ABSTRACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Historic Context Statement is uploaded. A historic context statement is a technical document containing specific sections mandated by the Secretary of the Interior in National Register Bulletin 16. The Bulletin defines a historic context as “a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place, and time.”
Historic context is linked with tangible historic resources through the concept of property type. A property type is a “grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics.”
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMEN1
Showing posts with label Historic Context Statement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historic Context Statement. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
PART III (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion
COMMENTS:
• The City Council has used the Historic Context Statement as an alibi to avoid accountability for the real problem; and that is, the lack of appropriate guidance to the surveyors in terms of the “best” historic resources and the application of the California Register of Historic Resources criteria. Moreover, the City Council and the City Administrator failed to properly review the DPR Forms prior to submission of the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004. Note: The majority of appeals by property owners of properties listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources have been granted because of inaccuracies and supposition statements without evidence or foundation on DPR Forms.
• Even after Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin of Architectural Resources Group (ARG) explained that the present Historic Context Statement is not at fault, all of the City Council Members demonstrated that they still lack basis comprehension of the Historic Preservation contents as articulated in the Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code.
• The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Meeting Minutes, as follows:
“The Council expressed their concerns about the current context statement and its use in conducting surveys that resulted in an excessive number of homes being placed on the City’s List of Historic Properties. They requested that the flaws be corrected and the process for applying the context statement and determining historicity be changed.”
Again, the minutes reflect the Council’s misunderstanding of the city’s present predicament; and that is, the root cause of the city’s “excessive number of homes” on the Historic Inventory is not due to the Historic Context Statement, rather it is due to the survey process itself. Furthermore, because the Council did not properly review the Local Coastal Program as a document comprehensively prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission, 300 residences and commercial buildings were approved for inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
If City Council Member Gerard Rose believes the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources has “an absurd number of houses” on it, then it should have been obvious to him prior to the City Council’s unanimous vote to submit the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in 2004. Moreover, if he had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities to his office and the public he would have conscientiously reviewed the document at that time, not realize the “obvious” 3 years later.
Note: City Council Member Gerard Rose’s characterization of “cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore” having only “a handful of homes” on their respective historic “lists” is grossly inaccurate. For example, the City of Philadelphia Register consists of approximately 13,000 buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts designated as historic by the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
(Source: http://www.phila.gov/historical/register.html). For more information, click on post title above.
Moreover, according to the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, there are 458 National Register Listed Resources and 64 National Historic Landmarks in the City of Philadelphia, PA.
(Source:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhp/inventories/Final%20National%20Register%20Properties.pdf)
In short, City Council Member Gerard Rose has a record of mischaracterization; therefore, he cannot be trusted.
Similarly, if Mayor Sue McCloud believes that “historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process,” then why does she fail to understand that she, as mayor, was charged with making certain she understood the “process;” that is, the contents of the historic preservation element of the Local Coastal Program so that historic preservation would not get a bad name. Furthermore, Mayor McCloud appears to fail to remember her 10 June 2005 letter to all “historic property” owners; she wrote, “Approximately ten percent of all properties in Carmel-by-the-Sea were found to qualify as historic. Like you, I too own a home in Carmel that was identified as historic; I consider it a source of pride.” Thus, it appears that Mayor McCloud failed to fulfill her duties and responsibilities by exercising due diligence by reading, comprehending and reviewing the City’s Local Coastal Program in 2004 and now.
(For letter, click on Sunday, October 08, 2006 post, “McCloud's Hypocritical Historic Record”)
• Given the conduct of City Administrator Rich Guillen, Carmelites cannot expect him to provide any modicum of leadership or guidance on this issue; at the meeting, he merely expressed satisfaction that the City Council Members were able to “vent” their frustrations to ARG’s Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin.
• Contrary to City Council Member Gerald Rose’s characterization of the California Coastal Commission and Staff as “those clowns,” and his implication that the Coastal Commission’s approved Local Coastal Program for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is the problem, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program contains all the elements of a successful historic preservation program, if properly followed and implemented.
• The City Council has used the Historic Context Statement as an alibi to avoid accountability for the real problem; and that is, the lack of appropriate guidance to the surveyors in terms of the “best” historic resources and the application of the California Register of Historic Resources criteria. Moreover, the City Council and the City Administrator failed to properly review the DPR Forms prior to submission of the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004. Note: The majority of appeals by property owners of properties listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources have been granted because of inaccuracies and supposition statements without evidence or foundation on DPR Forms.
• Even after Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin of Architectural Resources Group (ARG) explained that the present Historic Context Statement is not at fault, all of the City Council Members demonstrated that they still lack basis comprehension of the Historic Preservation contents as articulated in the Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code.
• The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Meeting Minutes, as follows:
“The Council expressed their concerns about the current context statement and its use in conducting surveys that resulted in an excessive number of homes being placed on the City’s List of Historic Properties. They requested that the flaws be corrected and the process for applying the context statement and determining historicity be changed.”
Again, the minutes reflect the Council’s misunderstanding of the city’s present predicament; and that is, the root cause of the city’s “excessive number of homes” on the Historic Inventory is not due to the Historic Context Statement, rather it is due to the survey process itself. Furthermore, because the Council did not properly review the Local Coastal Program as a document comprehensively prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission, 300 residences and commercial buildings were approved for inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
If City Council Member Gerard Rose believes the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources has “an absurd number of houses” on it, then it should have been obvious to him prior to the City Council’s unanimous vote to submit the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in 2004. Moreover, if he had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities to his office and the public he would have conscientiously reviewed the document at that time, not realize the “obvious” 3 years later.
Note: City Council Member Gerard Rose’s characterization of “cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore” having only “a handful of homes” on their respective historic “lists” is grossly inaccurate. For example, the City of Philadelphia Register consists of approximately 13,000 buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts designated as historic by the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
(Source: http://www.phila.gov/historical/register.html). For more information, click on post title above.
Moreover, according to the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, there are 458 National Register Listed Resources and 64 National Historic Landmarks in the City of Philadelphia, PA.
(Source:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhp/inventories/Final%20National%20Register%20Properties.pdf)
In short, City Council Member Gerard Rose has a record of mischaracterization; therefore, he cannot be trusted.
