1 of 11
FRANCESCA SMITH
Glendale City Council
City of Glendale
613 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Sent via e-mail
RE: February 27, 2024 Special City Council Meeting
Item 1. Community Development, re: Contract Amendment… Additional Design Services for the Preservation and Reuse of City Owned Property Located at the Former Rockhaven Sanitarium – 2713 Honolulu Avenue (APNs: 5610-024-900 thru 910) (Contract #8001911)
Dear Mayor Brotman and Glendale City Council Members:
As a Glendale resident and qualified architectural historian with nearly four decades of experience, I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed “Rockhaven Project” at Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District that is currently under consideration. In the past I have provided comments and constructive advice to the city regarding Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District and plan to continue to offer professional guidance to the City of Glendale on this project. It is my hope to be involved in its future, to identify and encourage a constructive path forward that would retain, protect and appropriately honor the remarkable significance of the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District. I respectfully request that council reject the motion to authorize contract amendment with SWA and direct staff to prepare a revised scope for the historic property that fully acknowledges its significance and preserves all of its character-defining features in conformance with the The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Anne E. Grimmer for the National Park Service 2017) and immediately commence meaningful outreach with the community, especially Friends of Rockhaven and The Glendale Historical Society.
Among the significant issues with the proposal under consideration:
The property is not “on the National Registry of Historic Places” as described in the Report To The City Council (pages “6 of 42” and 41). Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places and in the California Register of Historical Resources as a historic district against the city’s wishes eight years ago. There is no mention in the packet of its status as a historic district except in SWA’s Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District Improvements & Museum Scope of Work that is peculiarly dated today (February 27, 2024).
The fact that Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District “has remained largely vacant since it was acquired by the City” is entirely the city’s choice for the past 15 years (Report To The City Council (pages “6 of 42” and 41).
2 of 11
The Report To The City Council states that Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District has been “in ad-hoc mothballing lacking more permanent safeguards” (Report To The City Council (pages “6 of 42” and 41). While it is not known what ad hoc mothballing means technically, but it has nothing to do with “Preservation Brief #31: Mothballing Historic Buildings (Sharon C. Park, AIA 1993 which can be found at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-31-mothballing- buildings.pdf), or “Preservation Brief #9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows” (John H. Myers 1981) or " Preservation Brief #4: Roofing for Historic Buildings" (Sara M.
Sweetser 1978), all of which were transmitted to the city with a recommendation for a company which specializes in such services in 2023 (e-mail from Francesca Smith to D.
Brotman on May 2, 2022).
Mothballing as a process is not open interpretation. Ther may be varying degrees of its application, but none of them include allowing historic buildings to slowly decay from leaks, water damage, moisture, mold, mildew and their long-term effects. Closing up historic buildings and using temporary stop-gap measures that hold in the moisture is expressly not a part of proper mothballing. It is a process of systematically protecting unused historic buildings from weather as well as vandalism when a preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration project has not yet been planned. The federal mothballing guidance states “A vacant historic building cannot survive indefinitely in a boarded-up condition, and so even marginal interim uses where there is regular activity and monitoring, such as a caretaker [in] residence” are not appropriate (page 1). Pages 4 and 5 direct “Use of a tarpaulin over a leaking roof should be thought of only as a very temporary emergency repair because it is often blown off by the wind in a subsequent storm. If the existing historic roof needs moderate repairs to make it last an additional ten years, then these repairs should be undertaken as a first priority.” Knowing this, the city and its qualified staff allowed temporary tarps to be placed at Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District at last three different times in the past 15 years.
All of the contributing buildings and structures’ exterior walls, any exterior woodwork or other window sash require immediate prep, paint and appropriate window and door protection. The City has nonetheless been dragging their collective feet, allowing the historic property to deteriorate at a rapid pace for 1.5 decades, which is causing an adverse effect and is in violation of their own ordinance.
