CITY OF SUNNYVALE
REPORT
Heritage Preservation Commission
August 6, 2003|
SUBJECT: |
2003-0271 - Ron Dick [Applicant] Richard Smith [Owner] - Application for related proposals on a 14,500 square foot site located at 160 North Sunnyvale Avenue in an R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 204-08-004) SL
|
|
Motion |
Special Development Permit to allow the demolition of a single-family home for construction of 4 townhomes. |
REPORT IN BRIEF
|
Existing Site Conditions |
Two-story residential single-family home. |
|
Surrounding Land Uses |
|
North |
Commercial Building – Mortuary |
South |
High Density Residential Apartments |
East |
Industrial Building – Northrop Grumman |
West |
Single-Family Residential |
|
Issues |
Historic Significance of the existing single-family residence. |
|
Environmental Status |
Environmental Review will be conducted as required by California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. |
|
Staff Recommendation |
Recommend that a Negative Deceleration be used for the environmental review. |
|
ANALYSIS
Description of Proposed Project
This application is for construction of four new townhomes at a site where there currently exists one single-family residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home. As part of this application, environmental review is required to determine the historic significance of the existing residence at the site. Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the local historical significance of the home and which level of environmental review to pursue.
Background
This application was submitted on April 14, 2003 and is in the process of being reviewed for compliance with current development standards and General Plan Policies. During the course of this review, it was identified that the existing home at the site was part of the North Sunnyvale Road Streetscape (100 Block) and therefore listed on the City Cultural Resource Inventory. The home itself is not specifically listed on the inventory nor is the 100 Block listed on the City’s Heritage Landmark Inventory. (See Attachment #30)
Staff requested that the applicant provide a historical and architectural evaluation for the home. This report was completed by Dill Design Group and submitted to the City by the applicant. (Please see Attachment #1) In Staff’s opinion the report did not arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the local historical significant of the home. As a result, staff must make that determination and is asking the Commission to make a recommendation. This conclusion determines what level of review under CEQA is required. Staff is not seeking a decision on whether or not to list this structure on the City’s inventory. A detailed discussion of this request follows.
Environmental Review
Under CEQA, any application that may cause a substantial adverse change to a historic resource is considered a project and subject to environmental review. Since the application proposes to demolish the existing structure, there would be a substantial and potentially adverse change. CEQA statue states the following,"§ 21084.1. Historical Resource: 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 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 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, 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. In this case, the report for the residence at 160 N. Sunnyvale determined that the home is not eligible to be listing on the National or State registries of historic resources. The report does not conclude whether the home is eligible to be listed on the City’s Cultural Resource Inventory and therefore does not provide clear guidance on what level of CEQA to review the application. The report instead places the decision back with the City to determine if the structure has any local significance and if so, what level of CEQA review. (Please refer to Attachment #1, page 14) The report further states that if the City does choose to list the structure, then it would qualify for environmental review, but fails to state which level of CEQA review.
Recommendation to Staff
Staff is requesting an advisory recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Committee regarding the level of environmental review for this project only. There are two possible levels of environmental review under CEQA for this project at this time. The first would be a Negative Deceleration, where it would be determined by the HPC that the existing structure does not have any local significance to the City. Staff would use the existing historical and architectural report in reviewing the application. The second level of review possible would be an Environmental Impact Report. In this case, the HPC would determine that the home may have local significance and therefore, a full environmental review is necessary for review of the application. An EIR is required under CEQA if it is determined that a structure may have historical significance.
The EIR would require approximately 6 months additional time to complete and would require that the City Council adopt the document. The EIR would not necessarily provide any more protection for the home but would explore alternatives to the demolition of the structure. The intent of the report is to provide information regarding the residence and disclose all impacts that the project may create.
Heritage Preservation Policies
The Heritage Preservation Committee recommendation regarding the level of environmental review is based on the determination of whether or not the home has any local significance. In order to determine this, Heritage Commissioners should draw from three sources of information. The first source is the City’s Cultural Resource Inventory which describes the 100 Block of N. Sunnyvale Avenue. The inventory describes the block as follows,
"Sunnyvale Avenue is lined with several houses. Executives from the canneries, Hendy Iron Works, and other industries built their gracious homes along N. Sunnyvale Avenue, close to business. Set far back from the street, these homes often are surrounded by handsome landscaping. Styles vary, and some newer construction exists, but the bungalows and Colonial Revival styles predominate."
The inventory states the significance of the block as follows,
"Part of the original townsite of Encinal, Sunnyvale Avenue is significant for its many gracious homes which act as reminders of the town’s earlier days. Threatened by a possible increase in traffic from the shopping are, this area would benefit from a conservation zone approach. This zoning could protect the unity and special qualities of Sunnyvale’s older homes."
The home was never individually listed on the City’s Cultural Inventory and the 100 Block was never adopted as a Heritage Landmark zone.
The second source of information is the historic and architectural report provided by Dill Design Group in Attachment #1. The report details specific facts about the home and provides criteria that may qualify it for local significance.
The third source is City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance) which provides the criteria for nomination of a City Heritage resource. This nomination is for listing on the Heritage Landmarks list, not for listing on the City’s Cultural Resource Inventory. 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)."
This criteria is similar to the criteria used for State and National eligibility.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed all three sources of information and has concluded that the residence is not eligible to be listed as an individual Heritage Cultural Resource or as a local Heritage Landmark. Although the date of the home’s construction meets the 50 year threshold to qualify it as historic under Criteria A, the home does not meet the other three required criteria to be eligible for listing. The historical and architectural report states that the property was associated with John Hendy but concludes that it does not qualify under Criteria B, since Hendy himself never resided in the home. Since no local person of significance is directly associated with the home, Staff believes that it does not qualify under Criteria B. The report also states that the architecture does not embody a distinctive style or represent a time period, therefore, Staff does not believe that it would qualify under Criteria C. Criteria D is for resources associated with prehistory of an area only. Staff recommends that a Negative Deceleration be used for purposes of reviewing this applcation.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.
ALTERNATIVES
RECOMENDATION
Alternative 1
Prepared by:
Steve Lynch
Project Planner
Reviewed by:
Gerri Caruso
Principal Planner
Attachments: