CC Report 4-23-24 — Riverside City Council, August 20, 2024

City Council Memorandum

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 23, 2024

FROM: COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WARDS: ALL

DEPARTMENT

SUBJECT: WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 (CULTURAL

RESOURCES) OF THE RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE AND FOUR POLICY

AREA RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

ISSUES:

Conduct a workshop on proposed amendments to Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code including, but not limited to, clarification of the Designation process, revisions and clarification of the Certificate of Appropriateness application process, and addition of preliminary review process.

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 conduct a workshop and provide direction on proposed Title 20 amendments and Cultural Heritage Board recommended policy considerations.

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 s taff 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. In addition to the proposed amendments Title 20 Workshop ● Page 2
presented by staff, CHB discussed policy areas to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. For each policy area, CHB determine d which policy areas to be included .

Subsequently, CHB recommended City Council approve the comprehensive Title 20 update and provided four policy considerations, including the following: 1) Noticing for Administrative Review of Ministerial Projects ; 2) Elimination of owner consent for historic designations; 3 ) Demolition Review; and 4) Preliminary Review. (Attachment 1) Policy considerations 2, 3, and 4 are similar to some of the proposed amendments to Title 20 but included alternate text and/or expansion of the proposed amendment.

The comprehensive update to Title 20 and the four policy areas were presented and discussed at the November 13, 2023 Land Use, Sustainability, and Resilience Committee (LUSR) meeting.

LUSRC expressed that the four policy areas warranted discussion with the full City Council . recommended the comprehensive update to Title 20 to City Council, and requested staff prepare draft redline code language for the City Council to consider. (Attachment 2)

At the January 23, 2024 meeting, City Council reviewed the comprehensive update to Title 20 and the four policy consideration s. As part of Council discussion, it was determined that further discussion was needed regarding the policy consideration s. It was moved by Councilmember Cervantes to remove pr oposed amendments that were similar in nature to the four policy considerations, hold a workshop before the City Council on the four policy areas, and approve the balance of the comprehensive update.

DISCUSSION:

A comparative table was prepared demonstrating the current Title 20 code sections, the proposed amendments, and potential text for the policy consideration. (Attachment 3). The four policy areas with proposed amendments and CHB recommended consideration are summarized as follows.

Policy Area 1 – Noticing for Administrative Review of Ministerial Projects

Existing Conditions: Noticing requirements in Section 20.15.050 (Meeting and notice for Administrative COA) require a 10-day notice for Administrative COA. Ministerial Projects, such as demolition of non-historic structures and the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), do not require noticing.

Proposed Amendments - 1

There are no proposed amendments for this policy area.

CHB Policy Consideration - 1
Chapter:
 20.15.050.D - Additional noticing requirements
Proposed Change:
 Amend Section 20.15.050.D to include a notice of action for State mandated ministerially projects, such as ADUs, to be sent to persons or entities requesting notice, upon approval

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 Title 20 Workshop ● Page 3
would be informational rather than to obtain public comment or identify an appeal period. Per state mandate, the approval of a building permit for an ADU must be issued within 60 -days of a complete application. Building permits may be appealed as set forth in Section 16.04.590 of the Riverside Municipal Code. Appeals shall be in writing and filed within ten days of any final order or determination made by the building official . As required by State law in relationship to the issuance of the building permit, an appeal of the building permit is not likely to impact state mandated timeline. However, there is the potential to impact the streamlined process, the applicant and project construction should a building permit appeal be filed. This would have a slight impact on staff time and additional cost for preparation of mailings. Cost will vary with each mailing depending on notification type.

Policy Implementation: Under this policy consideration, staff would send via postal mail or email to persons or entities requesting notification, within five days of approval of historic preservation review.

Policy Area 2 –Owner Consent for Historic Designation s

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. Cultural Resources Overlay Zones are applied to historical designated properties at the time of City Council approval.

Proposed Amendments - 2
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

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 .

This is a non-substantive code clean-up change for code clarity.  Remove the designation process flow chart, which can be provided by an informational hand out. This is a non-substantive code clean-up item.

Amendment Implementation: Under the proposed 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. T he 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, the project would continue through the COA process and upon recommendation of CHB, it would be at the discretion of City Council to override the objection by a two-thirds (2/3) vote and approve the designation.

CHB Policy Consideration - 2
Chapter:
 20.20.020 – Removal of text requiring owner consent
Title 20 Workshop ● Page 4
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 L andmark 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 requi rements 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.

At the January 23 meeting, City Council raised questions regarding takings and the removal of owner consent for historic designations. In Staff's research, case law surrounding historic designation and takings widely varied based on the case specific details and the extent to which the owner was deprived of economic benefit of the property.

Policy Implementation: This modification differs from the proposed amendment 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 and would not necessitate a response from the property owner. City Council would be provided the documentation sent to notify the property owner.

Other Jurisdictions: Owner consent varies amongst jurisdictions and levels of historic listing .

Generally, immediate surrounding jurisdictions require owner consent and those jurisdictions with robust historical programs (e.g. Los Angeles, Pasadena, etc.) do not require owner consent.