The City of Glendale's Municipal Code contains requirements in the Historic Preservation Ordinance regarding any property owner's "Duty to maintain historic resources" Chapter 15.20 Historic Preservation at 15.20.20 which directs:
Every owner of a designated historic resource, a resource pending designation as a historic resource, a potential historic resource, or a protected interior shall maintain and keep such resource in a manner that ensures its continued lawful and reasonable use, that ensures its continued eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, California Register of Historical Resources, and/or the National Register of Historic Places, and ensures that it is not subject to (and actively prevents) “demolition by neglect,” as well as deterioration, dilapidation and decay of any portion of such resource. (Ord. 5949 § 15, 2020; Ord. 5784 § 17, 2012; Ord. 5110 § 20, 1996; prior code § 21- 06).
Ther is no requirement that courts prove “malicious intent” as on the part of the owner for Demolition by Neglect to have occurred, as inexplicably described by city staff in the February 22, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting. Demolition by Neglect 3 of 11
has been taking place and continues to occur at Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District under the city’s long-term ownership.
The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings are only generally referenced (incorrectly on page 4 of 41, 22) and there is no reference to compliance. We note in addition that The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes was prepared by the National Park Service as part of their Cultural Landscape Guidance Documents for Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships in 1996. It is applicable to this project and contains standards and guidelines for the treatment of cultural landscapes. That means for this project, any landscape materials that must be replaced may be, as closely as possible to the original, not merely replacing plants with drought tolerant plant material as described. Because records for this property do exist, there is a clear record to use for any necessary replacement plans.
Application of the State Historical Building Code, which is mandatory, is not even mentioned in the packet, but ADA accessibility, which can be accommodated using the Historical Building Code.
The fact that the property is a National and California Register- listed historic district is never mentioned. The district as listed contains 15 buildings that contribute to its historic significance. The Building Map in the Report To The City Council depicts only 9 buildings that retain “High Historic/Architectural Integrity” (Figure 1). There are 15 contributing buildings and structures in the National Register-listed Historic District. The subject is not open to debate or interpretation without re-opening the National Register process. The Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District “building map” mis-identifies those historic district contributors as “Building[s] with Low Historical Architectural Integrity (see Figures 1 and 2). They include Buildings A and B, “Patio” (numbers 1, 2, 15 and 16 in Figure 2). In addition, the established National Register Historic District boundaries are entirely omitted and not referenced at all.
4 of 11
Figure 1: Rockhaven [Sanitarium Historic District] Building Map. Source: SWA 2024.
It is unclear why neither the contributing Nurses’ Home (1928, Shop and Garden Building (1928) or the Shade Structure (1955) are not included in the project (see Figure 1) and since 2016 possess somehow reduced integrity. Each is a contributor to the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District should be protected and included in any proposed project. It is not an either-or-situation.
Figure 2: Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District, Sketch Map/District Contributors and [single] Non Contributor. Source: National Register nomination, Figure 3, 2016.
Additional Design Services for the Rockhaven Project
Reviewing the Additional Design Services for the Rockhaven Project, we note that no project of this type would be implicitly exempt from conformance with the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) requirements, especially if that exception were somehow allowed before it had been designed. The proposed "reduced scope” described in the Report To The City Council (pages “6 of 42” and 41) is so haphazardly worded and conceived that unfortunately a project of this type would not qualify for the referenced state grant. In the interest of transparency, we note that it would be beneficial for us to understand what was reduced in the scope received and under review. The table on the following pages specifically addresses some of the fatal defects in the proposal as briefly as possible for decision makers:
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations 1) Restore historic
gardens and
courtyards.
The word, “restoration” is a term of art and appears to be mischaracterized in the proposed Reduced Scope and brief description of work. The difference in treatments is considerable. The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties encompass four treatments, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. It directs "Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period" (National Park Service 2017).
5 of 11
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations The Standards for Restoration are:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research.
4. Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
It is doubtful that the city is planning a restoration project, particularly in light of the described current scope. A rehabilitation is likely what Glendale and its consultants and proposing, however, if neither the agency not its consultants know the difference, it is recommended that consultants who are professionally qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards perform the proposed design work and that the proposed scope be revised to reflect that crucial change, and that the proposed program itself be reconsidered to comply with the Standards for Rehabilitation, which allow limited changes to enable compatible new uses.
2) Develop
outdoor picnic
and seating areas
for public use.
