HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2011, C10 - CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELI council h,«e,°.V
j Acjcnc)A Report am�m�uc�o
CITY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR LANGUAGE
CLARIFICATION TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES (GPI 72-09)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to clarify language in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.5 of the updated the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
On March 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to return with recommended language for the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines to make clear that the Guidelines do not mandate the
use of original materials when changes are made to historic resources. The attached page from
the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines has two places where building materials are
referenced. Staff is proposing minor language edits to make it explicit that use of'original
materials is not required.
The Guidelines are not part of the Municipal Code however staff uses the information to guide
review of projects where changes to historic resources are proposed in order to encourage
development that is consistent with the historic resource. While the proposed change in verbiage
will not impact the review that staff conducts when projects affect historic resources, the change
will provide clarity that the use of original materials is not mandated. There are two sections that
contain reference to materials. Changes are proposed as shown below with deletions displayed
with strike-through and new language displayed with underlined text:
3.4.2 Percent of historic resource to be preserved. Alterations of historically-listed
buildings shall retain at least 75% of the original building framework, roof, and exterior
bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible to the maxkn+um
extent pessible. Proposed alterations of greater than 25% of the original building framework,
roof, and exterior walls will be subject to the review process for demolitions. Alterations do
not include ordinary repair or maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Resources.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes. Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or
resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the
building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply
C10-1
1 1
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Page 2
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards to complement and be consistent with the
original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character-defining features
shall mateh be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape, quality and
appearance. However, this does not mean that original materials must be used.
Since the Guidelines reference the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Resources, a question has arisen as to whether referencing these standards would result
in a requirement to use original materials even if the Guidelines themselves did not. This is not
the case as these standards are also advisory in nature. The first paragraph of the introduction
states, "The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote
responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation's irreplaceable cultural resources.
For example, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which
features of the historic building should be saved and which can be changed. But once a treatment
is selected, the Standards provide philosophical consistency to the work." There is nothing in
these standards that would require use of original materials. The Standards do provide guidance,
just as the City's adopted Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for
property owners, designers and staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This minor amendment to the Guidelines is Categorically Exempt from environmental review
(Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment). It consists
of an action by a regulatory agency as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the
maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts to the adoption of the revised language in the Guidelines. No
changes are proposed to the development review process. Minor costs for copying and
distribution will be incurred once the updated Guidelines are adopted. Clarification of the
Guidelines language should help to eliminate possible misinterpretation by insurance
underwriters regarding the City's requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could provide language for changes to the Guidelines. Specific direction to
staff would be needed.
2. The Council could continue this item to a future date with direction to staff to return with
specific information.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Page 19 of Guidelines showing proposed language changes
2. Resolution
C10-2
i
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Page 3
A copy of the Guidelines can be found on the City's website at
http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/historigpreservationord/New Folder/Guideli
nesApri12011.1)df or in the Council Reading File.
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Community Development CAR\20 I Mistoric Preservation\Council Final
Docs\Guidelines-2011 Rev\CAR4-5-l l.doc
C10-3
Attachment 1
-Photographs and drawings which identify the original building, structure, object,
and site configuration,
-Character defining features of the resource as originally constructed,
-Alterations, including those alterations made over time that have achieved status as
character defining features,even though not apart of the original resource,and
-Alterations not consistent with maintaining the historic integrity of the resource.
(3) A program for repair,rehabilitation and preservation of the resource,including a
statement of how the proposed program meets the identified treatment option from
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
(f) Consistency required. Alterations to listed historic resources shall be approved only upon
finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties,any required historic preservation report,General Plan policies,
the Historic Preservation Ordinance,and these Guidelines.
- 3.4.2 Percent of historic resource to be preserved.
U Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain at
° - least 75% of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse
y+ original materials gs feasible. Proposed alterations of --- Deleted:to the maximum exbvi
greater than 25% of the original building framework, roof,_ possible
and exterior walls will be subject to the review process for
demolitions. Alterations do not include ordinary repair or
i maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is
t l consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Resources.
3.43 Retention of character-defining features.
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain
character defining features. New features on primary and
Rehabilitation ofthe historic secondary building facades,or features visible from a public
Righeai House,2007 area, should be completed in a manner that preserves the
original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance
of the building.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes. Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or resources
should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally
compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting
and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure.