Several cities surveyed which do not require owner consent, also will not advance designation request if the property owner submits a written objection to the designation . These jurisdictions will send letters to the property owner and attempt to contact property owners via telephone or email. The contact with the property owner will include the benefits and responsibilities associated with historic designation. If contact with the property owner is not able to be made, the designation request will often move forward for approval, but the staff report will reflect the inability to contact the owner. In some jurisdictions, if the owner’s objection is received the designation nomination will move forward but the staff report will indicate that the owner has objected to the designation.

The National Park Service does not r equire owner consent for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or designation as a National Historic Landmark. Additionally, the State Office of Historic Preservation does not require owner consent for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Both federal and state law indicate that a privately owned property may not be listed over owner objection. The National Park Service requires owner objection to be notarized.

Policy Area 3 – Demolition Review

Existing conditions: Under Title 20, the demolition of historic resources that have been designated or found eligible for designation require s a COA to be reviewed by CHB. The Title 20 Workshop ● Page 5
demolition of a historic resource would include CEQA review, including a 20 to 45 day comment public period, depending on the level of environmental review. A notice of the public meeting would be sent to property owners and occupants within 300 -feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the CHB meeting. The notice includes information regarding the proposed demolition, the proposed project, an invitation to provide comment, and the CHB meeting time and location.

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. If the structure is found ineligible, historic preservation and planning staff will sign off on the demolition permit request to be submitted to Building & Safety.

A definition of Demolition by Neglect is not currently included in Title 20. However, the code does include language regarding upkeep and maintenance and demolition by neglect is included by reference. Specifically, Section 20.40.010 (Violations), state s “No person shall alter or demolish a cultural resource in violation of this title, either actively or passively, including through neglect.” Section 20.35.010 (Duty to Maintain) states that an owner of a historic property “ shall maintain and keep in good repair the exterior of that resource, and all interior portions necessary to prevent loss or deterioration o f any cultural or structural integrity .” Additionally, Title 20 currently allows the City to cite violations and impose remedies on historic properties as specified in Chapter 20.40 (Enforcement and Penalties), such as restoration, civil penalties, and moratoriums.

Proposed Amendments - 3
Chapters:
 20.25.010 - Add cultural resource report requirement for the demolition of properties not previously evaluated for historic designation

Proposed changes:
 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

Amendment Implementation: Under the proposed amendment, historic preservation staff would review demolition permit request. If the proposed demolition will have impact to a structure that has not been formally eval uated for historic listing but appears to meet one or more of the City, State, or National Register historic listing, the Historic Preservation Officer in consultation with the Community & Economic Development Director or designee would require an historic designation eligibility assessment completed.

CHB Policy Consideration - 3
Chapters:
 20.15.055 – Add demolition review noticing section
 20.25.010 – Modify proposed cultural resources report requirement to include a 45-year rule and include reference to noticing section
 20.50.010 – Add Demolition by Neglect definition
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 Title 20 Workshop ● Page 6
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.

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. Notice 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 c omment 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 upon approval by Historic Preservation Staff of a demolition request for all primary structures throughout the city. Demolition of accessory structures, such as patio covers, garages, and gazebos, would be exempt from noticing requirements. 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. The addition of a definition of demolition by neglect would provide a prescriptive method of determining when demolition by neglect has occurred. The definition includes the failure to prevent continued deterioration of a structure throug h lack of maintenance, inadequate prevention of water ingress, and protection from pests.

Policy Consideration Implementation: Under this policy consideration, for the demolition of a designated or eligible structure is proposed, the applicant will be provided a “Notice of Demolition” to be posted on the property within 5 -feet from the property and visible from the public right -of- way. The notice shall be posted at least 30 days prior to the CHB meeting. A notice will also be mailed to property owners and occupants within 300-feet of the property.

For the demolition of structures found ineligible for historic designation, within 5 days of the approval of the demolition staff will mail or deliver a notice of action to adjacent property owners and person or entities requestion notice. The notice would be informational only.

For structures posing a Dangerous Condition in accordance with Section 20.25.015 , a notice of action will be sent within 5 days of determination to person and entities requesting notice.

Other Jurisdictions: Demolition permit review levels vary among jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions require historic preservation commission review for the demolition of any structures 50 -years of age or older. Other jurisdictions demolition is reviewed at the staff level. Noticing type and periods also vary.

Policy Area 4 – Preliminary Review

Existing Conditions: The application requirements included in Section 20.25.020 of the Riverside municipal code are minimal and specify that a pplication for a COA shall be submitted to the Planning Division but does not provide application procedures.

Additionally, Title 20 does not currently include CHB preliminary review of project prior to final Title 20 Workshop ● Page 7
action. COA applications 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 with Title 20 and applicable design guideline . For larger projects and project s including a prominent historic structure or districts , staff strongly encourages the applicant to hold to request a workshop with CHB early in the process.

Proposed Amendments - 4
Chapters:
 20.25.020 – Revise application process for clarity and add applicant requested preliminary review.
 20.25.021 – Add preliminary review process
Proposed changes:
 Clarify and outline the application process, mirroring the application process identified for other planning entitlements and current procedures.
 Add preliminary review for CHB reviewed COA requests for projects at City Landmarks and Structures of Merit . This would n ot include Administratively reviewed projects as specified in Section 20.25.030, such as fences, repairs, landscaping, restoration of historic features, ADUs, and small additions or accessory structures at Structures of Merit.

