were present and expressed concerns with proposed
demolitions (see attached 2-1-93 ARC minutes).
The preliminary development plan for a phased office complex on this site was approved
by the City Council on September 1, 1992. Schematic plans for the office complex were
submitted to the City on February 5, 1993.
Data Summary
Applicant/Representative: Warren T. Hamrick
Zoning: O-PD
Land Use Element Map: Office
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Site Description
The nearly level site is occupied by the house and accessory buildings near the southeast
corner. High-voltage transmission lines on towers cross the northern part of the site. The
remaining area is vacant, and has been used for non-irrigated field crops. Surrounding
- uses include the city corporation yard, drive-in theater, a residence, and service-
commercial uses. San Luis Obispo Creek channel lies, at its closest, about 150 feet to
the east.
Information on Existing Buildings
The farm house, built between 1890 and 1910, is considered to be Victorian Queen Anne
Cottage in terms of its architectural style. The house is not located in a historical district
or included on either the city's Master List of Historical Structures or the list of contributing
historical structures. The water tower is estimated to have been built about the same time
as the house because it has the same bevel siding. The house was later covered with
a second layer of siding so it no longer resembles the water tower. The other bindings
do not represent any signficant historic style and do not have any special period
indicators.
EVALUATION
1. What the ARC Guidelines Say:
Demolitions require approval of the ARC. The commission needs to determine whether
the structures to be demolished are "historically, culturally or architecturally significant".
If the commission finds that the structures are significant, then it may require that:
3;
• r
ARC 4-93
Page 3 �\
J
i
1. Require plans for a replacement structure be approved by the ARC prior to
issuance of a demolition permit. The Commission must find that the design of the
replacement structure is at least as compatible with the neighborhood as the
structure to be demolished; or
Schematic plans for a new office development on the site w71 soon be reviewed
by the ARC. The purpose of the ARC reviewing plans for a replacement structure
for a "significant" building being removed is to determine that 'The design of the
replacement structure is at least as compatible with the neighborhood as the
structure to be demolished." Given the remote location of the house outside of a
historical district, the review for neighborhood compatibility is not particularly
relevant.
2. If no replacement structure is planned, the existing structure must be retained or
relocated.
The CHC has recommended that the house be relocated. While staff supports the
idea of reuse of the house at another location, there are inherent difficulties in
conditioning and enforcing such a recommendation.
2. Previous Staff Recommendation: '
An attached archaeological study of the site was prepared in 1991 and was submitted
along with plans for the office complex. The study was incorporated by reference into the
initial environmental study for the office project. The study concludes that the farm house
is a good example of the Queen Anne Cottage architectural style of the 1890s, but is not
particularly unique. It recommends that photo-documentation of both the house and ,
water tower be done prior to demolition. This recommendation was incorporated into
project mitigation measures of the initial environmental study. Staff in the previous ARC
report had acknowledged that the house and water tower do have some historical and
architectural significance because of their age, but recommended that the demolitions be
approved with the reiteration of the condition for photo-documentation of the more
significant structures.
3. Chief Building Official Analysis:
The ARC commented at the 2-1-93 meeting about the relatively good condition of the
house given its neglect and openness to the elements. At the meeting, staff indicated that
the Chief Building Official would be contacted for a more detailed report on the condition
of the house in advance of the next meeting. A memo from Tom Baasch, the Chief
Building Official, is attached. Mr. Baasch concludes in his memo that;the structures are
structurally unsound. and provide an attractive nuisance and safety .hazard. He
ARC 4-93
Page 4
recommends that the structures be demolished and indicates that he will start
proceedings to do so.
The section on demolitions in the ARC Guidelines stipulates that:
"if a structure endangers life or property, the Chief Building Official may grant a
demolition review without ARC review."
The proposed demolitions were forwarded to the ARC prior to a detailed review of the
requests by the Chief Building Official. Therefore, even though the Chief Building Official
has the authority to grant a demolition permit for unsafe structures without ARC review,
the requests are again before the ARC for action since they were originally sent to the
ARC.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may approve or deny proposed demolitions or continue action with
direction. A denial action would likely,be appealed by the Chief Building Official.
RECOMMENDATION
1., Approve the demolition of the farm house and water tower structures with the finding
that they are historically and architecturally significant with the following conditions:
a. The buildings shall be photo-documented prior to their demolition.
b. Prior to demolition, the property owner shall conduct additional historical research
to provide context, as a supplement to the existing archaeological investigation, or
as a part of any new historical/archaeological studies.
2. Approve the demolition of the other structures existing on the site based on thefiinding
that they are not historically, culturally or architecturally significant.
Attached:
Vicinity Map
Approved preliminary development plan
- ARC Minutes of 2-1-93
Draft CHC Minutes of 2-22-93
Memo from Tom Baasch dated 3-5-93
Archeological Investigation
Photos of existing house & other buildings (originals available for viewing at meeting)
SJ':-';Ey DRIVE."
