The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEEAgenda Item 13 AGENDA REPORT Reviewed City Manager Finance Director eA MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 2018 TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE SUMMARY: On June 20, 1988, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1001 establishing the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District and the City's Cultural Resources Advisory Committee. On July 31, 1991, the City of Tustin became a Certified Local Government (CLG) pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996, as amended in 1980. On May 1, 2007, the City Council, in an effort to minimize impact on City resources related to City boards, commissions and committees, adopted Ordinance 1332 assigning Cultural and Historic Resources responsibilities to the Planning Commission. At their April 3, 2018 meeting, the City Council received public comment by Ms. Linda Jennings requesting that the Historic Resource Committee be reinstated (Attachment A — City Council Minutes). Council Member Gomez requested that the matter be set for a Council agenda with background information. CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Cultural and historic resources correlate to Goal C of the City of Tustin's Strategic Plan pertaining to financial strength and to Goal A to enhance the vibrancy and quality of life in all neighborhoods and areas of the community. RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed actions would have a minor impact on City resources, which would result in fiscal impacts to the General Fund. The magnitude of these impacts depends on the actions taken and is undetermined at this time. Should the City Council reinstate the Historic Resources Committee, anticipated costs include payment of stipends to five (5) committee members a minimum of four (4) times per year and staff time dedicated to preparing for and staffing committee meetings and training. City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee Page 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Background In 1988, in response to public concerns regarding development proposals in the Old Town area, the City Council imposed a moratorium of zone changes, land use changes and subdivision approval in Old Town Tustin. The City Council charged the Planning Commission with studying appropriate architectural guidelines and zoning requirements to maintain and enhance the existing character of the area. The outcome of the study was a recommendation by the Planning Commission to adopt a Cultural Resources Overlay District to provide a framework for recognizing, preserving and protecting culturally significant structures, natural features, sites and neighborhoods in Tustin, but primarily in the Old Town area. The City Council thereafter, on June 20, 1988, established the Cultural Resources Overlay District, the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee (CRAC), and was recognized as a Certified Local Government by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 1991. In 2005, the City Council changed the name of CRAC to Historic Resource Committee (HRC). Upon formation, the HRC was charged with drafting rules and bylaws for City Council approval, acting in an advisory capacity to the City Council in matters relating to establishment of the Cultural Resources District (CRD), designation of Cultural Resources, and acting as a liaison between residents and property owners within the CRD and the City Council. The HRC met on a quarterly basis and focused its efforts on the following activities: • Studied and recommended expansion of the Overlay District • Established the Historic Register and Plaque program • Reviewed nominations to the Tustin Historic Register plaque program • Presented commendation letter to owners of outstanding properties • Reviewed the 2001 Tustin Historical Survey Update • Discussed significant development projects in the Overlay District • Discussed the impacts of freeway and aircraft noise on the District On April 17, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1332 (Code Amendment 07- 001), Attachment B, consolidating the responsibilities of the HRC and Planning Commission which allowed the Council more flexibility in filling vacant positions and eliminated quarterly meetings of the HRC. SHPO indicated in a comment letter on April 2, 2007, prior to the Council's decision, that it believed "the proposal to eliminate a stand-alone dedicated historic preservation by assigning preservation to the Planning Commission" was short sighted (Attachment C). Following the City's notification to SHPO regarding the consolidation, SHPO agreed to an alternative model similar to the cities of Sacramento and Ontario, which at the time, both had Planning Commissions that act as their historic review commissions because they can review applications on City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee Page 3 historic properties as well as make decisions on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which the HRC could not do. Since the consolidation of the HRC and Planning Commission, staff has regularly provided training to the Planning Commission related to Tustin's historic preservation programs and invited Commissioners to attend professional workshops and webinars related to historic preservation which the Commissioners have attended as their schedules permit. The training includes an overview of the history of Tustin, the history of Tustin's historic preservation program, the Cultural Resources Overlay District, historic surveys, Certificates of Appropriateness, Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines and architectural styles in the City of Tustin, the Historic Register Plaque Program, the Commendation program for recognition of outstanding properties, and the Mills Act program. An excerpt from the Certified Local Government 2016-17 Annual Report showing Planning Commissioner training events during that period is attached as Attachment "U'. In addition, the Planning Commission held public meetings and made recommendations to City Council on the adoption of the Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines. Certified Local Government The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) authorizes the National Park Service (NPS) to establish a mechanism for each state to certify of local governments to carry out the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (the Act), as amended (36 CFR 61.6). The 1980 amendment provided for the establishment of the Certified Local Government Program to encourage direct participation of local governments in the identification, evaluation, registration and preservation of historic properties within their jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local planning and decision making processes. The SHPO administrates the CLG program in conformity with the Act which contains minimum requirements for participating cities: Establish and maintain an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission made up of five (5) members who have demonstrated interest, competence or knowledge in historic preservation; and, To the extent they are available within the community, the historic preservation review commission should include two (2) members who meet the Secretary's professional qualifications standards, including those individuals with minimum educational and experience in related professional fields.' 