Development of an outdoor picnic area would not align with a "restoration" project, however if the proposed project were a rehabilitation, the addition of such new and different uses may be accommodated without harming the character defining features of Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District, its historic fabric or altering its immediate setting dramatically. The packet does not acknowledge that the property is a historic district or that the landscaping and its man- 6 of 11
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations made features, plant materials or trees contribute to its historic significance. This information is crucial to any future projects at the historic property.
The National Register nomination for Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District plainly stated:
Notably, the landscape and its materials are contributing features of the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District. The buildings are set within a lushly landscaped garden, with mature oak and other trees, and a variety of ornamental garden objects. The landscape is an integral component of Rockhaven and a significant part of its original design; the landscape and its associated features are identified as a contributing site within the historic district. Its design was inspired by the principles of the Cottage Plan for mental institutions, first developed in the late nineteenth century. The Cottage Plan placed numerous individual buildings within landscaped gardens, in order to create a serene, homelike environment for residents. It also reflects the theory of environmental determinism for mental health facilities―the idea that the environment, including architecture and landscaping, shapes behavior (Section 7, page 4, 2016).
The National Register nomination unmistakably identified “Landscape/Landscape Features [in] Contributing Site;”
The landscape character of the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District reflects Agnes Richards’ belief in environmental determinism, and the importance of creating a homelike setting for the benefit of the individual care of patients. Richards directed the landscape design, and paid attention to the smallest details. Although the names of the landscape designers are unknown, early documentation refers to the fact that the grounds were laid out by “expert landscape directors.” Rockhaven [Sanitarium Historic District]’s buildings are connected by landscaped pathways, intimate gardens, patios, courtyards, and expansive perimeter gardens. Rockhaven Sanitarium received the Los Angeles Beautification Award in 1966, in recognition of the overall landscaping, planting of trees, general effect on the surrounding area, and meticulous maintenance of the property.
A fully integrated landscape creates a distinct sense of place for the gardens of the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District. The exterior spaces were defined by both formal and informal plantings, shade trees, ornamental pottery, and outdoor furniture. These features include:
• Concrete planters
• Faux bois concrete chairs, table, bridge, “toadstool,” and drinking fountain in the garden to the southwest of the Rose Cottage • Concrete pond with stone rim
• Fountain in the courtyard of the Elms Cottage
• Concrete and stone birdbath in the patio area north of the Little Hospital
• Stone planter with plaque
• Terra cotta planter
• Concrete planters
7 of 11
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations • Concrete, brick and stone walkways, stairs, curbs, and walls The entire site is united by a canopy of California live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia). These native trees, which would have predated the buildings on site, provide shade that lends a sense of tranquility to the garden areas. Tall, mature Canary Island date palms (Phoenix canariensis) dot the landscape, a large Aleppo pine (Pinus halapensis) rises near Hermosa Avenue, and a column of deodar cedars (Cedrus deodara) along Pleasure Way screen the property from neighboring residences. A California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) also stands on the property. The understory of plantings was a mixture of formal hedged parterre gardens and informal plant groupings, both intimate and small in scale, that were intended to create a sense of serenity on the site. Rockhaven’s gardens were well-furnished for outdoor comfort; chairs and tables appear frequently in historic photos and the more permanent of this furniture remains (Section 7, page 10, 2016).
Any proposed project must carefully integrate any new uses with the existing character-defining, contributing landscape, including its plants, trees and its man-made features which are concrete, brick and stone walkways, stairs, curbs and walls.
3) Improve ADA
accessible
pedestrian
circulation.
Provide new
walkways, ramps
and stairs
necessary for site
access.
Please refer to the comments in Reduced Scope item number 2 above.
Any proposed project must carefully integrate any new uses with the existing character-defining, contributing landscape, including its plants and trees and its man-made features including concrete, brick and stone walkways, stairs, curbs and walls.
This item contains no mention of application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or the State Historical Building Code, each which each would be mandatory because of its status as a historical resource, a "qualified historical building or structure” defined as “any structure or property, collection of structures, and their associated sites deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local or state governmental jurisdiction. This shall include structures on existing or future national, state or local historical registers or official inventories, such as the National Register of Historic Places, State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and city or county registers or inventories of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, historic districts, or landmarks. This shall also include places, locations, or sites identified on these historical registers or official inventories and deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local or state governmental jurisdiction” and under the terms of the state grant.