,
/ r/+ G/OS--10
•rte ! /%i•-.. :::::`:i:�`
� �C•?s';:::i'tii+i'Ci+i'i:`{ i l?'ilii :.•s,:,.h,. !
.7
I I
1
% '•%%:: "`:�i'::'i�:;':`.;�:::ti'i�iiv��::,i!:;:�:::ii��:'•;ii'i'ii:^..iy. / .l
! r.', .::.i•:•:C;:;::iii::;iti•'•:`:i: �:iiii::::::::.::.. :n:�ic�:::(y; %e(:j-r.��• i /%
I /
J
V'
!
_ •J
.:
:
!
f
%
/
/r
/
,Q. os1
/
s�
1
�z
i
5 .�
1
F.•
I r••• )
/
!
way
.y
2 �
!
/
v.
'ts
I • .s.
,
i
e
i
A
z.
I
R �
..: ..'
R / � ,:;;:'i:�:: ..s •..:::.: }s ••:iis:,:iiiiti^;:;!:.5%;::i."'ti?l':"•' I
!
5
/ !
0
i
kw URD
\ RAY O \,
r� i�,ti v ..r •.�,
P F i \
G-S-S i
57
� i
VICINITY MAP I ARC 4.93 NORTH
A _
40 PRADO. ROAD
3-/S
d}
illl ,lit!! 1I
e 1 ...]11rLLL i °`; o •�`J\.'� ,4�Ri a/^ „a.. �-y 1 _ p
QE
— T1
G`Y
1 .� IBJ:
i• t" T Y / i
•m at —1'�
21
� T . �. ! III_ ! •� g
1
M>^`o z a �o• 1
++i4V 1 G • •+! ��
4'
ARC Minutes
February 1, 1993
Page 5
7. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be designed and located to have minimal impact on
neighboring residences to the approval of staff.
8. Plant material shall be limited to native or naturalized species,which blend with
the color and texture of local hillside vegetation. Where highly visible from
outside the site, brightly colored plant material and extensive lawn areas shall be
avoided.
9. A detailed irrigation plan shall be approved by a registered soils engineer prior to
building permit issuance to ensure that proposed irrigation will not contribute to
surface soil slippage.
10. Revegetation matting shall be installed with the landscaping on all disturbed
slopes for the purpose of slope stabilization
11..K Small accent trees and large shrubs, 12 to 15 feet in height, shall be included in
7 the foundation planting near the base of the house (10 ft to 20 ft, away from
foundation) to the approval of staff. )
Commr.Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Sievertson, Cooper, Illingworth, Underwood
NOES: :None
ABSENT: Combrink, Gates, Homer
The motion passed.
Commrs. Gates returned to the meeting.
3. ARC "4-93: TO Prado Road. A request to demolish an existing house and other
accessory buildings; C/OS zone; Warren Hamrick, applicant.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
commission approve the proposed demolitions based on findings and with a condition as
nofed is the staff report.
i
ARC Minutes
February 1, 1993
-Page 6
Warren Hamrick, applicant, responded to the staff report and indicated that the
demolition was requested mainly for security reasons and not to accommodate future
development. He noted that troes will be retained on site.
Timothy Farrell objected to the demolition without a firm development plan. He felt
that the farmhouse should be saved with the development of the site. He noted that the
site'had never been surveyed. He noted that a Mr. Oliver, of Portuguese ancestry, had
owned the house.
Jeff Buchler, Prado Road resident, was concerned with the removal of the garden and
{suit trees. He felt the demolition should be revitwed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC).
Commr. Cooper asked if the owner bad considered repairs in order to continue using the
house as a rental.
Commr. Gates felt that the demolition should bedelayed until the site is closer to
development. She concurred that the CHC should review the site. She would like to see
the house incorporated into the project.
Commr. Sievertson wanted to see the archaeological report.
Commr. Illingworth also wanted input from the CHC.
Commr. Combrink could not-support the demolition and was concerned with. tree
removals.
Commr. Cooper wanted the CHC to review the demolition to shed more light on the
building's historical background. He felt the building should be brought up to habitable
standards. He thought the house was in excellent condition considering it's age.
Chairman Underwood also,wanted the CHC to review the request. He felt this house
should be considered an asset, rather than a liability.
Commr. Sievertson moved to continue consideration of the project with direction that
the Cultural Heritage Committee review the proposed demolition with the archaeological
study, focussing on the cultural and historical significant of the structures and setting.
Commr. Combrink seconded the motion.
ARC Minutes
February 1, 1993 —
Page 7 ,J
AYES: Sievertson, Combrink, Cooper, Gates, Illingworth, Underwood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Homer
The motion passed.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION .
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, indicated that the purpose of putting this item on the
agenda was to update the ARC on the status of the guidelines update and to review and
discuss the draft work program and work scope. The Commission supported the
workscope and discussed format and content issues. .