1 The professional fields include history, architecture, architectural history, planning, pre -historic and historic archaeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, landscape City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee Page 4 In this capacity, SHPO issued Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 to provide a guide for CLGs, including the "Establishment of The Preservation Commission". This document was last updated in 2005. It provides for broad authority by the City to determine the composition, scope of powers, and decision-making authority and disclosure of pecuniary and personal interests of review board members based on the local jurisdiction's practical political and staffing considerations. An excerpted Section 3 of Bulletin #14 is attached for reference (Attachment E). In addition to formation of preservation commission, other responsibilities of a CLG include enforcement of state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties, maintenance of a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties, provision for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program, and performing responsibilities delegated by the state. Benefits of being a CLG include: • Eligibility for Federal grants from the Historic Preservation Fund administered by the SHPO; • A variety of technical assistance including training opportunities, resource assistance, publications and grants, streamlining by adopting the Secretary of Interior's Standards to allow the use of categorical exemptions under CEQA; and, • Indirect economic benefits of commitment to historic preservation including increase in property values, pride of place and revitalization of historic downtowns, adaptive reuse of districts and/or buildings resulting in conservation of resources, uses existing infrastructure, local job generation and purchasing, supports small business development and heritage tourism, and enhances the quality of life and community character. • Ability to streamline project approval using categorical exemptions by following adopted National Register/California Register criteria and the Secretary of Interior Standards under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Current Process With respect to Cultural Resources, TCC Section 9252 provides for the following roles and responsibilities, in summary: architecture or related disciplines such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization or cultural geography. City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee Page 5 Community Development Department • The Community Development Director has the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny Certificates of Appropriateness for improvements requiring a City building permit. The Community Development Director may consult with and receive a recommendation of the Planning Commission, in their capacity as the Historic Resource Committee, prior to rendering a decision. (Section 9252g) • The Community Development Director, or on appeal the City Council, may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a Designated Cultural Resource if it finds that the structure/site is a hazard to public health or safety and repairs or stabilization is not physically possible; the site is required for a public use which will be of more benefit to the public than the Cultural Resource, and there is no feasible alternative location for the public use. • If the property is a designated cultural resource, the Community Director or City Council on appeal must find that it is not feasible to preserve or restore the structure, taking into consideration the economic feasibility of alternatives to the proposal, the proposed replacement structure does not detract from the neighborhood or reconstruction or restoration is not economically feasible or practical. (Section 9252111) • The Community Development Department shall have the authority to implement the enforcement by serving notice requiring the removal of any violation of this section, calling upon the city attorney to institute any necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this section, calling upon the Chief of Police and authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this section, and/or, the City Attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin or to cause the correction or removal of any violation of this section, or for an injunction in appropriate cases. (Section 92521) The Community Development Department makes recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding nominations to the Tustin Historic Plaque program and commendation letters to owners of outstanding properties. Planning Commission The Planning Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to historic and cultural resources, including: Matters affecting the establishment of a Cultural Resources District. City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee Page 6 • Designation of Cultural Resources. • Acts as liaison between residents, property owners, and the City Council within a Cultural Resources District. • Reviews and recommends nominations to the Historic Register Plaque Program and Commendation Program for Outstanding Properties to the City Council. • Approves or recommends approval of environmental determinations related to historic resources. In performing its historic and cultural resources duties, the Planning Commission shall not exercise any independent final decision-making authority or expend City funds. Actions of the Commission shall not be considered actions of the City and shall not be represented as such. (Section 9252c) Since the Planning Commission assumed the duties of the HRC, it has accomplished the following: • Recommended City Council approve Residential Design Guidelines for the CRD • Recommended City Council approve Commercial Design Guidelines for the CRD • Recommended Approval of eight (8) Mills Act contract applications • Plaque Program: Twenty one (21) Historic Plaques & Commendations • Recommended Approval of the Pioneer's Program • Provided support for Hewes House nomination to National Register of Historic Places and has encouraged the nomination of additional properties to the National Register • Recommended Approval of Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan • Attends staff provided and outside training in historic preservation City Council • Designates any area within the city as a Cultural Resources District, and any improvement or natural feature as a cultural resource. (Section 9252d). City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee Page 7 • Makes final determination on nominations to the Historic Register Plaque Program. • Makes final determination on appeal for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a Designated Cultural Resource. • Approves Mills Act contacts. Public Comment On April 3, 2018, the City Council received public comment from Linda Jennings related to the Planning Commission acting as the Historic Resources Committee (Attachment A). In summary, Ms. Jennings stated that Old Town is unique and deserves special treatment; the majority of Planning Commissioners do not reside in Old Town, yet are making decisions regarding buildings in Old Town; historic preservation training is not required of Planning Commissioners; the Planning Commission may be unable to deal with conflicts between the desires of developers