Building materials used to replicate character-defining features shall he consistent with the Dele4ed:march
original materials in terms of size,shape,quality and appearance. However,this does not mean
that original materials must be used.
16-
C10-4
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (2011 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES
(GPI 72-09)
WHEREAS, in February 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6158
establishing Historical Preservation Program Guidelines in order to promote preservation of
historic buildings and sites and maintain our community's heritage; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines were amended by City
Council Resolution No. 6857 in August 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines were updated by City
Council Resolution No. 10229 in November 2010; and
WHEREAS, at its March 1, 2011 meeting the City Council directed staff to return with
minor edits to make it clear that the Guidelines do not mandate the use of original materials when
changes to historic structures are proposed; and
WHEREAS, the. City Council has considered the Community Development Deputy
Director's determination that this minor change to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
is categorically exempt from environmental review because it consists of an action by a
regulatory agency, as authorized by state or local ordinance to assure the maintenance,
restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows/or that:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. Council concurs with the Director's
determination that the proposed Historic Preservation Program Guidelines update is
Categorically Exempt from environmental review (Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory
Agencies for Protection of the Environment). It consists of an action by a regulatory agency as
authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or
protection of the environment.
SECTION 2. Guidelines Approval. The updated Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines are hereby approved as amended by Council and will'become effective immediately.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
R
C10-5
Resolution No. (2011 Series)
Page 2 Attachment 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2010.
Mayor Jan Howell Marx
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. stine i ick
City Attorney
R
C10-6
ient By: WILLIAM S. WALTER; _ -605 541 6640; Mar-31 -11 4:31PM; Page 2/2
V
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM S. WALTER
•W0rC"A0NAL CORPOMATION
TEL[OMONE (Rog) 3.I-6601 TME 6[LLp hOu 36
FACSIMISE (606) 511-C 610 EMAIL
679 MONTEREY STREET WWn LTCq
QOTCSN NC
SAN LUIS OeISpO, CALIFORNIA 93401
March 31, 2011
VIA FACSIMILE& U.S. MAIL
Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo RED FILE
990 Palm Street MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DA 11 ITEM # 6r 0
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Updated Historic Preservation Guidelines and Ordinance
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and City Clerk:
There is an item coming up on the council agenda(4/5/11) that is a very necessary and
important change needed to clarify the City's adopted historic regulations. The words "original
materials are not required"need to be added so that insurance companies will not use the
ordinance or guidelines as an excuse to cancel.homeowners'policies or raise rates.
Thank you-
Very ly yours,
AA
-S. Walter
Cc: Peg Penard
Old Town Neighborhood Association
John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Kim Murray,Deputy Director hard comr eman
c COUNCIL a CDD DIR
a CITYMGR a FITOIR
a ASSTCM a FIRE CHIEF
a ATTORNEY a PINDIR
a CLERXORIG a POLICE CHIEF
a Put a PARKS&REC DER
a TRIBUNE a UTILDDI
a NEINTMES a IIHDIR
a sLOCITY Nm a CouNCII.
a CITY MGR
a CLERK
• LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM S. WALTER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
TELEPMONE (SOS) S41-6601 THE BELLO HOUSE EMAIL
FACSIMILE (606) S41-6640 679 MONTEREY STREET WWALTER@TCSN.NET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
March 31, 2011
VIA FACSIMILE &U.S. MAIL
Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Updated Historic Preservation Guidelines and Ordinance
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and City Clerk:
There is an item coming up on the council agenda(4/5/11) that is a very necessary and
important change needed to clarify the City's adopted historic regulations. The words "original
materials are not required" need to be added so that insurance companies will not use the
ordinance or guidelines as an excuse to cancel homeowners'policies or raise rates.
Thank you.
Very Vy yours,
I ,
Walter
Cc: Peg Penard
Old Town Neighborhood Association
John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Kim Murray, Deputy Director
I
From: Larry H [mailto:lhoyt03@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 20118:12 AM
To: Murry, Kim
Cc: Thom Jess; Peg Pinard
Subject: Meeting on Preservation Issue
Kim,
I have attached a document authored by Cosanici and Bozen from the Michigan SHPO.