IvmNTUTES
The minutes of January 4, 1993, were approved as amended.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission scheduled for February' 16, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearin' Room
(Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Hook and
Pamela Ricci
Recording Secretaries
Draft
NUNUTES
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE CO.'%'LNIITTEE
Regular Meeting of February 22, 1993
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Hearing Room Y9.
ROLL CALL
Present: Victoria Wood, Denise Fourie, Dan Krieger, Jerry Michael, Leo Pinard,
Wendy Waldron.
Absent: Jack Lewis
Staff: Pam Ricci, .Associate Planner
APPROVAL OF NILN'UTES: On motion of Leo Pinard, seconded by Jerry Michael, the
'minutes of January 25, 1992 were approved as amended by unanimous voice vote.
DISCUSSION =NiS
1. Reauest to demolish a house and accessory buildings at 40 Prado Road. Applicant:
Warren T. Hamrick; O-PD zone (ARC 04-93).
Committee member Fourie stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest.
Warren Hamrick, applicant's representative, discussed the reasons why demolition was proposed
well in advance of developing the site -- liability was their main concern. He stated that he and
his client believe the house to be an attractive nuisance, and presented a list of properties in the
downtown area with similar architectural styles.
Dan Krieger explained that the house is located in an area originally known as "Portuguese
Flats", established in the late 1800s. Built during the boom times between 1.003 and 1907, the
house was first occupied by the Mello family and later, Walter Tanaka lived there: The
t property' was used in a film about Diamond Jim Brady. He felt that the house was not
particularly unique, but that not many,of this type were left in rural settings locally. He'd prefer
to see the house moved to an historical theme park than demolished.
Wendy Waldron felt the archaeological report was inconclusive, and that the site's history was
not well discussed. Its role in the socio-economic structure of the community needs to be
addressed. She stated that any archaeological/historical report should contain a complete history
of the site.
Mr. Krieger characterized the house as "workingman's farmhouse" (similar to the Bonetti/Long
Street Farmhouse).
a ,
CHC Minutes
Page 2
Leo Pinard felt that the house, hay barn, and water lower constitute an important cultural
resource, and the photo documentation provided doesn`t go far enough.
Victoria Wood appreciated Mr. Krieger's information on the site's history, and was concerned
about the possibility that the structures would be demolished in advance of a development
project..
Chairman Michael indicated he can see both sides of the issue, and would like the developer to
advertise for a period of at least one year to allow the house to be salvaged.
Victoria Wood liked Mr. Michael's idea of offerina the house for sale, especially in light of the
fact that the planned office development may be postponed indefinitely.
Leo Pinard moved action alternative 2 from the staff report, recommending that the structures
were historically significant and should remain in their present location.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Wendy Waldron moved that the commission recommend to the ARC that the house, water
tower, and hay barn are historically and culturally significant because they reflect the
development of San Luis Obispo in the early 20th century; and that the structures not be
demolished but relocated to another site. The CHC also recommends that measures be taken:
(a) The property owner shall secure the house to deter further deterioration, including
trimnung overgrown vegetation around the house for better visibility.
(b) Prior to site development, the property owner shall conduct additional historical
research to provide context, as a supplement to the existing archaeological
investigation, or as a part of any new historical/archaeological studies.
(c) The property owner shall pursue a monitoring program for pre-historic or
archaeological artifacts as described in the archaeological investigation.
Leo Pinard seconded the motion.
AYES: Waldron, Pinard, Krieger
NOES: Wood, Michael
ABSENT: Lewis, Fourie
The motion passed.
Chairman Michael explained that he did not support the motion because he was concerned with
number of recommended conditions and the difficulty of enforcing them. Ms. Wood felt that
CHC Minutes
Page 3
allowing the house to be moved was not consistent will, the committee's finding that the
structures were culturally and historically important because of their context and setting, and
thus, did not support the motion.
-2. Discussion of the Historical Innportance of Property at 1105 Georee Street. Devin
Gallagher, property owner; R-2 zone.
Devin Gallagher, 1105 George Street, stated the house was built in the early 1900s, and
explained its importance in the history of the City and its relationship to the development of the
railroad. He reviewed the painstaking rehabilitation process which was recently completed, and
shared a 1905 photograph of the City showing the house in its current location.
Chairman Michael complemented Dor. Gallagher on his information packet, and felt it was a
.helpful presentation.
Dan Krieger stated that he had worked with Mr. Gallagher on researching the history of the of
old.Telegrari Tribune building, located on Santa Barbara Street, in conjunction with its proposed
rehabilitation. He described the role of the railroad in the development of city neighborhoods
and. key historical figures involved. He considered the house to be culturally and historically
significant primarily because of its siting and context, and would give it a ranking of "5" in
terms of historical significance. It is an example of an turn-of-the-century, modest San Luis
Obispo family home. He added that Tom Hunt, who lives on Church Street, has information
on the family that lived in the house, and that a family member had worked for Southern Pacific
Railroad for 47 ;ears. He felt Devin had turned the house into a "living resource" which was
very light and airy.
