HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDmurryph1RECEIVED RED FIL E
OCT 0 5 2010 MEETING AGEND A
DATE /yf1ipITEM #P/f/SLO CITY CLER Kcouncil memoianOu m
1 '000NCIL 7r.-CDD DI R
CrefiflC.iI ET-FIN DI R
E3'AGAO AcMYt El-FIRE CHIE F
[-ATTORNEY C~"PW DI R
E LERK/OPIG "POLICE CH F
EPT HEADS ( "REC DI Rr-L.ITIL DI R
r.2-HR DI R
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development 3 '~Cr~ji ~5 Ctrh ~~,
SUBJECT :
Historic Preservation Guideline s
At the hearing on September 21, 2010, the City Council continued discussion of the update d
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines to October 5 th due to the lateness of the hour.
Staff reviewed Council direction from that evening in addition to City Attorne y
recommendations and is recommending that the sections of the proposed Guidelines that addres s
Demolition (3 .6) and Relocation (3 .7) be moved to the Ordinance .
Staff recommends that Council review the draft Guidelines on October 5 th and provide directio n
regarding any desired wording changes with the understanding that the two sections in questio n
(3 .6 and 3 .7) are being recommended for inclusion in the Ordinance instead of the Guidelines .
Both Guidelines and Ordinance will be returned for final review, after incorporating directio n
from Council, on October 19, 2010 .
A "Red file" provided by Councilmember Carter from the September 21, 2010 Council meetin g
follows this discussion and contains suggested wording changes for Sections 3 .6 and 3 .7 a s
summarized in bolded numbers below . Staff response to those recommendations in italic s
follows :
1 . Edit findings required for demolition of historic resources in 3 .6 .4a to eliminat e
structural infeasibility as a required criterion . Eliminate the word all prior to th e
words "economically viable use of the property" under 3 .6 .4c (PH5-151).
a. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) discussed demolition findings at length . Th e
conclusion was that the feasibility definition under Public Resources Code sectio n
21061 .,1 as applied through the environmental review process, means "capable of bein g
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking int o
account economic, environmental, social and technological factors ." The finding s
proposed are intended to indicate that the preference is to retain historic resource s
unless there is some reason the structure is compromised in a way that prevents its reuse .
The intent is that the CHC make the preliminary recommendation regarding a demolitio n
DATE :
October 5, 201 0
TO :
City Counci l
VIA :
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
FROM :
John Mandeville, Community Development Direct q
BY :
~c,6ne
request based on whether a historic resource could be saved. The ARC or Counci l
would still retain the ability to make the determination of whether the historic resourc e
should be saved based on the other findings and in compliance with the larger context of
all general plan goals and policies and the environmental review process (includin g
PRC 21061 .1). This intent may be accomplished by changing the "and" to an "or" afte r
3 .6.4(a).
b . The proposed finding was developed prior to inclusion of an economic hardship
provision in the ordinance and can be reworded to refer to that provision rather than re -
stating the intent of the provision . Staff recommends rewording subsections (a) and (c )
to read as follows :
3 .6,4 Required findings for demolition of a historic resource,The decision-makin g
body shall approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in the Inventory o f
Historic Resources only if it determines that :
(a)The historic re source is a hazard to public health or safety, and repairs or stabilizatio n
is not structurally feasible . Deterioration resulting from the property owner 's neglect o r
failure to maintain the property should not be a justification for demolition . The
applicant may be required to provide structural reports, to the approval of th e
Community Development Director or City Council, to document that repairs o r
stabilization are not feasible ;.auEl o r
(b)The proposed demolition is consistent with the General Plan ; an d
(c)Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described unde r
findings a-e of Section 14 .01 .075 .deprive theproperty owner of alleconomically viable
use of theproperty, after application offinancial,landuse and other incentives availabl e
to the property .
2 . Edit proposed criteria for relocation under 3.7 to eliminate sections b2 and b2(v);
and modify wording in 3 .7, 3 .7b(1) and b2(i).
3 .7 – The preamble to the Relocation section indicates that relocation is "discouraged, excep t
where it is the only feasible alternative to demolition ". Historic Resources are treated in a
similar manner to other environmental resources in the environmental review process – impacts
to the resource are to be avoided or mitigated . The language in the preamble reflects directio n
from both CEQA guidelines and the State Office of Historic Preservation, both of which indicat e
that while relocation may constitute a significant adverse impact to the resource, it might also b e
the only feasible alternative to demolition . Eliminating the language after the wor d
"discouraged" would not affect the intent of the section . It might, however, remove languag e
that could lend support for projects that propose relocation as an alternative to demolition .
3 .7b(1) –Relocation criteria b(1) – the wording indicates that relocation may not be supported i f
it results in an adverse change to all or part of the historic resource ("in whole or part").
Changing this wording to "significantly" will not impair the intent of the criterion and may mor e
2
accurately reflect provisions in CEQA . Those provisions indicate that a project that materially
impairs a historic resource may cause a significant effect on the environment . CEQA further
defines "materially impairs" as an action that demolishes or materially alters in an advers e
manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historica l
significance or account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources (15064 .5b(1)
and (2)).