and the desires of preservationists; the number of required meetings is at issue; and the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) indicated that the number of meetings required is at issue and that their work program is troubling. Other Cities in Orange County The cities of Santa Ana, San Clemente and Tustin are the only Certified Local Governments in Orange County. Santa Ana and San Clemente each maintain a separate historic resources commission. The Planning Commission of the City of Ontario acts as the Historic Preservation Commission and hears matters related to District or Landmark Designation, Certificates of Appropriateness on designated structures or demolitions, Certificates of Economic Hardship and Mills Act contracts. The Ontario Planning Commission formed a Historic Preservation Subcommittee consisting of three (3) Planning Commission Members which is the hearing body for requests for removal from the eligibility list and makes recommendations to the full Commission on miscellaneous requests. Option Maintain the Planning Commission acting as the Historic Resource Commission. Re-establish a separate historic resources commission. Other action or direction the City Council deems appropriate. City Council Report July 17, 2018 Historic Resources Committee RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. Elaine Dove, AICP, RLA Elizabeth A. Binsack Senior Planner Director of Community Development Attachment: A. City Council Minutes, April 3, 2018 B. Ordinance 1332 C. Correspondence from State Office of Historic Preservation D. Excerpt from City of Tustin Certified Local Government Program 2016-2017 Annual Report E. Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 (Excerpt — Section 3) ATTACHMENT A CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, APRIL 3, 2018 CITY OF TUSTIN REGULAR APRIL 3, 2018 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND TUSTIN HOUSING AUTHORITY '' 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN Rebecca Gomez, Mayor Pro Tem Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager/ Dr. Allan Bernstein, Councilmember Al Murray, Mayor City Treasurer Charles E. Puckett, Councilmember Erica N. Rabe, City Clerk Letitia Clark, Councilmember David E. Kendig, City Attorney MINUTES OF THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2431 at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL — City Clerk Present: Mayor Al Murray and Councilmembers Dr. Allan Bernstein and Charles E. Puckett and Letitia Clark Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Rebecca Gomez City Clerk: Erica N. Rabe, City Clerk Others Present: Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager; David E. Kendig, City Attorney PUBLIC INPUT — None CLOSED SESSION UPDATE — Deputy City Attorney Lois Bobak: The Council will discuss Item Nos. 1,3, and 4 and will not consider Item No. 2. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION -Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2): (Two Cases) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4): (Two Cases) 3. LIABILITY CLAIMS - [Government Code § 54956.95] — (Five cases) City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 A. Claim of Carmen Saraleguy, Claim No. 17-31 B. Claim of Alejandro Rodriguez, Claim No. 17-40 C. Claim of Beatriz Valdez, Claim No. 18-04 D. Claim of Gloria Bautista, Claim No. 18-05 E. Claim of Ignacio Garcia, Claim No. 17-49 4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS - [Government Code 54956.8]: (Two Cases) A. Property ! A. -ON: 430-251-28, and a portion of Parcel 1 in Book Address/Description„ 17542, Page 974, Official Records Agency ..._ . _..... 1 City of Tustin..... _ ..... City Negotiators Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager, Jerry Craig, Deputy . _. . .. ; Director of Economic Development......- ....-.... _ ,.. _.............. ............ Negotiating Parties SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union; Bill Cheney, President/CEO .. .. Under Negotiation .. _ ..._ I Price and Terms of Payment B. ; Property j 430-381-27,28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 Address/Descripton _.... _ Agency City of Tustin . _ . _...._...... I City Negotiators Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager, Jerry Craig, Deputy j Director of Economic Development Negotiating Parties Jamboree Housing Corporation; Laura Archuleta, 1. President Under Negotiation Price and Terms of Payment Recessed at 5:34 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Gomez arrived at 5:34 p.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2431 at 7:04 p.m. PRESENTATION OF COLORS, INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — American Legion CLOSED SESSION REPORT — Deputy City Attorney Lois Bobak: The Council unanimously denied Claim Nos. 17-31, 17-40, 17-49 18-04 and. 18-05. Other than that; °.. City Coundl Apol 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes page 2 of 12 there was no reportable action. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONIPUBLIC INPUT — 1. Jon Dumitru 2. Jan Strahl 3. Leo Cid 4. Darlene Savord 5. Betty Robinson 6. Deborah Kurilchyk 7. Tom Smith 8. Laura Houston 9. Arthur Nuriyev 10. Brenda Nimota 11. Linda Jennings PRESENTATIONS — Mayor Murray presented a Certificate of Recognition to Officer Javon Smith in recognition of being named 2017 Tustin/Santa Ana Rotary Officer of the Year. Mayor Murray presented Certificates of Recognition to the First Place winners of the Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts' 28th Annual Student Art Invitational. Mayor Murray presented a Proclamation to Stephanie Luu, Outreach Coordinator for the Fair Housing Foundation, in recognition of April as Fair Housing Month. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. Persons wishing to speak regarding Consent Calendar matters should file a "Request to Speak' form with the City Cleric. (Agenda Items 1 through 5) It was moved by Councilmember Puckett and seconded by Councilmember Clark to pull Item Nos. 4 and 5 and move the balance as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 5-0 1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA Motion: That the City Council waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived. j 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD MARCH 20, 2018. Motion: That the City Council approve the Action Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council held on March 20, 2018. 3. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL AND DEMANDS The City Council has approved the use of Government Code Section 37208 to expedite the payment of City of Tustin obligations that are in accordance with the approved budget or continued operations authorizations. Motion: That the City Council approve Payroll in the amounts of $730,581.43; and Demands in the amount of $3,202,502.15. 4. FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Request City Council approval to enter into a First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union ("SchoolsFirst") by extending the negotiation schedule through October 20, 2018. U Deputy City Attorney Lois Bobak clarified the extension date of the agreement is October 20, 2018 which was incorrectly stated as October 16, 2018 on the staff report. It was moved by Mayor Murray and seconded by Councilmember Bernstein to authorize the City Manager to enter into a First Amendment to an Exclusive Negotiation. Agreement by and between the City of Tustin and SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union, subject to any non -substantive modifications as may be deemed necessary and/or recommended by the City's special real estate counsel or the City Attorney. Motion carried: 5-0 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACC- OC'S PLANNING EFFORTS REGARDING COUNTY -WIDE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING The proposed Resolution 18-21 would, if adopted, authorize City staff to represent the City in meetings and discussions being coordinated by the Association of California Cities, Orange County (ACC -OC) regarding potential allocations and siting locations of "permanent supportive housing" units. These J. discussions relate to County wide efforts to address homelessness in the County. City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 City staff is not, however, authorized to commit the City to a proposed allocation or plan of site locations unless such allocation or plan is considered and approved by the City Council. City Manager Jeffrey C. Parker provided an update regarding the proposed resolution. It was moved by Mayor Murray and seconded by Councilmember Bernstein to approve the revised Resolution No. 18-21 authorizing City Staff to participate in the Association of California Cities Orange County's planning efforts regarding County -Wide Permanent Supportive Housing. Motion carried: 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 18-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ORANGE COUNTY'S PLANNING EFFORTS REGARDING COUNTY -WIDE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS — Matters listed under Regular Business are generally proposals for new legislation or items requiring discussion. (Agenda Items 6-8) 6. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1496 TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 5331n BY RE-ESTABLISHING PREFERENTIAL PERMIT ONLY PARKING ON BIRCHFIELD DRIVE, SANDBROOK DRIVE AND SILVERBROOK DRIVE Preferential permit parking on Birchfield Drive, Sandbrook Drive and Silverbrook Drive was previously approved in August 2016 (i.e., first and second readings on August 2nd and 16th, respectively). The latest recently approved Ordinance to amend City Code Section 5331 n to include Old Town residential streets inadvertently omitted Birchfield Drive, Sandbrook Drive and Silverbrook Drive. Ordinance No. 1496 adds these three residential streets back into Tustin City Code Section 5331 n. It was moved by Councilmember Puckett and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gomez to introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance No. 1496 to re- establish preferential permit only parking on Birchfield Drive, Sandbrook Drive and Silverbrook Drive, and set the second reading for the Council's next scheduled meeting. Motion carried: 5-0 ORDINANCE NO. 1496 City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SUBSECTION 5331n REGARDING DESIGNATION OF ZONES FOR PARKING BY PERMIT ONLY 1 ; 7. . SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1483 Ordinance No. 1483 amends Article 9 Chapter 4 of the Tustin City Code, related to temporary signs in the public right-of-way, in accordance with a 2015 United States Supreme Court decision. It was moved by Councilmember Bernstein and seconded by Councilmember Clark to have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1483. Motion carried: 5-0 ORDINANCE NO. 1483 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 940347; AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9402, 9403d2, 9403e11, 9403e13, 9404a1 k, 9404a1 n, 9404a3c, 9406D, and 9406E2; AND DELETING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9403e14, 9404a1 s, and 9404C6, RELATING TO TEMPORARY. OFF -PREMISES COMMERCIAL SIGNS AND TEMPORARY NOW COMMERCIAL SIGNS. 8. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Assistant City Manager Matt West provided an overview of key legislative items for 2018. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS Councilmember Bernstein March 21 o Attended the American Legion Post 227 fundraiser at Famous Dave's Restaurant. o Attended the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee Board meeting. March 22 o Attended the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) General Assembly meeting; keynote speaker was by former Navy Seal, Curt Cronin. o Had the honor of sitting on a panel regarding securing Orange County's water future; a lot of great information was shared. ..._J March 23 City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 Attended the League of California Cities - Orange County General Membership meeting; public safety issues were addressed; urged everyone to visit www.keepcalsafe.orq website. March 27 Attended the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC) Homelessness Taskforce meeting; Tustin has taken a leadership position with homelessness; very proud of what has been accomplished in Tustin. March 28 o Attended the League of California Cities Board meeting; discussed several pieces of legislation regarding SB 827 and Prop 69; announced Prop 69 will be on the June ballot. o Attended the Orange County Sanitation Board of Directors meeting. o Attended the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC) Legislation meeting; discussed fourteen (14) different Legislation Bills. March 31 Attended the Parks and Recreation Department Annual Egg Hunt event great attendance; everyone had a great time. Wished everyone a Happy Easter and Happy Passover. Councilmember Puckett March 21 o Attended the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Joint Capitol meeting. o Attended the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Joint Communications meeting. March 22 Attended the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) General Assembly meeting. March 24 o Attended the Habitat for Humanity Framing Ceremony. o Attended the Grand Opening for the Orange County Animal Shelter. March 28 Attended the City of Tustin Citizen Academy Meet and Greet; very well done event. March 29 o Attended the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Environmental Committee meeting. City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 o Attended the fundraiser for Orange County 5"' District Supervisor, Lisa Bartlett. r.