Denise Fourie complimented the remodel, but would have liked to see greater attention paid to
original architectural detail. For example, she felt the metal windows detract from and change
the character of the house; and the roof treatment is of secondary concern. More attention to
the neighborhood architectural character is needed in inventorying city historic resources.
Virginia Wood said that the committee should follow the Historic Program Guidelines when
recommending to the City Council properties to be added. to the Master List of Historic
Resources.
Mr. Gallagher responded to CHC comments, noting that the metal windows were part*of an
earlier restoration effort, and were a mistake. He said there are more properties in the
neighborhood which should be recognized as historically significant.
Chairman Michael supported adding the property to the Master List. He doesn't support the
metal windows, but applauds the restoration efforts that were made.
r
Leo Pinard suggested that the item be continued.
.. v
N�EMORANDUAII
March 5, 1993
TO: Pam Ricci
FROM: Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: Structures at 40 Prado Road
The Building & Safety Division inspected the structures located on the property known as,
40 Prado Road and found sufficient evidence to declare all buildings unsafe under Section
203 of the Uniform Building Code and Section 302 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings (UCABD).
The residence is a single story wood-framed building that was obviously abandoned some
time ago. Windows and doors are broken, dilapidated, and nonfunctional. As a result, the
building is not secured and constitutes an attractive nuisance and hazard to the public.
There is evidence that the structure is regularly inhabited by transients, causing further
deterioration and damage. Lack of glazing has caused interior damage from weather
exposure. The foundation along the north side of the structure has failed. The underfloor
space contains structural members damaged by dryrot and termite. infestation. The
plumbing system is not functional. The building sewer is located above grade and contains
several broken connections, both in violation of the plumbing code. Inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, and deficient sanitation facilities constitute
conditions that are unsanitary and unfit for human habitation. Abandonment, faulty electric
wiring, and lack of heating apparatus constitute a fire hazard.
The barn structure located north of the residence is a classic example of a "dangerous
building" as defined in UCABD Section 302. The building is without lateral force resisting
elements. Over 509o' of the exterior wall covering is missing; the remainder is damaged,
loose, or deteriorated. At least 33% of the supporting structural members are deteriorated
or missing. The roof covering is not functional because of deterioration and missing
components. The deterioration, decay, and inadequacy of the structural system is likely to
cause complete collapse of the building. The dilapidation and decay is such that the
structure is considered a fire hazard.
The wood frame storage building located immediately adjacent to the residence is filled with
garbage and other debris; it is a harborage for rodents and insects, and constitutes a health
hazard. The structure is dilapidated and decayed and is subject to partial collapse.
The garage structure located adjacent to Prado road is a poorly constructed wood frame
building covered with sheets of corrugated metal. The structural system contains an
= : 3�NO
inadequate number of vertical support members and extremely overspaned roof rafters. An
improper foundation has resulted in decay and deterioration of structural members in the
wall assemblies. Due to inadequate structural design and dilapidation,the building is likely
to collapse.
CONCLUSION: The buildings located at 40 Prado Road constitute an attractive nuisance
and a hazard to the public. The extent of deterioration, decay, and dilapidation precludes
repair.or relocation to another site. The Building & Safety Division intends to commence
proceedings to cause demolition of the buildings.
PARKER & ASSOCIATES
2131 Sunset
Morro Bay, CA. 93442
(805) 772-0117
ARCHEOLOG = CAL 2NVEST2GAT20N
of Parcel •• #
053 - 041 - 034
San Luis Obispo , California
Prepared at the request of:
Michael Multari
Crawford Multari & Starr
641 Higuera St. Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
1991
Certified
FIELD AND RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES p((�
SUMMITRY
On April 11 , Michael Multari requested that the author conduct an
archeological investigation of a parcel located at the corner of
;Prado Rd. and Elks Ln, San Luis Obispo. The purpose of the
- investigation was to locate, describe, and evaluate any.
archaeological or historical resources which may be present on
the property.. In addition, The author was to assess the impact
which might occur as a result of the proposed development of
office buildings on the parcel's.
The result of this analysis indicated that no prehistoric
archaeological resources exist on the surface of the parcel. A
historic ranch house complex was found to exist on the parcel ,
however, preliminary research indicated that the standing
structures are not "unique" as outlined in CEQA (Section
21083. 2) . • Significant historic artifacts may exist underground
in buried trash pits, abandon well fill, and filled privy pits.
Itis recommended that the proposed project be approved as
planned with the provision that an archaeologist be retained to
monitor demolition, grading and trenching and to record and
recover significant cultural items which may be unearthed by
these activities (see Conclusions and Recommendations Section for.
details) .
INTRODUCTION and RACKG90UND
rhe field work carried out as part of this study was conducted by
John Parker. Mr. Parker holds a Masters Degree in Anthropology,
is a PhD Candidate in Archeology, and is certified by the Society
of Professional Archeologists. The field work took place April
14, 1991 ..
