PC 020911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Garbarino concurred with Ms. Krichbaum that the City has a certified plan in the Downtown Specific Plan, but questioned if its policies and directives are being followed and if it needs to be amended to address the need to save historic properties in the City. She noted that the DTSP was developed in 2001, and many of the homes pictured in the Plan are no longer in existence. She indicated that some of these homes have been replaced through just saving a wall of the original home, which is a strange way of preserving history, or by saving a small portion of the front of the house but certainly not representing what has been there in the past. She commented that she thinks the City is placing too harsh criteria on what would actually qualify for historic significance. She noted that there are criteria from the National Registry and the California State Registry; however, the City does not have an inventory full of those kinds of homes but a good number in-between those criteria such as cottages and street-side properties, such that each loss is keenly felt and makes holes in neighborhood. Ms. Garbarino stated that she feels Stanley Boulevard is in a historic, neighborhood crisis, with a Craftsman home slated for demolition to make way for a high-density project. She noted that the existing house is not really a throw-away home and that homes like this have been saved. She showed a picture of a similar home in San Diego where the developer took the original home and remodeled it to make it look presentable as a business. She commented that this was a win/win situation. Ms. Garbarino stated that the Heritage trees that line Stanley Boulevard are typical and are cared for by homeowners and associations along the street because they value those trees. She indicated that the City has a Heritage Tree Ordinance, but noted that payment of fines for removal of trees for the convenience of the developer is not the hallmark of the Ordinance. She noted that there are heritage trees at the entrance to the property that should be protected and, according to Camp & Camp Associates, have a good potential for longevity. She added that there are six trees in good health and suitable for preservation: three Deodar cedars, one Canary Island date palm, one Douglas fir, and one Coast live oak. She pointed out that the tree report almost sounds like there may be a chance to preserve the trees, but then the recommendation makes it sound like what the City has is a Tree Removal Ordinance. Ms. Gmpacts to Stanley Boulevard. She stated that the proposed project is more than just a question of an old house and existing trees; it is the loss of a vintage property that can be curbed by the City with thoughtful designation of historic neighborhoods. She noted that no thought is given to truly maintaining and protecting vintage homes, and each demolition becomes a lost opportunity they can never be reclaimed as the house is gone forever. Some added that the home at 4189 Stanley Boulevard presents the Commission with an opportunity to address this issue. She recommended that the DTSP be updated with language that will protect the diminishing inventory of vintage homes, which are the true hallmark of this historic community. Emilie Cruzan, a neighbor, expressed concern about the trees, the house, and parking. She requested that a question be added to the list with respect to parking allowed on PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 9 of 41