Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplemental attachment CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Miller & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Date: December 18, 2019 Subject: 3.1 Heritage Resource Inventory and Heritage Lanes (Written Communications) After publication of the agenda packet for the December 18, 2019 City Council Meeting, these written communications were received from the Heritage Preservation Commission on Item 3.1 Heritage Resource Inventory and Heritage Lanes. MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL December 18, 2019 Community Development Department Nicole Johnson, Planner II SUBJECT: Heritage Resource Inventory and Heritage Lanes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND: Following joint meetings with the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) on March 11, 2019 and with the Historical Foundation on October 16, 2019 the City Council directed staff to place on the agenda a Council discussion of the HPC’s recommendation to no longer require landowner consultation HPC’s continuing practice of not requiring written owner consent in connection with updates to the Heritage Resource Inventory and the HPC’s recommendation to amend the City Code to provide greater Commission oversight of projects on lands adjoining Heritage Lanes. HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY In 1981 the City Council, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 66 (Attachment 1), created the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and established procedures for the designation, conservation and control of heritage resources within the City. Ordinance No. 66 provided the HPC with the power and duty to “conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing an official inventory of heritage resources,” or the Heritage Resource Inventory (Inventory). In 1988 the HPC completed an comprehensive initial inventory of historic resources within the City and 80 properties were listed to create the Inventory by resolution number HP-88-01 (Attachment 2). The 1988 resolution also stated that “the Inventory will be periodically updated in the future, by resolution of the Heritage Commission, as additional heritage resources become known and documented.” Subsequently, approximately 47 properties and have been added to the Inventory. At the October 2019 joint meeting the City Council asked for additional information concerning the role of affected property owners in updates to the Heritage Resource Inventory and the effects of having a property included on the Inventory. As background, the City Code designates four types of Heritage Resources: Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, Heritage Lanes, and properties listed on the Inventory. The City Code provides a formal public notice and hearing process as well as specific procedures whereby affected property owners can voice written objections to a proposed designation of a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district. The City Code is silent about whether and how a property owner may participate with respect to the owner’s property being listed on the Inventory. Based on City Council direction, the current staff practice is to notify owners of properties proposed for inclusion on the Inventory and provide them with an opportunity to object. The HPC was not consulted by the staff with regard to the current changes to the practice for nominating properties to the Resource Inventory. The HPC believes the staff commission practice should be discontinued review and approve the practices and processes for nominating properties to the Resource Inventory and has requested that the Council provide direction. With respect to the effects of having a property included on the Inventory, Ordinance No.66 did not impose any special requirements or restrictions affecting the use of the properties listed on the Inventory. Since the time that Ordinance No.66 was adopted, two new special requirements have taken effect. The first is with respect to the City’s project review process. Over time, City staff began to seek the HPC’s recommendation on any proposed exterior changes made to properties on the Inventory. This informal practice then became a part of the City Code. Accordingly, all applications for approvals such as design review, use permits, variances, building permits, etc. are submitted for HPC review and comment if they would affect the exterior of a property on the Inventory. The second effect concerns a judicial interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 1997 a court interpreted CEQA to establish a presumption that any project on property included on a “local register of historic resources” such as the Inventory is a historic resource unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically significant. Previously, staff would consider the factors that led to a property being included on the Inventory as part of a broader assessment of a project’s historic significance for CEQA purposes. Following the 1997 decision, the fact that a property is listed on the Inventory, for practical purposes, removes the need for further inquiry and effectively requires further CEQA review. Note that all properties, regardless of whether they are on the Inventory, must be considered for their historical significance as part of the CEQA process. Properties not on the Inventory are analyzed subject to the range of factors CEQA requires agencies to consider; projects properties on the Resource Inventory are now presumed to be historic without analysis. The HPC would like to continue with their previous practice and process for nominating and adding properties to the Resource Inventory and the City Code remain as is. As noted above, the HPC has requested that Council direct staff to no longer consult with property owners concerning a property’s potential inclusion on the Inventory and the City Code remain as is. HERITAGE