-1 March 31 L Attended the Parks and Recreation Department Annual Egg Hunt event; great attendance; enjoyed the Pancake Breakfast organized by the Tustin Community Foundation; great job by the Parks and Recreation staff. April 2 Attended the Tustin Exchange Club meeting; Police Chief Charles F. Celano was the guest speaker; thanked Police Chief Charles F. Celan for. attending. Wished everyone a Happy Easter. Councilmember Clark March 31 and April 1 Was the keynote speaker for the Community College Female Student Leader Organization for their Women's History Month Program; was held at the Irvine Ranch Water District Office. March 22 o Served on a panel at Orange Coast College for Women in Government; served on the panel with Newport Beach City Council Member, Diane Dixon, former Newport Beach Mayor, Evelyn Heart, and former Costa Mesa Mayor, Mary Hombuckle.. [.I o Attended the Orange County Council of .Governments (OCCOG) General Assembly meeting. March 27 Attended a committee meeting with local elected officials for the 2018 California Women League Conference which will be held April 25th -2r at the Disneyland Hotel. April 3 Attended the Clinic in the Park. Board meeting. Was unable to attend Egg Hunt, due to family obligation. Mayor Pro Tem Gomez March 22 Attended the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency (SARFPA) meeting; received updates on the construction proposals and projects occurring near the Prado Dam. March 24 o ' Attended the Tustin Habitat for Humanity Housing Project Framing Ceremony.li J . o Attended the Women's History Month Celebration in Irvine. City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes page 8 of 12 o Spoke briefly at the Orange County Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Youth Conference in Santa Ana. March 28 Attended the City of Tustin Citizen Academy Meet and Greet; appreciates participants attending the program; thanked city staff who are working to prepare for the Citizen Academy. March 30 o Toured the Garden Grove School District offices; met with the Garden Grove Superintendent; Gabriela Mafi as well as many parents and teachers. o Attended the Tustin Senior Center Spring Brunch. March 31 Attended the Parks and Recreation Department Annual Egg Hunt event; wonderful event prepared by the Tustin Parks and Recreation Department; watching children find the golden egg was the best part of the day; thanked all the volunteers and employees who provided a spectacular Community Event and Pancake Breakfast. Requested staff to look at the comments made by Linda Jennings from the Tustin Historical Preservation; has been. an area of concem; stated Planning Commission has not done I enough continuing education in this area; asked staff to bring back to the City Council with recommendations within the next 30-60 days. Mayor Murray Manch 21 Attended the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC) Executive meeting. March 22 o Attended the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) General Assembly meeting; keynote speaker was former Navy Seal, Curt Cronin; announced Council Member Bemstein attended the Water Panel meeting with Association of Califomia Cities of Orange County (ACCOC) Chief Executive Officer, Heather Stratman. o Attended the City of Orange, Mayor Teresa "Tits" Smith, State of the City. o Attended the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Board meeting. March 23 Attended the League of Califomia Cities - Orange County General Membership meeting. March 24 City council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) in conjunction with the City of Tustin, American Red Cross, and community volunteers installed free smoke and carbon monoxide alarms for Tustin residents; thanked OCFA Fire Division Chief, Andy Kovacs for his hard work with the program; 333 smoke alarms and 104 carbon monoxide alarms were installed for the residents in the 258 homes. March 26 Attended the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of Directors meeting; discussed the Orange County Street Car Project. March 27 o Attended the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC) Homelessness Taskforce meeting; thanked City Manager, Jeffrey C. Parker and Council Member Bernstein for attending. o Attended the unveiling, at Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC), of their Children's In -Patient Mental Health Center, very nice event. March 28 Attended the City of Tustin Citizen Academy Meet and Greet; thirty-four (34) students are participating in the program; thanked City Clerk, Erica N. Rabe and her staff for their hand work put forth with the program. March 29 o Attended the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC) Legislative and Regulatory meeting. o Attended the Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN Corridor) meeting. o Attended the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Special Board meeting. March 31 Attended the Parks and Recreation Department's Annual Egg Hunt event; Tustin Community Foundation organized the Pancake Breakfast hosted by Snooze Restaurant; daughter Emily Murray, had the honor of kicking -off the event; congratulated the Parks and Recreation staff and Community Services Commissioners on a successful event. April 2 Attended the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Executive Board meeting. April 3 Attended the Orange County City Managers and Mayors Hearing before Federal Judge David Carter; presented to Judge Carter the City of Tustin's efforts' in addressing the homelessness issue and transitional housing; discussed the Orange County RescueI..,) Mission, the Veterans Outpost and future projects Tustin is involved with. City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 ADJOURNED IN HONOR OF CHRISTOPHER "TRIPP" ZANETIS BY MAYOR PRO TEM GOMEZ Tustin has a proud military history and I am honored to adjourn tonight's meeting. Christopher Zanetis had many titles, Fire Marshall, Captain, Scholar, Attorney, Son, Activist, and Friend, but most everyone knew him simply as "Tripp." Christopher "Tripp Zanetis, died March 15, 2018 near the border of western Iraq and Syria when his U.S. military helicopter crashed during a troop transport, killing all seven service members on board. While a sophomore at New York University (NYU), Zanetis lived a few blocks from the Works Trade Center during the attack of Sept. 11, 2001. He volunteered with the Fire Department of New York on 9/11 for 14 hours. Zanetis graduated cum laude in 2003 from NYU with a BA in politics. After graduation, Zanetis joined the New York City Fire Department, later promoted to fire marshal and was recognized for his bravery as part of an investigative unit. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan intensified in 2008, Zanetis joined the Air National. Guard, the Air Force arm of the National Guard. He flew in the Air Force's combat search and rescue helicopter and was deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Zanetis, serving his third tour, was nearing the end of his 10 -year commitment with the Air National Guard and received the Meritorious Service Medal and five Air Medals for combat missions. As an active National Guard pilot, he would be called to provide civilian search and rescue services. In 2014, while still on active duty and on leave from the FDNY, Zanetis entered Stanford Law School. Zanetis joined the Stanford Journal of International Law and the International Refugee Assistance Project, where he was able to help acquire a Special Immigrant Visa for an Afghan interpreter who worked with a classmate. During his last year at Stanford Law, Zanetis served as the co -president of the Stanford Law Veteran's Organization, facilitated Stanford Law's inaugural Outlaw Conference on LGBTQ Advocacy in the Workplace and won the National LGBT Bar Association's Student Leadership Award in 2017. A talented pianist, he wrote and co-produced the Stanford Law School musical. Zanetis secured an extemship with the Office of Legal Affairs at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, where he spent six months working on diverse legal issues. While at Stanford Law, Zanetis spearheaded the effort to rededicate the Stanford Law Sc600l'sWorld War 11 Memorial plaque and had it installed on the school grounds where It cotild be viewed by the public for the first time in several decades. Stanford Law School Dean M. Elizabeth Magill said "Tripp Zanetis was a beloved student, friend and community member here at Stanford Law School and will be deeply missed. We are heartbroken. at