325 W. Washington Street, Suite2, #221

San Diego, CA 92103 619-497-1193

www.MissionHillsHeritage.org

--A community organization dedicated to preserving the character, charm and historical resources of the Mission Hills neighborhood.

May 25, 2016 Uptown Planners Attn: Leo Wilson, Chair San Diego, CA 92103 Re: Uptown Community Plan Update – Potential Historic Districts Dear Members of Uptown Planners: Mission Hills is one of the oldest and most intact early 20th Century neighborhoods in the City of San Diego, filled with irreplaceable homes built in vintage architectural styles. Recognizing the importance of preserving the historic character and quality of their neighborhood, residents of Mission Hills worked over several years to establish the Mission Hills and Fort Stockton Line historic districts and a recent extension of the Mission Hills historic district. Over 275 homes are now located within these districts. In addition to the existing historic districts, the City recently completed a detailed reconnaissance survey that identified eight potential historic districts in Mission Hills and a total of nineteen throughout Uptown. Residents of the Inspiration Heights area have already begun work to nominate that area as a historic district. However, it will take years of effort by community members working in conjunction with City staff to complete the steps needed to establish these additional historic districts. Meanwhile, modifications and demolitions of homes that are potential “contributors” in these area could erode the eligibility of these potential historic districts. As part of the community plan update process, the City has proposed a set of supplemental regulations to protect structures identified in the survey as potential contributors, which are structures that exhibit the characteristics of the historic district. The regulations, as proposed, will involve protections to the front 2/3 of the original building footprint, with

Uptown Planners May 25, 2016 Page 2 exceptions and a deviation process. Only those homes identified as potential contributors will be affected by the regulations. A map of the potential historic districts and a “fact sheet” published by the City are attached. We feel that the proposed regulations are a huge step in the right direction to help preserve the historic character of our community, giving residents the opportunity to complete the work to establish these districts. But certain opponents of historic districts have recently circulated materials advocating against establishing historic districts and against protections for potential historic districts. We strongly disagree with a document recently circulated by Mission Hills resident Sharon Gehl entitled “Examples of Homes That Would Be Prevented by Potential Historic Districts”. The document discusses seven houses built, remodeled, or to be replaced in Mission Hills since 2003 and postulates that the changes would not have been made if the proposed regulations protecting potential historic districts had been in place. The letter uses terms such as “simple,” “nothing special,” and “rundown ugly” to describe the older homes demolished in favor of the newer, larger houses. Of the houses discussed in Ms. Gehl’s letter, it would appear that several of the pre-existing, older dwellings would have been cleared for demolition regardless of the proposed regulations, although we believe that at least one should not have been demolished either way. One is not even within a potential historic district, and therefore cannot be a “contributor.” (See below for a rebuttal of the information Ms. Gehl provided about these homes.) Moreover, we disagree with the underlying premise of Ms. Gehl’s document—that newer houses are better for our older neighborhood and, therefore, there should be less restriction against tearing down older homes that might be contributors to a historic district. New houses may or may not add to community character, and some have clearly detracted from community character, but we believe that homes that are identified as contributors to a potential district should be protected from demolition—because they will contribute to establishing the historic district. Also, if one were to believe Ms. Gehl’s reasoning, such would apply equally to potential historic districts and established historic districts: tear down the contributing homes and replace with new construction. Contrary to her implications, increases in property values, property tax relief for contributors and pride of ownership within historic districts have incentivized the rehabilitation of homes within the districts that suffer from deferred maintenance or inappropriate modifications. We have also seen repeatedly, such as on Eagle and Falcon Streets, that homes needing attention often attract buyers who could not otherwise afford to bring their families to Mission Hills and who greatly improve their properties while honoring neighborhood character. The established historic districts in Mission Hills have benefitted from these factors and it is our desire to see that areas identified as potential historic districts have the same opportunities.

Uptown Planners May 25, 2016 Page 4 Rebuttal concerning specific houses discussed by Sharon Gehl: 4337 Valle Vista: While the new house is certainly beautiful, the vintage Craftsman home that was demolished was anything but “nothing special”; it exhibited many of the character-defining features of the Craftsman style, including a full-width front porch, wide overhanging eaves with decorative brackets and detailed rafter tails. Demolition was granted due to a mistaken belief that the wood siding was not original, which was later disproved by photographic evidence. The demolition of this home helped spur changes to the City’s historic review process. 4280 Hermosa Way: The older home on this site had been heavily altered over the years, such that it would not have been deemed a contributor to a potential historic district. 4406 Ampudia Street: The older 1920s house on this site had been heavily altered in a 1950s remodel and was not deemed a contributor to a potential historic district. The owner that built the new home explored the option of historically designating the existing house, but proceeded with the project when the City indicated the existing house would not qualify to designation. We have heard that, after unsuccessfully attempting to sell the new house for many months, the builders/owners have been renting it. 4146 Stephens Street: The classic 1920s Mission Revival home that was located on this site was anything but “simple”. The City determined that alterations over the years rendered the house ineligible for designation and it was not listed as a potential contributor. The new house is built “setback-to-setback” and has sat vacant on the market for many months. 4483 Hermosa Street [mislabeled 4283 Hermosa] is not located within a potential historic district. It is a mostly-original vintage house designed by renowned architect William Templeton Johnson. 1826 and 1836 Washington Place. The City determined that alterations over the years rendered these two houses ineligible for designation. Although one was a potential contributor, the proposed regulations for potential contributors include exceptions that very likely still would have allowed demolition.

(Attachment to Mission Hills Heritage letter dated May 25, 2016 to Uptown Planners) Examples of Contributors to Districts and Historically Designated Homes with Significant Additions. 2139 Fort Stockton Drive. This Craftsman home built in 1919 by Nathan Rigdon and Morris Irvin is a contributor to the Fort Stockton Line historic district. Originally one story and 1500 square feet, a second story addition last year increased the size to 2753 square feet (per Trulia) while retaining the historic character of the home.

