Report in Brief

The City received an application to determine whether the structures at 1029 Ranere Court had local historical significance.  At the October 5, 2005 Heritage Preservation Commission Hearing, the Commission determined that the main home did have local historical significance, while the rear accessory building did not.  After the Heritage Preservation Commission determination, the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council to reconsider the determination that the main house has local historical significance. 

Based on the preponderance of evidence, including the structure’s reflection of special elements of the city’s history, its distinctive characteristics, and its significant geographical patterns, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission and find that the main house has local historic significance.

Background

In March 2, 2005, the City Council adopted an amendment to Chapter 19.96 of the City Municipal Code in regards to Heritage Preservation.  This amendment brought Sunnyvale’s regulations into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which included stricter rules and additional review procedures in regards to modifying or demolishing local heritage resources.  The CEQA states that any resources listed on a local register are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not significant.

Part of the preponderance of evidence used by the City to make its determination of significance is a professionally prepared historic and architectural evaluation.  The evaluations are prepared by State-qualified historic architects and use the criteria from Sunnyvale’s Municipal Code that refer to the Criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.

Because the subject structure is on the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory (listed in 1981), by CEQA definition the structure is significant and will require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared prior to any demolition, unless there is a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates the resource is not significant.

The applicant requested a determination from the Heritage Preservation Commission in regards to the local historical significance of the subject property in order to conduct the appropriate environmental review.  As part of the application a historic evaluation was prepared by Archives & Architecture Heritage Resource Partners in July 2005 (Attachment A).  The report concluded that the single-family home meets the requirements for being historically significant according to Sunnyvale criteria.  It also concluded that the rear accessory building does not meet the requirements, nor is it a contributor to the historic significance of the property.

Heritage Preservation Commission Hearing:  The project was reviewed at the October 5, 2005 Heritage Preservation Commission hearing.  The Commission discussed reasons for determining that the single-family home had local historical significance including the uniqueness of the home, its architecture, and its significance within the City of Sunnyvale.  The Heritage Preservation Commission voted 4-0 and determined that the single-family home has local historical significance (see Attachment D for meeting minutes).

Given the determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission that the single-family home has local historical significance, the applicant is requesting a reconsideration by the City Council that the single-family home does not have local historical significance and should be removed from the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory.

Environmental Review

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any application that may cause a substantial adverse change to a Heritage resource is subject to environmental review.  Since the applicant may want to demolish the existing structures, there would be substantial and potentially adverse change if the structures are considered historic.  CEQA statue states the following:

“§ 21084.1, Historical Resource: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.  For purposes of this section, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources.  Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5050.1, 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, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.  The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.”

Generally when projects such as this are reviewed by local agencies, a historical and architectural evaluation is requested which determines the historical significance of the structure at the National, State, and local levels.  This report is used as “the preponderance of evidence” as stated in the statute.  In this case, the report for the residence at 1029 Ranere Court determined that the single-family home is eligible to be listed on the National and State registries of historic resources.  The report also concluded that the single-family home is eligible to be listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.  The report also concluded that the accessory building on the property is not eligible for listing on the National or State registries of historic resources, nor is it eligible for listing on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory.

Required City Determination

At this hearing, staff is requesting a determination from the City Council regarding the local significance of the project site so that the appropriate level of environmental review can be conducted for the future demolition and construction project.  If the Council agrees with the Heritage Preservation Commission and determines that the single-family home has local historic significance, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required to be prepared prior to any major modification or demolition of the structure.  If the Council determines that the structure does not have local historic significance, a Notice of Exemption would be prepared and the proposed project would proceed forward to the Planning Commission.

An EIR would require approximately 6 months additional time to complete.  The EIR would explore alternatives to the demolition of the structure and require greater public notice regarding the potential impact to the property.  The intent of the EIR is to provide information regarding the residence and disclose all impacts that the project demolition and construction of new structures may create.

Historic Preservation Policies

In order to determine any local historic significance, the City should draw from four sources of information.  The first source is the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory which states that the significance of the property is in part due to its original ownership by the Caviglia family, which had a cherry orchard at the site dating back to 1913 (Attachment B). 

