Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-19 Heritage Preservation Commssion Agenda PacketPage 1 of 2 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING November 19, 2019 8:30 AM SPECIAL MEETING Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 1.Site Visit(s): a.None 2.Call to Order: 3.Roll Call- Alexandra Nugent, Annette Stransky, Dr. Jo Rodgers, Marilyn Marchetti and Rina Shah 4.Oral Communications Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. 5.Approval of the November 12, 2019 meeting minutes. 6.New Business: a.None 7.Staff Comments: a.None 8.Old Business: a.Heritage Lane and Heritage Resource Inventory 9.Commission Items a.None Page 2 of 2 10. Adjournment In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 868-1216 or dbretschneider@saratoga.ca.us. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. Any recommendation made by the Heritage Preservation Commission may be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall be taken by filing with the Secretary of the Heritage Preservation Commission a written notice and filing fee within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff report, and other materials provided to the Heritage Preservation Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the Director at the time they are distributed to the Heritage Preservation Commission. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Nicole Johnson, Planner II, for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission was posted and available for public review on November 13, 2019 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Page 1 of 2 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Draft Minutes November 12, 2019 8:30 AM REGULAR MEETING Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 1.Site Visit(s): a.None 2.Call to Order: Chair Marchetti called the meeting to order at 8:31 AM 3.Roll Call- Present: Chair Marilyn Marchetti, Vice Chair Dr. Jo Rodgers, Alexandra Nugent, and Annette Stransky, Rina Shah Absent: None Staff: James Lindsay, City Manager, Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, Nicole Johnson, Planner II Commissioner Shah left the meeting at 10:15 AM 4.Oral Communications None 5.Approval of the October 8, 2019 and October 22, 2019 Minutes STRANSKY/ NUGENT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 8, 2019 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: NUGENT, SHAH, STRANSKY, RODGERS, MARCHETTI. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE STRANSKY/NUGENT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 22, 2019 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: NUGENT, SHAH, STRANSKY, RODGERS, MARCHETTI. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 6.New Business: Item 5 Page 2 of 2 a.James Lindsay, City Manager-Heritage Lane and Heritage Resource Inventory Discussion •Mr. Lindsay discussed how the decision was reached at to place both discussion items on the December 18, 2019 City Council Agenda. Commission members asked questions and discussed process and expectations for the City Council meeting. b. Memo from the HPC to City Council •Discussion postponed. 7.Staff Comments: a.Heritage Lane and Heritage Resources Inventory Discussion (City Council meeting December 18, 2019). •The HPC discussed their attendance at the City Council meeting and holding special meetings prior to the City Council meeting to prepare. 8.Old Business: a.Point of Interest Markers (4) •The commissioners discussed reviewing the language on their own and forwarding the comments on to Commissioner Stransky to complete the final language for review at the December 10, 2019 HPC meeting. b. Project Status Update •None c.Heritage Orchard Master Plan Update •Chair Marchetti discussed that she has some revisions to make to the document and will forward to the HPC for their review. 9.Commission Items a.The commission discussed the Heritage Orchard Sign and the recent Mill Act Application at 14475 Oak Place. 10. Adjournment Chair Marilyn Marchetti adjourned the meeting at 10:42 AM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Nicole Johnson, Planner II City of Saratoga CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To:Mayor Cappello & Members of the Saratoga City Council From:Nicole Johnson, Planner II Date:March 11, 2019 Subject:Heritage Preservation Commission Work Plan – FY 19/20 On January 8, 2019 and February 12, 2019, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) held their regularly scheduled meetings. During the meetings, the HPC discussed their upcoming 2019/2020 work plan. 1.Increase and update Heritage Resource Inventory-Continue their duty as HPC commissioners to recommend and add residences, commercial structures, districts, and lanes onto the Heritage Resource Inventory. This fiscal year, the HPC has so far added three (3)sites to the Heritage Resource Inventory. There are currently 30 sites for consideration to be included on the inventory. 2.Plaques/Point of Interest Markers - To properly recognize heritage resources and properties of special interest in our City, the HPC would like to continue recommending to Council special sites that warrant a Point of Interest Marker, providing plaques to designated Landmark sites, andreinstate awarding plaques to sites that contain designated Heritage Trees. This fiscal year, no Point of Interest Markers have so far been considered. There are currently five (5) sites for consideration of a Point of Interest Marker. No plaques have been considered for this fiscal year. 3.Public Outreach –Continue to participate in City events such as the Blossom Festival, Arbor Day, Historic Preservation Month, the State of the City, and provide information about the Commission at these events. 4.Continuing Education -The City of Saratoga is a Certified Local Government (CLG) recognized by the State of California Office of Preservation (OHP). The CLG requires that all commissioners receive annual training in Historic Preservation. 