City Council Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 23, 2023 FROM: COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WARDS: ALL
DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: PLANNING CASE PR-2021-001145: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO AMEND TITLE 20 (CULTURAL RESOURCES) OF THE RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE ISSUES:
Conduct a Public Hearing on Planning Case PR-2021-001145 (Title 20 Text Amendment) for proposed comprehensive update to amend Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code including, but not limited to, revisions to Approvals and Hearings processes, revisions and clarification of the CEQA process for Cultural Resources, clarification on the Designation process, revisions and clarification of the Certificate of Appropriateness process, addition of preliminary review process, codification of Cultural Resource Report requirement for demolition, addition of an Archaeological and Tribal Consultation Chapter, clarification of Enforcements and Penalties processes, revision of Title 20 amendment findings, clarifications to Definitions, addition of definition for demolition, and revisions of other technical language.
Consider Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) recommended policy areas including noticing for administrative review of ministerial projects, elimination of owner consent for designation, demolition review, and preliminary review.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
Determine that Planning Case PR-2021-001145 is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sections 15308 (Actions to Protect Environment), 15060(c)(2) (No Physical Change), 15060(c)(3) (Not A Project), and 15061(b)(3) (General Rule), as the proposed amendment will cause no direct or indirect change to the environment, does not meet the definition of a Project under CEQA, and it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendment will not have an effect on the environment; Approve Planning Case PR-2021-001145 (Title 20 Text Amendment) as outlined in the staff report and summarized in the Findings Section of this report; Introduce, and subsequently adopt, an Ordinance amending Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code; and Provide direction regarding the four policy areas recommended by the Cultural Heritage Board.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Land Use, Sustainability, and Resilience Committee (LUSRC) met on November 13, 2023, with Chair Plascencia and Member Edwards present, to consider Planning Case PR-2021-001145: Comprehensive Update to Amend Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC) and the four policy areas recommended by the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB). As part of the discussion the LUSRC expressed that the four policy areas warranted discussion with the full City Council and requested staff prepare draft redline code language for the City Council to consider.
After discussion the Committee unanimously voted, with one absent, to (1) recommend that City Council: (a) determine that Planning Case PR-2021-001145 is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sections 15308 (Actions to Protect Environment), l 5060(c) (2) (No Physical Change), l 5060(c)(3) (Not A Project), and 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule), as the proposed amendment will cause no direct or indirect change to the environment, does not meet the definition of a Project under CEQA, and it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendment will not have an effect on the environment; (b) approve Planning Case PR-2021-001145 (Title 20 Text Amendment) as outlined in the staff report and summarized in the Findings Section of this report; (c) introduce an Ordinance amending Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code; and (2) direct staff to forward the four policy considerations on Title 20 Text Amendment as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Board. (Attachment 2).
BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
On June 21, 2023, the CHB considered a comprehensive update to Title 20 as well as policy areas for City Council consideration.
Following the staff presentation and discussion, a motion was made to request that City Council:
Determine that Planning Case PR-2021-001145 is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sections 15308 (Actions to Protect Environment), 15060(c)(2) (No Physical Change), 15060(c)(3) (Not A Project), and 15061(b)(3) (General Rule), as the proposed amendment will cause no direct or indirect change to the environment, does not meet the definition of a Project under CEQA, and it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendment will not have an effect on the environment; Approve Planning Case PR-2021-001145 (Title 20 Text Amendment) as outlined in the staff report and summarized in the Findings Section of this report; with technical modifications, and CHB Suggested policy consideration as discussed by the Cultural Heritage Board; Introduce, and subsequently adopt, an Ordinance amending Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code; and Designated Chair Gamble to attend the City Council meeting and represent CHB should there be any questions from the City Council.
The CHB voted unanimously on the motion, with one absent.
The June 21, 2023 CHB Staff Report with Exhibits and the meeting minutes are included as attachments to this Staff Report (within Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND:
In 2017, staff began identifying needed revisions and clarifications to Title 20, including Chapter 20.40 – Enforcement and Penalties related to penalties for projects completed without a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) based on City Council direction. Staff completed the preliminary review of Title 20 and prepared initial recommended amendments for consideration.
From September 2021 through November 2021, Staff worked closely with CHB through workshops at their regularly scheduled meetings. On February 16, 2022, CHB formed a Subcommittee consisting of four members to work with staff on the recommended amendments. The Subcommittee met on a regular basis between March 2022 and April 2023.
The proposed modifications to Title 20 were reviewed in a workshop at the May 17, 2023 CHB meeting. Following the meeting the Subcommittee and staff met to discuss comments from the workshop. Staff completed minor revisions to the proposal based on some of the Board and Subcommittee’s comments and presented the redline update to CHB at a public hearing for review and recommendation at the June 21, 2023 CHB meeting.
The LUSRC discussed the comprehensive update to Title 20 and the four policy areas at the November 13, 2023 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
COMPREHENSIVE TITLE 20 UPDATE
The proposed Title 20 Text Amendments will streamline processes and improve the consistency, clarity, and usability of the City’s development regulations related to Cultural Resources. In addition to substantive changes, the amendment includes clarification of ambiguous, conflicting, and/or outdated language, and other minor, non-substantive changes and technical corrections as required to provide clarity, correct errors or remove redundancies.
The following provides a summary of the proposed substantive changes to Title 20. Additional details can be found in the draft ordinance (Attachment 1) and the June 21, 2023 CHB Staff Report (within Attachment 2).
Amendment 1 – Approvals and Appeal Authority
Chapters:
20.15.010 – Revise appeals process
20.15.090 – Add referrals
Existing conditions:
Appeals of CHB to the Land Use, Sustainability, and Resiliency Committee for a recommendation to City Council Historic Preservation Fund Committee (HPFC) is not currently listed City Council and Mayor referral of CHB action not included Proposed changes:
Add HPFC to the approvals table
Remove the Land Use, Sustainability, and Resiliency Committee Add referral of CHB action
Amendment 2 – California Environmental Quality Act Review Chapters:
20.15.020 – Revise California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process Existing conditions:
No procedures for Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, that involves Cultural Resource Impacts, where CHB is not the approving body Proposed changes:
Add procedures for CEQA approvals on projects that require a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration Incorporated text related to EIR Review from the City’s CEQA Resolution (No. 21106) Added text regarding the appeal of CEQA determinations
Amendment 3 – Noticing
Chapters:
20.15.030 - Add recognitions and derecognitions to the Public Hearing requirements
20.15.040 – Increase noticing requirements for CHB reviewed Certificates of Appropriateness (COA)
20.15.050 – Increase noticing requirements administratively reviewed COAs Existing Conditions:
Recognition of Points of Cultural Interest not included in the Public Hearing requirements Notices for COAs sent to the property owner and adjacent properties.
Proposed Changes:
Recognitions and derecognitions to Public Hearings requirements Increase the noticing requirements for COAs to 300 feet Add noticing to property occupants and persons or entities that request noticing for Public Hearings and COAs Amendment 4 – Historic Designations
Chapters:
20.20.020 – Add City Council override of owner opposition
20.20.080 - Revise language regarding Cultural Resources Overlay Zones for clarity
20.20.120 – Remove designation process flow chart
Existing conditions:
Written owner consent for City Landmark and Structure of Merit designation Cultural Resources Overlay Zone applied to historical designated properties Proposed changes:
City Council override of owner opposition by a two-thirds (2/3) vote Relocate text related to Cultural Resources Overlay Zones from the definitions chapter Remove the flow designation process flow chart, which can be provided by an informational hand out Amendment 5 – Certificates of Appropriateness Application Process Chapters:
20.25.020 - Revise application process for clarity and add cultural resource report requirement for properties not previously evaluated for historic designation, and add applicant requested preliminary review.
20.25.021 – Add preliminary review process
Existing conditions:
Application for a COA shall be submitted to the Planning Division but no application procedures Proposed changes:
Clarify and outline the application process, mirroring the application process identified for other planning entitlements and current procedures.
Codify existing processes and allow the Community & Economic Development Director and Historic Preservation Officer to require a cultural resources evaluation for the proposed demolition of properties, as necessary Add preliminary review for CHB reviewed COA requests for projects at City Landmarks and Structures of Merit Amendment 6 – Certificate of Appropriateness Review Process Chapters:
20.25.030 - Revise administrative COA list of projects to streamline review
20.25.050 – Revise Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design Review Existing conditions:
Provides list of project types to be reviewed administratively Provides one set of review principles and standards for all projects No principles for review of projects at non-contributors to historic district Proposed changes:
Clarify and revise administrative COA list for minor projects (e.g. fencing, awnings, signage, etc.) Clarify and add two-story Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) at any Cultural Resource, except Landmarks, to administrative review in order to be in line with state law Revise principles and standards of review to include principles for 1) individually significant Cultural Resources; 2) contributors to Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas; and 3) non-contributors to Historic Districts (for more flexibility in implementation.) Amendment 7 – Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Chapters:
20.26 - Add new chapter related to Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Existing conditions:
Non-codified process for Cultural Resources Reports for projects that have the potential to have impact on archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Proposed changes:
Codify existing practices and includes project site conditions that would trigger the requirement of a Cultural Resources Report Specifies that Tribal Consultation on development projects are to be conducted in accordance with CEQA.