The parcel investigated covers 9 acres of land and is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Prado Rd. and Elks
Ln. , between San Luis Obispo Creek and Hwy 101 at the south end
of San Luis Obispo. The property is depicted on the San' Luis
Obispo 7. 5' USGS topographic map as existing in NE 1/4 of' the NW
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 3, T31S, R12E (see attached map) .
. Soil across the parcel consisted of a rich dark gray/brown
alluvium which is likely the result of overbank deposits from the
flooding of San Luis Obispo Creek. The property has supported
agricultural crops and grazing for the past 200+ years. From the
late 1800' s till 1940 , the parcel fronted the Pacific Coast
Railroad, [where Elks Ln. and Hwy 101 now sit] (Krieger 1988 ,
Sanborn Insurance Maps 1900 , Henderson 1890 , Harris 1874) . The
existing historic ranch house, barn and out-buildings are
oriented toward the rail bed to -the west and it is probable that
a- road extended from the house to the rail line -before the
construction of Prado Rd.
Prior to European settlement, the project area would have been
controlled by the Obispeno subdivision of the larger Chumash
cultural group. The Obispeno are believed to have controlled a
territory which extended from the Pacific Ocean eastward to the
Carrizo Plain and from Morro Bay south to Pismo Beach (Greenwood
1978) .
The proposed project calls for the demolition of all structures
currently on the parcel as well as grading and trenching for
foundations , utilities , and access rbads to enable new
development.
FIELD METHODS
Prior to the field inspection, a record search was conducted at'
the Regional Archaeological Information Center (Dept. of:
Anthropology, U. C. Santa Barbara) . This records review revealed-
that the parcel had not been the subject of an archaeological%
inspection in the past. However, one prehistoric archaeological
site had been previously recorded within 500_ feet of 'the project
area.
The field work consisted of an intensive surface examination of
all portions of the property. This inspection was conducted by
walking transects across the property at 5 to 8 meter intervals.
Although spring vegetation was well developed, open patches '
between plants allowed complete inspection of the ground surface *
over the entire area. Special attention was given to examining
: the ground around the historic structures for traces of previous
buildings, trash deposits, etc. The structures were also
examined in an effort to determine their use, style and period of
construction.
•, The only area where ground inspection was not possible was the
: southwest corner of the study area. A service station is
constructed atop fill in this area and the entire corner is
covered with asphalt (see attached map) .
Following the field inspection, historic documents were examined
. in an effort to determine the . significance and age of the
historic structures.
STUDY RESUL'T'S
No.: prehistoric cultural materials were encountered during the
- field inspection, However, due to soils morphology in the area,
there is the potential for buried- archaeological remains.
Farm House
- ' Upon inspection, the farmhouse turned out to be a simple
rendition of a Victorian Queen. Anne Cottage . This style was one
of the favorites in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1880 ' s
and throughout the 1890' s . The style is characterized by a showy
front gable which is usually filled with textured shingles,
stained glass window, etc. Front porch and window areas often
contain turned supports, gingerbread trim, etc. It is safe to
assume that the house was constructed sometime between 1890 and
1910 . The house and water tower were both constructed with bevel
siding suggesting the two were constructed at the same time. The
house was later covered with a second layer of siding (it no
longer resembles the water tower) .
Additions to the house include internal plumbing and electrical ,
and the addition of a rear utility porch. Internal plumbing and
electrical probably occurred shortly after construction (1906-
1915) as evidenced by exterior vent pipes and sewer line. The
back porch was constructed prior to the installation of the new
exterior siding. The interior of the structure didn't show any
signs of wall or room additions or demolition. With the
exception of paint; wallpaper, . and floor covering, the interior
is.- as it was when the house was first constructed.
n
Out Buildings
Standing structures included a garage (facing Prado Rd. ) , a hay
barn with -side shed-roofed areas to store tack, a fuel shed,
water tower, pump/well house, chicken coup, two other small
sheds, and fence lines.
The garage was likely built following the construction of Prado
Rd.
There . were no period indicators associated with the Barn, fuel
shed, chicken coup, or smaller sheds. The pump house and new
well appeared to be a relatively recent addition with electric
pump and pressure. tank.
It will be possible to determine the age of these structures by
recovering associated cultural items. during the demolition and
grading of the area.
Other Features
Non structural features included the remains of the original
brick-lined well, two areas of historic artifact concentration, a
concrete slab and• clothes line setup, and several pieces of
agricultural equipment (plow, discing machine, etc. ) .
The brick-lined well is likely to be filled with progressive _
layers of historic cultural material. Such features are often
used by their owners as an almost bottomless garbage can. When
excavated, their contents can provide an excellent insight into
the daily life of the people who owned them.
Similar historic materials are likely to be recovered from old
privy. pits and trash pits. These features will often not be
obvious from surface examination, but may . show up as
concentrations of broken glass, pottery, - etc. on the surface.