5.Heritage Lane City Code Amendment- Currently the HPC has the responsibility to review and comment upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource. City staff recently discussed 3 Item 8a the duties of the HPC with the City Attorney for clarification. It was determined that the HPC had the authority to only review building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits that were upon or within the public right-of-way of the heritage lane portion of Saratoga Avenue. The HPC is requesting that City CodeSections 13-05.020 and 13-10.040be amended so that building, demolition, grading and tree removal permits on private property adjacentto the heritage lane portion of Saratoga Avenue also be required to be reviewed by the HPC (Attachment 1). 6.Saratoga Avenue (Heritage Lane) Inventory-Review, update, video and inventory of all the homes, fences and trees along the portion of Saratoga Avenue that is designated as Heritage Lane, for potential to add to the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory. This project may require a professional videographer. 7.Heritage Orchard Master Plan –As part of the City’s process in updating the Heritage Orchard Master Plan, review the goals and polices in the 2001 Heritage Orchard Master Plan, update accordingly and work on the long-term management of the orchard. 8.War Memorial Arch –Provide the required documentation to include Saratoga’s War Memorial Arch located in Blaney Plaza, as part of the World War I Memorial Inventory Project (WWIMIP) which is an online inventory of World War I memorials and monuments in the United States and U.S. territories. The WWIMIMIP is working in partnership with the United States World War I Centennial Commission. A Mobile Application has been established to invite and enable public participation in locating, documenting, and providing a preliminary condition assessment of all the World War I memorials and monuments in the United States. 9.Village Inventory-Review, update, video and inventory the buildings facing Big Basin Way for historical significance.This project may require a professional videographer. Notable Accomplishments in fiscal year 2018/2019 During fiscal year 2018/2019, in addition to placing three (3) properties on the Heritage Resource inventory, the HPC reviewed five (5) projects along a Heritage Lane (Saratoga Avenue), and two (2) planning applications. In addition, the HPC attended two (2) training webinars. Budget Request The Heritage Preservation Commission would like to request a budget allocation of $6,900 for the FY19/20. Request Requested Allocation Two new point of interest markers (plaque, redwood posts and installation) $5,100 Training & Membership (California Preservation Foundation)$1,000 Preservation Month activities in May: (poster, speaker, photo display-note photo display can be used year-after-year, etc.) $800 Total $6,900 4 Current Commission Membership: Name Term Ending Eligible for Reappointment Alexandra Nugent (Saratoga Historical Foundation rep)12/31/2020 No Annette Stransky 12/31/2021 No Jo Rainie Rodgers (Vice Chair)12/31/2020 Yes Marilyn Marchetti (Chair)12/31/2019 No Rina Shah 12/31/2022 No Heritage Preservation Commission Powers and Duties (City Code Section 13-10.040) The Heritage Commission shall be advisory only to the City Council, the Planning Commission and the agencies and departments of the City and shall establish liaison and work in conjunction with such authorities to implement the purposes of this Chapter. The Heritage Commission shall have the following powers and duties: a) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Heritage Resource Inventory. To qualify for inclusion in the Heritage Resource Inventory, a property must satisfy any one or more of the criteria listed in Section 13-15.010 of this Chapter. The Inventory shall be publicized and periodically updated, and a copy thereof shall be kept on file in the Planning Department. b)Recommend to the City Council specific proposals for designation as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. c)Recommend to the appropriate City agencies or departments projects and action programs for the recognition, conservation, enhancement and use of the City's heritage resources, including standards to be followed with respect to any applications for permits to construct, change, alter, remodel, remove or otherwise affect such resources. d)Review and comment upon existing or proposed ordinances, plans or policies of the City as they relate to heritage resources. e)Review and comment upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource. The Commission’s comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments. f) Investigate and report to the City Council on the availability of federal, state, county, local or private funding sources or programs for the rehabilitation and preservation of heritage resources. g)Cooperate with county, state and federal governments and with private organizations in the pursuit of the objectives of heritage conservation. h)Upon the request of a property owner or occupant and at the discretion of the Heritage Commission, render advice and guidance on the conservation, rehabilitation, alteration, decoration, landscaping or maintenance of any heritage resource; such voluntary advice and guidance shall not impose any regulation or control over any property. i) Participate in, promote and conduct public information and educational programs pertaining to heritage resources. j) Perform such other functions as may be delegated to it by resolution or motion of the City Council. 