12 - Laserfiche WebLink

229 Kottinger Dr., 205 Neal St., 4349 Second St., 4466 Second St., and 4189 Stanley Blvd. The structures at 229 Kottinger Dr., 4349 Second St., and 4466 Second St. were determined to be historic resources while the structures at 205 Neal St. and 4189 Stanley Blvd. did not qualify. The historic resource survey will have several benefits: it will save property owners/applicants time and money since they won't have to hire a consultant to prepare an individual property survey (which typically can cost about $5,000 and take 30-45 days to complete); it will let owners/applicants know whether a structure is considered historic or not and allow them to plan their additions/modifications accordingly; and it will aid staff in its review of projects and protection of the historic character of Downtown. III. PUBLIC COMMENT To provide the public with additional time to review and comment on the historic resource survey, a notice regarding the availability of the survey was sent on September 17, 2015, to the property owners and tenants within the Downtown Specific Plan Area (shown on Exhibit E), the former Historic Preservation Task Force members, and interested parties who contacted staff during the Historic Preservation Task Force meetings. Emilie Cruzan, former Historic Preservation Task Force member, sent an email asking the Commission to recommend the adoption of the historic resource survey. Linda Garbarino, former Historic Preservation Task Force member, sent an email indicating her support of a Municipal Code amendment to allow the City to regulate the first ten feet of historic homes within the Downtown. Ms. Garbarino also requested that the amendment apply to the surveyed homes that did not qualify as historic resources. Staff had also received an email from George Emmett, 417 St. Mary St., indicating his opposition to designating his home and any others as historic. The emails are attached as Exhibit F. Staff also received a phone call from Andrew Shaper, 386 Division St., indicating his concern with the desire of others to control what he can do on his property beyond what the current zoning allows. He felt that the prior modifications to the historic preservation policies were not fair or necessary. Staff also spoke to the owners of 541 and 621 St. Mary St. who had minor corrections to the information on their properties (which staff will forward to ARG for incorporation into the survey). A separate public notice was later sent regarding the proposed Municipal Code amendment, survey, and related Planning Commission public hearing to the same list of people as noted above. The public notice was also published in The Valley Times. At the time this report was written, staff had received additional email correspondence from Linda Garbarino (see Exhibit F) requesting that the Municipal Code amendment also apply to the homes built before 1942 that did not qualify as a historic resource. Staff will forward to the Commission any additional public comments as they are received. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), as it has been determined that the Municipal Code amendment will not cause a significant negative effect on the environment, and will in fact protect historic resources by making the City's historic resource regulations more robust. P15-0384 Page - 6 - October 14, 2015