Amendment Implementation: This policy consideration would require a CHB workshop during the initial review period for CHB reviewed COAs at City Landmarks and Structures of Merit and would be voluntary for all other CHB reviewed projects . When a COA application is re ceived for a project requiring preliminary review, staff will complete a 30 -day review. The project would subsequently be scheduled for workshop with CHB. Following the workshop, staff would work with the applicant to address CHB suggestions and bring the project into consistency with applicable code and guidelines. When the application is deemed complete by staff, it will be added to the CHB agenda for final action.

CHB Policy Consideration - 4
Chapter:
 20.25.021 – Modify proposed preliminary review section Proposed Change:
 Expands the proposed preliminary review requirement to include:
o All projects subject to CHB review involving:
 Designated and Eligible Landmarks and Structures of Merit  Properties within Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas o Non-residential projects within a Historic District when visible from the public right - of-way and exceeds $250,000 in valuation
Policy Impact: This policy would require a workshop for projects subject to CHB review, 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 propos ed 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 admini stratively (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 CHB preliminary review for project s at non -residential contributors and non -contributors to historic districts that would Title 20 Workshop ● Page 8
typically be administratively reviewed by staff, when the project exceeds a valuation of $250,000; therefore, adding additional review time for certain administrative COAs.

Policy Implementation: The process for preliminary review would follow the same as previously discussed. This policy consideration differs from the proposed amendment as the proposed Title 20 amendment will introduce preliminary review by CHB for projects specifically at City Landmarks and Structures of Merit (Section 20.25.021) and the policy consideration would expand preliminary review to all CHB reviewed projects. Additionally, for n on-residential projects within a Historic District when visible from the public right -of-way and exceeds $250,000 in v alue that are not subject to CHB review, staff would work with the applicant following the workshop to meet suggestions and requirements, then will issue final approval.

Other Jurisdictions: Preliminary review of projects is generally completed at the staff level in most jurisdictions. Staff reviews proposed projects for consistency with applicable codes and guidelines, then make recommendation to appropriate approving body.

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:

1. 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.

2. Equity – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Equity Cross -Cutting Thread as it applies to all historic properties throughout the City.

3. 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.

4. Innovation – The Title 20 comprehensive update aligns with the Innovation Cross-Cutting Thread as it incorporates new approaches to historic preservation review.

5. 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 Resoluti on No. 22904, which included no cost recovery associated with the review of COA and Historic Designation to encourage historic preservation efforts. The proposed amendments to Title 20 will have no additional 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 COA and demolition permit requests with an average of an additional 30-days or review time being added each review.

Title 20 Workshop ● Page 9
Staff processes an average of three to four ministerial projects monthly. The preparation and transmittal of noticing would require appr oximately one to two hours of staff time. Staff reviews an average of approximately eight demolition permits 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 p er review and transmittal of notices. The Cultural Heritage Board reviews approximately three to four COA annually. Preliminary review would require approximately eight to ten hours for the preparation and presentation of workshop materials.

Additionally, policy considerations 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 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

Attachments:

1. CHB Minutes – June 21, 2023

2. Policy Consideration Potential Redlines

3. Amendment-Policy Area Comparison

4. Letter Received

5. Presentation

6. CHB Chair Presentation

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 2

DISCUSSION CALENDAR

Annual Review of the Code of Ethics and Conduct

Anthony Beaumon, Senior Deputy City Attorney, presented the Code of Ethics and Conduct updates.

Motion by Board Member Tobin and Seconded by Board Member Brown, to receive and file the Code of Ethics and Conduct presentation. There were no formal comments from the Cultural Heritage Board to the Board of Ethics.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Brown, Carter, Ferguson, Gamble, McDoniel, Sisson, Tobin NOES: None
ABSENT: Hudson
ABSTENTION: None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chair Gamble asked that Mr. Watson begin his presentation and asked that he provide a highlighted presentation version.

PLANNING CASE PR-2022-001145 – ZONE CODE AMENDMENT - CITYWIDE Proposal by the City of Riverside to consider a comprehensive update to amend Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipa l Code including, but not limited to: 1) Revisions to Approvals and Hearings processes; 2) Revisions and clarification of the CQA process or Cultural Resources; 3) Clarificatio n on the Designation process; 4) Revisions, streamlining, and clarification of the Certific ate of Appropriateness process; 5) Addition of preliminary review process; 6) Codification of Cultural Resource Report requirement for demolition; 7) Addition of an Archaeologic al and Tribal Consultation Chapter; 8) Clarification of Enforcements and Penalties processes; 9) Revision of Title 20 amendment findings; 10) Clarifications to Definitions; 11) Addition of definition for demolition; and 12) Revision of other technical language as need ed. Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer, presented the staff report. He stat ed that staff received two comments one in support of the Title 20 amendment and one identifying there were pages missing from the CLG exhibit. He noted that the pages missing were from an old Title 20 which has

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 3 been updated since the execution of the agreement. There were no public comments, the public hearing was closed.

It was the consensus of the Board to review the selections and provide comments on each section.

Board Member Sisson requested that the handouts he provided prior to the meeting be distributed to the members for easier review.

Mr. Beaumon stated that the public has a right to see documents before they are put up for discussion. He stated he understood board member Sisson’s concerns, but this could have been provided at the time of agenda posting.