his loss. He was one of the most extraordinary students I had the City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 privilege of knowing and he will long be remembered in the institution." Law Professor Michelle Wilde Anderson wrote in a tribute, "With hardwiring for public service, the sweet energy of a puppy and a brilliant, curious mind, Tripp was making a life that would make a difference. He was building toward elected office, and he would have been a leader for our times. Tripp Zanetis was gold. We are richer for his life, and we owe something back for it." In honor of Zanetis, a 2017 graduate of Stanford Law School, flags across the Stanford campus were lowered to half-staff. Zanetis' name will be engraved in the lobby of Stanford's Memorial Auditorium, where the walls are dedicated to members of the Stanford community who have died in all wars, most recently a section for those lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. After graduating from Stanford with pro bono distinction last year, he was working as an associate in the litigation department of New York City law firm Debevoise & Plimpton. Zanetis was a member of the Bar of New York. The more I learned about him, the more I referred to him as the modern-day Forrest Gump. While serving duty, he once was pinned down and had to be rescued himself. Serving in the rescue efforts was Prince Harry. Along with his many accomplishments, Tripp loved musical theater. He once tried to school a waitress in restaurant inspired by the musical South Pacific. His friends had to stop him or they would not have been able to place their order! He was a fitness buff who loved cross -fit and traveling. Tripp was honored this past week in New York by his FDNY colleagues, family and friends. His funeral procession which was blocks long began at his firehouse Engine 28 Ladder 11 and ended in Washington Square. He was a man of service and a great leader. We all could make this world a better place by following his example of service to others. Tripp, a native of Indiana, is survived by his parents, John and Sarah Zanetis, and sisters, Angela and Britt. His family and many friends will remember him for his spirit, his love of life, his ability to advocate for others, and his service to our country. Tripp, we wish you safe travels on your next journey. ADJOURNED at 8:28 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, April 17, 2018 for the Closed Session Meeting at 5:30 p.m. and the Regular Business Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Co cil Cham 3 0 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. ELWY9 A. MU RAY, ERICA N. RABE, Mayor City Clerk City Council April 3, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. 1332 ORDINANCE NO. 1332 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9252 C AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATED TO ASSIGNING CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Tustin, California, finds and ordains as follows: Section 1. A. That on January 15 and February 20, 2007, the City Council, after consideration of matters related to consolidation and realignment of commission/committee responsibilities and ways to minimize impacts on City resources related to City Boards, Commissions, and Committees, initiated and referred draft Ordinance No. 1332 to the Planning Commission for consideration; B. That State law does not mandate that cities have a Cultural Resources District or a Historic Resource Committee and that the City Council does have the discretion to assign the duties of the Committee to the Planning Commission; C. That the Council has more flexibility in filling the vacant positions (of the Planning Commission in their role as the Historic Resource Committee) because the State's recommended professional qualifications no longer apply; D. That the Planning Commission acting in this capacity could develop a list of desired duties and responsibilities regarding cultural and historic resources for the City Council's review and consideration on an annual basis; E. That there is less of an impact on the City's general fund in that the Committee would not be mandated to meet a minimum of four times per year or attend an approved training workshop each year, F. That on March 13, 2007, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 07-001 by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 07-001; G. That on March 20, 2007, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 07-001 by the City Council; and, Ordinance No. 1332 Page 1 of 3 H. That this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Section 2. Subsection c of Section 9252 of the Tustin City Code is amended to read: C. Planning Commission The Planning Commission shall advise the City Council on all matters relating to historic and cultural resources, including without limitation, matters affecting the establishment of a Cultural Resource District, designation of Cultural Resources, and as a liaison between residents, property owners, and the City Council within a Cultural Resources District. In performing its historic and cultural resources duties, the Planning Commission shall not exercise any independent final decision-making authority or expend city funds. Actions of the Commission shall not be considered actions of the City and shall not be represented as such. Section 3. Any reference within the Code to the Historic Resource Committee or Cultural Resource Advisory Committee is hereby changed to Planning Commission. , The City Clerk is authorized to make this name change within the Code as deemed appropriate. Section 4. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1St day of May, 2007. LOU BONE, Mayor ATTEST: 14 11''1 11 1 - I 1110 1 � � � I • Ordinance No. 1332 Page 2 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) PAMELA STOKER, : City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of . Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1332 was duv and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17 day of April, 2007 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1St day of May, 2007 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Bone, Amante, Davert. Palmer (4) COUNCILMEMBER NOES: Kawashima (1) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0) City Clerk Ordinance No. 1332 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT C CORRESPONDENCE FROM STATE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CA 942964)001 (916) 653-6624 Fax (916) 653-9824 calshpo@ohp.parks,ca.gov www,ohp. parks.ca.gov April 2, 2007 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Ms. Binsack: RE: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1332 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor We received your letter on March 27, 2007 advising us of the City's proposal to consolidate the Planning Commission and the Historic Resource Committee, and advising us how to provide comments. While we welcome the opportunity to comment, we are very concerned that we are just now being contacted by the City, when the issue has been before the City Council since January 2007. In the "Mayor's Welcome" on the city's website, Mr. Bone notes that the City of Tustin is a modern city, "ever reaching out to the future." But his welcome also says, "Much like the glorious old trees that grace its landscape, Tustin is rooted in the past --its early heritage is embodied by the captivating historic homes