5 Date:February 12, 2019 To:Saratoga City Council From:Heritage Preservation Commission Subject:Background information – Heritage Lane proposed ordinance amendment In 2018, Saratoga City staff and the HPC conducted research on the history and definition of a Heritage Lane. As a result of this effort to clarify HPC’s role regarding Heritage Lanes, the HPC recommends that commissioners work with City staff to propose amendments to the City Code under section 13- 05.020 – Definitions and section 13-10.040 – Powers and duties. The 1981 ordinance that created the Heritage Preservation Commission included the concept of a Heritage Lane, as a way to “preserve the width and appearance of roads associated with Saratoga’s earlier development.” Records from City Council meetings held that year include concern regarding the “limited scope of ordinance with respect to Heritage Lanes” and that “Heritage Lanes were not adequately defined by the ordinance.” A July 26, 1991 memo to the City Council from then Planning Director Steve Emslie summarized the characteristics of the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane as “two traffic lanes lined by old trees and homes,” and further stated that “Measures such as maintenance of the street width and existing vegetation as well as preservation of historic homes may be addressed in the ordinance to preserve the historic street character.” The amendment to the Heritage Lane ordinance proposed by the HPC exemplifies the City’s commitment to preserving the historic character of a Heritage Lane, and is consistent with the DPR for the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane, which notes that “properties on both sides of the street” are “Related Features.” Heritage Preservation Commission powers and duties include “Review and comment upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource.” Historically, the HPC and the Planning Department have taken this code to mean that the commission should review and provide recommendations regarding structures adjacent to the lane, since properties bordering the lane are “related features” and there are no buildings located on the road itself. A June 12, 2018 memo from Sandy Baily, Special Projects Manager for the City of Saratoga, noted “confusion and interpretation inconsistencies by City staff and the HPC regarding HPC’s role in reviewing work along the heritage lane portion of Saratoga Avenue,” and that “staff has determined that the City Code regulates HPC review for work done only within the public right-of-way of a heritage lane, not beyond the limits of the right-of-way.” An August 18, 2018 memo from the City Attorney’s office notes that since 2005, the HPC has reviewed both Building Applications, as well as Planning Applications for development along the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane, although it has primarily approved Planning Applications. It is unknown if there were Building Applications along Saratoga Avenue that the HPC did not review. According to the City Attorney, “the HPC has authority to review and comment on Building Applications as long as such Attachment 1 6 applications concern work “upon or within” a heritage lane. With regard to Planning Applications, the HPC has the authority to review and comment on such work to the extent such work is “pertaining to or significantly affecting” any heritage lane. An amended Heritage Lane ordinance will clarify the definition of a Heritage Lane and be consistent with past HPC review practices. Residents whose houses border Saratoga Avenue will not face the confusion of a perceived change in how Building and Planning Applications are reviewed and they can continue to view their properties as being part of a Heritage Lane vs. being located adjacent to a Heritage Lane. 7 Page 1 of 2 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 12, 2018 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) FROM: Sandy L. Baily, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: HPC’s Role Regarding Heritage Lanes Background Due to the confusion and interpretation inconsistencies by City staff and the HPC regarding HPC’s role in reviewing work along the heritage lane portion of Saratoga Avenue, the HPC requested that staff research the matter and draft HPC policies or a City Code amendment to clarify. Following is the background information regarding the matter. In 1981, Saratoga City Council adopted an ordinance creating a heritage preservation commission and establishing procedures for the designation, conservation and control of heritage resources within Saratoga. This ordinance included the concept of heritage lanes. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, there was concern by some council members regarding the scope of the proposed ordinance in respect to heritage lanes. Based on archived documentation, in 1981 the perceived community motives in advocating heritage lanes were as follows (Attachment 1): Preserve the width and appearance of roads associated with Saratoga’s earlier development. Prevent widening and improvement to current city standards of certain roads, as currently required in conjunction with new development and infill projects. Discourage increased traffic on certain roads. In 1991, the portion of Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue was designated by Ordinance as a Heritage Lane to help protect the street from being widened, which would have resulted in the loss of the mature street trees (Attachment 2). The protection would also regulate the construction of sound walls and fencing within the public right-of-way. Discussion In order to understand the role of the HPC in regards to heritage lanes, City staff fully analyzed various sections of the City Code. Following are excerpts from the Heritage Preservation Ordinance of the City Code regarding the regulations pertaining to heritage lanes. Section 13- 05.020(b) of the City Code defines a designated heritage lane as follows: Designated heritage lane means a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail designated as a heritage resource pursuant to this Chapter. Page 2 of 2 Section 13-10.040(e) of the City Code states that the powers and duties of the HPC is to review and comment on work to be performed upon or within a heritage lane. Section 13 -20.010 of the City Code states that a HPC permit is required for specified work within a designated heritage lane. These three sections of the City Code do not discuss boundaries outside the limits of the public right-of-way of a heritage lane. The only section of the City Code that regulates review outside the boundaries of the public right-of-way of heritage lanes is 15-29.070 of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 3). This section states that the HPC has purview to review fences which exceed three feet in height which are within 50 feet of a right of way from a designated heritage lane (unless exempted specifically by Ordinance). Conclusion Based on the information provided above, except for certain fencing, staff has determined that the City Code regulates HPC review for work done only within the public right-of-way of a heritage lane, not beyond the limits of the right-of-way. To ensure staff’s conclusion met the intent of past Council’s expectation, staff contacted a former Council member who was on the Council at the time of the creation of a portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane. The former Council member confirmed that the goal was to protect the street width and the trees within the public right-of-way. There was no expectation to review work beyond the limits of the public right-of-way unless the property is already included in the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory. Attachments 1. 