The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings directs under rehabilitation, in the section “Building Site- Alterations and Additions for a New Use,” it is recommended that “Designing new onsite features.. such as parking areas, access ramps…when are required by a new use, so they can be as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationship among the… buildings and the landscape and are compatible with the historic character of the property.” It is specifically not recommended to locate 8 of 11
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations those parking areas “directly adjacent to historic buildings where buildings may be damaged or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the building site if landscape features and plant materials are removed” (page 142).
4) Re-stripe
parking along
Honolulu Avenue.
5) Provide parking
along Pleasure
Way and Hermosa
Avenue.
Neither these items nor any of the other completed or proposed work in the Revised Scope, which have been underway since at least 2021 with SWA has notably not included any consultation by the city or their consultants with interested parties (Friends of Rockhaven, TGHS) including the greater neighborhood.
Neither the larger community nor Friends of Rockhaven or TGHS has been consulted regarding the project to date, which is frankly appalling.
For this reason, we strongly recommend actual places at the table and that our voices be heard.
6) Assess and
improve site
drainage.
While some variety of this item of work may be necessary, it requires far more careful consideration than is presented, based on the fact that the landscape and landforms of this property contribute to the historic district's significance.
The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings specifically recommends against “Changing the grade level of the site if it diminishes its historic character.
For example, lowering the grade adjacent to a building to maximize use of a basement, which would change the historic appearance of the building and its relation to the site” in Rehabilitation under “Building Site” (page 138).
7) Remove and
replace existing
landscaping with
Water-wise
planting
throughout the
project area.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation encompass related landscape features and the historic property’s site and environment, as well as adjacent, or related new construction. The described overarching landscape alteration would be inconsistent with both the established character of the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District and with the Standards for Rehabilitation. As currently proposed, the broad-brush approach described would arbitrarily and insensitively remove and replace historically significant plant materials would be overly broad, impulsive and does would not conform to the Standards, which presents a serious problem for the project’s necessary environmental compliance and any future community consultation.
The proposed design concept does not adequately consider or accommodate the objectives and materials of the original established landscape design at Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District. It is imperative that the city and its consultants reverse their approach, recognizing the intrinsic value of the designed historic contributing landscape that established clear precedents in the contributing landscape.
The replacement of any missing mature trees, shrubs, or gardens must include a demonstrable effort by the project team to replicate those missing features by replication to infill and recreate the original appearance and effect. Replacing any of Rockaven Sanitarium Historic District’s existing landscape, particularly with different plant material in an effort to reduce water usage would cause an outrage in the public and well as render the state grant unusable. Consider the fact that Forest 9 of 11
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations Lawn, a commercial entity in Glendale, Los Angeles and numerous communities uses recycled water.
To establish a foundation any alterations, The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings directs the following under the Rehabilitation treatment in the section “Repair Historic Materials and Features”
when the physical condition of character-defining materials and features warrants additional work, repairing is recommended.
Rehabilitation guidance for the repair of historic materials… begins with the least degree of intervention possible. In rehabilitation, repairing also includes the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes features that can be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Although using the same kind of material is always the preferred option, a substitute material may be an acceptable alternative if the form, design, and scale, as well as the substitute material itself, can effectively replicate the appearance of the remaining features (emphasis added, Anne E. Grimmer for the National Park Service 2017)
What this means is that where any features, including landscape materials, would be replaced, those replacements must be like-for-like or as close as possible in size, shape, height, texture and color, not an entirely different feature that was chosen based on convenience. 8) Replace
irrigation system
to improve water
efficiency.
Refer to Revised Scope, Item number 7 above.
9) Improve
perimeter fencing
and site access.
Would that proposed alteration be compliant with the Standards for Rehabilitation? Since they are not clearly referenced it seems unclear.
The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings warns against the following under the Rehabilitation treatment in the section “Building Site-Not Recommended:” “Adding conjectural landscape features to the site (such as period reproduction light fixtures, fences, fountains, or vegetation) that are historically inappropriate, thereby creating an inaccurate appearance of the site.”