4230 Arista Street. An historically designated Colonial Revival home built in 1948, a large remodel to the rear greatly increased the living area of this home to 11,300 square feet (per current real estate listing), while maintaining the historical designation of the Leo R. Hoffman Residence. The addition is hardly visible from the public right of way. This house is currently on the market for $6,900,000.

1866 Fort Stockton Drive. This historically designated Prairie style home was originally one story and only 1265 square feet. A second story addition stepped back from the front plane of the house blends well with the Prairie style and increased the size to 1744 square feet (per Trulia).

2035 Fort Stockton Drive. A contributor to the Fort Stockton Line historic district, this Craftsman style home was originally only one story and 1288 square feet. A second story addition increased square footage to 2574 (per Zillow) while blending with the original footprint of the home.

4251 Arguello Street. This 1917 Prairie style house built by Nathan Rigdon is a contributor to the Mission Hills historic district. In a 2003 remodel about 1,000 square feet was removed from the first and second floors at the back of the house and a two story addition was built that extended the original footprint of the house, with a net gain of 600 square feet. The remodel did not prevent the house from being designated a contributor to the district.

1895 Altamira Place. The historically designated “Albert Frost House” was built in 1916 in the Prairie style. A substantial remodel about 10 years ago, which included a two-story addition visible from the street, did not prevent the house from being historically designated. The total estate is on the market for $3,495,000. 1830 Sunset Boulevard. A contributor to the Mission Hills historic district, this 1912 Prairie style home received an addition to the rear that blends well with the house and is almost unnoticeable from the public right of way.

p

 

 

1010 Second Ave. Suite 1200, San Diego, CA 92101 | (619) 235-5200 | planning@sandiego.gov | www.sandiego.gov/planning

POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS Communities of Uptown, North Park & Golden Hill Potential Issue of Concern Over time, homes of historic importance have been modified or improved to the point where they are no longer ‘individually significant,’ but still may ‘contribute’ to the significance of a potential historic district. Additionally, homes which may not be distinctive enough to meet criteria for individual designation may nevertheless contribute to the significance of a potential historic district. The loss of these potential contributing structures could significantly and adversely impact the district’s eligibility for future historic designation.

Individually Significant Individually Significant Potential Contributor Potential Contributor

Potential Historic Districts Identified In support of the CPU process, a detailed reconnaissance survey was completed that identified 26 potential historic districts (PHD) in the three communities (19 in Uptown, 6 in North Park and 1 in Golden Hill). The analysis included a basis for the PHDs potential significance and identification of potential contributing and non-contributing resources. Additionally, a historic survey completed in 1996 identified a PHD in South Park and in west Golden Hill (Culverwell & Taggart’s Addition). These identified PHDs will be subject to the supplemental regulations identified below.

Eleven additional PHDs were identified by community members (4 in Uptown and 5 in North Park) based on a cursory windshield survey. However, a detailed reconnaissance survey would need to occur in order to properly identify potential contributing and non-contributing resources. Until further analysis can be completed, these additional PHDs are not being considered for further regulations as part of the CPU process.

The LGBTQ Historic Context Statement is currently underway and will verify the presence of a potential historic district within Hillcrest. Future intensive level survey work can build off of the results of the LGBTQ Historic Context Statement.

Newer home replaces a home that may contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. 

(Continue to page 2)

 

Page 2: Potential Historic Districts   Communities of Uptown,

North Park & Golden Hill

Additionally, the San Diego Normal School/San Diego City Schools Education Complex Historic

District, which is institutional in use, was identified by the community through survey evaluation by an independent consultant. The San Diego Normal School/San Diego City Schools Education Complex Historic District is owned by the San Diego Unified School District and is not subject to the City’s zoning and overlay requirements.

Proposed Supplemental Regulations Identified

45-year review An estimated 95% of the structures within the PHDs are currently subject to review for ‘individual significance’ under the City’s Historic Ordinance and new development for potentially significant structures is reviewed for consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior Standards. No changes are proposed to the current ordinance.

Applicable to residential structures only

It is estimated that over 93% of the structures within the PHDs are low-density residential properties. Conversely, an estimated 95% of the proposed new growth is focused in commercial areas and higher density residential. The draft Supplemental Regulations will only apply to single and multi-family residential structures within the PHDs that are currently subject to 45-year review. Commercial properties will not be subject to the Supplemental Regulations, but will continue to be subject to the 45-year review. In terms of impact, there are an estimated 2,700 residential structures in the consultant identified PHDs. Since 2003, less than 400 building permits were issued in those areas.

Supplemental Regulations

Residential structures that are not individually significant, but are potential contributors (pursuant to the criterion described in the historic survey) will be subject to the following requirements.

o No modifications allowed to the front 2/3 of the original building footprint unless the

modification will repair existing historic materials or restore the building to its historic appearance.

Exception: Improvements exempt from building permits pursuant to SDMC 129.0203, as well as improvements identified in SDMC 143.0212(a)(1)-(4) (same standard as applied to 45-year review).

Exception: Deviation may be approved though a Process 2 Neighborhood Development Permit. Projects will be reviewed for consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior Standards (similar to 45-year review) and the following findings must be made.

All feasible measures to protect and preserve the integrity of the

potential historic district have been provided; and,

The proposed deviation is the minimum necessary to afford relief and accommodate the development and all feasible measures to mitigate for any impacts to the potential historic district have been provided; and,

The proposed project will not result in a loss of integrity within the

potential historic district which would render it ineligible for historic designation.

Potential Historic District Overlay Zone in Uptown