Similarly, if Mayor Sue McCloud believes that “historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process,” then why does she fail to understand that she, as mayor, was charged with making certain she understood the “process;” that is, the contents of the historic preservation element of the Local Coastal Program so that historic preservation would not get a bad name. Furthermore, Mayor McCloud appears to fail to remember her 10 June 2005 letter to all “historic property” owners; she wrote, “Approximately ten percent of all properties in Carmel-by-the-Sea were found to qualify as historic. Like you, I too own a home in Carmel that was identified as historic; I consider it a source of pride.” Thus, it appears that Mayor McCloud failed to fulfill her duties and responsibilities by exercising due diligence by reading, comprehending and reviewing the City’s Local Coastal Program in 2004 and now.
(For letter, click on Sunday, October 08, 2006 post, “McCloud's Hypocritical Historic Record”)
• Given the conduct of City Administrator Rich Guillen, Carmelites cannot expect him to provide any modicum of leadership or guidance on this issue; at the meeting, he merely expressed satisfaction that the City Council Members were able to “vent” their frustrations to ARG’s Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin.
• Contrary to City Council Member Gerald Rose’s characterization of the California Coastal Commission and Staff as “those clowns,” and his implication that the Coastal Commission’s approved Local Coastal Program for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is the problem, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program contains all the elements of a successful historic preservation program, if properly followed and implemented.
Monday, May 14, 2007
PART II (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion
The comments made by City Council Members in PART I demonstrate that Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Member Mike Cunningham, City Council Member Paula Hazdovac and City Counicl Member Gerard Rose failed to read and comprehend the historic preservation content of the City’s Local Coastal Program prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004. Furthermore, the City Council Members appear to be unknowledgeable about the following relevant excerpts from the City Local Coastal Program as it pertains to historic preservation.
Selected relevant excerpts from the City’s Local Coastal Program, as follows:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
Protection of Historic Resources
Although the Coastal Act does not specifically discuss historic preservation, this topic is related to the preservation of character required by sections 30251 and 30253 of the Act. The purpose of this component of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for policies that address the preservation of the diverse and valuable historic resources in Carmel. Its primary goals are to educate residents and visitors about the unique architectural, cultural and historic identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and to promote the identification and preservation of structures and sites that best represent this history. The addition of this component to the Coastal Plan reflects Carmel’s commitment to the preservation of its important historic resources and the City’s recognition of the role that historic resources play in defining community character. (LUP)
The types of historic resources in Carmel are classified using the criteria established in the California Register of Historic Resources. These range from architecturally significant historic buildings and collections of residences that form distinctive neighborhoods to those associated with important persons or events in Carmel’s history. It also includes street features, landscaping, and both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.
The initial step in an historic preservation program is a reconnaissance survey of potential historic resources. This is followed by thorough research and documentation in an intensive survey using the themes established in the Carmel Historic Context Statement that explore the historic people, periods, places and events important to Carmel.
An historic context is a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place and time. A single historic context describes one or more important aspects of the development of an area relating to its history, architecture, archaeology and culture. A context may be based on one or a series of events, patterns of community development, or associations with the lives of a person or group of persons that influenced the destiny and character of a place or region (from National Register Bulletin #24). Currently there are five themes developed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement. They are: (1) Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement, (2) Economic Development, (3) Government, Civic and Social Institutions (4) Architectural Development in Carmel and (5) Development of Art and Culture.
Goals, Objectives and Policies
Community Character and Land Use
G1-1 Continue to preserve and maintain the predominance of the residential character in Carmel through appropriate zoning and land development regulations in all districts.
G1-2 Preserve the residential village character and perpetuate a balance of land uses compatible with local resources and the environment. (LUP)
P1-85 Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments. (See Appendix Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1997).
P1-86 Apply California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) criteria to identify and document all historic resources. Use the Historic Context Statement to interpret the California Register criteria in determining the significance of Carmel’s historic resources. (LUP)
P1-87 Establish procedures to add historic resources to the Carmel Inventory based on recommendations from a qualified professional, as part of the City’s ongoing survey process. To qualify for listing in the Carmel Inventory, historic resources shall meet at least one of the California Register criteria, shall be representative of at least one theme included in the Historic Context Statement and shall retain substantial integrity5. Integrity (association, feeling, setting, location, design, materials and workmanship) shall be documented by comparing the existing condition of the resource with the original building plans or early photographs or other substantial evidence (e.g. literature review, architectural files, land records, Sanborn maps, etc.) and/or by physical inspection by a qualified historic preservation professional. (LUP)
P1-100 Implement guidelines for civic design to preserve unique community character resources (e.g. public structures, street signs, landscape features and materials, etc.). Incorporate the concept of cultural landscapes (e.g. streets and other non-building open space features) in future revisions to the Historic Context Statement and develop guidelines for their preservation. (LUP)
For the City's complete General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character, click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, click on "Planning," then "Land use plan Revisions."
Selected relevant excerpts from the City’s Local Coastal Program, as follows:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
Protection of Historic Resources
Although the Coastal Act does not specifically discuss historic preservation, this topic is related to the preservation of character required by sections 30251 and 30253 of the Act. The purpose of this component of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for policies that address the preservation of the diverse and valuable historic resources in Carmel. Its primary goals are to educate residents and visitors about the unique architectural, cultural and historic identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and to promote the identification and preservation of structures and sites that best represent this history. The addition of this component to the Coastal Plan reflects Carmel’s commitment to the preservation of its important historic resources and the City’s recognition of the role that historic resources play in defining community character. (LUP)
The types of historic resources in Carmel are classified using the criteria established in the California Register of Historic Resources. These range from architecturally significant historic buildings and collections of residences that form distinctive neighborhoods to those associated with important persons or events in Carmel’s history. It also includes street features, landscaping, and both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.
The initial step in an historic preservation program is a reconnaissance survey of potential historic resources. This is followed by thorough research and documentation in an intensive survey using the themes established in the Carmel Historic Context Statement that explore the historic people, periods, places and events important to Carmel.
An historic context is a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place and time. A single historic context describes one or more important aspects of the development of an area relating to its history, architecture, archaeology and culture. A context may be based on one or a series of events, patterns of community development, or associations with the lives of a person or group of persons that influenced the destiny and character of a place or region (from National Register Bulletin #24). Currently there are five themes developed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement. They are: (1) Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement, (2) Economic Development, (3) Government, Civic and Social Institutions (4) Architectural Development in Carmel and (5) Development of Art and Culture.
Goals, Objectives and Policies
Community Character and Land Use
G1-1 Continue to preserve and maintain the predominance of the residential character in Carmel through appropriate zoning and land development regulations in all districts.