.Through documentation, the agricultural equipment can be compared
with equipment from different areas and different time periods to
provide information on the independent development of . new
techniques and ideas for tillage, planting, harvesting, etc.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Prehistoric Archaeological Resources
No remains of Native American habitation were observed.
Though it is unlikely that buried prehistoric materials exist on
the parcel, the 'soil morphology indicates that there is a remote
possibility that 'buried cultural material might not have been
apparent during the surface inspection.
i
It is recommended that an archaeologist be retained to monitor
grading and trenching. In the unlikely event that significant
materials are encountered, equipment should be temporarily
directed to work on other areas of the parcel while these remains
are documented and removed. In the event that prehistoric Native
American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document
and remove the items.
Farm House
Although this structure is a good example of the Queen ~ Anne
Cottage style of the 1890' s, there are several structures of this
style in and around the city if San Luis Obispo which are being
well maintained by their owners. It is recommended that photo-
documentation be conducted prior to demolition.
Out Buildings
The water tower should be photo-documented prior to demolition.
The other utility buildings .don' t represent any significant style
: ax)d do not require any special treatment prior to demolition.
An archaeologist should be on hand to monitor demolition of all
structures and record and collect any significant historical
materials or cultural artifacts which may turn up as a result of
this work.
Other features
The abandon brick-lined well and areas of surface concentration
of broken glass are likely to contain quantities of buried
historic artifacts. In addition, there: ; is a High probability
that buried trash pits and privy pits exist on 'the property.
' It is recommended that an archaeologist be retained to monitor
:the grading and trenching in and around the farm house complex.,
If significant concentrations of historic materials are.
encountered, the archaeologist should work closely with the
backhoe operator to carefully expose, record and remove such
;materials during the grading and trenching phase . of project.
; development.
General '
If. the recording and recovery of historic materials becomes
necessary during the grading and trenching phase of the project, ' .
such work should be ' conducted alongside, and in concert with,
earth-moving activities to avoid any unnecessary costs or time
delays during construction.
In the area of the ranch house complex, one archaeological
monitor should be *. on site for each piece of earth moving
equipment used.
Throughout the rest of the property, only one archaeological
monitor is necessary, regardless of the amount of equipment used.
_ Bibliography
Greenwood Roberta
1978 "Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash" H_andbook of North
Vol. 8, Smithsonian Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Harris, R.R.
1874 "Map of San Luis Obispo County" , copy on file at the
San Luis Obispo• County Government Center.
Henderson, Chas
1890 "Map of San Luis Obispo. County" , copy on file at the
San Luis Obispo County Government Center.
Krieger
1988 5��?LuiQbsPQQuntIokina. axd_i n+�sz the
IdL_Kigdo�t, Windsor Publications Inc, Northridge, CA.
- 3.33
Sanborn Insurance Maps \
1900 "San Luis Obispo Street Maps" Microfilm on file with r
the San Luis Obispo County Library.
GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION
«I• ,.✓.,., ..• , .\, 1 p I• ,.:„111 � I _ :I, -I•::. <Ti.
rl_NF II 1 -.. t�.nvr � ., .'��'~ .. 1 �••• •I�•b I].sycrF�ita ;_Z " .r
�qLL «....•., fpp. _�.t�. �Ii •�' ,,,yYe• YN I l _
rr 1 •�A_ei'a
:Q..
—sr
•I.rONA -aq �a_•a:. ��I�Q. �1 '\ '(, e•:rj'..:�� li•• ._r.o-. %(1 r
illC unly If \I
ar
,,,Nc rA ,�ypt' rypl p (u ,c,` !p� ♦\ _••\I
.IWI INFA, •tl llr�ST-F 11`•'�; L " 1 I I ,•'\I 1. .•f �1 , IV
o e1 u 11 M rah/ V f I ..♦
ter,.10 t+ Sa2. n62
g Ros�
I'+(-, s.•'r` y .p r•di u''Lr �.• 'ql 41' ,.v.11 ( , :•. .,,
ter. :' — — �.. � +'. .L b\ 1.� •e• .`�� r ,I ( 1J1j: I.,. •}.,�
1 ` Water271� 1 I �._ `\ y �>I 1 ;�D •!�. sro 1eo�' �t• I 1`''�1'r! :11 .` ��,C
'Tank �. ..�II.,,.' .�a '�l �6 �'% ;0-131ST1'•0t`
�'^. I Ra5WI,nA• •^ s.P O`b• t� Mia] /„ ..
