ZF #2022-0071: Continued public hearing from the January 19, 2023, special meeting of the Planning Commission to consider a request for a Historic Alteration Permit to make additions to the Samuel Carpenter Cottage located at 28462 County Road 87D, approximately 1/2-mile west of the City of Winters (APN: 030-190-018) and determine a Categorical Exemption is the appropriate level of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Owner/Applicant: Peter and Deborah Hunter. (Planner: Jeff Anderson)

FILE # 2022-0071: Samuel Carpenter Cottage Historic Alteration Permit
APPLICANT: Peter & Deborah Hunter 28472 County Road 87D Winters, CA 95694	OWNER: Same
LOCATION: 28472 County Road 87D, Winters, CA 95694 (APN: 030-190-018) GENERAL PLAN: Agriculture (AG) ZONING: Agricultural Intensive (A-N) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: 2 (Supervisor Frerichs) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: Item continued	SOILS: Arbuckle gravelly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Class II); Corning gravelly loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes (Class IV) FMMP: Farmland of Local Importance; Grazing Land  WILLIAMSON ACT: Yes FLOOD ZONE: X (area of minimal flood hazard) FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: High (State Responsibility Area)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: N/A

That the Planning Commission, sitting as the County's Historic Preservation Commission: 

1. Re-open the continued public hearing and receive an update from staff on recent changes to the project description; 
2. Accept public comments; and
3. Direct staff to return to a future public hearing with the Planning Commission for action on the amended Historic Alteration Permit. 

SUMMARY
On January 19, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by the applicant to make additions and alter the exterior of the Samuel Carpenter Cottage. The Commission held a public hearing, heard testimony from the applicant, deliberated the project, and continued the item to February 9, 2023. A copy of the January 19 staff report and link to project materials is included as Attachment A. On January 29, 2023, after further investigation of the condition of the structure, the applicant submitted a revised project request (Attachment B) to demolish the Samuel Carpenter Cottage. This new request to demolish the structure, instead of restoring the structure as previously proposed, requires a new public hearing notice (10-day notice) which could not be achieved prior to the February 9 hearing. Therefore, staff requests that the Commission direct staff to return to a future Planning Commission hearing to take action on the proposed request.  

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant originally proposed to increase the size of the home by a total of 410 square feet, from 746 square feet to 1,156 square feet, while restoring the building’s character with modern, climate-appropriate building materials.  The applicant’s original proposal was crafted without having completed a full inspection of the foundation and without fully considering potential safety hazards with the 1860s structure. After a more thorough inspection, the applicant describes that the floor joists rest directly on top of two inches of gravel on soil, with sandstone supporting the sill plates. The home would need to be raised in order to construct a new foundation and to install plumbing (currently plumbing is piped directly through the wall of the home), along with significant restoration work on the deteriorated structure, making it economically infeasible to preserve the home.

The applicant proposes to preserve as much of the historical context of the Samuel Carpenter Cottage as possible, by including the design elements from the front porch, interior siding, and gabled roofline. According to the applicant, the ceiling of the porch was constructed with the same tongue and groove panels that were used in the interior of the home. The applicant intends to retain the covered porch and plans to salvage enough of the interior tongue and groove panels to cover the rebuilt front porch. The applicant also proposes to construct the new roof with the same gable design and slope as the original.

The location where the home sits and the outward views also hold historical significance, as well as sentimental value. The Carpenter brothers planted California Mission Figs and an almond orchard near the cottage. Four of the fig trees are still remaining and they produce three crops each year. The almond trees still produce almonds, though they are not harvested. The fact that these trees, planted by the Carpenter brothers, are still productive after 150+ years is remarkable and provides historical value to the site.

ANALYSIS
The applicant’s observations about the foundation and overall safety of the home were verified by a County building inspector. On January 31, a building inspector visited the property and confirmed that the structure has foundation damage, structural damage, and noted the presence of mold in the interior. The inspector affirmed that the cost to retain the home and improve the foundation and structural components to bring them up to current building standards would be exorbitant.

The Section 8-11.110 of the County's Historic Landmarks Ordinance authorizes the destruction of a locally designated historic structure if the Commission finds that the demolition will not be a great loss to the County, or, even if a great loss, that the project proponent has been unable to develop any reasonably economically feasible alternative plan for the preservation of the structure.  Further, if the Commission finds that the retention of the structure constitutes a hazard to public safety and the hazard cannot be eliminated by economic means available to the owner, the Commission shall approve the application for demolition. It is expected that staff and the applicant will be ready to return to the Commission on March 9 for formal action, but staff requests to keep the date open-ended in case of unforeseen circumstances. Staff anticipates preparing findings for demolition in accordance with Section 8-11.110. 

Staff has reached out to the Historical Society of Winters and the Yolo County Historical Society, but has not received a response as of the writing of this staff report. Staff will make additional attempts to obtain feedback from these two organizations.