1981 Community motive notes regarding heritage lanes 2. Excerpts of City Council minutes for the meetings of October 21, and November 4, 1981 3. City Code Section 15-29.070 – Fences adjacent to heritage lanes Attachment 1 Attachment 2 EXCERPT FROM CITY CODE 15-29.070 - Fences adjacent to heritage lanes. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a designated heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence which faces and is located within fifty feet from the right-of-way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in height, without first obtaining a fence permit from the Community Development Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article 13-20 of the City Code. If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the Community Development Director shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f) of this Section and pursuant to the process prescribed in Article 13-20. (b) Supporting data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13- 20.030 shall be determined by the Community Development Director to allow adequate review of the proposed fence. (c) Setback. No fence which exceeds three feet in height shall b e constructed within the required setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be required to be increased to a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to preserve the historic qualities of the heritage lane. (d) Color, material and design. Fences adjacent to a heritage lane may be constructed of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the fence shall be approved based upon a finding that the fence will not adversely affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of existing buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties. (e) Height. The height of any fence adjacent to a heritage lane sha ll comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of the City Code. (f) Landscaping. The applicant shall landscape and maintain an area within the right -of- way, parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence in excess of three feet in height and facing the heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Community Development Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area and require little or no maintenance. The landscape plan may be approved by the Community Development Director upon the finding that the proposed landscaping will effectively blend the fence with its environment and enhance the visual appearance of the lane. Attachment 3 Date: August 9, 2018 To: Heritage Preservation Commission and Community Development Director From: Wittwer Parkin LLP Assistant City Attorney By Pearl Kan Legal Analysis of Role of Heritage Preservation Commission regarding Heritage Lanes The City of Saratoga’s Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) has requested that the Community Development Director obtain clarification regarding its role with regard to heritage lanes. In July 1991 the City Council of the City of Saratoga (City Council) adopted Ordinance No. HP-19 which established a portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane. Section 2 of Ordinance No. HP-19 provides that “The City will ensure the protection of the historic and rural character of the lane through future land use decisions and development controls.” In September 2002 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 213, which designated Austin Way as a heritage lane. Ordinance No. 213 also established that “Notwithstanding the permit requirements established by Article 13-20 of the City Code, a permit shall be required pursuant to that article only to the following actions occurring on or within 10 feet of Austin Way: any paving, construction (such as fences, walls, or drainage) or removal or destruction of any protected tree as that term is defined in section 15-50.050 of the City Code.” In addition, City Code Section 15-29.070(a) authorizes the HPC to review permit applications for fences “which faces and is located within fifty feet from the right-of-way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in height.” While Section 15-29.070(a) authorizes HPC review of permit applications for fences located within fifty feet of a designated heritage lane, Ordinance No. 213 specifies that as to fences along Austin Way, such review is limited to fences occurring on or within 10 feet of Austin Way. The portion of Saratoga Avenue designated as a heritage lane pursuant to Ordinance No. HP-19 and Austin Way are the only heritage lanes established under the City’s Heritage Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 13 of the City Code). City Code Section 13-10.040(e) establishes the Powers and Duties of the HPC. The HPC has the authority to: Review and comment upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review Legal Analysis Regarding Heritage Preservation Commission and Heritage Lanes Heritage Preservation Commission and Community Development Director Page 2 or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource. The Commission’s comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments. City Code Section 13-10.040(e) delineates two types of work. The first category of work includes “applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits…” which can be categorized as “Building Applications.” The second category of work includes “all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review…” which