It is very relevant in this ongoing discussion and I hope you will include it as a reference
for the Council. The city is in fact putting itself in a litigious situation if they continue to
ignore precedence and law regarding the taking of private property through restriction.
Legally there is a big difference between someone who is being compensated through the
Mills Act and other sources and those not eligible for those resources.
Larry
r
herd CO email:
° COU MIM a PCM 13M
Bt
RED FILE ° AMOS a MECRW
° �MWO °POUCECH[U
-
MEETING ° P3 °PAWLS&RECDIR
®ATS 'u/Ei',GAGENDA ITEM #.eL0Bw� o xi m
o SLOMYNM °COUNCn.
°CIYYMOR
°Cu%x
J 4 HP
, W;
State Historic Preservation Office
r. Michigan Historical Center
l. ..,, .,!�1�C HI
G�'
Department of History,Arts and Libraries
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, FEASIBILITY AND RELATED STANDARDS IN HISTORIC
PRESERVATION LAW
Authored by
Dragomir Cosanici and Nicholas L. Bozen,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of History, Arts and Libraries
With enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the legal stage was
set for the effective preservation of historic resources in the United States. Catching the wave of
the new federal impetus to protect historic properties, the State Legislature enacted Michigan's
Local Historic Districts Act (the LHDA) in 1970.2 The then new LHDA called for the creation
of local historic districts and commissions to protect historic properties, and required the owners
of properties within districts to apply to, and receive permission from, local commissions prior to
performing work on their properties. When permission is denied, these same owners may
challenge the commissions' decisions pursuant to provisions in the LHDA.3 At times, those
challenges focus on economic feasibility and hardship issues. This article addresses the
confusion that frequently surrounds the application of the various economic and/or finance
related provisions found in historic preservation laws. Michigan and federal jurisprudence
contain three distinctly different types of regulatory provisions addressing the economic and/or
financial aspects of historic preservation projects: economic feasibility, economic hardship, and
financial hardship. It is important to understand the differences and which to apply in an appeal.
1. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY tN RESTORATION
To understand the first type, note must be made of§5(3) of the LHDA.4 This section
provides that a historic district commission, when reviewing plans for restoration work in a
historic district, must apply the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as
set forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 67.5 Regarding economics, 36 C.F.R. Part 67.7(b)expressly states
1 16 United States Code§470 et seq. (1966).
'-Local Historic Districts Act,Michigan Compiled Laws, § 399.201 et seq.(1970 Public Act 1969).
3 Michigan Complied Laws, § 399.205(2).
" Michigan Complied Laws, § 399.205(3).
5 id.
i
that the rehabilitation standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a
reasonable manner, taking into account economic and technical feasibility.'
In denial and appeal settings, an owner, in order to establish economic non-feasibility for
proposed restoration work in a rehabilitation project, must not only demonstrate the fact of
significantly greater expense necessitated by using traditional materials rather modern
counterparts, but the owner must also prove the unavailability of any reasonable, historically
correct preservation methodology.7 An example of the lack of feasibility would involve a house
sided with a unique circa 1920s stucco, when there was no longer any company in the state doing
repair work on stucco homes. In such a case, siding the home with another historically correct
material, such as wood, might be considered economically and technically feasible, whereas
using stucco might not be viewed as feasible.
2. ECONOMiC HARDSHIP iNRESTORATION
A second type of historic preservation/economic provision involves "hardship" (as
opposed to "feasibility") in the context of a restoration project. In this regard, at least a few city
ordinances contemplate the possibility of an owner avoiding the strict application of historic
preservation/restoration standards, due to "economic hardship." In the typical hardship case,an
applicant has the right to apply for a"certificate of economic hardship" after a preservation
commission has denied the owner's request to alter a historic property in a non-historic manner.
An example of such a provision can be found in the ordinances of the City of Ann Arbor.' The
Ann Arbor historic district ordinance provides that to support an application for relief on
economic hardship grounds, the applicant must submit information sufficient to enable the
decision-making body to render a decision. The type of information required is often spelled out
in a preservation ordinance. The burden of obtaining and presenting sufficient information is on
the applicant.
The exact legal meaning of the term, "economic hardship,"will depend on how the term
is defined in a specific ordinance. Nevertheless, in the typical case, establishing economic
hardship will usually require the property owner to demonstrate that he or she has been denied all
reasonable beneficial use of, or return on, the property as a result of the denial of a permit(i.e., a
certificate of appropriateness) for alteration.
