Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 9.A-Attch10 06/21/2004Rartners. RandiF. stephen R. Wee Meta Bunse June 11, 2004 Marti Buxton Mission. Valley,Properties 5000 Hopyard Road,. Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 ` Dear Ms. Buxton: �.2 l .Y � a In 0 a r- 0 z Cn c q z I At your direction and request, I have prepared this letter to clarify our findings and to address subsequent correspondence related to the evaluation ,of historic significance of the property at 43,1435 Paula -L-ane (AP-N 019- 080 -0:10. and 019 - 08.0 -009). The original evaluation and subsequent.corresporidence include: ® April 10.2002 .in ventory and evaluation. DPR523 form submitted with a . summary "letter report, ® March - 4 20011 ;Caney & - Co.,. Inc. Peer review of JRP April 2002. evaluation. January 12, 2004 Diana Painter letter regarding JRP evaluation and Carey & Co. peer review. ® February 3, 2004 Carey & Co., Inc. response to.Painter letter of January 12. MU 12, 200.4 Diana Painter Carey & Co. letter''of February 3. Both of the Carey. ,& Co. letters concur with our April 2002-finding that the property consists of the;remairis of a small farm complex that does-not meet eitherLthe significance criteria of the National Register of Historic. Places. (National Register) or the significance criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Both of Ms. Painter's letters present her opinion that, the. property in question may be a "rural historic °landscape," as :defined by the National Park Service, and that it should be evaluated as such. The following -sections outline the process that we followed in. the identification of the property type, n well: as the preparation of our inventory and evaluation, and will show that we -. , have used the appropriate , identification and evaluation methodology and standards in our`review. 1490! Djew Avenue,.,Suite 110 •Davis, California 95616 (530)'757.2521 •,(530)`757' -2566 Fax • www.jrphistorical.com Water.Reso,ufce /Land -Use History- • culturaf.Resources Management • 1106-Compliance • 'Expen'Services ATTACHMENT 10 All historic inventory and .evaluation projects begin with two basic ,tasks: 1) identification of property type; and 2) identification of the appropriate historic context /theme.', Property types are defined by the National Register (and recognized in the, California Register)' as, buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, or landscapes. Possible historic themes are much more numerous, brit include agriculture, architecture-, commerce education, industry, and transportation for example. 1. Property Type I,n the case of'.the: Paula Lane property, our. initial research and site visit suggested that the most accurate description was that of a former farm complex, with, potential. significance in the,themes or agriculture and architecture. Both the National Register and California Register consider "a historically and functionally related unit, "` such' as a house and ancillary buildings, to be a "building" property type, not'a district or landscape:'` Our conclusion that the.Paula Lane property was a "building property type was based, on consideration of all other property types. .The Paula Lane property clearly doe`s not meet the definition of a structure (bridges, tunnels, dames, railways, etc.), or object (sculpture, boundary markers, fountains, etc). The one object identified in the farm complex, an outdoor oven, is a, nioderii feature that does not date to the same period as the main house. The property could - arguably be defined as.a site, but this type is usually reserved for sites. of prehistorichabitation or activity, or specific significant events', sites of treaty signings, or shipwrecks. Jn fact National Register ; guidelines note that : "landscapes small in size and having no buildings or structures, gich as an. experimental orchard, are classified as sites, "'' The Paula Lane property does include buildings, and therefore "site is not the correct classification in this case. The .Paola. Lane property does riot meet the definition of a district :or landscape, two property. types: that share:a very definition.. The National Register and California Register recognize that a group. of "buildings, structures, objects, or sites (such as a central business areas, .residential area, cabal system,. °large farm, or transportation network), that contains a si ccrrrt Con Ceti, lration of resources, is a "district" property type. These Our or,iTinal cvaluatiun and this letter use the Califon is Reg ister'and National Register guidelines as the basis for the identification, inventory, and evaluation of the subj m ect property. This etlmdok�gy Follows the reconttbendation of the City of Petaluma's Toning Orclmance. Nib. 1072, Article 17, Scetion''506 (ord 2097 N.C:S., 9/99), which specifically references�tile 11 istorie sr -Ili `fieance criteria.6I'the .Ciilifornia;Register (Criteria f, 2, 3, and 0 . As tinted in bur evaluation, tile, Calfforniii Register is closely modeled on the National Register, bUL dOCS I101 include the same level of det ailed guidance as the National Register (which emlaloys.significance.Cilteria A, B, C, and D). It is conln oil practice in conducting historic evalir<itions tOr the Cali I'drili'k Regis i tc refer'to the extensive "Llidance PlTered by the national program; This practice is established in various aublications 01' tle.Calit'ornia Office of Historic. Preservatit�ti thatspecifically reference the guidance oF.the National Rerrister. Please refer to'the publications list at the!end of this letter' for Speci'tic citatians:'The three levels of c' "didance that we used 6r this project, therel'ore, included the City of Petaluma , ortlinance,lhe;Cadifornia Redister. and the National Register: USPL NPS, - How - to Complete the,National Register Registration F orris" Ncuional Register Bulletin left (Washington D.C.: United States ,Depart tile nt of the interior. 