G1-2 Preserve the residential village character and perpetuate a balance of land uses compatible with local resources and the environment. (LUP)
P1-85 Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments. (See Appendix Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1997).
P1-86 Apply California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) criteria to identify and document all historic resources. Use the Historic Context Statement to interpret the California Register criteria in determining the significance of Carmel’s historic resources. (LUP)
P1-87 Establish procedures to add historic resources to the Carmel Inventory based on recommendations from a qualified professional, as part of the City’s ongoing survey process. To qualify for listing in the Carmel Inventory, historic resources shall meet at least one of the California Register criteria, shall be representative of at least one theme included in the Historic Context Statement and shall retain substantial integrity5. Integrity (association, feeling, setting, location, design, materials and workmanship) shall be documented by comparing the existing condition of the resource with the original building plans or early photographs or other substantial evidence (e.g. literature review, architectural files, land records, Sanborn maps, etc.) and/or by physical inspection by a qualified historic preservation professional. (LUP)
P1-100 Implement guidelines for civic design to preserve unique community character resources (e.g. public structures, street signs, landscape features and materials, etc.). Incorporate the concept of cultural landscapes (e.g. streets and other non-building open space features) in future revisions to the Historic Context Statement and develop guidelines for their preservation. (LUP)
For the City's complete General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character, click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, click on "Planning," then "Land use plan Revisions."
Sunday, May 13, 2007
PART I (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion
Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
A. Review an outline for the updated Historic Context Statement as presented by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) for the period of 1940 through 1965 and provide direction.
During City Council deliberations, the following verbal comments and exchanges occurred between Architectural Resources Group (ARG) consultants Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin and Carmel-by-the-Sea Council Members. Although lengthy, this one agenda item is symbolic of the typical misunderstanding and confusion of present city council members.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“From my perspective the reason why you’re tasked to perform this job was that there were two things that needed to be done.”
“First of all, as you know, there was a period that our current Historic Context Statement did not cover, but there’s a much more important aspect of this, much more, and that is our current Historic Context Statement was not working. And it wasn’t working for a variety of reasons. Some of which were perfectly innocent, but it created disastrous results for our commissions and boards that were trying to deal with some aspects of the Historic Context Statement. For example, the way this council has traditionally seen the Historic Context Statement, is, it was seen as a context statement, in the sense of background, it’s background, it’s important background, it’s background you have to understand in order to make decisions, but it’s background only. But there are some statements in the Historic Context Statement itself that made it sound like it set standards that had to be followed by our boards and commissions. And I think it’s absolutely important as you do your rewrite that it has to be clear that the Context Statement is background only, and to the extent there is a specific ordinance, whether it be in the zoning ordinances or in the historic resources ordinance that deals with this issue, it’s the latter that controls, not the Context Statement. And I can’t tell you how many times that created confusion for our committees…”
“Secondly, because the current Historic context Statement is tied to surveys, we had many examples of the survey takers saying things like will this building is historic because it’s a good example of x and they would identify something in the Context Statement. This resulted in an absurd number of houses finding their way to our list of allegedly historic houses that didn’t belong there. I mean, you go to the east coast and you see major cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, that truly are historic, with just a handful of homes on it, and Carmel comes up with hundreds of homes. Now, there’s something wrong with that. Not every building associated with the story of Carmel is an historic landmark. Quite clearly. And yet, there are people who apparently thought that might be the case. And unfortunately many of these people filled out DPR Forms that found there way into out surveys, which found there way to the county recorder’s office and improperly so.”
“It has been the sense of this council, repeatedly, that we’re looking for the best of the best, when it comes to architecture, the truly outstanding architects. We don’t want out historic survey and our list of historic homes to reflect every Tom, Dick and Harry that passed through Carmel. We want these buildings that are on our historic list to be truly historic, and we don’t want out historic list to be a joke. And that’s what it is right now.”
“Finally, because the current Context Statement suffers from the infirmities I just spoke about; it seems ridiculous to ground a new Historic Statement on a document that is fundamentally flawed. And that’s why when we heard, or at least when I heard that you wanted to simply do a redo on the other statement, particularly on a statement that your associate, Catherine says, draws on these surveys, that’s a non-starter.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“I think we’re working backwards. I hear you on all three of your statements. The Context Statement is really a roadmap, it is the background information, as you said, that should inform decisions when you do surveys. That doesn’t mean you are supposed to literally take what’s in the Context Statement and then survey every bungalow and say because it says bungalows are important to the development of Carmel, every bungalow should be listed. That, the problem here is not with the Context Statement, it’s with the then taking that information and then translating it into terms of how you do your surveys. So that’s the first connection that’s not being done right.”
“The second part is once you’ve done the survey, you have to then decide what is important about what you’ve surveyed and when someone wants to change it, is that an appropriate change or not. So that’s a third layer which really gets to the heart of what you’re trying to do as decision-makers. When people come to you and want something to be done or not done to their property. So you have to take the foundation work, and then take that and have that inform what you’re doing with the survey work, and then you use that to inform what are the character-defining features which are pretty straight forward, what makes something important and then from that make your decisions about whether somebody is proposing something that is appropriate or not. That’s sort of how you would make those leaps.”
“Secondly, in terms of the original Context Statement, that as a beginning framework, it’s pretty good, it’s organized will, the research is done well, what we were proposing is to have an outline that matches the outline organizational way that was done with the first context Statement. That’s not a flaw in the Context Statement. So we can do it differently, if you want, but we thought the themes that they had arrived at were actually fairly good in that most of them flowed into what would happen from 1940 to 1965. so using that as a organizational element is not a bad way to go, we didn’t think…now we can do it a different way if you prefer, but I thing the big problem is not how the Context Statement is done or what we’re doing and ultimately, they will come together so you have one Context Statement. Its how you then take and make a decision about doing a survey and using that as the basis of the information for the decisions that you’re making...”