"Hardship" is a concept common to many local historic preservation laws. Hardship
provisions operate as a "safety valve," to prevent the land use regulation of private property from
becoming so burdensome as to approach a"taking" without adequate compensation, made illegal
under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For property owners, the definition of
"hardship" often boils down to whether a historically significant home is capable of continued
use as a home. Despite that standard, what many of the homeowners often assert as hardship
does not, actually, interfere with the property's use as a residence.
e 36 C.F.R. §67.7(b).
7 Cates v Adrian Historic District Commission, Docket No. 01-223-HP(Nov. 16, 2001).
8 1994 Ann Arbor City Code, § 8-417.
2
. 1
For example, periodic painting, while a chore, does not prevent a house's use as a home.
Similarly, having to put up and take down wooden storm windows, while perhaps a seasonal
nuisance, does not prevent a property from functioning as a home. A 20-room mansion, however,
could be infeasible as a residence in a modem day society, especially if the town's zoning did not
allow conversion to a non-residential use.
In hardship cases, commissions sometimes receive conflicting information from experts,
which requires them to evaluate contradictory information and in some instances to make
specific determinations regarding the relative credibility or competency of experts.
When evaluating homeowner presentations of this type, commissions must consider five
distinct questions:
1)Is the information sufficient?The application is never complete unless all the
required information has been submitted.
2)Is the information relevant?Commissions may receive more information than they
need, or they may get information that is not germane to the application, such as how
much money a project could make if the historic property is demolished. The property
owner is not entitled to the highest and best use of the property.
3)Is the information competent?Commissions must make assessments as to whether
submitted information demonstrates what it purports to show.
4)Is the information credible? Commissions must determine whether submitted
information is believable. For example, commissions must ascertain whether the
applicants' figures make sense.
5)Is the information consistent?Commissions must look for inconsistencies in the
statements made or the information submitted. Frequently, commissions will seek
explanations regarding inconsistencies.9
3. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IN D EMOLITION.AND MOVING PROJECTS
Finally, §5(6) of the LHDA expressly addresses "financial hardship" in connection with
requests for demolition or to move buildings (as opposed to restoration). This section allows a
historic district commission to issue a"notice to proceed" to demolish a historic resource in
circumstances where retaining the resource would cause "undue financial hardship" to the
owner.10
To qualify for a notice to proceed with demolition under the "undue financial hardship"
provision of the LHDA, a property owner must demonstrate all of the following: 1) that retaining
the historic resource would cause the owner undue financial hardship when the hardship was
9 Julia Miller,Assessing Economic Hardship Claims Under Historic Preservation Ordinances, TAR January-
February 2001.
10 Michigan Complied Laws, § 399.205(6).
3
created by a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner's control, 2)
that the owner has attempted and exhausted all feasible alternatives which would eliminate the
hardship, such as offering the resource for sale or moving it elsewhere within the historic district,
and 3) that demolition is necessary to substantially improve or correct the undue financial
hardship." The burden of establishing undue financial hardship rests with the homeowner.
To do this, an owner must be prepared to disclose a reasonable amount of financial
information such as the amount paid for the property, annual gross and net income from the
property, real estate taxes for a four year period, mortgage balance, appraisals, etc. The owner
must submit a comprehensive picture of income, expenses, and available financial resources.12
The owner must also prove having attempted and exhausted all feasible alternatives in order to
eliminate the hardship, including but not limited to attempting to raise capital such as bank
financing, exploring the availability of Single Business or State Income Tax credits, offering the
historic resource for sale, or moving it elsewhere within the same historic district.13 Finally, the
homeowner must be able to prove that the desired demolition is necessary to convect the undue
hardship.14
The undue financial hardship issue is frequently raised in the setting of an administrative
appeal of a commission's denial of a demolition request. Appellants will fail at this level if they
refuse to produce adequate evidence of hardship for the reviewing body. Again, appellants must
prove "hardship"which is "financial" and is "undue," in that it was caused by events beyond the
appellants' control.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is important for the owners of properties located in historic districts to
understand the distinctions between the three"financial" concepts found in Michigan's
preservation laws and to know which of the three is applicable to their particular situation. If
uncertain, applicants should consult legal counsel, meticulously document their
financial/economic situation, and thoroughly follow the local, state and federal historic
preservation rules and procedures that are applicable to their particular case.