3 . 7b(2) and (2)v – Both of these sections deal with the idea of relocation as a means to preserv e
the resource if it cannot physically be preserved on-site . These criteria also reinforce the CHC 's
intent that retaining the resource on-site should occur unless demolition or relocation are th e
only other options . Staff, however, agrees that the wording of the sub-sections may b e
redundant and would recommend that 3 . 7b(2) be eliminated with the following section s
renumbered . Section v should be retained as an "or" choice. With the proposed staff revisions ,
a proposed relocation, if it met b(1) through (5) OR criterion 6 could be found appropriate .
Suggested wording is found at the end of discussion on item 3 .7(e)(3).
3 .7e(1) and (2) – Typographic corrections from "demolition "to "relocation"are appropriate .
3 .7e(3) – Council member Carter proposes that the findings for relocation be eliminated. These
findings mimic those found under the demolition section because relocation of a histori c
structure is grouped into the same category of demolition in the CEQA evaluation . Staff
proposes referencing the demolition findings as part of the criteria under 3 . 7b and referencing
those criteria in this section. Suggested wording follows :
(b)Criteria for relocation .Relocation of structures included on the Inventory o f
Historic Resources, or those that are determined by the HC,,or the Director to b e
potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitte d
only when :
(1) The relocation will not, inwholc or part,significantlychange, destroy ,
or adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource ;
and
(2)Preservation of theresource on site is physicallyinfeasible, and relocatio n
is the onlyfeasible option toensure thepreservation of thercource, an d
(2)(0 Relocation will not adversely affect the character of the histori c
district or neighborhood where the resource is located or at its propose d
location, an d
X )-The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlle d
through ownership long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s )
proposing relocation, to the Director's approval, an d
(iii)The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's histori c
significance and the relocation will pose no adverse impacts to th e
surrounding property, an d
(5)Relocation is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan ,
any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Progra m
Guidelines, O R
(6)(v)The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerou s
condition on the site and no other measures for correcting the conditio n
are feasible, O R
(7)The proposed relocation meets the same findings required under Sectio n
3 .6 .4 for demolition of a historic resource .
3 .Other recommended changes :
a.Both the draft Ordinance and Guidelines contain a definitions section . Any change s
made to the definitions in either document will be made consistent in both . Staff
recommends amendment to the definition of alteration to reflect exemptions for ordinar y
maintenance and repair .
b.Sections 2.2, 2 .3, and 2 .4 contain information regarding the CHC's responsibilities an d
duties as well as the Community Development Director's role . Staff recommends
eliminating these sections as they are redundant with those contained in the ordinanc e
and additional edits to those sections in the ordinance are proposed to more clearl y
indicate intent, roles and duties .
-4
Council Member Carter's Red File Recommendations :
3 . i ouolitlau f I .IFsfor ;ez 1 =c i r e
t".CjA
It o
43
■':‘f..S Tod -,.7,
it!Y ,r..T
. ..!y1ra r
A .Itc :-
nrL.t-3
4fettl'.ti-:a:a 25q.C.,1 70
(C)nf MO,r I 1 :
ThZ'a.e
ti.ME'M 'fccrk: 1 .5 ".1 '
.re4..i.A r
)L.
Requ4LE4
.
FIL7,7!klitk7fl 'f!)f
hu';
402.
t
;-;.0 v,!ovide
t,37T'1 "off,f ;1
",..ALU!U"14 ;Lll.
ITC t.1,14 :
)!rija.I; if 117 .
1.6=5 Pfivielitiva
d,;.'7roitL,l1 of a 16t,x1
tE
Thin
,..)I,,i ;+1 1
■:!
-21 -
5
*It() Relooalirm viu ot i Tt.ttLaIT:t
MOIITCC ..,.n;.
00 'ilk Q~.t~slit Lthi t.T.,.i :
IQttg 1,241;t ,f,)t
Dim:tors !,l :r
jyTo jr
'':is
the
1'1u ;.Id .:io L...
I
,.;
n4i,"".Ti
y
tLF O
inn ::;,c.!
o :i
crittza'ilt 7CI .:--,..:iioz
altL t
La 'ill ..,~1 ~'•,j
CZ :1
to 1
T ;'AY:y
ii)Tiit.:pElpfazzEl rec.ziviri::,2; itz .
t-f ':n o
(1v)Rel so:.;zO
L!, n. .
Lota t
t
1,NO!'arn.0 Ta 0 .1 .
.OJ _:13.1 :.Lik.1 till pLit171it:
pid ;or 6cyt'li ,scO, r 4-?c,
Cat :.:n :-
1.1 LcTtnZ s
iisto.r4cia ueb 3r14ti('t.tt.tCil1 tto.slen0ori '
6T:L1 RA .610 c
Ctuiti .e.s .r.
$','t'O.r.n ptatoatt
:t
C
^a j t,;s~ri~srftl
17.0i't0:14)
6
!t {
r ttiI.P '',''tier
~. tnrr r nlarl_tct~st 6 c~!,t'
7