say
:•�` . ; �!' I • '4
• �:.� ::.• sy �a ?�J6p.s•� F( o � 1 Ili LI q.. �;• I b00-_.:. `1
)� ( , ♦ YY Wl A
V\�
4_4
•. /t,
/�8r `'' •. 111 .�; f• a' a� 1j2SI/
4n to s }j15 O c • ` ,•.a� `tp rrl.1 fiaelob l.oJ;tovsc G, . y' \ �
sf r� r(st• I ••'<
1.r 7 P i%�"1�.•1 Yi v�M d t '••. / ry ,
�^,a� r E1r• ,/ !r ^..:•. ) �Dr,b23a .; S flp i i'• I ..•
��y., Irr ' • i t;• •i'� � 'Ui♦.i01f�• ��...� �.: wN�j]r Ili�4h'. �f I:I ••t•} '
7�i�,y l •1:,
.12r , �t I F1 Fwni•it :�C•1'ffnl .'r Vu�n-Lu/IIS- ,:♦io.r�r tnloa,r Daft el I \1 1 \•
Ire, {:• � '1 I I Iti>h�••u:` ^''*?e' \C.�y Eobe \ ` •:'!f I. ♦t:i�l�
,_—�<n-•N• ash-;.. _ .•I1. :r.' i I/i01s1Sic L .0�2•gft:/l$''rJ'('1t,!Ai°•'�:(5Y �!It ••� .u�,Y=at•�.•'s;• , •-rj?— 1r - tltlr _(
7
is"PLzElPd, 5
'Park1 ; S
i
Is
1121 \ i II
492 !A
• �•y,..•D, �•SM.. ` �.ao•L. 1 FI• .I. ♦\+�
•^ �:.. I. I / ,'� �I>'am �t� ,.•r' �5; "?js� at;'24 .� �.1• � VSs ;WTi, /
~ . 1 51 ?':.�,'.'' 1'' \:`1 F,Ia.•r
,\ ;•,' I,;' . J1•�.' rJ��)/'r1�.?/✓t'�yl~Pe'�•:9•r%\eccsitiy;,t\�i�u,�SbJr r.�'+�\7✓r1E��s'o.''!�',a.a.�J•GC�P,�sd@"i'° '��C':•,',�//�I �t�Hil�l's•,q1L,•.i,'1�•b,fift'•i.,tI•iyt`M
l:J:Cc:•��'•:`•\iti\•j�.\.:fm.;:a,.•\(S.
II.ta
fn
iDCIIr'
I4 7 1 i • 1 \I ' #.% II M1eeace - . • � 4%•y(.
34 :p-, .
l
•� + i�M.f 'I� �I IfION 1�` fs�� , p. y,, , �••••����5• ��• •:�'i:• ,.•':n
•1 , ' �^�.7 �� .A I�p N'=In,rIM I' •• .� \ •tt, :'f:.l:���:�•i•�• •',y'�� • •'�),'.
S. ,.: •°T•et i .G .Q :I.,.••: ,:'•••i:•• ".!4
sOt17NQ i.r.....,`rDl 'T T i\,9 ••5, •�,' ♦':I::'. :t.:•.�• r :fi• (JJ
Al
t _1 r Ir•r�ral5cr I. l:I.,N:._. .._ �^ �' ,..••;:.:•'"••:�f''lotmSUIY :.::
Palk, _
•r+I (• �; 7¢aIG• ,Rarflolower.
rr
f ••Sinxhuhnl;la• Park •i�r
♦ , ,• • II - se ••.'e, ,Sall :•�•__! ••,�
/ a-IF PTA a
A / r .♦ '':SinShCmtCr 790 ` %II
!r •, fl O .•. ,I pl�r^ �•' ,y ._tl ,: f�jCi / Ier a� B.
Bj '\b`%,/ •'Tank >s -.SOL
.�-- I<'.�r`g ?u .Wat�L •, '• `L_ . Uny Srh 1 \,i•' ,/' „r'
vex
ti� 1 i I_____—_�,, . , 1 1.•'11„/ Jp., ,..
n l , 1 1 '' .: _.\ I hi^ I'i. i`c.{ ••• _I�, •
:,�. •`•: •, :: �, ♦�j• ,I'I�•7,�.' .i� 1 :(• •t•,� •Oneurr I�y •I
'.(•. ♦•\ +"• •h 1. f C ,+' I/ t' 1 FIM 221 d I.. I[Tmi
•` J J (h ivau ,:—•,'. Th,11cr 1.1, •''( A
•'W-11 ^L Il c: •t• 'If'•:Irk :• '�'1 �, i•
, .I• a :%^ -i;
V. \(\�)"
J 04
,• ,� � .'. ,,• a11.vlal � •III� .4\1
\•\, '\
C +S...L,Saw.a 6e •I�� - gl'.Irk •II \ I \
::r•Q `Y .1''-'•" 'IJISIW:aI.Ia:.lly
•'' ,r
f 1 i ♦ . 1 �•
YHI
I l,nillr " i ,•° (2J/) 170 ,�•
Park tf+ Grircl .••' •\
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF.