St. Mary's Mercy Medical Center v. Grand Rapids Historic Preservation Commission,Docket No. 99-98-HP
(Oct. 28, 1999).
12/d.
13 Id.
1s Id.
4
t
From: Carter, Andrew
Sent: Monday, April 04, 20119:53 AM
To: Cano, Elaina
Subject: FW: Item C-10, Changes to Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
For Red File
Andrew Carter
Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo
From: RQN of SLO [rgn.board@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 20118:59 AM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Carter, Andrew; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy
Cc: Lichtig, Katie
Subject: Item C-10, Changes to Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Please see attached letter from RQN.
hard co email:
RED FILE as rnYMGR o FCff DIDM
R
ASSTCMEETING AGENDA a M70R a rIREQ11
o A77DRNEY o PW DA
DATE`/� » ITEM # L/o a ���G o rPcsa�m
a TRIBUNE o UM DM
o NEW nm o HR DIR
o swcrrynws acou? t1..
o QTY MGR
a Q.ERB
WBig,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O.Box 126N.San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
April 4, 2011
RE: Consent Agenda Item C-10
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods supports the Old Town and other neighbors
who have asked that language in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
be clarified with respect to the use of original materials when changes/repairs
are made to historic structures. Failure to change the language could have
serious unintended consequences.
The recent cancellation of homeowners' insurance policies and the potential
effect of that action on home mortgages clearly points to the pressing need for
changes to be made. Since the affected neighbors who have contacted us seem
satisfied with the changes proposed in the Staff Report, RQN supports those
changes as written. If, subsequently, it is discovered that additional alterations
to the ordinance and/or guidelines is required, we hope that you and city staff will
act quickly to address that need.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
Chair, RQN
council memoRAnaum
DATE: April 5, 2011
RED FILE
TO: City Council MEETING AGENDA
# �o
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager DATE ITEM
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Item C-10: Historic Preservation Guidelines Edit and Michigan State Historic
Preservation Office document authored by Cosanici and Bozen.
Mr. Hoyt provided an article from Michigan's State Historic Preservation Office for Council's review.
The document discusses hardship and feasibility provisions as they are applied to restoration projects and
demolitions/relocation of historic resources.
The publication describes economic feasibility versus economic hardship in restoration projects and
references the Secretary of the Interior Standards that indicate standards must be applied in a reasonable
manner taking into account both economic and technical feasibility. The article explains economic
hardship provisions and lists the type of questions Commissions must consider to evaluate the financial
information presented by homeowners. Finally it discusses the type of information an owner must be
prepared to disclose to make the case for economic or financialhardship associated with demolishing or
moving historic resources. The article provides helpful information related to how owners of historic
properties subject to Michigan's preservation laws should approach each of the three situations (economic
feasibility related to restoration; economic hardship related to restoration; and financial hardship related
to demolition/relocation).
Most of the projects the City processes are related to rehabilitation and not restoration or demolition,
although there are a few prominent examples of the latter. The recently adopted Historic Preservation
Ordinance addresses procedures and requirements for projects which propose demolition or relocation of
historic resources. The ordinance also contains a provision to provide relief due to economic hardship
which is consistent with the guidance in the document provided by Mr. Hoyt.
Rehabilitation, preservation and restoration projects are not addressed in the Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The updated Historic Preservation Guidelines provide design review direction for these three
other approaches but not mandates. The City's design review process also allows for appeal to Council
regardless of reason. hard eouya email:
o COUNCIL a CDD DIR
a CITY MOR a PITDIR
o ASFrCM o FIRE CHIEF
o ATTORNEY a PW DIR
a CLERIUORIG a POLICE CHIEF
o PID a PARKS&RECDIR
0 rRIDUNE o UTIL DIR
a NEW TIMES a HR DIR
o sLo crrr N ws a couNcn,
o arY MGR
a CLERK
- i - CIO-Red file Response
hard c
email:
r a COUNCIL o CDD.DIR .