and commercial storefronts along the streets of Old Town." This connection of moving forward while at the same time - acknowledging and fostering heritage is the very basis of modern historic preservation planning principles. It is both ironic and sad that in spite of your Mayor's welcoming message, the City is considering the elimination of its historic preservation body. Tustin's consideration to eliminate its historic preservation program runs counter to what we are seeing statewide. Other local jurisdictions are growing their historic preservation programs, mostly within planning departments. The City of Richmond's local preservation program was certified earlier this year by the National Park Service. The City of Los Angeles recently launched a comprehensive historic preservation program and opened its Office of Historic Resources; their Certified Local Government application is under review by the National Park Service. The cities of Benicia and Woodland have submitted draft CLG applications. Sacramento County planning staff is meeting with Office of Hist reservation (OHP) staff tomorrow to initiate the application process. The approach to historic preservation that is the basis for the Certified Local Government program is a sound, nation-wide accepted approach. Most importantly, it integrates historic preservation into land use planning and policy. By having a sound ordinance, an ongoing survey program, a commission or board with defined duties and responsibilities, and a public education program, this approach provides predictabilitylo residents, Mayor and City Council April 2, 2007 Page 2 residents, property owners, developers and other parties who have interests under consideration by government officials. The CLG approach does not guarantee a preservation solution for any issue, but it ensures that historic preservation is at the table and is given consideration. One size does not fit all and the issue of consolidating boards and commissions that affect historic preservation is not unique to Tustin. Although there are local jurisdictions which have a preservation review board that is a subcommittee of the planning commission, or perhaps part of a design review board, it is not generally recommended. When this arrangement works, it is because there is a strong preservation ethic and the recognition that the aesthetic and economic benefits of judiciously preserving the significant resources that link the present with the past are part of the stewardship responsibilities of public service. For example, for over twenty years the City of Sacramento governed with a combined Historic Preservation and Design Review although recently they were separated into two. Others, including the City of Ontario, use their Planning Commission as their historic preservation commission. However, in these cases; while the membership of the commissions or boards have been combined or merged, the local government still maintains a dedicated historic preservation program. In spite of these exceptions, if preservation is to be integrated into the broader planning processes, and we believe it should be, it is generally best for historic preservation to have a voice independent of other boards and commissions, especially when development and preservation seem to be in conflict. We do have some specific observations and questions about the City's analysis as contained in City Council Agenda Reports for January 15, 2007, February, 20, 2007 and March 20, 2007 meetings, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 4057 adopted March 13, 2007. First of all, what are the fiscal impacts to the city? Resolution No. 457, Section I. E. determines if the ordinance were passed "that there is less of an impact on the City's general fund in that the committee would not be mandated to meet a minimum of four times per year or attend an approved training workshop each year." The Council Agenda Report for March 20, 2007 states that "Code amendment 07-001 is a City - initiated project. It is anticipated that the adoption of Ordinance No. 1332 may result in a cost savings to the City due to the consolidation of responsibilities." (Emphasis added) Has a fiscal analysis been conducted or is this speculation? Per the CLG Program Requirements, each of the commissioners is "required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission." It does not seem onerous for members of any commission or committee to spend two or three hours per year becoming better informed about issues and resources pertinent to the work of that commission or committee. One of the services provided by the OHP is the development and presentation of on -sight training geared towards the specific needs of a local government, at no cost to the local government. So that while commission and committee members are encouraged to attend relevant workshops and seminars, the commission is also able to ask professionals, including OHP staff, to provide on-site training to meet this requirement. Mayor and City Council April 2, 2007 Page 3 Section I.E. also implies that the CLG requirement that the Committee meet a minimum of four times per year impacts the City's general fund. It is hard to understand how an active preservation committee, even one whose scope of powers is only advisory, could accomplish anything meaningful or meet the concerns or interests of the local citizens by meeting only four times a year. Like the City of San Diego's Historic Resources Board, most jurisdictions find it useful for their preservation board to meet at least monthly. Given that, per the provisions of Tustin City Code Section 9252, the Historic Resources Committee does "not exercise any independent final decision making authority; or expend City funds," and it does not appear that members of the Historic Resources Committee receive any form of compensation for their service, it is difficult to see how eliminating the Historic Resources Committee would result in any savings to the City. Section I.C. of the Planning Commission resolution appears to imply -that there is a perception that meeting requirements of being a CLG constrains the City Council in some way. In fact, the requirement is simply that "an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission of at least five members with a "demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation" be established by local law. OHP recommends but does not require that the commission include at least two members with professional expertise relevant to historic preservation, but in no way dictates or limits the Council's flexibility or autonomy in filling positions of the committee. The City Council has the discretion to appoint, set terms, assign duties and transmit authority in accordance with the local ordinance, not as a result of having a Historic Resource Committee or being a CLG. The issue of abolishing term limits is the city's prerogative. Keep in mind, however, term limits are generally seen as a way to protect committee members acting in their capacity in making autonomous decisions rather than making politically directed decisions so as not to be removed from the committee. Preservation issues and interests need to be addressed on their own merit and with equal standing with other planning issues and interests, not just when and where preservation, is convenient. In the March 20, 2007 Agenda Report, in referring to CLG grants made by OHP, the statement is made, "Although