1997), 15. "USDI, NPS, "Guidelines for Evaluation aril Documenting Rural'. historic Landscapes." Natiin al Regt'ster i3ulletin 30 (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of.thc interior, 1989: revised 1999). 2. 2 II resources must be `united' hisoricall or aestheti `' . -..,_ � _, t _ _ y c111y by plan or physical develop_ meat. " The National Register also defines a historic landscape. (in this case a aural historic landscape) .in a similar way: "a geographic.arearhat historically has ibeen used by people, ... and that possesses a sighificani concelltreifi,o' t, linkage, or corltinitity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and' waterways, and natural features [emphasis added:].' Whether considered a district or a landscape, therefore, the property must contain a "s'igntilclallt eonevift''ation, linkage, oi continuity" of resources in order to receive one of these classifications. This significant grouping of resources includes those features that convey the historical ;importance this type and can include buildings, structures, objects, and landscape elements such as circulation networks, boundary demarcations, vegetation related to land use, internal clusters of resources, archeological sites, small -scale elements, and n„ atural feat res.(such as, human responses to topography or water courses). A landscape is def ned by the relationship of these components to the landscape and to each other, as Ms. Painter noted in both her letters: The Paula Lane property_ does not contain this Significant concentration, and it is not appropriate or correct to i "dentify it as such.. The eleven acres included in the two legal parcels of the current -Paula Lane property are only, a. fraction of the original Paula family property, which was thirty -three aches in size. None. of the interior fence lines, fields, corrals, farm yard, animal pens, barns, outbuildings tank house, or windmill remain. Two modern era (19GOs) buildings have also been added to the farm complex, a small dwelling and an open -sided garage, as well as an outdoor oven, and these additions constitute an intrusion that, further deteriorates the integt ity , of the property. The National Register guidelines are quite specific about this type of°.change in a landscape: "recent changes that have erased historic +characteristics and do riot have exceptional importance, make a property ineligible, even if scenic qualities are still present. " It was clear upon first_ inspection of the property that i,t should be evaluated for what -it is: the remnants of a complex of farm buildings not as a district or landscape. In addition to the guidelines of the National Register and California Register programs discussed above, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has also developed, guidelines for identification and evaluation of historic landscapes. These guidelines do not directly govern 'the historic evaluation Hof the Paula Lane property, but are useful in considering 'the identification. of landscapes as a property type. These guidelines specifically: caution that: lan alF posst,ble -landscapes • will, be found eligible or even require a full dscape study, - however. Any geographic areas which .possesses a notable human relationship with the land and tangible_ physical features might be considered' a, cultural landscape of some sort, but many lack qualities which could possess the potential for historical significance. Landscapes with virtually USDI, NPS, Nation id Re�iiglcr Bulletin 16A, 15. s USDI, NPS, Naiional Rigister'Bulletin 30. 3. c USDI. NPS. National Re isler.Bulletin _i0, 2. 3 �I i no potential for eligibility because of age lack of any'significant associations, or substantial loss of integrity rain usually be dismissed from cons, Oration in a brief statement without conducting a formal evaluation:" 7 The guidance provided by both the federal and state registration programs, therefore, indicates that ft is not appropriate to categorize the Paula Lane property as a "landscape" type. 2. Historic Context / Theme JRP conducted :context research before and after field recording the Paula Lane property, both' to, establish the historical themes with which the property is associated, and to prepare ;a, history of the property itself. This research included review of published histories, city and county government records, historic manuscript collections, University of California library and special_ collections holdings, federal .population census; data, historic inaps, and historic aerial photography. The identification of _the property as a "building" type would have been immediately revisited if this research revealed information ind'icaiin&­ihat a different property'type categorization was appropriate. The original period of cotlstruction' for the complex was the early: 1..890s and its original IIInction was: that of a small general! farn-t. The dairy house dates to ca. 19,10- 1920. The appropriate historic context, therefore includes the themes of agriculture and rural • architecture from about 1890 through 1920. The research showed (hat small farm operations, particularly Po farms, but also dairy andy eneial fartTis, pt }lifciated in the vicinity of -Petaluma Burin« the late nineteenth arid. earl twentieth century--. The pattern of land use development of local road systems, and the developmen,rof rural residential architecture are all related to these themes as well. Our evaluation of ;the property, therefore, proceeded within this historic context and time period. 