for ease of reference can be categorized as “Planning Applications.” The language concerning “upon or within” a heritage lane applies to Building Applications. With regard to this first category of work, HPC has purview over such applications as long as they involve work “upon or within” a heritage lane. By contrast, the City Code does not expressly limit the purview of the HPC’s review to “upon or within” a heritage lane for the second category of work, “Planning Applications.” The Code authorizes the HPC to review and comment on “all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource.” (City Code Section 13- 10.040(e) (emphasis added).) For such applications, the HPC has the authority to review the impact of such Planning Applications pertaining to or significantly affecting a heritage lane (a type of heritage resource).1 To the extent a Planning Application pertains to or significantly affects a heritage lane, the City Code provides authority to the HPC to review and comment on such work. However, to the extent that the work falls under a Building Application, the HPC is authorized to comment on such application only if the work is “upon or within” a heritage lane. Rules of statutory interpretation warn against construing a statute or ordinance in a manner as to render deliberate word choices superfluous: “significance must be given to every word in pursuing the legislative purpose, and the court should avoid a construction that makes some words surplusage.” (Krupnick v. Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1029 (internal citations omitted).) This analysis which respects the limitations of review for Building Applications to work “upon or within” a heritage lane avoids the erroneous construction which would render those words mere surplusage. This analysis is also consistent with the rule of statutory interpretation which requires giving the words of an ordinance their plain, usual, ordinary, and commonsense meaning. (People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 92.) 1 “Heritage resource means any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, and those properties listed on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory.” (City Code Section 13-05.020(h) (emphasis added).) Legal Analysis Regarding Heritage Preservation Commission and Heritage Lanes Heritage Preservation Commission and Community Development Director Page 3 Generally, the City’s past practice has been consistent with the analysis above. December 2005 was the first instance wherein the HPC reviewed a Building Application for the demolition of a garage that was not located upon or within a heritage lane. From 2005-2017, there have been a few additional instances wherein the HPC reviewed a Building Application for work proposed outside of the heritage lane. Apart from these relatively isolated instances, the HPC historically has only reviewed Planning Applications along the heritage lane portion of Saratoga Avenue. The manner in which City Code Section 13.10-040(e) distinguishes between “Building Applications” and “Planning Applications” is also consistent with the language of Ordinance No. HP-19: “The City will ensure the protection of the historic and rural character of the lane through future land use decisions and development controls.” Work authorized under Planning Applications, such as design review, use permits, and variance approvals qualify as “future land use decisions and development controls” (as compared with work contemplated under Building Applications, such a reroofing or demolition). Such Planning Applications also have a higher likelihood of implicating the stated Ordinance purpose “to ensure the protection of the historic and rural character of the lane.” Based on the language of the 1991 Ordinance establishing a portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane, the City’s past practices, and the powers and duties of the HPC set forth under the City Code, the HPC has authority to review and comment on Building Applications as long as such applications concern work “upon or within” a heritage lane. With regard to Planning Applications, the HPC has the authority to review and comment on such work to the extent such work is “pertaining to or significantly affecting” any heritage lane. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: October 8, 2019 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) FROM: Nicole Johnson, Planner II SUBJECT: Item 7c- Heritage Resource Inventory Letters and CEQA requirements CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act, is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts. CEQA applies to discretionary projects. A discretionary project is one that requires the exercise of judgement or deliberation by a public agency in determining whether the project will be approved. Some common discretionary decisions include whether to grant design review or conditional use of a proposed project. Local governments (cities, counties, special districts) may be designated under CEQA as “Lead Agencies” and are tasked under CEQA with carrying out the environmental impact analysis (Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and/or Environmental Impact Report) for a proposed project. Per Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, local (city) historical resources (buildings, structures, or archeological resources) are considered part of the environment and are subject to review under CEQA. Therefore, adding a structure to Saratoga’s Historic Resource Inventory, will likely trigger environmental review for a design review application submitted to the city for such a structure. This may add considerable time and substantial costs associated with the application, for the property owners. Hence, to make sure that property owners are fully aware of the legal requirements associated with being included in the Heritage Resource Inventory, the City Council has provided direction that the process to place a structure on the inventory follows a similar process as provided in Article 13-15 of the Saratoga City Code for designation of a Historic Landmark, with regards to notification to the property owners