The second source of information is the historic and architectural evaluation provided by Archives & Architecture Heritage Resource Partners in Attachment A.  The report identifies facts about the home and provides criteria that may qualify it for local significance.  The report states the following:

“The house would appear to qualify for both the National Register under Criterion C and California Register under Criterion (3) based upon its distinctive architectural design, a distinguished example of Depression era residential architecture that was specifically adapted to a rural agricultural setting…

The ancillary building does not contain the same distinction as the main house, and was constructed outside the significant period of use of the property.  It does not contribute to the significance of the house architecturally and would therefore not qualify for the National or California Registers...”

The third source to consider is the Images Sunnyvale’s Historical Resources, prepared by the California History Center, published by the City of Sunnyvale in 1988.  This book provides information and a picture about the site and the significance of the property.  The book makes note of the Caviglia family and discusses the architectural features on the home including the use of iron grilles, balconies, and an elaborate tile roof chimney top (Attachment C).

The fourth resource to use in making a decision is the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance) which provides the criteria for nomination of a City Heritage resource.  Criteria for evaluation and nomination of heritage resources in Section 19.96.050 of Title 19 state the following:

“Any improvement, building, portion of buildings, structures, signs, features, sites, scenic areas, views, vistas, places, areas, landscapes, trees, or other natural objects or objects of scientific, aesthetic, educational, political, social, cultural, architectural, or historical significance can be designated a heritage resource by the city council and any area within the city may be designated a heritage resource district by the city council pursuant to provisions of this chapter if it meets the Criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, or one or more of the following:

(a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic engineering, architectural, or natural history;

(b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;

(c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

(d) It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect;

(e) It contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically or by plan or physical development;

(f) It has a unique location or singular physical characteristic or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city of Sunnyvale;

(g) It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;

(h) It is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif;

(i) It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;

(j) It is one of the few remaining examples in the city, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historic type or specimen;

(k) With respect to a local landmark, it is significant in that the resource materially benefits the historical character of a neighborhood or area, or the resource in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community or city.

(l) With respect to a local landmark district, a collective high integrity of the district is essential to the sustained value of the separate individual resources;

(m) With respect to a designated landmark and designated landmark district, the heritage resource shall meet Criteria of the National Register of Historical Places, which are incorporated by reference into this chapter. (Ord. 2623-99 § 1 (part): prior zoning code § 19.80.060).”

No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.

One email (Attachment F) and one phone call has been received from the general public, both supporting denying the appeal.

Heritage Preservation Commission:  At the meeting there were two people that spoke on this item.  One speaker’s comment was to encourage the Commission to find that the home does have local historical significance.  The other speaker, who represented the applicant, spoke in support of having the property removed from the inventory.

Discussion: The applicant submitted a letter stating their reasons for appealing the Heritage Preservation Commission’s determination.  The main counter argument is that the house is not a significant resource because the site does not have any historical significance, the structure has architectural features that are common to other structures in the area, and the site combined with the home are part of geographical patterns that are similar to other portions of the City.

Staff has reviewed all four sources of information and has concluded that the single-family home is eligible to be listed as an individual Heritage Resource and possible National and State Registers.  Staff believes that the single-family home qualifies under Section 19.96.050(a), (c) and (i) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code (criteria for evaluation and nomination).  Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the single-family home has historical significance.  In order to review demolition of the primary home on the property an Environmental Impact Report should be required as well as subsequent public review and hearings.

1.            Uphold the Heritage Preservation Commission determination that the single-family home has local historic significance.

2.             Determine that the single-family home does not have local historic significance.

Alternative 1.

Reviewed by:
Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer

Prepared by: Troy Fujimoto, Associate Planner

Reviewed by:
Robert Paternoster

Director, Community Development

Approved by:

Amy Chan

City Manager

Attachments:

A.     Historic and Architectural Evaluation (.pdf)

B.      Cultural Resource Inventory – 1029 Ranere Court (.pdf)

C.     Images of Sunnyvale Cultural Resources (.pdf)

D.     Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes from October 5, 2005 Meeting (.pdf)

E.      Appeal Letter from Applicant (.pdf)

F.      Letter from Interested Party (.pdf)

Additional public e-mails and letter received after the report was completed and prior to 12/15/05. (.pdf)