Mr. Sisson stated he had four items he would like to discuss. Under Section 20.15.050, he suggested adding to the end of the paragraph under D “except for notice requested pursuant to subsection C-3 above”.

D. Project mandated by state law to be reviewed ministerially are exempt from all noticing requirements except for notice requested pursuant to subsection C.3 above.

Following discussion, the Board conducte d a “straw vote” to gauge the Board’s consensus to add this recommendation in the Title 20 amendment, Section 20.15.050.

Consensus vote: 6 Ayes, 1 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Brown, Carter, Ferguson, Gamble, McDoniel, Sisson NOES: Tobin
ABSENT: Hudson
ABSTENTION: None

Board Member Sisson continued with his next recommendation regarding Section

20.20.020. He suggested deletion of the paragraph beginning, “No structure may be designated as a landmark or a structure or resource of merit, nor may any designation be modified or repealed (dedesignated), without the prior written consent of the owner. Based on the Board recommendation the City Council's may consider overriding a property owner objection with a 5/7 ʹs majority vote, provided a finding can be made that the structure is of unique value.

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 4

Following discussion, the Board conducte d a “straw vote” to gauge the Board’s consensus to add this recommendation in the Title 20 amendment, Section 20.20.020.

Consensus vote: 6 Ayes, 1 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Brown, Carter, Ferguson, Gamble, McDoniel, Sisson NOES: Tobin
ABSENT: Hudson
ABSTENTION: None

Board Member Sisson referred to Section 20.25.010 and recommended the following changes: recommended adding a new subsection C to 20.25.010 to read:

Subsection C to read:

C. No demolition permit of a Designated or Eligible Cultural Resource , or Contributors in a Historic District or Neighborhood Conservation Area, absent a 30-day review period with notice given (a) pursuant to Chapter 20.15; (b) persons requesting notice; and (c) posting a placard of durable, weather-r esistant material on the property in a conspicuous place within 5 feet of the fron t property line that: (i) describes the date of the demolition application, (ii) state "NOTICE OF DEMOLITION" in block-style letters a minimum 2-1/2 inches in height, and (iii) specify the permit number, phone number and email to be called for information, me ans to submit comments, and applicable public hearing information in minor letters at least 1-1/2 inches in height.

Subsection D, with the following modifications:

D. For the demolition of structures not previously identified as Eligible Cultural Resources, including but not limited to structures at least 45 years or older , the Community & Economic Development Director and Historic Preservation Officer may require a Cultural Resources Report be prepared pu rsuant to Section 20.26.010 to determine if the structure is eligible for designation. If the subject property is found eligible for designation, a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated CEQA review is required pursuant to this title. If the subject property is found ineligible, the Historic Preservation Officer or Qualified Designee may issue a demolition permit absent any formal review period but subject to mandatory notice to adjacent property owners/tenants and anyone requesting written notice.

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 5 Subsection G and H to read:

G. When granting a demolition permit, t he decisionmaker may consider appropriate conditions to avoid potential impacts to hi storic resources, including but not limited to: (i) mitigation measures requiring documentation or salvaging of removed structures; (ii) demolition permits being contingent upon applicant securing entitlement and/or building permits for replacement structures; and(iii) other conditions the HPO/Board deems appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

H. For purpose of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

1. Demolition means the destruction, remo val, or relocation of a structure not classified as an incidental structure. For purposes of this Chapter, demolition occurs when any of the following takes place at an y time over a 5-year period: (a) more than 50 percent of the exterior wall elements are removed; (b) more than 25 percent of the exterior wall(s) (including exterior cladding) facing a public street(s) is removed; (c) enclosure or alteration (i.e., new window, window relocation, exterior cladding) of more than 25 percent of the exterior wall( s) facing a public street; (d) the removal of a building for relocation to another location is considered a demolition and subject to this Chapter in addition to other requirements of the Code (see e.g., RMC §§ 20.15.070, 16.20 et seq.).

2. Demolition by neglect means the process in which the owner of a resource, or designee, allows its ongoing deterioration of a resource over a period of time as a result of lack of maintenance, failure to protect the resource from pests or vandals, and/or failure to take reasonable measur es to prevent ingress of water or wind through the roof, walls, or apertures of the resource, leading to deterioration and/or structural failure that results in complete or partial demolition, the loss of character- defining features, and/or that constitutes a threat to public health and safety.

Lastly, he suggested that a definition for De molition by neglect. There was language provided in January in the Exhibit 1. He suggested that this be added to the definitions.

Following discussion, the Board conducte d a “straw vote” to gauge the Board’s consensus to add this recommendation in the Title 20 amendment, Section 20.20.010.

Consensus vote: 6 Ayes, 1 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Brown, Carter, Ferguson, Gamble, McDoniel, Sisson

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 6 NOES: Tobin
ABSENT: Hudson
ABSTENTION: None

Board Member Sisson referred to Section 20.25.021 - Preliminary Review. He recommended the following revisions to Subsection A:

A. Purpose and intent: Identify concern that may arise during review of the projects, including but not limited to suggestion for obtaining consistency with the Principles and Standards of Site Development and Design Review, as included in Section

20.25.050.