via a minimum of two (2) letters and being given Page 2 of 2 the opportunity to object to the request of being placed on the Heritage Resource Inventory. Please see letter from the City Attorney regarding the Heritage Resource Inventory letters and process included in Attachment 1. Date: September 19, 2019 To: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Nicole Johnson, Planner From: Wittwer Parkin LLP, Assistant City Attorney by Pearl Kan The City of Saratoga’s Heritage Preservation Regulations and the California Environmental Quality Act 1. Introduction Chapter 13 of the City of Saratoga’s City Code governs Heritage Preservation. The City Code defines a heritage resource as “any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, and those properties listed on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory.” (City Code Section 13-05.020(h).) The City Code defines the Heritage Resource Inventory (Inventory) as: the City’s official inventory of heritage resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Heritage Commission. A property may be listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory without being designated pursuant to this Chapter as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. (City Code Section 13-05.020(i).) Pursuant to City Code, while a historic landmark, heritage lane, and historic district are necessarily heritage resources; a heritage resource may not be specifically designated as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. Setting forth the power and duties of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), City Code Section 13-10.040 states that the HPC has the power and duty to “[c]onduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Heritage Resource Inventory.” Pursuant to Sections 13-05.020(i) and 13-10.040 of the City Code, cited above, the City’s practice has been for the HPC to add qualifying properties onto the Inventory as a heritage resource from time to time. 2. City Code Affords Property Owners an Opportunity to Object to Designation of a Historic Landmark, Heritage Lane, or Historic District In the event that the HPC decides to recommend to City Council designation of a “historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district,” the City Code requires the HPC to provide the property owner with an opportunity to object to such proposed designation: The Heritage Commission shall mail written notice of its intended recommendation to each person whose name appears on the latest available tax roll of the County as owning the property, or any portion thereof, which is the subject of the proposed designation. Such written notice shall contain a complete description of the proposed designation and shall advise the property owners that written objections to the proposal may be filed within the Heritage Commission within forty-five days from the date of the notice. (City Code Section 13-15.040(a).) The City Code expressly provides a process whereby qualifying property owners can voice written objections to a proposed designation of a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district. However, the City Code is silent with regard to the process for a property owner to object to their property being listed on the Inventory as a heritage resource. 3. The City Code Requires a Permit for Certain Changes to a Historic Landmark, Heritage Lane, or Historic District Article 13-20 of the City Code requires a permit for proposed changes to a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district: “It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish remove, relocate, or otherwise change any exterior architectural features… of a designated historic landmark…or to construct, alter…any property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district…without first obtaining a permit to do so in the manner provided under this Article.” (City Code Section 13-20.010.) The permit procedure set forth in Section 13-20.010 does not expressly apply to heritage resources that are not otherwise designated as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district. 4. CEQA Would Likely Treat All Listings on the Heritage Resources Inventory as a “Historical Resource” CEQA is a state law that requires public agencies, such as the City of Saratoga, to conduct environmental review for discretionary project approvals that may result in a direct or indirect change in the environment. A project that may result in substantial adverse change to the significance of an historical resource is likely to require environmental review under CEQA: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listed in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section… Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1. Subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code defines a “Local register of historical resources” as “a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.” Because the City’s Inventory includes a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by the City by resolution, the Inventory most likely qualifies as a “local register of historical resources” under CEQA. Further, because the Inventory includes historic landmarks, heritage lanes, historic districts, as well as all other heritage resources, CEQA would likely define all properties listed on the City’s Inventory as “historical resources” under CEQA. While the City differentiates between heritage resources that are not otherwise designated as historic landmarks and historic landmarks, heritage lanes and historic districts; proposed adverse changes affecting the significance of any heritage resource listed on the Inventory may have the potential to trigger environmental review requirements under CEQA. Environmental review under CEQA would likely require the City to identify potential significant impacts to the historical resource as well as potential mitigation measures that would avoid or lessen such impacts consistent with state law requirements. CEQA imposes both substantive and procedural elements. While public agencies are entrusted with compliance of CEQA, the public also enforces CEQA through litigation and the threat thereof.