I a CffYMGR a FUDIR
a ASFfCM aFMECRIEF
a ATTORNEY d PWDIR RED FILE
a CLEUJORIG a POLICE CIGEF
a PIB a PARKS&RECDIR — MEETING AGENDA
a TRIBUNE a UMDIR
a nV SLOCII ffS a HRDM
COUNCIL
PATE , ITEM #
o SLOCffYNEWS o COUNCIL
a Cr YMGR.
a CLERK
From: rschmidt@rain.org [mailto:rschmidt@rain.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Carter, Andrew; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter,
Dan
Subject: historic regulations -- tonight's agenda
Dear Council Members,
In this architect's opinion there are serious problems with the
historic guideline wording - both at present, and also with the
proposed changes'.
It is no wonder insurers would balk at issuing insurance without a huge
surcharge given the wording of the city's regulations. Furthermore,
given the messy language, I cannot even figure out what staff's intent
is - and I'm a licensed professional charged with interpreting and
implementing such stuff!
Here's the basic problem: The wording mixes peaches and walnuts, and
calls the result cake. In other words, it's technically incoherent
verbal mishmash.
Take the wording: "Building materials used to replicate. character-
defining features shall match the original materials in terms of size,
shape, quality and appearance. "
"Building materials" are things like wood, concrete, plaster, glass,
or, more specifically, wood studs or thick structural redwood slabs
(which are both structure and exterior cladding on a lot of old
houses) , concrete foundations, bricks, lath-and-plaster assemblies,
wavy single paned window glass.
"Features" are something else, though what isn't clear.
To speak of "materials used to replicate ... features" in the above
sentence certainly sounds like materials so used have to be the same as
originals "in size, shape, quality and appearance. " Isn't that what the
sentence says?
Here are a few examples of problems presented by the sentence above:
1. Replacement studs would have to "match the originals in terms of
size, shape, quality and appearance. " Wood studs (say 2x4s) 'today are
1.5" by 3 .5" . Those would not "match the originals in terms of size"
because historic studs were actually 2" by 4" . Nor would contemporary
studs match the originals in "quality" since today studs are 'typically
green-cut douglas fir, but historic ones in this region were heart
redwood, and there are significant differences in quality. Nor could
they match in appearance since today's studs are smooth planed, and
historic ones of full dimension were semi-rough. So you can see the
� i I
sorts of problems the guidelines actually present in interpretation of
intent. CHANGING THE WORDING FROM "MATCH" TO "BE CONSISTENT WITH" DOES
NOTHING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. Replacement studs, according to the
language in either case would have to be custom milled from scarce and
very costly non-standard material.
Don't let staff dismiss this as an isolated case. It's not - it's
simply one example of the fundamental problem with staff's language: it
confounds terms like "materials" and "features" and adds requirements
like "match"/"be consistent with" that further muddy the intent.
2 . Concrete foundations couldn't "match/be consistent with" originals
because, again, materials and practices have changed. Old concrete
foundations were often of weak concrete due to odd local aggregates
mixed with the cement, and they most certainly lacked steel
reinforcement.
Replacement is probably warranted only due to crumbling and cracking.
And foundation wall/footing sizes may have been all over the place,
some good, some not. So, in replacing a foundation, why would we want
to "match/be consistent with ...size, shape, quality and appearance" of
the original? Is the city asking that a foundation be constructed so as
to look like a ruin? That would certainly be consistent with preserving
historic fabric, as new foundations on historic houses often stand out
like pimples on a beauty queen's face.
3 . Likewise bricks. If new bricks must "match/be consistent with ...
size, shape, quality and appearance" of the original, you're almost
certainly specifying custom-made brick to match all those things -
especially color ("appearance") . (Brick has no standard module
comparable to studs - it's a sizing free-for-all among different
manufacturers and styles of brick over
time. )
4. And then there's that wavy single paned glass in the windows.
So, from these few examples among many that are possible, I think you
can see the dilemma these regulations pose not only for insurers but
also for design professionals. They seem to be worded as to be
especially challenging and expensive to implement. If that's the city's
intent, you should so state. If it's not, the regulations need
extensive reworking.
IN SHORT, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE GUIDELINES THAT GO FAR BEYOND THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER "ORIGINAL MATERIALS" MUST BE USED. THE INTENT OF
THE GUIDELINES IS MUDDY AT BEST. THEY NEED CONSIDERABLE RECRAFTING TO
BE INTELLIGENT AND WORKABLE.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt