HISTORIC LANDMARKS Hearing of August 13, 2018

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA HISTORIC LANDMARKS ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Time: 10:00 a.m. APPROVED MINUTES The regular hearing of the Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission was called to order by Chair Ronald Nye, at 10:02 a.m., in the Planning Commission Hearing Room 17, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: RONALD NYE MEMBER AT LARGE, CHAIR Left at 10:30 a.m. SHEILA SNOW KEITH COFFMAN-GREY 1 ST DISTRICT, VICE-CHAIR 2 nd DISTRICT LANSING DUNCAN 3 RD DISTRICT FRANK GRUBE 4 TH DISTRICT EILEEN WYCKOFF 4 TH DISTRICT RANDY MELCOMBE 5 TH DISTRICT HOWARD WITTAUSCH 5 TH DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: EDWIN LENVIK DARIAN BLEECHER JESSICA TADE 1 ST DISTRICT 2 ND DISTRICT 3 RD DISTRICT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Anne Rierson, Deputy County Counsel Nicole Lieu, Planner David Villalobos, HLAC Secretary 1. ROLL CALL 2. MINUTES: The Minutes of July 9, 2018 were considered as follows: ACTION: Commissioner Duncan moved, seconded by Commissioner Wittausch and carried by a vote of 7 to 0 to 1 (Wyckoff abstained; Lenvik, Bleecher, and Tade absent) to approve the Minutes of July 9, 2018 as amended. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: Paulina Conn discussed the August 8 Charles Birnbaum lecture Make Visible, Instill Value and Engage the Public in Our Shared Landscape Heritage. 4. STAFF UPDATE: David Villalobos provided the HLAC with information regarding the HLAC s December 14, 2009 approval of a historic survey by Michel Nellis to update the status on all existing County Landmarks and Places of Historic Merit. The completed survey was then accepted by the HLAC at their June 14, 2010 hearing.

2 County of Santa Barbara HLAC Minutes\ Page 2 Nomination to Designate Rancho San 5. Carlos as Santa Barbara County Historic Landmark Montecito The County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (HLAC) will consider the nomination by the East Valley Preservation Association of Rancho San Carlos for designation as a Santa Barbara County Historic Landmark. The property is shown as Assessor s Parcel Numbers , , , , , and , located at 2500 East Valley Road, Montecito area, First Supervisorial District. (Continued from 8/14/17, 11/13/17, 1/08/18, 3/12/18, 6/11/18, and 4/09/18) Chair Nye recused from discussion of this item, and left the hearing for the day. Commissioner Snow Chaired this item. Present: Mary Rose, East Valley Preservation Association (EVPA); applicant Leslie Heumann, applicant team Laura Bridley, planner for owner Amy Minteer, attorney for applicant Jim Jackson and C.J. Jackson, property owners Pam Post and Tim Hazeltine, historians for owner Graham Lyons, attorney for owner Applicant Presentation: Mary Rose, East Valley Preservation Association, Leslie Heumann, and Amy Menteer. The applicant discussed the involvement of master architect Reginald Johnson and landscape architects Lockwood de Forest, Jr., and Ralph Stevens, as well as landscape architect Florence Yoch. They believe that the video tour of the property, which is posted on the realtor s website, should be part of the official record of the Commission, and that Chair Nye should not have to recuse from review of this item. The team noted that they would be willing to meet to discuss other paths forward. Commission Questions: Commissioner Coffman-Grey: notes that there is some precedent with the Val Verde estate in which a parcel was developed without HLAC review. Staff responded that the sale of a property is itself not a trigger of HLAC review. Kellam de Forest believes that Commissioner Coffman-Grey is mistaken, that the Val Verde property was not sold off, and that a major revision proposed by the owner has been reviewed by HLAC. Owner Team Presentation: Jim Jackson: There is a question of who are the members of EVPA. The EVPA nomination is an attempt to use the HLAC to restrict the use of property. It has been expensive to the owners to protect their own property, and this nomination is a message to owners that no property is safe in Montecito. Tim Hazeltine does not believe that, as currently written, the nomination supports designation of the entire property. A strong case has not been made to designate the unimproved land. Contribution of family, architect, and landscape architects needs to be clearly stated. The nomination needs to include a very precise list of contributors/non-contributors describing physical and spatial features, landscape features, etc. It has not been his experience that a Specific Plan be included in a nomination, and does not see why it would be required for any nomination in the County. They are usually used as a tool in the environmental review process. Pam Post: Only 3 sheets of conceptual sheets from Lockwood de Forest can be found, and is not sufficient documentation that de Forest carried out the design. Extensive documentation shows that another landscape arhitect Florence Yoch played a more significant role.

3 County of Santa Barbara HLAC Minutes Page 3 Documentation of Ralph Stevens participation is only through the recollection of the Jackson family. Laura Bridley: Work on structures of over 50 years requires a historic report which would likely be brought to the HLAC. The nomination is an attempted misapplication of planning regulations. There are no plans to develop the property. Why is the nomination needed? Graham Lyons: The nomination runs afoul of Chapter 18A. HLAC cannot impose special conditions beyond those listed in Chapter 18A. A Specific Plan is not approved or initiated by the HLAC. HLAC does not have authority to implement the HLAC and the Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors cannot be compelled by the property owner to adopt a specific plan. It violates Chapter 18A4b. Attempts to undermine the zoning designation applied by the Montecito Community Plan---this was already resolved through the MOU between the County and the Petan Corporation. Gary Kobacic: The County Architect supported a specific party, which shows a clear bias. The designation would be a takings, and will not go unchallenged. The proposed conditions will effectively take all beneficial use from the property, and go too far under the 5 th and 14 th Amendments. Commission Questions: Commissioner Wittausch Inquired about the parcel history of the property, and acknowledged that the Jackson family has been good stewards of the property. Commissioner Snow asked about the MOU. Answer: MOU allowed downzoning but not as far as 1-E-1 which occurred in other areas. Have you considered conservation easements? Answer: Would have considered if we went forward with development. A future owner may likely do the same, but we are not proposing development. Commissioner Wyckoff asked how much this process has cost the property owner. Commissioner Duncan noted that it appears that there are two driveways to the house. One service and one for guests. i. Do the interior murals date to when the house was constructed? Answer: murals were created shortly after and show polo grounds. ii. Does the mural of the Rancho show structures on the site? Answer: many are shown, some were built after, some were destroyed. iii. What assurances can you give that property will be protected. Answer: the existing procedures requiring CEQA and historic review. A better/different nomination would focus on the structures. Public Comment: Sally and Phillip Wilcox, Brett Hodges, Edward Birch, Charles A. Jackson, Kellam de Forest, Dan Eidelson, Bobbie Kinnear, Gerry Shepherd, Frank Abatemarco, Craig McCan, Diane Kane, Deborah Rosenthal. Commission Comments: Commissioner Wittausch: He cannot support the nomination as presented on the condition of approval of a specific plan. While he can see the merit in designating this property and respects the process that we have in place currently, he thinks it is inappropriate to act on this application at this time. He thinks that the current owner should not be encumbered by the condition of the nomination. Commissioner Melcombe appreciates the pro-activeness of the applicant in bringing the property to the HLAC s attention. He believes that the property should eventually be

4 County of Santa Barbara HLAC Minutes\ Page 4 landmarked. There is precedent for landmarking the Shrode Produce Company (Tomato Packing House) against the owners wishes, but only because the structure was in danger of destruction. The owner of this property has been a good steward of the site and structure. Ethically, without the owners consent to landmark, he does not feel comfortable landmarking this property. Not right now. Would encourage the owners to write up a nomination form for yourselves, even as a place of historic merit. Commissioner Wyckoff: This particular nomination is a misuse of the HLAC and we cannot take away the owners discretion. She does not support the nomination. Commissioner Duncan We are here because of how remarkable this property is, in a community that particularly values beauty and architecture and that is groundbreaking and style making. He doesn t think that you can say that the property is not a unified aesthetic vision. The agriculture, structures, and equestrian facilities are carefully intertwined. The old world and new world are carefully connected in a manner that is intentional. The owners were seeking to make world class equestrian facilities. The driveway is a carefully planned sinuous design probably by Lockwood Deforest or Ralph Stevens and was intentional in providing different views. They didn t hire Reginald Johnson and de Forest and Florence Yoch by accident. The reason that it was preserved as a whole all this time is because it was carefully considered. He sees exactly why the EVPA brought this nomination to us. He does see that requiring a Specific Plan is a burdensome approach to solving the problem of the Jacksons selling at this time. It would be tough to say what a Specific Plan would incorporate. Would encourage the Commission to think of what we can do to ensure protection of the most valuable resources and finding a creative solution to protect what we can. We need to be proactive and not reactive. The whole property is a designed landscape. Commissioner Coffman-Grey: This property would not be here today without the stewardship of the Jackson family. The property meets criterion A, D, B and E, which would make it eligible as a Historic Landmark. He is very concerned about the proposed conditions. We look at historic portions of a property. New construction is not within our purview. The proposed conditions are not fair to the property owner. Would like to support the landmark but I cannot support it as it is. Would like to see how the property can be preserved in some aspects. Commissioner Snow: The Botanic Garden nomination went through a whole process and was a third party nomination the Garden itself is now appreciative of the nomination. Would love to see some kind of cooperation to Landmark the property between owner and EVPA. Protection of the whole property is beyond our purview. Would like to see elements of the property landmarked (e.g. the barn), but cannot support this current nomination. The property owners/agent expressed a willingness to work with the HLAC regarding designation of the main house and barn. ACTION: Commissioner Melcomebe moved, seconded by Commissioner Coffman-Grey and carried by a vote of 5 to 0 to 1 (Grube abstained; Nye, Wittasuch, Lenvik, Bleecher, and Tade absent) to deny the nomination submitted by the East Valley Preservation Association. ACTION: Commissioner Duncan moved, seconded by Commissioner Coffmann-Grey carried by a vote of 5 to 0 to 1 (Grube abstained; Nye, Wittausch, Lenvik, Bleecher, and Tade absent) to to consider designation of landmark status for the main house, octagonal barn, and to determine what character defining features, designed landscapes, and circulation systems that are contributing. Develop a proposal in conjunction with the property owners that would be brought back to the HLAC at a later date and form a subcommittee if necessary to develop the proposal.

5 County of Santa Barbara HLAC Minutes Page Parra Grande Lane Phase 1/Phase 2 Historic Reports Montecito Briana Wiley, Planner (805) The County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (HLAC) will review and provide comments on the proposed project and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 historic resources technical reports. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a 4,623 square foot submerged garage, 800 square foot gym, 800 square foot office, and 800 square foot loggia. The property is shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 631 Parra Grande Lane, Montecito, First Supervisorial District. Item not considered due to loss of quorum. 7. District Reports Individual Commissioners may present brief reports that would be of interest to the public and/or Commission as a whole. No official action shall be taken on any individual matter. Item not considered due to loss of quorum. 8. NEXT MEETING of the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission: Respectfully submitted by, Date: September 10, 2018 Time 10:00 a.m. Location: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 4 th Floor 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA David Villalobos Secretary, HLAC G:\GROUP\PC_STAFF\WP\LANDMARK\HLAC\MINUTES\Minutes--2018\ HLAC Minutes.doc