Amendment 8 – Enforcement and Penalties
Chapters:
20.40.050 – Clarify remedy implementation
20.40.080 - Code Enforcement case updates
Existing conditions:
Outlines the procedures and process for implementation of remedies and penalties for violation of the title Proposed change:
Clarify that remedies are cumulative to each other
Specify that retroactive COAs are to be reviewed in compliance with the procedures established in Chapter 20.25 (Certificate of Appropriateness).
Codify that CHB can request an update on Code Enforcement cases.
Amendment 9 – Structure of Merit
Chapters:
20.50 – Revise Structure of Merit criteria
Existing conditions:
Structure of Merit designation criteria that is vague and has redundancies.
Proposed change:
Clarify the intent and remove redundancies.
CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD RECOMMENDED POLICY CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the proposed amendments presented by staff, CHB discussed policy areas to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. For each policy area, CHB held a straw poll to determine policy areas to be included. The following provides a summary of the four policy considerations. Additional details can be found in the potential redline text (within Attachment 2) and the June 21, 2023 CHB Minutes (within Attachment 2). On November 13, 2023, the LUSRC staff directed staff to provide potential redline text amendments for each of the policy areas for the City Council to consider. (Attachment 3) Policy Consideration 1 – Noticing for Administrative Review of Ministerial Projects Chapter:
20.15.050.D - Additional noticing requirements
Existing Conditions: Noticing requirements in Section 20.15.050 (Meeting and notice for Administrative Certificates of Appropriateness) require a 10-day notice for Administrative Certificates of Appropriateness. Ministerial Projects, such as demolition of non-historic structures and the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), do not require noticing.
Proposed Change:
Amend proposed Section 20.15.050.D to include a notice of action for State mandated ministerially projects, such as ADU, to be sent to persons or entities requesting notice CHB agreed to forward this policy to the City Council with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 no.
Policy Impacts: This policy consideration would increase public awareness for ministerial projects at historic properties. Mailed notices would be given on projects that are mandated by Assembly Bill 3182 to be reviewed ministerially and streamlined. As such, historic preservation review is completed administratively and is not subject to Title 20 appeals. Therefore, noticing would be informational rather than to obtain public comment or identify an appeal period. Per state mandate, the approval of a permit for an ADU must be issued within 60-days of a complete application. Noticing could impact this time period if a person or entity chooses to take action to prevent the issuance of a building permit based on the notice of action of historic preservation review. This would have a slight impact on staff time and additional cost for preparation of mailings. Cost will vary with each mailing depending on property adjacencies.
LUSRC Discussion: The LUSRC did not express an opinion in favor of or against this policy area and agreed to forward it to City Council for discussion. At the direction of the LUSRC, should the City Council want to consider this policy, new code language (inclusive of CHB’s recommendations) has been provided. (Attachment 3) Policy Consideration 2 – Elimination of Owner Consent for Historic Designation Chapter:
20.20.020 – Removal of text requiring owner consent
Existing Conditions: Title 20 requires prior written consent of historic property owners before a property can be designated as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit. Under the current proposed comprehensive Title 20 amendment, City Council authority to override owner opposition by a two-thirds (2/3) vote for unique situations where the property has unique value that necessitates historic preservation efforts. Additionally, when an application for historic designation is submitted without written owner consent, a notice of application would be sent to the property owner for a response. The application would not move forward through the designation process until a written statement of consent or objection is provided by the property owner. Should a response not be received within 90 days the application would move forward to City Council upon recommendation from CHB. This will ensure the property owner is aware of the proposed designation. If a letter of objection is provided or no response received, it would be at the discretion of City Council to override the objection and approve the designation.
Proposed Change:
Remove the owner consent requirement for designation applications, including the proposed City Council override of owner consent.
This would replace the currently proposed amendment language under Section 20.20.020.
CHB agreed to forward this policy to the City Council with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 no.
Policy Impacts: The elimination of owner consent would allow a property that meets Landmark or Structure of Merit criteria to be designated without approval of the property owner; thereby, allowing for better protection of the City’s Cultural Resources. This policy consideration would apply Title 20 regulations and additional review requirements for proposed modifications to the property that were designated without owner agreement and consent for all projects meeting the criteria including but not limited to COA review and preliminary reviews, as included in the current proposed amendment.
LUSRC Discussion: As part of this discussion, Committee Member Edwards suggested a revision to require a 2/3 vote (5 minimum) vote of the City Council membership to approve a historic designation request. At the direction of the LUSRC, should the City Council want to consider this policy, new code language (inclusive of LUSRC’s recommendations) has been provided. (Attachment 3). This modification differs from the proposed City Council override to owner consent in that it would allow an historic designation request to be proposed without a written statement from the property owner, either in favor or opposition. The designation request would go to City Council upon recommendation for CHB. Notices and letters will be sent to the property owner regarding the public hearings; however, the process would proceed without a response from the property owner. City Council would be provided with documentation of staff’s attempts to notify the property owner.
Policy Consideration 3 – Demolition Review
Chapters:
20.15.055 – Add demolition review noticing section
20.25.010 – Add demolition review text
20.50.010 – Add Demolition by Neglect definition
Existing conditions: Under Title 20, the demolition of historic resources that have been designated or found eligible for designation requires a COA to be reviewed by CHB. The demolition of structures ineligible for designation does not require review or noticing. Currently, when a demolition permit request is submitted to the Planning division, Historic Preservation staff reviews all demolition permit requests over the counter to confirm the structure is not eligible for designation and/or require an evaluation for eligibility as necessary.
Proposed Change:
Amend Section 20.25.010 (Certificate of Appropriateness Required) to include a 30-day review/comment period for the demolition the primary structure(s) of a property Designated or Eligible Cultural Resource, properties within a Historic District, or contributors to a Neighborhood Conservation Area Require posting of a Notice of Demolition on the property For properties found ineligible for designation, a notice of action will be mailed or delivered to adjacent property owners and those requesting notice.
Adds a demolition by neglect definition including lack of maintenance and inadequate measures to prevent structural collapse.
CHB agreed to forward this policy to the City Council with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 no.
Policy Impacts: The addition of demolition review noticing requirements would increase public awareness of and opportunity to comment on the demolition of existing and eligible Cultural Resources. Noticing for demolition of ineligible structures is currently not required and processed over the counter. Noticing for COAs related to demolition would increase to 30 days from the current 10-day noticing period required for all COAs. The 30-day notice would be completed prior to CHB review and would generally be concurrent with public comment period for CEQA document review, if required. The noticing time would be in addition to the review of the COA application, which is at minimum 30 days.
For properties found ineligible for designation, this policy consideration would require a notice of action be mailed to adjacent property owners and those requesting notice upon approval of a demolition request by Historic Preservation Staff. This may affect processing times for submission of building permits and future construction. For properties posing a dangerous condition as determined by the City Building Official a notice of action (after the fact) would be sent to persons or entities requesting notice. Demolition of accessory structures, such as patio covers, garages, and gazebos, would be exempt from noticing requirements. The addition of a definition of demolition by neglect would allow the City to cite violations and impose remedies on historic properties that are left to deteriorate.
LUSRC Discussion: The LUSRC did not express an opinion in favor of or against this policy area and agreed to forward it to City Council for discussion. At the direction of the LUSRC, should the City Council want to consider this policy, new code language (inclusive of CHB’s recommendations) has been provided. (Attachment 3) Policy Consideration 4 – Preliminary Review
Chapter:
20.25.021 – Add preliminary review text
Existing Conditions: Title 20 does not currently include CHB preliminary review. Certificates of Appropriateness application are reviewed by staff during an initial review period for consistency with Title 20, applicable design guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. During the initial review period staff provides comments to the applicant to bring the project into consistency. Under the current proposed Title 20 amendment, preliminary review by CHB for projects at City Landmarks and Structures of Merit (Section 20.25.021) is proposed. This policy consideration would require a CHB workshop during the initial review period for all Certificates of Appropriateness that are subject to CHB review.
Proposed Change:
Expands the proposed preliminary review requirement to include:
All projects subject to CHB review involving:
Designated and Eligible Landmarks and Structures of Merit Properties within Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas Non-residential projects within a Historic District when visible from the public right-of-way and exceeds $250,000 in value CHB agreed to forward this policy to the City Council with a unanimous vote.
Policy Impact: This policy would require a workshop for projects subject to CHB review, thereby allowing CHB to provide early feedback to the project applicant on the proposed project. Workshops on proposed projects are currently not addressed in Title 20 but have been held through an ad-hoc process when requested by the applicant and/or recommended by staff. The current proposed amendment would add a preliminary review for CHB reviewed projects at City Landmarks and Structures of Merit. This proposed policy consideration would expand preliminary review to all projects subject to CHB review and some that would be reviewed administratively (non-contributors in a historic district). This policy would increase processing times, require additional review time and cost to the entitlement process. The policy would also add a CHB preliminary review for projects at non-residential contributors and non-contributors to historic districts that would typically be administratively reviewed by staff, when the project exceeds a valuation of $250,000; therefore, adding additional review time for certain administrative COAs.
LUSRC Discussion: The LUSRC expressed concerns related to additional timing and cost to the applicant that would be caused by this policy area but agreed to forward it to City Council for discussion. At the direction of the LUSRC, should the City Council want to consider this policy, new code language (inclusive of CHB’s recommendations) has been provided. (Attachment 3)
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The proposed Title 20 Text Amendment aligns with Strategic Priority No. 2 – Community Well-Being, and more specifically with Goal 2.3 – Strengthen neighborhood identities and improve community health and the physical environment through amenities and programs that foster an increased sense of community and enhanced feelings of pride and belonging citywide. In addition, the project aligns with the five Cross-Cutting Threads as follows:
Community Trust – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Community Trust Cross-Cutting Thread as the amendment is reviewed at a public meeting, allowing for public comment.
Equity – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Equity Cross-Cutting Thread as it applies to all historic properties throughout the City.
Fiscal Responsibility – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Fiscal Responsibility as no General Funds, outside of staff time, are being used for the update.
Innovation – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Innovation Cross-Cutting Thread as it incorporates new approaches to historic preservation review.
Sustainability & Resiliency – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Sustainability & Resiliency Cross-Cutting Thread as it works to maintain the historic character of the City for generations to come.
FISCAL IMPACT:
On September 8, 2015, City Council approved Resolution No. 22904, which included a full subsidization of cost associated with the review of Certificates of Appropriateness and Historic Designation to encourage historic preservation efforts. The proposed update to Title 20 will have no fiscal impact as the update will clarify and streamline processes already completed by staff, which are included in the approved Community & Economic Development Department Budget.
Policy considerations 1, 3, and 4 will increase staff time for the review of Certificate of Appropriateness and demolition permit requests with an average of an additional 30-days or review time being added each review. Staff processes an average of three to four ministerial projects monthly. The preparation and transmittal of noticing would require approximately one to two hours of staff time. Staff reviews an average of approximately eight demolition permits are reviewed monthly. Review of demolition permit requests will vary based on the complexity of the project with an average of four to eight hours staff time per review and transmittal of notices. The Cultural Heritage Board reviews approximately three to four Certificates of Appropriateness annually. Preliminary review would require approximately eight to ten hours for the preparation and presentation of workshop materials.
Additionally, policy consideration 3 would increase noticing costs by adding notices for reviews that currently do not include this requirement. Notices cost will vary based on the cost of postage and the number of notices to be mailed. Policy consideration 1 could be accomplished via email; therefore, no additional noticing cost would be required for this policy consideration. Policy consideration 2 will have no additional fiscal impact as it could be included as part of the review of Historic Designation requests.
Prepared by: Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer Approved by: Jennifer A. Lilley, Community & Economic Development Director Certified as to
availability of funds: Kristie Thomas, Finance Director/Assistant Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Rafael Guzman, Assistant City Manager Approved as to form: Phaedra A. Norton, City Attorney
Concurs with;
___________________________
Gaby Plascencia, Chair
Land Use, Sustainability, and Resilience Committee
Attachments:
Title 20 Amendment Draft Ordinance
LUSRC Staff Report and Exhibits – November 13, 2023
Policy Consideration Potential Redlines
Presentation
Comprehensive Title 20 Update ● Page 2