LANE ORDINANCE The HPC has recommended that the City Council initiate amendments to the City Code to include within the definition of Heritage Lane “related features” adjacent to the lane. These would include structures (homes, accessory dwelling units, accessory structures, etc.), trees, fences/gates, etc. visible from the right of way. This change would ensure that the HPC has the authority to review all building and planning applications on properties adjoining Heritage Lanes. The City currently has two Heritage Lanes: a portion of Saratoga Avenue located between the Fruitvale Avenue/Saratoga intersection to 14301 Saratoga Avenue (designated in 1991) and Austin Way (designated in 2002). Attachments 3 and 4 show the two lanes and adjoining properties that would be affected by the change. Of the 77 properties along the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane, 14 properties are listed on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory and the remaining 63 are not. There are 15 properties along Austin Way, none of which are listed on the Inventory. Under the current City Code, the HPC is authorized to comment only on building projects (e.g., building, demolition, grading, and tree removal permits) that are “upon or within” a Heritage Lane. Planning projects (e.g., design review, variances, subdivisions, etc.) are subject to HPC review only if they “pertain to or significantly affect” a Heritage Lane (on Austin Way the scope of review was further limited to proposed encroachment permits on City right-of-way only). This is discussed in more detail in an August 9, 2018 memo from the Assistant City Attorney to the HPC that is included as Attachment 5. The proposed change would expand the scope of HPC review to include all building projects and planning projects on properties adjoining a Heritage Lane. The HPC has explained that this change would “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” (Attachment 6). The HPC explains that the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Building, Structure, and Object Record for Saratoga Avenue (DPR) (Attachment 7) states that the properties bordering Saratoga Avenue are “related features.” If the Council wishes to expand the scope of the HPC’s review authority as described above, City staff will work with the City Attorney’s office to develop suitable amendments to the City Code, including amendments to remove from the Code the provisions that further limit the scope of review for projects on Austin Way. Because the change would effectively expand the scope of the Heritage Lanes, staff would follow the procedures for establishment of a Heritage Lane or District to ensure that the Code amendment includes the same level of public process that would be involved in establishing a new Lane or Historic District allowing for the affected property owners to voice their objection. Those procedures are listed in City Code section 13-15.070 (Attachment 8). Heritage Resource Inventory Attachments Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 66 Attachment 2 – Resolution HP-88-01 Heritage Lanes Attachments 1189684.4 Attachment 3 – Diagram of Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane and adjoining properties Attachment 4 – Diagram of Austin Way Heritage Lane and adjoining properties Attachment 5 – Memo from Assistant City Attorney dated August 9, 2018 Attachment 6 – Memo from HPC dated February 4, 2019 Attachment 7 – Saratoga Avenue DPR Attachment 8 – Section 13-15.070 of the City Code Heritage Lanes Background Saratoga Heritage Lane, which runs one mile long, was created because it was an entrance to the Saratoga Village. Many historic events such as the Blossom Festival and Theatre on the Glade occurred along the lane. Additionally many pioneer families’ homes, such as the Cunninghams, still exist on the lane. Records from City Council meetings held in 1981 include concerns regarding the “limited scope of the ordinance with respect to Heritage Lanes” and that “Heritage Lanes were not adequately defined by the ordinance.” Current Issues At the June 12, 2018 meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the HPC was presented with a memorandum regarding the role of the HPC in the preservation of the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane. The memo states: “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.” Section 13-10.040 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 has taken this code to mean that the commission should review and provide recommendations regarding structures adjacent to the lane. Thus we were surprised to learn that the commission is now being asked to limit its review to work done on the roadway itself, along with trees, some fencing and native plant landscaping in front of these fences. The commission has no known history of reviewing landscaping along Saratoga Avenue. At the June 12th meeting, the HPC discussed the memorandum summarizing the staff research findings and also discussed the historic role of the HPC regarding buildings adjacent to Saratoga Avenue. Because this new interpretation is a major change in how the HPC oversees preservation. We had been following the terms of Section 13-10.040 not thinking there were “grey” areas in the code with respect to specific language, such as “upon and within” and “related features.” The DPR for the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane notes that the lane was “Established by the early 1850s initially connecting the town of Santa Clara and the settlements in and near what is now known as Saratoga Village.” The DPR also notes that “properties on both sides of the street” are “Related Features.” | Page 1 At that meeting, we also drafted a memo in response to the information on the new HPC’s roles regarding heritage lanes. Planning director, Steve Emslie’s 1991 memo to City Council states that “the designation indicates the intention and desire to preserve certain characteristics or