35120-C6-TF-024
1965
PHOTOREVISED 1979 3� [r+
AREA INSPECTED
v � •
cc
ca
.• • f
2 �
a
• e r a
3
9" j<
�y o 2g' P..o-se,_
40 J b \1S .•. � ai
� j•7i Ja.� , y
a•
4
DETAIL OF RANCH HOUSE COMPLEX
IN
X(�SNED d 6,4,v i 2
ll !! DKN I
• lb E..0 '7 v
• syr .� \ � •:ln�
O:/KE• {•II
��� T••i
pp
CcNCa/7R�77a ��1 rr..r • � � � ...
M.4T�i�//�L /�' sem\
' fes•• � � -' �i r r5•�r ia
i
3 "M« co CQ/7�'A77ov
• �F h'/57a�P/C .
L u
� i=•rc � o'y p.�a
ITN
•5M CD b•
"
r:
T= _O
tt
r:..`: ?`:
q fit
,,,�tKa•, .\t .w Y.. ,i � ,;fir �1
:�3rc'"^i_•rZg 3'�':c.r ' "aa _ 'o"""ti"�y�. 'znt
'Wr
` \ �i? , . l{i.\� Ili\�,���a `1�,~ ��t ` ♦ , '• y. :
Aw
i
t '
, ���,"�� P_• � alt'
• l I \
� f
k �
j T
r �
I
t T
�\'. �`� � - ,...�.`,.�-z`-tire.►... ���_� -.
,lAht I
, s {
L L.
' a
YY`�.rl_ -�. 1,�•�� _—_'+cY r.__. _'`.i •i�"�jw.cl =c _
_.»+.-_r _��.+! ..nom _�..s_ ��A-„ ��Z'A;S'••�"'�S
A lam•_
Tutt _✓'S � �R.tilM1���1
_L t
Y 4
. x x
• _.'r.. `�.' .` .Cafe;rc'o y
.�r` p``�:•f 7
_ _�' �•fir J1 7- -
Ir
'_ `.�Mi► .: ..ham _
ti� ,fir
`�
K,mm.:a
MI-A
fYs �Z ' `'' �JY. y, ✓
y \ r�.}...�.�r.i+'.!r la`i- � 'rte �'a'�� ..►.� 'C�aI t
I
r 3 y ii
—
r.1 -
�rs
•
GALLAGHER
P R O P E R T I E S
Affordable Housing • Historic Preservation • Real Estate Investment and Development
Gallagher Properties Public Comment Presentation May 25, 1993
San Luis Obispo.City Council
Good evening Mayor Pinard and Council Members:
My name is Devin Gallagher.
I am here this evening, at the suggestion of the mayor, to bring to the Council's attention
an onerous and obscure zoning regulation that governs the use of nonconforming lots.
That regulation (Paragraph 17.12.020)leads as follows:
"If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous
property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually
developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been
merged with.contiguous.property, or otherwise resubdivided in:conjunction with
the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel
which more nearly conforms."
This regulation can be construed to mean many different things. And because of the
unusual ramifications of this provision it has not been consistently enforced in the past.
No search of the property's ownership history since 1977 is required when a new project
is proposed. In fact, the City is now experimented with the creation of small
nonconforming lots as a method to increase housing affordability.
I ask the Council to further clarify the intent of this regulation-How should this provision
be applied to property that is already partially developed; properties with historic
structures; and properties where additional proposed development would allow both of
the adjacent properties to more nearly conform within the context of all of the chapters
and provisions of the Zoning Regulations and long term objectives.
I believe that there are situations where a compromise between differing City objectives
is necessary and in the Communities best interest.
I would like to request that the Council provide a clarification of the intent of this
regulation by adding additional language to Paragraph 17.12.020 on nonconforming lots.
I have attached an example of some possible language.
I believe that this additional verbiage would give the director a necessary alternative and
allow him some flexibility in enforcing this regulation within the context of the City's
Zoning Regulations as a whole.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
1 Post Office Box 1826•San Luis Obispo,CA 93406•Phone: 805/546-8435 • FAX:805/546-0318
GALLAGHER
P R O P * E R T' I E 'S
Affordable Housing • Historic Preservation.• Real Estate Investment and Development
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ZONING- REGULATION EXCERPT
EXISTING LANGUAGE
17.12 Non Conforming .Lots
17.12.020
A If a nonconforming lot has, been held in common
ownership with any contiguous pro:perty.at any time .
since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually
developed. The area within such a -lot. may be ,
developed only after it has been merged with
contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in
conjunction with the contiguous property.to create one
or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more
nearly conforms.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE REVISION
17.12.020
A If a nonconforming lot. has been held in common
ownership with any contiguous property. at any time
since November 18; 1977, it may not be individually
developed.. The area within such a lot may be
developed only after it has been merged with
contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in
conjunction with the,contiguous.property to create one
or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more
nearly conforms.
Exceptions may be granted by the director
for developed properties, properties
which contain differing, uses or zone .
designation, 'for properties containing
historic structures designated as such by
the City, or where special circumstances
exist.
1 , 'Post Office Box 1826•San Luis Obispo,CA 93406•Phone:805/546-8435 • PAX:805/546-0318