Subsection B-1:

B. Applicability:

1. For projects at a City Landmarks & Structures of Merit, designated or found eligible for pursuant to a Cultural Resources Report or survey, that are subject to Board review: Mandatory Review: Prior to an application being deemed complete, the following projects shall be submitted to the Board as a workshop to seek input and direction on the proposed project as authorized under Title 20. a. City Landmarks & Structures of Merit, designated or found eligible for pursuant to a Cultural Resources Report or survey, that are subject to Board review. b.

Contributors to a Historic District or NCA that involves either: (a) demolition, relocation, and/or replacement; (b) additi on to structures exceed 50% of its square footage; (c) alterations to 50 % of its exterior walls and/or roof facing a public street; or (d) construction of an additional story. c. Projects within a Historic District that involves either: (a) new construction on vacant land requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Board; or (b) proposed work visible from the public right-of- way that exceeds $250,000 in value involving a public, commercial, or non-residential project.

2. All Other Projects: Prior to an applicat ion being deemed complete, an applicant may request a workshop before the Board to seek input and direction on a proposed project.

3. Board Materials: Whether mandatory or voluntary, the Board shall be provided all documents required for a complete application, including but not limited to

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 7 conceptual site plan, application materi als, renderings, and any other relevant documents related to the Project’s consistency with applicable standards and guidelines.

Ms. Tinio, City Planner, explained that staff conducts preliminary review/conceptual design review, as part of the planning entitlements. The submittal requirements for a conceptual design review is pretty liberal. The applicant will usually submit a site plan without elevations. The more information t hey provide, the better feedback they can receive but a lot of property owners do not want to invest additional monies for a project they do not think will have viability going forward. Typically, the applicant will prepare almost the bare minimum site plan to give us an idea of what they are planning on doing.

The purpose is to provide some early input from staff and technical staff. Similarly, this is how we would treat preliminary review as part of what the Cultural Heritage Board would look at. Having requirements for board material s as part of preliminary review may be cumbersome for someone trying to get initial feedback because the intent is early input.

If it is language the board would like to bring, we can bring that language forward.

Board Member Sisson stated that at a mini mum a site plan and some sort of basic rendering and a basic description.

Ms. Tinio stated that based on the discussion s, staff can review the language for board materials for what would be beneficial for the Board to review, at an early review.

Following discussion, the Board conducte d a “straw vote” to gauge the Board’s consensus to add this recommendation in the Title 20 amendment, Section 20.20.010.

Consensus vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Brown, Carter, Ferguson, Gamble, McDoniel, Sisson, Tobin NOES: None
ABSENT: Hudson
ABSTENTION: None

Loss of further Entitlement – Section 20.40.060

Board Member McDoniel referred to Exhibit 2 – Title 20 Modifications (June 21, 2023).

Noting the current Title 20 text and the language in the second column, January 31, 2023

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 8 Suggested Modifications (June 21, 2023), pa ge 35, Section 20.40.060. She stated her recommendation was to keep the left column.

Mr. Watson clarified that staff is recommending no changes to this section, Moratoriums would read as it stands under the current Title 20 text.

Board Member Brown suggested keeping the moratorium language as is, opposed to getting into what becomes a very complicated concept.

Board Member McDoniel noted that she would like to add language to the existing Title 20 text with some language from the Suggested Modification column such as:

page 36 - After such time, in no event shall any permit authorize the new construction to exceed the building footprint, height, and square footage, lot coverage, and use of the original structure for a period of twenty years from the unlawful demolition.

No Certificate of Appropriateness or permit to demolish a landmark or structure designated pursuant to this title may be i ssued unless: (1) a building permit has been issued for a replacement structure or proj ect for the property involved; and (2) the applicant has submitted evidence to the satisfaction of the Cultural Heritage Board that a financial commitment has been obtained by the applicant to assure the completion of the structure or project.

In addition to any other remedies provided herein, in the event a designated historic resource, a resource pending designation as a historic resource, or an eligible historic resource is partially demolished through removal of one or more character defining features in violation of this chapter, the mi ssing features shall be reconstructed and/or replaced in kind to match the original in terms of size, proportions, design, details, materials, and overall appearance. In the event that aspects of the original features cannot be discerned through documentary an d/or physical evidence, the Historic Preservation Office shall determine the preferred method of reconstruction or replacement, contingent upon approval by the Board.

Following discussion, Board Member McDoniel agreed with Board Member Brown’s suggestion that this topic needs further information and discussion and suggested moving forward with the current language as is.

CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

DRAFT MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023, 3:30 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Cultural Heritage Board Minutes – June 21, 2023 9 Private right of action – 20.40.090
Board Member Sisson stated that he brought this idea forward as a suggestion for board’s consideration. He stated that at this stag e, he was not moving forward with it since it seemed overwhelmingly unpopular.

Board Members Tobin and Brown recommended leaving this section out at this time.

Following discussion it was moved by Bo ard Member Brown and seconded by Board Member Ferguson to recommend that the City Council: 1) Determine that Planning Case PR-2021-001145 is exempt from further Calif ornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sections 15308 (Actions to Protect Environment), 15060(c)(2) (No Physical Change), 15060(c)(3) (Not A Projec t), 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; and 2) Approve Planning Case PR-2021-001145 (Title 20 Text Am endment) as outlined in the staff report and summarized in the Findings Section of th is report; with technical modifications, and CHB Suggested policy consideration as discussed by the Cultural Heritage Board; and 3) Introduce, and subsequently adopt, an Ordinance amending Title 20 (Cultural Resources) of the Riverside Municipal Code . 4) The Board elected Chair Gamble to attend the City Council meeting and represent the Board should there be any questions from the City Council.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Brown, Carter, Ferguson, Gamble, Horychuk, McDoniel, Sisson, Tobin NOES: None
ABSENT: Hudson
ABSTENTION: None

Chair Gamble advised of the appeal period.

A City Council public hearing is required for final approval.

1 Subject: FW: CHB's Proposed Title 20 Changes
Attachments: Boston Landmarks Commission.pdf
From: Dave Stolte <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 11:27 AM
To: 2Mayor <[email protected]>; Falcone, Philip <[email protected]>; Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hemenway, Steve <[email protected]>; Futrell, Mike <[email protected]>; Tinio, Maribeth <[email protected]>; Watson, Scott <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CHB's Proposed Title 20 Changes
ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End
Mayor Lock-Dawson, Councilmembers, and Staff:

At City Council on January 23, Old Riverside Foundation was encouraged to hear Councilmember Conder’s statements about the importance of historic preservation. We took note of his praise for the City of Boston’s preservation approach as an example of best practices, stating they are “allowing the city to grow, to have development, without getting in the way of people and companies.” We reached out to Dorothy Clark, Assistant Survey Director for Boston Landmarks Commission, to learn how Boston handles the four policy recommendations that are currently proposed by Riverside’s Cultural Heritage Board:

Also, the mayor or one member of the appointed Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) may submit a petition. The petition requires research to preliminarily establish the historical and architectural import of the site. That research is conducted by the petitioners, not the BLC staff, to ensure public engagement.

2. What happens if the owner of a cultural resource objects to landmark designation? A petition to designate a property as a Landmark does not require owner permission. Once a study report is drafted for the proposed Landmark, the owner has an opportunity to oppose the designation. The BLC can move forward with designation regardless. An important part of our work is educating owners about the benefits of landmark status so that by the time of the vote of designation, we have addressed owners' questions/concerns.

Proposed changes to designated Boston Landmarks and properties located in a designated local historic district requires a design review application and a public hearing. Public notices for hearings are sent to interested parties and abutters, and posted with the city clerk 10 business days prior to each hearing.

Anticipated CC Date: 4.23.24
2 4. Is there public notice of demolitions in historic neighborhoods / districts? If so, what is the time period?
Proposed demolitions of designated Boston Landmarks and properties located in a designated local historic district follow the same design review process described above. All other proposed demolitions require an Article 85 Demolition Delay application. For more information please go to: Article 85 Demolition Delay.

Riverside could be joining many other Southern California cities that do not require owner consent for landmark designation: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pomona, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Huntington Park, Whittier, Culver City, Monrovia, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Claremont, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Baldwin Park, Commerce, Rolling Hills Estates, Irwindale, Southgate, Rosemead, and Manhattan Beach.

California’s state-mandated timelines were an area of additional concern for Councilmember Hemenway. CHB member Jordan Sisson advises that the proposed notification periods would not exceed the state’s requirements.

We note that Boston’s policies mirror exactly what the Cultural Heritage Board is proposing for Riverside.

We also note that with all the value that our cultural resources bring to our city – as economic drivers, in particular – it would be beneficial for Riverside to “walk the talk” and enact best practices in the historic preservation of these irreplaceable assets.

Old Riverside Foundation encourages City Council to approve all policy recommendations as proposed by the Cultural Heritage Board.

Sincerely,
Dave Stolte
President
Old Riverside Foundation
[email protected]
(949) 378-5520
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
P.O. BOX 601 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92502 • (951) 289-0089 • OLDRIVERSIDE.ORG April 4, 2024
Mayor Lock-Dawson, City Council, and Staff
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Mayor Lock-Dawson, Councilmembers, and Staff:

At City Council on January 23, Old Riverside Foundation was encouraged to hear Councilmember Conder’s statements about the importance of historic preservation. W e took note of his praise for the City of Boston’s preservation approach as an example of best practices, stating they are “allowing the city to grow, to have development, without getting in the way of people and companies.” W e reached out to Dorothy Clark, Assistant Survey Director for Boston Landmarks Commission, to learn how Boston handles the four policy recommendations that are currently proposed by Riverside’s Cultural Heritage Board. ____________________________________________________________

1. Who can nominate a landmark?
Public participation is key here. Our enabling legislation calls for residents/registered Boston voters to nominate a site for landmark consideration. W e require a petition signed by at least 10 Boston citizens. Also, the mayor or one member of the appointed Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) may submit a petition. The petition requires research to preliminarily establish the historical and architectural import of the site. That research is conducted by the petitioners, not the BLC staff, to ensure public engagement.

3. Is there public notice of ministerial review on proposed changes to a cultural resource? If so, what is the time period?
The Commission's approval is required for any changes proposed for any landmarked property, as well as any properties with pending Landmark petitions and those awaiting a decision on designation (link)
. Proposed changes to designated Boston Landmarks and properties located in a designated local historic district requires a design review application and a public hearing. Public notices for hearings are sent to interested parties and abutters, and posted with the city clerk 10 business days prior to each hearing.