qualities of the street. In order to do so, the city may include regulations in the ordinance designating a street, to ensure compatibility with its historic character. Measures such as maintenance of the street width and existing vegetation as well as the preservation of historic homes may be addressed in the ordinance to preserve the historic street character.” We also expressed concern over this new interpretation and our desire to amend the ordinance to clarify the language. On February 4, 2019, the HPC sent a letter to Council with a proposed amendment to the definition of Heritage Lane. Copy of that memo in your packet. Clarification The HPC requests further clarification of the phrase “within a heritage lane,” since the DPR for Saratoga Avenue notes that the properties bordering the lane are “related features” and there are no buildings located on the road itself. To clarify the ordinance, the HPC recommends that the definition of a Heritage Lane, under 13-05.020 – Definitions, be amended to include “and its related features adjacent to the lane.” (Designated heritage lane means a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail, and its related features, designated as a heritage resource pursuant to this Chapter.) This wording conforms to Heritage Lane references we discovered in the July 26, 1991 memo to the City Council from the Planning Director Steve Emslie and the DPR for the Saratoga Avenue Heritage Lane. The proposed amendment will clarify the definition of a Heritage Lane and will be consistent with the past HPC review practices. Residents whose homes border Heritage Lanes will not face the confusion of a perceived change in how Building and Planning applications are reviewed and they can continue to proudly view their properties as being part of a heritage lane. | Page 2 Heritage Resource Inventory We understand that the City Council is considering a change in the Chapter 13 ordinance that defines the process for preserving our city's historic resources. One of the duties of the HPC is to review and comment upon any proposed ordinances or policies that relate to heritage resources. Tonight we offer our initial feedback on this topic. The City has long followed State recommendation to survey and document the historical significance of all historic buildings. The result of this research is the Historic Resource Inventory, which serves as a guide for the City to determine which buildings, lanes or districts to preserve. The State also recommends that cities periodically review and update their inventory of historic resources, to add buildings that were previously overlooked or to recognize those buildings that have gained new significance. We realize that residents often misunderstand the meaning and intent of the City’s historic resource inventory. The success of Saratoga’s preservation efforts relies on the support and participation of its residents, and it is the HPC’s duty to promote and participate in public information and educational programs that promote a better understanding of our heritage resources. We continue to expand our educational efforts and we welcome any suggestions from the Council. We understand that residents often don’t know there are benefits to being listed on the historic resource inventory. •The Heritage Resource Inventory is an inventory of structures that have been selected as examples of historic or architectural value. It is an honor to be on the inventory because the structures help our city retain its historic look and feel. •Few structures qualify because the criteria is so high. The inventory does not impact the resale value of a home or property and may enhance it. •Being on the inventory does not mean you cannot make changes to the structure-- you can. And in some instances the Heritage Preservation Commission can help you make changes more effectively. •Once on the inventory-- the structure may qualify for landmark status which includes the opportunity to take advantage of the Mills Act and receive tax advantages. We also understand that some property owners feel that they should be the one who determines whether their home deserves recognition as an historic building. However, it is the HPC that has the expertise to determine which buildings have historic significance and which buildings should be recognized on the resource inventory. As noted in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s publication “Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances,” some court cases have determined that allowing a property owner to opt out of the regulatory process amounts to “an unlawful delegation of decision- making authority” to the property owner. SHPO also notes that “it is difficult to create an effective historic preservation program if owner consent is required. | Page 3 Finally, the fact that an historic property is not listed in our local resource inventory does not preclude the city from determining that a building may be an historical resource and it does not automatically exclude the building from applicable CEQA provisions. Although the memos from City staff and the City Attorney warn of potential CEQA impacts on any future Resource Inventory buildings, CEQA has long required the City to prepare EIRs for any proposed projects with significant environmental impacts. While it is true that buildings listed on the resource inventory cannot be granted a CEQA exemption, it is also true that CEQA applies to any historic property if approval of a project involves discretionary actions by City staff – actions that include the exercise of judgment, deliberation or decision making on the part of staff. To date, the City has rarely required environmental review for any projects involving buildings listed on the Resource Inventory. Respectfully, it is the HPC’s recommendation that the ordinance remain as is and that the commission be allowed to continue its important work, as recommended by the State of California. | Page 4