ARG CATHERINE PETRIN: “...one thing to add to that…but one thing that I was concerned was your statement that your ordinance sets standards that have to be followed and that is a bit of a red flag to me. A context is meant to do…the Context Statement lays out the different areas of historic development, where things might be , significance, and this is probably overly technical point, but one of the tools professionals use when they actually carry out a survey is the DPR Form, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, and on the second page, Building Structure and Object Record page, it asks for and this is a standard State form, that is a very good tool to use for consistency throughout the state, it asks for what is the historic context and what is the period of development and for consistency, if you can refer back to your Historic Context Statement, use the themes and dates set out in your Context Statement, it’s kind of a short cut so that you don’t have to explain on your significance form all of the information about historic development.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“O.K. Here’s the problem with that. We live in a village that’s only 100 years old. O.K. It’s not 200 or 300 or 400 years old. I’ve lived in buildings that old, but not Carmel. Carmel is very young…so because we’re such a young city, it’s very easy to come up with criteria that become so broad that virtually every building in town qualifies. You see what I’m saying. And that’s what’s happened.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“When you say criteria that is not the criteria in the Context Statement, that’s the criteria somebody is using when they are doing a survey.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“Well, I am telling you what happened in reality. What happened in reality was, we have ordinances that weren’t being followed because the people who filled our DPR Forms were saying well here’s a home-style that was identified in our Historic Context Statement and therefore it must be historic. And bang, all of a sudden, the house is on the list. That’s what happened in reality. And you could understand with a young city how that could happen. But we don’t want it to happen. We want to save the best, we want to save the most significant, we want to save buildings that are truly historic and we need you to help us turn that around.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“I think we can help you do that and I think again, that doesn’t come down to the Context Statement as being at fault, it’s how you make decisions when you’re doing surveys. And then I would say there is another element that we haven’t talked about very much and that’s community character. There’s one of these period revival cottages, like the Tuck Box, and you decide that that is the most important one so you list the Tuck Box and you don’t list any of the others. At some point, through time, if those are discarded as not being important, they will all be demolished and you’ll have larger houses going in their stead and you will end up with a community character which is not what anybody wanted because it happened gradually over 30 or 40 years. So part of this in the Context Statement is letting you know what is important about how the city developed and what you should be looking for beyond listing anything, it’s not a regulation. It tries to make everybody aware of community character, what contributes to that character and what you can do to preserve it, if you want to preserve it, and that’s your decision to preserve or not.”
“We’re doing the foundation work which I thing everybody was very unhappy with because I thin you were using it in the wrong way over time, that’s my guess.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“I can tell you that when our Historic Resources Board made decisions about DPR Forms, well from what I read in the Historic Context Statement this qualifies.”
ARG CATHERINE PETRIN:
“Well, it might qualify, but that’s the first step and then you have to look at other, integrity and period of significance…”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“Qualify in that you look at it in detail, not that it is on the list.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER KEN TALMAGE:
“I think it’s widely recognized that we have a process that is flawed and I say that because of the number of appeals and the number of those appeals that were sustained. And we’re wrestling with the flaw in that process whether and whether it’s an over reliance on the Context Statement or the element the decision-making criteria in that Context Statement…we want to save the best…”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“Without the context Statement, you don’t know whether something is actually important as a theme to go look at. My sense is the real failing in the process is you have a Context Statement that is O.K., but people have then been trying to turn it into something and use it as a tool in a way it should not be uses. In terms of trying to correctly say something is mentioned in the Context Statement, therefore that if anything meets that, it’s a landmark or it’s listed. And I’m not sure that, for example bungalows. If it’s a green bungalow on the Context Statement, any green bungalow in the city ought to be listed, and that’s not the case, that’s not how you should be using it. So I think what’s missing is the decision-making before you go out and do the survey in terms of translating what’s in the context to a decision-making tool...”
“You don’t want to try to use it to make your decisions about whether it’s listed or not listed on a register.”
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD:
“The concern is… historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process...”
CITY COUNICL MEMBER MIKE CUNNINGHAM:
“We need the criteria to drive the survey process. That’s the thing that‘s broken. We need your help...”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“...make it clear in the Historic Context Statement that a survey that’s done poorly is recognized as having been done poorly and one that’s done correctly is recognized as one that’s been done correctly and if we have a good Historic Context Statement for the entire period, it well make it easier to make that distinction.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“The next step is trying to come up with the criteria of how you are going to make those decisions.”
For information about Architectural Resources Group: Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. (ARG), click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.argsf.com/home.shtml.
City Council
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
A. Review an outline for the updated Historic Context Statement as presented by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) for the period of 1940 through 1965 and provide direction.
During City Council deliberations, the following verbal comments and exchanges occurred between Architectural Resources Group (ARG) consultants Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin and Carmel-by-the-Sea Council Members. Although lengthy, this one agenda item is symbolic of the typical misunderstanding and confusion of present city council members.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“From my perspective the reason why you’re tasked to perform this job was that there were two things that needed to be done.”
“First of all, as you know, there was a period that our current Historic Context Statement did not cover, but there’s a much more important aspect of this, much more, and that is our current Historic Context Statement was not working. And it wasn’t working for a variety of reasons. Some of which were perfectly innocent, but it created disastrous results for our commissions and boards that were trying to deal with some aspects of the Historic Context Statement. For example, the way this council has traditionally seen the Historic Context Statement, is, it was seen as a context statement, in the sense of background, it’s background, it’s important background, it’s background you have to understand in order to make decisions, but it’s background only. But there are some statements in the Historic Context Statement itself that made it sound like it set standards that had to be followed by our boards and commissions. And I think it’s absolutely important as you do your rewrite that it has to be clear that the Context Statement is background only, and to the extent there is a specific ordinance, whether it be in the zoning ordinances or in the historic resources ordinance that deals with this issue, it’s the latter that controls, not the Context Statement. And I can’t tell you how many times that created confusion for our committees…”
“Secondly, because the current Historic context Statement is tied to surveys, we had many examples of the survey takers saying things like will this building is historic because it’s a good example of x and they would identify something in the Context Statement. This resulted in an absurd number of houses finding their way to our list of allegedly historic houses that didn’t belong there. I mean, you go to the east coast and you see major cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, that truly are historic, with just a handful of homes on it, and Carmel comes up with hundreds of homes. Now, there’s something wrong with that. Not every building associated with the story of Carmel is an historic landmark. Quite clearly. And yet, there are people who apparently thought that might be the case. And unfortunately many of these people filled out DPR Forms that found there way into out surveys, which found there way to the county recorder’s office and improperly so.”
“It has been the sense of this council, repeatedly, that we’re looking for the best of the best, when it comes to architecture, the truly outstanding architects. We don’t want out historic survey and our list of historic homes to reflect every Tom, Dick and Harry that passed through Carmel. We want these buildings that are on our historic list to be truly historic, and we don’t want out historic list to be a joke. And that’s what it is right now.”
“Finally, because the current Context Statement suffers from the infirmities I just spoke about; it seems ridiculous to ground a new Historic Statement on a document that is fundamentally flawed. And that’s why when we heard, or at least when I heard that you wanted to simply do a redo on the other statement, particularly on a statement that your associate, Catherine says, draws on these surveys, that’s a non-starter.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“I think we’re working backwards. I hear you on all three of your statements. The Context Statement is really a roadmap, it is the background information, as you said, that should inform decisions when you do surveys. That doesn’t mean you are supposed to literally take what’s in the Context Statement and then survey every bungalow and say because it says bungalows are important to the development of Carmel, every bungalow should be listed. That, the problem here is not with the Context Statement, it’s with the then taking that information and then translating it into terms of how you do your surveys. So that’s the first connection that’s not being done right.”
“The second part is once you’ve done the survey, you have to then decide what is important about what you’ve surveyed and when someone wants to change it, is that an appropriate change or not. So that’s a third layer which really gets to the heart of what you’re trying to do as decision-makers. When people come to you and want something to be done or not done to their property. So you have to take the foundation work, and then take that and have that inform what you’re doing with the survey work, and then you use that to inform what are the character-defining features which are pretty straight forward, what makes something important and then from that make your decisions about whether somebody is proposing something that is appropriate or not. That’s sort of how you would make those leaps.”
“Secondly, in terms of the original Context Statement, that as a beginning framework, it’s pretty good, it’s organized will, the research is done well, what we were proposing is to have an outline that matches the outline organizational way that was done with the first context Statement. That’s not a flaw in the Context Statement. So we can do it differently, if you want, but we thought the themes that they had arrived at were actually fairly good in that most of them flowed into what would happen from 1940 to 1965. so using that as a organizational element is not a bad way to go, we didn’t think…now we can do it a different way if you prefer, but I thing the big problem is not how the Context Statement is done or what we’re doing and ultimately, they will come together so you have one Context Statement. Its how you then take and make a decision about doing a survey and using that as the basis of the information for the decisions that you’re making...”
ARG CATHERINE PETRIN: “...one thing to add to that…but one thing that I was concerned was your statement that your ordinance sets standards that have to be followed and that is a bit of a red flag to me. A context is meant to do…the Context Statement lays out the different areas of historic development, where things might be , significance, and this is probably overly technical point, but one of the tools professionals use when they actually carry out a survey is the DPR Form, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, and on the second page, Building Structure and Object Record page, it asks for and this is a standard State form, that is a very good tool to use for consistency throughout the state, it asks for what is the historic context and what is the period of development and for consistency, if you can refer back to your Historic Context Statement, use the themes and dates set out in your Context Statement, it’s kind of a short cut so that you don’t have to explain on your significance form all of the information about historic development.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“O.K. Here’s the problem with that. We live in a village that’s only 100 years old. O.K. It’s not 200 or 300 or 400 years old. I’ve lived in buildings that old, but not Carmel. Carmel is very young…so because we’re such a young city, it’s very easy to come up with criteria that become so broad that virtually every building in town qualifies. You see what I’m saying. And that’s what’s happened.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“When you say criteria that is not the criteria in the Context Statement, that’s the criteria somebody is using when they are doing a survey.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“Well, I am telling you what happened in reality. What happened in reality was, we have ordinances that weren’t being followed because the people who filled our DPR Forms were saying well here’s a home-style that was identified in our Historic Context Statement and therefore it must be historic. And bang, all of a sudden, the house is on the list. That’s what happened in reality. And you could understand with a young city how that could happen. But we don’t want it to happen. We want to save the best, we want to save the most significant, we want to save buildings that are truly historic and we need you to help us turn that around.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“I think we can help you do that and I think again, that doesn’t come down to the Context Statement as being at fault, it’s how you make decisions when you’re doing surveys. And then I would say there is another element that we haven’t talked about very much and that’s community character. There’s one of these period revival cottages, like the Tuck Box, and you decide that that is the most important one so you list the Tuck Box and you don’t list any of the others. At some point, through time, if those are discarded as not being important, they will all be demolished and you’ll have larger houses going in their stead and you will end up with a community character which is not what anybody wanted because it happened gradually over 30 or 40 years. So part of this in the Context Statement is letting you know what is important about how the city developed and what you should be looking for beyond listing anything, it’s not a regulation. It tries to make everybody aware of community character, what contributes to that character and what you can do to preserve it, if you want to preserve it, and that’s your decision to preserve or not.”
“We’re doing the foundation work which I thing everybody was very unhappy with because I thin you were using it in the wrong way over time, that’s my guess.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“I can tell you that when our Historic Resources Board made decisions about DPR Forms, well from what I read in the Historic Context Statement this qualifies.”
ARG CATHERINE PETRIN:
“Well, it might qualify, but that’s the first step and then you have to look at other, integrity and period of significance…”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“Qualify in that you look at it in detail, not that it is on the list.”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER KEN TALMAGE:
“I think it’s widely recognized that we have a process that is flawed and I say that because of the number of appeals and the number of those appeals that were sustained. And we’re wrestling with the flaw in that process whether and whether it’s an over reliance on the Context Statement or the element the decision-making criteria in that Context Statement…we want to save the best…”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“Without the context Statement, you don’t know whether something is actually important as a theme to go look at. My sense is the real failing in the process is you have a Context Statement that is O.K., but people have then been trying to turn it into something and use it as a tool in a way it should not be uses. In terms of trying to correctly say something is mentioned in the Context Statement, therefore that if anything meets that, it’s a landmark or it’s listed. And I’m not sure that, for example bungalows. If it’s a green bungalow on the Context Statement, any green bungalow in the city ought to be listed, and that’s not the case, that’s not how you should be using it. So I think what’s missing is the decision-making before you go out and do the survey in terms of translating what’s in the context to a decision-making tool...”
“You don’t want to try to use it to make your decisions about whether it’s listed or not listed on a register.”
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD:
“The concern is… historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process...”
CITY COUNICL MEMBER MIKE CUNNINGHAM:
“We need the criteria to drive the survey process. That’s the thing that‘s broken. We need your help...”
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:
“...make it clear in the Historic Context Statement that a survey that’s done poorly is recognized as having been done poorly and one that’s done correctly is recognized as one that’s been done correctly and if we have a good Historic Context Statement for the entire period, it well make it easier to make that distinction.”