P.O. BOX 601 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92502 • (951) 289-0089 • OLDRIVERSIDE.ORG

4. Is there public notice of demolitions in historic neighborhoods / districts? If so, what is the time period?
Proposed demolitions of designated Boston Landmarks and properties located in a designated local historic district follow the same design review process described above. All other proposed demolitions require an Article 85 Demolition Delay application. For more information please go to: Article 85 Demolition Delay.

5. How is preliminary review of proposed changes to cultural resources handled, and by what department?
Property owners and developers are encouraged to meet with Boston Landmark Commission staff early when considering changes to designated Landmarks and properties located in designated local historic districts. Informal design reviews with the Boston Landmarks Commission and District Commissions are also offered to property owners and developers as an opportunity for informal feedback on proposed projects prior to full design development. These take place at regularly scheduled commission hearings.
____________________________________________________________ Regarding landmark designation without owner consent, we appreciate Boston’s well-reasoned position. Riverside could be joining many other Southern California cities that do not require owner consent for landmark designation: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pomona, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Huntington Park, Whittier, Culver City, Monrovia, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Claremont, Santa Monica, W est Hollywood, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Baldwin Park, Commerce, Rolling Hills Estates, Irwindale, Southgate, Rosemead, and Manhattan Beach.

W e note that Boston’s policies mirror exactly what the Cultural Heritage Board is proposing for Riverside. W e also note that with all the value that our cultural resources bring to our city – as economic drivers, in particular – it would be beneficial for Riverside to “walk the talk” and enact best practices in the historic preservation of these irreplaceable assets.

Old Riverside Foundation encourages City Council to approve all policy recommendations as proposed by the Cultural Heritage Board.

Sincerely,
Dave Stolte, President
Old Riverside Foundation
1 RiversideCA.gov
1 RiversideCA.gov
TITLE 20 WORKSHOP
Community & Economic Development Department
City Council
April 23, 2024
RiversideCA.gov
2 BACKGROUND
• January 2024 – CC heard Title 20 update
• Included 4 policy considerations
• Council tabled policy considerations and related
amendments.
1 2
2 RiversideCA.gov
3 POLICY AREAS
Ministerial Project Noticing
Owner Consent for Historic Designations
Demolition Review
Preliminary Review
RiversideCA.gov
4 POLICY AREA 1: MINISTERIAL PROJECT NOTICING
CODE SECTION:
• 20.15.050.D (Noticing)

RESULTSPOLICY

CONSIDERATION

AMENDMENTCURRENT
• Increase public
awareness
• Notice information
only
• Action not
appealable
• Increase processing
time
• Potential to impact
approved building
permit
• Require noticing for
Ministerial review
• None• 10-day notice
• No noticing for
Ministerial Review
3 4
3 RiversideCA.gov
5 POLICY AREA 2: OWNER CONSENT
CODE SECTION:
• 20.20.020 (Designation Application)
• 20.20.080 (Overlay Zone) (non-substantive)
• 20.20.120 (Designation Process Flow Chart Form) (non-substantive)

RESULTSPOLICY

CONSIDERATION

AMENDMENTCURRENT
• Increase protection
of historic structures
• Add regulations and
review
• Increase time for
modifications
• Increase cost for
modifications
• No consent
• Remove owner
consent and
override
• LUSRC recommends
2/3 vote to approve
all historic
designation
• Add City Council
override of owner
opposition, by 2/3s
vote
• Revise CR Overlay
Zones text for clarity
• Remove flow chart
• Written consent
required
• Current amendment
includes CC override
RiversideCA.gov
6 POLICY AREA 2: OWNER CONSENT
Amendment
•Requires Consent or Objections
•Proceed only with owner contact or after 90 days
•Allows Council to override owner objection with 2/3
vote
Policy Consideration
•No consent required
•Proceed with or without owner response
•2/3 vote required for Landmark or Structure of Merit
Other Jurisdictions
•Jurisdictions vary w/owner consent
•NR/CR consent not required
•Many programs w/no owner consent will not
proceed if owner objects
5 6
4 RiversideCA.gov
7 POLICY AREA 3: DEMOLITION REVIEW
CODE SECTION:
• 20.15.055 (Noticing)
• 20.25.010 (COA Required)
• 20.50.010 (Definitions)

RESULTSPOLICY

CONSIDERATION

AMENDMENTCURRENT
• Increase Public
awareness
• Increased review
time on demolition
• Increased property
owner cost
• Increased cost for
noticing
• Enforcement of
historic property
maintenance
• Add 30-day notice
for COAs with
demolition
• Add on structure
notice
• After-the-fact notice
for ineligible, unsafe,
& accessory
structures
• Add demolition by
neglect
• Add CR report
requirement
• COA required for
historic structures
• Non-COA for non-
historic
• HP staff reviews
demo request for
historic status
• Demo by neglect is
referenced
RiversideCA.gov
8 POLICY AREA 3: DEMOLITION REVIEW
Amendment
•HP Officer/CEDD Director Cultural Resources
report determination for certain properties that
may meet criteria
•Current noticing requirements remain (10-days)
Policy Consideration
•Suggests 45-year rule
•20 extra days to notice
•Notice of Action for Dangerous conditions
Other Jurisdictions
•Local Jurisdiction Vary
7 8
5 RiversideCA.gov
9 POLICY AREA 4: PRELIMINARY REVIEW
CODE SECTION:
• 20.25.020 (COA Application Process)
• 20.25.021 (Preliminary Review)