3. Evaluation.of Significance This property does not meet National Register or California Register, criteria :for sijnificance. Our evaluation was conducted in accordance with Section 1.5064.5(a)(2)- (3) of the CEQA Guidelines; us the criteria - outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code and is adequate under CEQA. The evaluation presented on the DPR523 form we submitted .iii Aprif 2002 is appropriate to the resource and still stands. Furthermore, our conclusion would be the same whether this property was categorized as a "building" property type, a "district" property type,, or as .a "landscape" property type. Cale uis Lnvircinmenlal I?ro- ram, General Guidelines �i�r /c(exli/ Frtg rind Ercrl rrrlirtn llis(c�ric Landscapes (f chr u u y. 1999.). av ilable Online rite httpa /www.dcn c a. ov /�u /_uidttnceatlm #Landse ale Please refer'to Iootnote .1 fora description of the evaluation guidance used Iorthis evaluafion: 4 The !'arm complex does not meet the criteria for significance under the National Register or California Register programs because it does: not appear to be significant within the context of agricultural ,or mural architectural development in the area. Our research and analysis show that the property (vii_hetler considered as a building, district, or landscape) is not important within this context. All resources are associated with some historic context, but to be eligible under Criterion A or Criterion 1., a property must have a specific important as*gociatibn. This property does riot appear to have specific importance within t period from c onte x t tl -6 c t he or rural residential, development in this area during, the aQri he L920s. The Paula Lane property is not associated with a historically significant person (Criterion B turd Criterion 2), does not ;embody. distinctive 'architectural or design characteristics within its type, period, or inethod' of construction (Criterion C and Criterion 3), nor is it likely to yield information important to history ( Crieerion D and Criterion 4)." Even if it did Have significance under one of these criteria, the property does not retain integrity. This lack of integrity is tipparent whether it is - considered a building, a small complex of buildings, a district,. or a landscape. It was clear from the onsite inspection and from subsequent research "that what little did remain of the firm. complex had suffered a substantial loss of .integrity: The main house (ca. 1890) and the milk shed (ca. 19'10 -1920) have lost integrity through modifications and additions. 0 No other buildings, structu es, or objects dated 1. to the historic period of the complex (or 1'890 through the. 1920s). The original Paula farm property is only about one- third its original size. Most of the, other landscape elements. of the farm have been removed, such as interior fence lines, fields, corrals, tarn] y ird, ar imal pens, barns, outbuildings, tank house, and windmill. The modern buildin and outdoor oven on the property constitute intrusions that substantially impair the integrity of the property and certainly reduce its potential to be categorized as a historic rural landscape. The . Setting -of the property has also been, diiininished because two modern subdivisions fill the fu to the east.a1nd north, of the property, an area that was comprised of other farmsteads during the potential period of significance. The Paula Lane property, therefore, does not retain integrity of design, materials, workr.lianshi.p, se.ttiiig 'feeling or association. ') `i'his analysis . sap us,,in more.detail on the original DPR'52.3 1'iirm. W This more detail on tile original DP.IZ523 form. � The non - historic ua.elenlents (the secondary residence and yarage and OUR1001- oven) are less than fifty years old °and are not considered. historic resources under CEQ,A, nor do they appear jo meet the exacting stand uds necessary Tor ° properties less than fifty years old to be considered Historic i•esourcas in spite of their t 5 I hope that this description of our methodology for the identification, inventory, and evaluation of this property clarifies how we conducted the work and how we arrived at our conclusions. If we can provide additional infoimat on or answer any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Meta Bunse Partner • cc: Irene Borha, Senior Planner, City of Petaluma Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties Margo Bradish, Mission Valley Properties encl: J • 1, li • • PUBLICATIONS LIST: Caltrans Environmental Program: Gc>>rercr Gu. "icleli.rr.e.s. forlc(eritifyinr,� ruu! Eualaurtir7 Historic Lanclscal?es. [Sacramento: n.p:j, February 1999. . Available online at: httn 7 /www. clot. ca., ov /ser /quid tnce.1itm# Landscapes [The following California Register program publications are also available on the internet: http7Hohp. parks .ca.gov %default.asp ?page-id =1069] California Office of 'Historic Preservation. Mstructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: OHP, 1995. "California Ep ironmental,Aqulity Acf '(CEQA) and Historical R. esources." :Techiiica.! Assistance Series: 41. May 2001. . "How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register." Includes "Instructions for Preparing Documentation for N. omination." Techni.eal Assistance Series V. Septerr be• 2001. [The following National :Register program publications are also available on the internet: http : / /www.cr.np,5.gov /nr/ publications /btilletiiis.htnz]' 1 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Sery:ice. "Guidelines for Apply.iiig the National Register Criteria for Evaluation." National.Register• 131111etin 1.5. Wa,sl ington DC:'U.S: Governindnt.Printing, b990; revised 1991, 1995, 1997; revised for Internet 1 +995 2004, 2002. "How to Complete the National Register Registration For.m." National Registet. - B rlletin 16A. Washington, D.C.; United States Department of the Interior National Parks Service Press, 1997. "Guidelines for Evaluation and Documenting Rural historic Landscapes." Nat oned Register Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1989.; revised 1.999 /j