ARG BRUCE JUDD:
“The next step is trying to come up with the criteria of how you are going to make those decisions.”
For information about Architectural Resources Group: Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. (ARG), click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.argsf.com/home.shtml.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
COMMENTARY: On Brian Roseth's Staff Report, REVIEW ISSUES RELATED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM & PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION
Historic Preservation & Community Character
Meeting Date: 7 November 2006
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Planning Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a request to review issues related to the Historic Preservation Program and to provide policy guidance.
Description: Staff is requesting policy guidance from the Council with regard to the Historic Preservation Program and the scope of the Context Statement update. No formal action should be taken.
COMMENTARY
The purpose of a Historic Context Statement is to provide qualified architectural historians a historical context for a survey of historic resources. A historic context, as defined by the National Register’s Guidelines for Local Surveys, “is a broad pattern of historical development in a community or its region, that may be represented by historic resources.” Hence, the historic context statement’s purpose is to assist qualified architectural historians in the assessment of historic resources by providing categories of significant periods of development within the city.
A historic context is usually the first survey task “as it provides an organizational framework of information that is based on a specific area, theme, and period of time. This framework is recommended as a way to organize information that is pertinent to survey results.”
Importantly, the NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN states, “Historic contexts are almost always refined, modified, added to, and elaborated on as the survey itself proceeds. At the point of planning the survey, it may be feasible to define them only in broad, general terms; sufficient flexibility should always be maintained to allow changes to take place as the survey progresses.” Ideally then, the “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea should not view the Historic Context Statement as a statement to be micromanaged and narrowly defined by non-qualified historic preservation experts, namely, City Council Members, the City Administrator and the Planning Services Manager.
Note: A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Archives & Architecture for the update of the City’s Historic Context Statement was prepared and ready to sign in June 2006.
(Reference:
NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN
GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SURVEYS:
A BASIS FOR PRESERVATION PLANNING
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
National Register, History and Education
Chapter I: Planning the Survey
Elements of Survey Planning
What are historic contexts?, http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/chapter1.htm)
Meeting Date: 7 November 2006
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Planning Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a request to review issues related to the Historic Preservation Program and to provide policy guidance.
Description: Staff is requesting policy guidance from the Council with regard to the Historic Preservation Program and the scope of the Context Statement update. No formal action should be taken.
COMMENTARY
The purpose of a Historic Context Statement is to provide qualified architectural historians a historical context for a survey of historic resources. A historic context, as defined by the National Register’s Guidelines for Local Surveys, “is a broad pattern of historical development in a community or its region, that may be represented by historic resources.” Hence, the historic context statement’s purpose is to assist qualified architectural historians in the assessment of historic resources by providing categories of significant periods of development within the city.
A historic context is usually the first survey task “as it provides an organizational framework of information that is based on a specific area, theme, and period of time. This framework is recommended as a way to organize information that is pertinent to survey results.”
Importantly, the NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN states, “Historic contexts are almost always refined, modified, added to, and elaborated on as the survey itself proceeds. At the point of planning the survey, it may be feasible to define them only in broad, general terms; sufficient flexibility should always be maintained to allow changes to take place as the survey progresses.” Ideally then, the “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea should not view the Historic Context Statement as a statement to be micromanaged and narrowly defined by non-qualified historic preservation experts, namely, City Council Members, the City Administrator and the Planning Services Manager.
Note: A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Archives & Architecture for the update of the City’s Historic Context Statement was prepared and ready to sign in June 2006.
(Reference:
NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN
GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SURVEYS:
A BASIS FOR PRESERVATION PLANNING
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
National Register, History and Education
Chapter I: Planning the Survey
Elements of Survey Planning
What are historic contexts?, http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/chapter1.htm)
Saturday, July 08, 2006
UPDATE of City's Historic Context Statement PULLED From Agenda by MAYOR MCCLOUD
Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
4:30 pm
IV. Orders of Council
Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
Description:
Approval would engage a consulting firm to draft an amendment to the adopted Historic Context Statement. This document identifies persons, events and architecture important in the City’s history.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $21,750 ($19,775 for Consultant plus 10% contingency).
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the City Administrator to enter into the Agreement.
Important Considerations:
The Historic Context Statement identifies persons, events and architecture important in the City’s history. It also provides guidance on the types of physical resources still present that can represent these in the historic preservation program. Based on this guidance, historic resources are subsequently identified for listing on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. This final step of identifying specific resources is not part of the contract.
The existing Context Statement was adopted by the City Council in 1997. It was accepted by the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s LCP in 2004. The existing document only covers historic periods up to 1940 and needs to be updated. The recommended consultant will conduct research on the post-1940 period and work with the Historic Resources Board and staff to prepare a draft. Extensive public participation is anticipated during the process. Following approval by the City Council, the document will be submitted to the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the LCP.
Decision Record:
The General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan requires periodic updates to the Context Statement. This project is listed in the City Council’s work program.
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE, HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Principal Historian
Charlene Detlefs Duval, Partner and Principal Historian
Franklin Maggi, Partner, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner
Jessica Kusz, Preservation Specialist
COMPENSATION
City shall pay Consultant for the services identified in the attached Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to perform all services and incur all costs required by this Agreement for an amount not to exceed $19,775.
COMPLETION DATE
The completion date for all services in Tasks I through IV specified in the Scope of Work, submitted by Consultant as part of Exhibit-A, shall be six months from the date of contract authorization.
City Council
Minutes of June 13, 2006 meeting
B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City's Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
Mayor McCloud announced that Item B. had been pulled from the Agenda.
COMMENTS:
• According to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code and the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, the Historic Context Statement, adopted by the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council in 1997, should have been updated in 2002.
• If the Historic Context Statement had been updated in 2002, then the City could not have used the 1997 Historic Context Statement as a vehicle to remove all post-1940 historic resources from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
• Just considering Historic Preservation, Land Use & Community Character Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, since the City’s record is that of not updating the Historic Context Statement every 5 years as stipulated and violating the LCP by removing all post-1940 historic resources as a group, contrary to the process allowed in the LCP, then is it reasonable for Carmelites to assume that there are other areas of the LCP the City is violating?
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL
CODE
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.060 Determining Eligibility for the Carmel Inventory.
A. Historic Context Statement.
3. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments.
Carmel by-the-Sea
General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
L a n d U s e a n d C o m m u n i t y
C h a r a c t e r E l e m e n t
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 1-43
Cultural Resources
Historic Preservation
P1-85 Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any
resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments. (See Appendix F: Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1997). (LUP)
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
4:30 pm
IV. Orders of Council
Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
Description:
Approval would engage a consulting firm to draft an amendment to the adopted Historic Context Statement. This document identifies persons, events and architecture important in the City’s history.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $21,750 ($19,775 for Consultant plus 10% contingency).
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the City Administrator to enter into the Agreement.
Important Considerations:
The Historic Context Statement identifies persons, events and architecture important in the City’s history. It also provides guidance on the types of physical resources still present that can represent these in the historic preservation program. Based on this guidance, historic resources are subsequently identified for listing on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. This final step of identifying specific resources is not part of the contract.
The existing Context Statement was adopted by the City Council in 1997. It was accepted by the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s LCP in 2004. The existing document only covers historic periods up to 1940 and needs to be updated. The recommended consultant will conduct research on the post-1940 period and work with the Historic Resources Board and staff to prepare a draft. Extensive public participation is anticipated during the process. Following approval by the City Council, the document will be submitted to the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the LCP.
Decision Record:
The General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan requires periodic updates to the Context Statement. This project is listed in the City Council’s work program.
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE, HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Principal Historian
Charlene Detlefs Duval, Partner and Principal Historian
Franklin Maggi, Partner, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner
Jessica Kusz, Preservation Specialist
COMPENSATION
City shall pay Consultant for the services identified in the attached Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to perform all services and incur all costs required by this Agreement for an amount not to exceed $19,775.
COMPLETION DATE
The completion date for all services in Tasks I through IV specified in the Scope of Work, submitted by Consultant as part of Exhibit-A, shall be six months from the date of contract authorization.
City Council
Minutes of June 13, 2006 meeting
B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City's Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
Mayor McCloud announced that Item B. had been pulled from the Agenda.
COMMENTS:
• According to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code and the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, the Historic Context Statement, adopted by the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council in 1997, should have been updated in 2002.
• If the Historic Context Statement had been updated in 2002, then the City could not have used the 1997 Historic Context Statement as a vehicle to remove all post-1940 historic resources from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
• Just considering Historic Preservation, Land Use & Community Character Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, since the City’s record is that of not updating the Historic Context Statement every 5 years as stipulated and violating the LCP by removing all post-1940 historic resources as a group, contrary to the process allowed in the LCP, then is it reasonable for Carmelites to assume that there are other areas of the LCP the City is violating?
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL
CODE
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.060 Determining Eligibility for the Carmel Inventory.
A. Historic Context Statement.
3. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments.
Carmel by-the-Sea
General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
L a n d U s e a n d C o m m u n i t y
C h a r a c t e r E l e m e n t
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 1-43
Cultural Resources
Historic Preservation
P1-85 Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any
resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments. (See Appendix F: Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1997). (LUP)
Saturday, April 08, 2006
City Administrator's DEFENSIVE PREVARICATION
Update on Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal of the Historic Resources Board's 23 January 2006 decision to remove 45 post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of an update of the Historic Context Statement.
At the 7 March 2006 Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council meeting, the above referenced appeal was continued by the City Council.
Transcript from the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Public Hearing, Appeal.
Mayor Sue McCloud: "The next item is Public Hearings. This was, as I mentioned in the beginning, Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Resources Board to remove properties from the Historic Resources Inventory that were developed between 1940-1956. And staff is...Brain, do you want to..
Principal Planner Brian Roseth: "Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. Before I go into this, I would like to give..."
McCloud: "We're not going to go into it, we are going to continue it."
Roseth: "Oh, I'm sorry."
McCloud: "Remember?"
Roseth: "I wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting. That saves me all this.
Laughter.
City Administrator Rich Guillen: "Yes. Staff is recommend we continue this item because we need further review of the issues,(pause) mainly with the Coastal Commission.
McCloud: "The Coastal Commission contacted us on Friday afternoon and because of their schedule this week down here, there is otherwise not time to get together with them. So, and Don you have talked to the attorneys...So, we've agreed that we would...with Susan Brandt-Hawley and the Coastal Commission...We would postpone, continue this."
Councilman Gerard Rose: "So the gist, as I understand it, is that we are postponing this so that our staff can speak to the staff of the Coastal Commission about this proposal. Is that right?"
McCloud: "It's a large...It's...Yeah."
Guillen: "That's correct."
Later that week, on Thursday, 9 March 2006, Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, orally recited her letter to California Coastal Commission Chair Meg Caldwell and Members of the Coastal Commission at the Coastal Commission's meeting in Monterey.
Letter to Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission from Enid Sales, director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
CARMEL PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 3959 ~ CARMEL, CA 93921
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2006 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
TO: Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission
FROM: Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
RE: Request of an Overview of Commission Staff of the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Plan for Carmel, CA.
We feel that Carmel Planning Staff consistently violates the conditions of the IP regarding Historic Resources. Our concerns are with the Inventory, the consistent refusal to include relevant evaluations of the Carmel Preservation Foundation on the Agendas of the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning Commission. Following are the violations.
1. After a letter to property owners of their inclusion on the Inventory,
they did not record these buildings as required.
2. Conducted a Workshop for Owners that explained in Planning terms not too
clearly what the requirements are, but did not support the Preservation
Program. Instead they blamed the Coastal Commission because they had
made the City select an Inventory and have such a Program.
3. The City upset Owners at this meeting to such an extent that 93 requests
were made to have their properties removed from the Inventory and there
are only 300 Resources altogether on the Inventory.
4. Finding it onerous to deal with buildings one by one, their next
strategy was to remove 45 more properties from the Inventory because
they were built after 1940, the date that the Context Statement stops
its historic evaluation.
a. The Context is advisory not regulatory.
b. The Planning Department has the responsibility of updating the
Statement every five years.
c. An appeal was filed re these 45 buildings by CPF, and was
scheduled, by Municipal Code to be at the first meeting after
the filing, which was Tuesday, and the Council continued the
hearing without setting a future date even though it was
publicly requested.
5. Since the LCP was certified in October 2004, the City has misused the
methodology for determining what properties are and are not historic.
We need your Staff to examine the their use of ineligible, loss of
integrity, age, and misuse of the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
6. There have been two requests for Mills Act Contracts, Both buildings
are on the Carmel Historic Register. Both requests have been continued
twice with no explanation for why they can't proceed. This has been
since December 2005.