It further recommends in “Setting District/Neighborhoods” under “Designing the Replacement Feature for Missing Features” Designing and installing a new feature of the building or landscape in the setting when the historic feature is completely
missing. This could include missing steps, streetlights, terraces, trees, and fences. The design may be an accurate restoration based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently in the setting. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the historic character of the setting.
10 of 11
Reduced Scope TGHS Comments, Corrections and Recommendations It recommends against “Introducing a new building or landscape feature that is visually or otherwise incompatible with the setting’s historic character (e.g., replacing low metal fencing with a high wood fence)” 10) Provide site
lighting for egress
paths.
Refer to the response for item number 9.
11) Renovated
Pine Cottage
Building (Bldg. C -
3,500 SF) for a
Museum.
Renovated? There is no such treatment under The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. How was the past tense of an inapplicable word used in this important document for such a significant item of work? Mistakes of this type further erode the public’s fading confidence that this project will ever be completed.
Would the proposed expected rehabilitation of Pine Cottage be coordinated in any way with the Friends of Rockhaven or TGHS? This line item is at this point, preposterous, although a rehabilitation project coordinated with the proposed user group with attention to their proposed program is strongly recommended.
12) Provide
accessible parking
and vehicular
access to the
Museum (if
applicable).
Would that proposed alteration be compliant with the Standards for Rehabilitation? Since they are not clearly referenced it seems unclear.
The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings under rehabilitation, in the section “Building Site- Alterations and Additions for a New Use,” it is recommended that “Designing new onsite features.. such as parking areas, access ramps, or lighting…when are required by a new use, so they can be as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationship among the… buildings and the landscape and are compatible with the historic character of the property.” It is specifically not recommended to locate parking areas “directly adjacent to historic buildings where buildings may be damaged or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the building site if landscape features and plant materials are removed” (page 142).
Recommended organizational elements for designed historic landscapes like the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District include the organizational elements of the landscape. Its spatial organization and land patterns are important to defining the property. Spatial organization is the three-dimensional arrangement and patterns of natural and cultural features in a landscape. It includes visual links or barriers, such as fences, open spaces or visual connections, such as topography and bodies of water and groupings or clusters. Both the functional and the visual relationships between spaces are integral to the historic character of a property.
Features of the Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District include its topography, its unique, locally influenced vegetation and its circulation patterns. The topography includes the shape of the ground. Its height or depth are character-defining features, whether naturally or artificially created. Topographic features may contribute to the creation of outdoor spaces, serve a functional purpose or provide visual interest.
Vegetation may derive significance from historical associations, horticultural or genetic value, or aesthetic or functional qualities. It is a dynamic component of the landscape and subject to the continual process of plant germination, growth, seasonal change, 11 of 11
aging, decay and death. Vegetation may include individual plants, groups of plants, and naturally occurring plant communities or habitats. Circulation features include roads, parkways, drives, trails, paths, existing parking areas, either individually or linked into networks or systems. Their character is defined by alignment, width, surface and edge treatments, grade, materials and infrastructure.
At maturity, there should be little, if any, discernable difference between the original landscape design and any future modifications made for this project. Unless the landscape plans created equivalent designs that would approximate the varying types, heights, visual weights, approximate colors and textures of the contributing landscape, it would not comply with the Standards for Rehabilitation, which is a requirement under CEQA.
Thus far, the city’s stewardship of Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District has been a complete disaster which should be especially embarrassing for a Certified Local Government. Both TGHS and Friends of Rockhaven have been fervently trying to encourage its responsible rehabilitation and reuse as long as we can remember.
Unfortunately, the proposed Revised Scope leaves at least three contributing buildings or structures unused and unprotected, the contributing landscape and much of immediate surroundings would be altered irrevocably and the proposed project would not comply with the The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. There is no justifiable reason that stakeholder and public outreach has not been performed. Community input is appallingly not being considered in the planning process for Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District reuse and rehabilitation while the buildings rot.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. This letter respectfully requests that council reject the motion to authorize contract amendment with SWA and direct staff to prepare a revised scope for the historic property that fully acknowledges its significance and preserves all of its character-defining features in conformance with the The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Anne E. Grimmer for the National Park Service 2017) and immediately commence meaningful outreach for the future of Rockhaven Sanitarium Historic District.
Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
Brockmont Park Historic District
cc: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Anthony Portantino, State Senator