RESULTSPOLICY CONSIDERATIONAMENDMENTCURRENT
• Increase Public
awareness
• Allows CHB early
opportunity for
feedback
• Increased time
• Increased applicant
cost
• CHB review all non-
residential projects
visible from the public
right-of-way
• Preliminary review for
all CHB projects
• Add CHB workshop to
non-residential
projects valued
above $250,000,
publicly visible.
• Revise/Codify
application process
• Add preliminary
review process for
Landmarks and
Structures of Merit
• Application
procedures not fully
detailed
• CHB preliminary
review not included
• Staff preforms initial
review
• Applicant can request
workshop
RiversideCA.gov
10 POLICY AREA 4: PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Amendment
•Preliminary Review for Landmarks & SoM
•Excludes minor admin projects
Policy Consideration
•Preliminary Review for all CHB projects
•Includes some admin review
Other Jurisdictions
•Preliminary review not codified
9 10
6 RiversideCA.gov
11 Strategic Priority No. 2 –
Community Well-Being
Goal No. 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.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
RiversideCA.gov
12 • That the City Council conduct a workshop and provide direction on proposed Title 20 amendments and Cultural
Heritage Board recommend policy consideration.

RECOMMENDATION
11 12
4/11/2024
1 Title 20 Workshop
City Council, April 23, 2024
Jennifer Gamble, Chair, Cultural Heritage Board
1 BACKGROUND
Cultural Heritage Board:
• Reviewed Title 20 beginning August 2021 at board
meetings and in subcommittee
• Incorporated best practices and standards set forth by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO)
• Reviewed guidelines/recommendations from
• National Association of Preservation Commissions
• National Park Service
• Los Angeles Conservancy
• Researched more than 20 city municipal codes
• Met with residents to hear concerns and goals
2 1
2 4/11/2024
2 BACKGROUND
CHB Goals
• Incorporate national and statewide best practices
• Increase public engagement and input
• Support Riverside's historic places
• Protect valuable resources and cultural heritage
• Accommodate sensitive development
• Respond to residents’ concerns
3 Policy Area 1: Ministerial Project Noticing
• Noticing should be concurrent with existing permit/review process; no additional time.
• Can be implemented once the process can be
automated, therefore not requiring additional staff time. • Increases transparency, public participation, and trust. • Allows residents to learn of projects in their neighborhoods and get questions answered before the topic goes to
CHB, Planning, or Council for a vote.
• Avoids a Council Chamber full of people who feel they have not been informed or heard before a decision is
made.
4 3
4 4/11/2024
3 Policy Area 2: Landmark Nominations
• Allows CHB to consider landmark nomination from any
resident
• Many cities do not require owner consent for nominations • Nomination process is collaborative
• Owners learn the benefits of designation
• Owners could object to the designation
• Rare, not common; for unique properties of cultural value • Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly
• A property owner’s personal choice does not outweigh
public good
• Property owners are subject to land use controls
5 Policy Area 2: Landmark Nominations
• Previously, Riverside had budgeted funds to survey and designate historic districts.
• That budget no longer exists.
• Expecting the community to bear that burden has been
challenging.
• Allowing others to nominate landmark designations:
• gives nonprofits the option to help with the cost of
identifying/surveying/designating landmarks
• could result in historic districts and landmarks outside of Ward 1, giving more of the community access to Mills Act • CHB use to take on this challenge we no longer offer this service as there is no budget.
6 5
6 4/11/2024
4 Policy Area 2: Landmark Nominations
• Results:
“Increase time for modifications”
“Increase cost for modifications”
• Amortized over time, maintenance and restoration of
existing features are less costly than modifications.
7 Policy Area 3: Demolition Review
• Clarifies processes, ensures the public is informed, increases transparency and public trust.
• On-site posted notification of potential demolition ensures the public is informed.
• Expanded definition of “demolition” provides clarity for property owners, staff, and the public.
• All items in the Presentation slide 7 "Results" column are things that should already be happening (review time, noticing, maintenance). These are not unreasonable in order to make sure cultural resources and neighborhoods are protected. 8 7
8 4/11/2024
5 Policy Area 3: Demolition Review
• City is taking on a lot of liability by expecting one staff member, though well-qualified, to know everything about city, state, and cultural history.
• Without allowing the public time and opportunity to share their knowledge, the city is at risk of making a mistake that cannot be undone.
• Increased time for review is the minimum any city should do • Ensures thorough review and that public has a chance to comment
• Ensures we do not make any mistakes - Demolition is
PERMANENT - the time for review is warranted
9 Policy Area 4: Preliminary Review
 Early notice of upcoming projects to public and CHB benefits City and Applicant by identifying issues, concerns, and objectives early in the planning process in order to deliver well- planned projects that will garner public support.
 Developers spend a lot of time and money on projects. By the time the CHB and the public see it, it can be very costly to make changes. If developers can receive input earlier, they can address concerns and avoid problems.
 When the public feels uninformed, it becomes the Council's problem. This change would allow CHB to help inform public earlier so residents feel informed and involved.
 Development process is already very long, this should not add any time.
10 9
10 4/11/2024
6 Questions?
11 11

Riverside City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Riverside City Council
August 20, 2024