We sincerely request that we can make our specific problems clear directly to Central Coast Staff so that we can be assured that the excellent Implementation Plan can be practiced correctly. Thank you.
After Enid Sales' presentation, the Chair spoke to Charles Lester, Deputy Director, Central Coast District Office, and he said he was going to speak with the Mayor. The Chair made it clear that Mr. Lester must and with what Enid Sales had requested.
On or about Friday,7 April 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen remarked that the meeting between the City and the Coastal Commission Staff was about all of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)---this was a factually inaccurate statement. When confronted with the reasons stated by the City at the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Guillen refused to admit the reason for the meeting was the Historic Resources Board's decision, upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, to remove 45 post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources. Defensively, he reiterated that the meeting was not a public meeting and "I don't have to tell you."
In the context of the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report citing the lack of "open government" in Carmel-by-the-Sea, it is extremely disappointing, discouraging and disheartening to learn of a City Administrator who responds to a citizen's query with defensive prevarications,instead of genuine interest for a citizen's concerns.
Finally, in an April 7, 2006 Letter to The Carmel Pine Cone, Olof Dahlstrand wrote of the incumbents responses to his question on the meaning of "open government;" "the incumbents' replies showed their continuing misunderstanding of this concept which has dogged them for several years. (The reluctance of the incumbents to support an open public discussion of the issues in the privatization of the management of Sunset Center comes to mind.)" Is it any wonder then, that the City Administrator, who serves at the pleasure of the City Council, similarly suffers from a "continuing misunderstanding" of open government?" The City Administrator and the Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council just don't get it and never will get it!
At the 7 March 2006 Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council meeting, the above referenced appeal was continued by the City Council.
Transcript from the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Public Hearing, Appeal.
Mayor Sue McCloud: "The next item is Public Hearings. This was, as I mentioned in the beginning, Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Resources Board to remove properties from the Historic Resources Inventory that were developed between 1940-1956. And staff is...Brain, do you want to..
Principal Planner Brian Roseth: "Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. Before I go into this, I would like to give..."
McCloud: "We're not going to go into it, we are going to continue it."
Roseth: "Oh, I'm sorry."
McCloud: "Remember?"
Roseth: "I wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting. That saves me all this.
Laughter.
City Administrator Rich Guillen: "Yes. Staff is recommend we continue this item because we need further review of the issues,(pause) mainly with the Coastal Commission.
McCloud: "The Coastal Commission contacted us on Friday afternoon and because of their schedule this week down here, there is otherwise not time to get together with them. So, and Don you have talked to the attorneys...So, we've agreed that we would...with Susan Brandt-Hawley and the Coastal Commission...We would postpone, continue this."
Councilman Gerard Rose: "So the gist, as I understand it, is that we are postponing this so that our staff can speak to the staff of the Coastal Commission about this proposal. Is that right?"
McCloud: "It's a large...It's...Yeah."
Guillen: "That's correct."
Later that week, on Thursday, 9 March 2006, Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, orally recited her letter to California Coastal Commission Chair Meg Caldwell and Members of the Coastal Commission at the Coastal Commission's meeting in Monterey.
Letter to Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission from Enid Sales, director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
CARMEL PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 3959 ~ CARMEL, CA 93921
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2006 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
TO: Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission
FROM: Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
RE: Request of an Overview of Commission Staff of the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Plan for Carmel, CA.
We feel that Carmel Planning Staff consistently violates the conditions of the IP regarding Historic Resources. Our concerns are with the Inventory, the consistent refusal to include relevant evaluations of the Carmel Preservation Foundation on the Agendas of the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning Commission. Following are the violations.
1. After a letter to property owners of their inclusion on the Inventory,
they did not record these buildings as required.
2. Conducted a Workshop for Owners that explained in Planning terms not too
clearly what the requirements are, but did not support the Preservation
Program. Instead they blamed the Coastal Commission because they had
made the City select an Inventory and have such a Program.
3. The City upset Owners at this meeting to such an extent that 93 requests
were made to have their properties removed from the Inventory and there
are only 300 Resources altogether on the Inventory.
4. Finding it onerous to deal with buildings one by one, their next
strategy was to remove 45 more properties from the Inventory because
they were built after 1940, the date that the Context Statement stops
its historic evaluation.
a. The Context is advisory not regulatory.
b. The Planning Department has the responsibility of updating the
Statement every five years.
c. An appeal was filed re these 45 buildings by CPF, and was
scheduled, by Municipal Code to be at the first meeting after
the filing, which was Tuesday, and the Council continued the
hearing without setting a future date even though it was
publicly requested.
5. Since the LCP was certified in October 2004, the City has misused the
methodology for determining what properties are and are not historic.
We need your Staff to examine the their use of ineligible, loss of
integrity, age, and misuse of the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
6. There have been two requests for Mills Act Contracts, Both buildings
are on the Carmel Historic Register. Both requests have been continued
twice with no explanation for why they can't proceed. This has been
since December 2005.
We sincerely request that we can make our specific problems clear directly to Central Coast Staff so that we can be assured that the excellent Implementation Plan can be practiced correctly. Thank you.
After Enid Sales' presentation, the Chair spoke to Charles Lester, Deputy Director, Central Coast District Office, and he said he was going to speak with the Mayor. The Chair made it clear that Mr. Lester must and with what Enid Sales had requested.
On or about Friday,7 April 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen remarked that the meeting between the City and the Coastal Commission Staff was about all of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)---this was a factually inaccurate statement. When confronted with the reasons stated by the City at the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Guillen refused to admit the reason for the meeting was the Historic Resources Board's decision, upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, to remove 45 post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources. Defensively, he reiterated that the meeting was not a public meeting and "I don't have to tell you."
In the context of the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report citing the lack of "open government" in Carmel-by-the-Sea, it is extremely disappointing, discouraging and disheartening to learn of a City Administrator who responds to a citizen's query with defensive prevarications,instead of genuine interest for a citizen's concerns.
Finally, in an April 7, 2006 Letter to The Carmel Pine Cone, Olof Dahlstrand wrote of the incumbents responses to his question on the meaning of "open government;" "the incumbents' replies showed their continuing misunderstanding of this concept which has dogged them for several years. (The reluctance of the incumbents to support an open public discussion of the issues in the privatization of the management of Sunset Center comes to mind.)" Is it any wonder then, that the City Administrator, who serves at the pleasure of the City Council, similarly suffers from a "continuing misunderstanding" of open government?" The City Administrator and the Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council just don't get it and never will get it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)