the grants have funded noteworthy projects, the grant amounts have diminished. This is not a true representation of the facts. The OHP is required to pass through a minimum of 10% of its grant from the federal government to CI -Gs. In 2001, OHP awarded $250,000 in CLG grants. Due to federal budget cuts in the Historic Preservation fund, OHP awarded $150,000 in 2002; $93,000 in 2003; $104,800 in 2004; $110,000 in 2005; and $105,000 in 2006. Although the total amount granted has decreased since 2001, the size of individual grants has increased, fewer, but larger, grants have been made. This year five grants were awarded: two at $25,000, two at $20,000, and one at $15,000. In the final paragraph of the March 20, 2007 Agenda Report, summarizing the rationale for the code amendment, is the statement, "If the Ordinance is adopted by the City Council, the Planning Commission, acting in this capacity, could develop a list of desired Mayor and City Council April 2, 2007 Page 4 desired duties and responsibilities (a Work Program) for the City's Council's review and consideration on an annual basis." This is troubling. It would seem more appropriate to determine the duties and responsibilities before the amendment is passed so that there is more of an idea of what the loss of the historic resource committee would really mean. Also, it is troubling because it throws the responsibility for assigning duties and responsibilities to the group expected to perform those duties and meet those responsibilities. Under the proposed amendment, how will the Planning Commission deal with conflicts between the desires of developers and the desires of preservationists? Does the Planning Commission have the time, interest, or knowledge to deal appropriately with preservation laws and practices? We believe that the City's proposal to eliminate a stand-alone dedicated historic preservation program by assigning preservation programs to the Planning Commission is short sighted. It brings into question how the city views its responsibility of acting as stewards of the community's resources. If the intent is to actually give the preservation of historic resources consideration and review in line with the intent of state and federal environmental laws and best planning practices, it would be more advantageous for the city to amend its code to expand the duties and give the Historic Resources Committee a certain amount of authority to make decisions and take actions, thereby freeing up the City Council and the Planning Commission from dealing with the questions and issues historical commissions typically handle. For your consideration we have enclosed an excerpt from Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances, prepared for the OHP by Clarion Associates, that addresses the establishment of the preservation commission. The full document is available on our website, www.ohp.parks.ca.ciov. If you wish to discuss the issues or questions we have raised, please feel free to contact me at (916) 653-7113. Sinc rel ,JL Milford Wayne Dtnaldson, FAIA State Historic Prdservation Officer Enclosure Cc: Mayor Lou Bone and Members of the City Council Tustin Preservation Conservancy California Preservation Foundation Megan Brown, CLG Coordinator, National Park Service STATE -F CAUR>RNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001 (916) 653.6624 Fax: (916) 663.9824 calshpo@ohp.parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov June 11, 2007 Scott Reekstin Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Mr. Reekstin:, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor RE: CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUS The Office is in receipt of your May 11, 2007 which includes a copy of Ordinance No. 1332 adopted by the City of Tustin City Council May 1, 2007. This ordinance gives the Planning Commission the -authority to • Advise the City Council on all matters related to historic and cultural resources; • Advise the City Council on matters affecting the establishment of a cultural resource district; • Advise the City Council about designation of cultural resources; and to • Act as a liaison between residents, property owners, and the City Council with a cultural resources district. Any reference within the city code to the Historic Resource Committee or Cultural Resource Advisory Committee is changed to Planning Commission. In addition the ordinance states that the CLG requirements for a historic preservation body to meet a minimum of four times per year and to attend annual training would no longer have to be met, nor would replacement of positions on the Planning Commission be subject to CLG professional qualifications. The City's recent action has resulted in a situation that is contrary to the federal regulations and guidelines for the CLG program, along with those of the California Office of Historic Preservation. We expressed our views in a letter to Elizabeth Binsack on April 2, 2007. How does the City wish to proceed? Is the City interested in exploring any other model, such as that used by the City of Sacramento or the City of Ontario, where the requirements of the CLG board is incorporated into or shared with other board? We would be pleased to entertain such a discussion. -If you are not, please let me know within 30 days of receipt of this letter, and we will initiate the decertification of your Mr. Reekstin June 11, 2007 Page 2 historic preservation program for the reasons stated above. Or, under the terms of the CLG program you also have the authority to request decertification without cause. The OHP is committed to assisting all California local governments with their historic preservation programs. If requested, we will continue to provide assistance to the extent possible to the City of Tustin, however, the specific benefits available to CI -Gs will no longer be available. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to me at (916) 653-9116 or at lwoodward @ parks.ca. gov_. Sincerely, Lucinda Woodward, Supervisor Local Government Unit Cc: Megan Brown, CLG Coordinator, National Park Service Brett Floyd, Chair, Planning Commission Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director ATTACHMENT D EXCERPT FROM CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM - 2016-2017 ANNUAL REPORT r. Idw �o Q N h M N N L N O� L CL d� E4 E .'., b OO C J L'4, M v N >+ N � C m m 0 O E .N m N E E Ua y O E T a� 0 •d a 19 Im (D 'c c 0 E m c E c� c0000 a�—> E 0 2 0 0 4- �oc ow c civ o > cid m �3oU co EQ 8C �IA F-' O r O O O L m V .O CL a c .E .L c�a U U U m c 'c O o 0 0 LO to 0 0 0 �g a .<j m �� E C p O E coo �_v E o EN cm ° zm O` zo 2-S " m CF OO � o .-. «. �' c C Nom,-. t/1 C y C H-�:.►3 ca°;,o c°� Ecco =a 'm0 1: CCc m~ a C"0 E m y m �0 C a N °-a=a =zn- E of -0 EZ E E V � 0 Jim /O CL C Q t r N i0 O N 0 N Ca M N r- O M rn o N o M 8 c`D O r Q O O O O C 0 0 0 ca E �. t c� v,mm 'conoc ai a� "- O �cUza0c� ac �c � 4-- ac SCOUU c cc' (? O Ev E 2 ma 00 O N Nfq Ua LA L: UU- v ¢U LM O O O O :' 0 L O L C) L L L 0 O L �t O CV CV ao O cV b' O j` J N E N 0 C d a, V � 04- O� O 0 W- � a 2o r- 0 E 0 0 �� O o� fl. 0 =��0 0 N §in tiN 0) :�0 ZU xc a cmc oU c 3 a) > z m v¢� �� (L � cmn Qc c v0i vo`mac 0 cC *^- y U om a4 omo Eo O c m a 0 _ C o o�m� � C �' -p 3 c=ate N O O U C 'C ma (n V ~ v O m E- N m a.0,0 to o 3�°o -.59. 0- m v ►.. �=c @ N$ co o O O 0 U�f-a 0 Uu.=m O.5 =ao=¢ Oa Q UC) P2 iia O (D_ Y 0 r- ir 0 Q C Q aN O M r � N co �' N ETri IM � N CL O 0 0 0 E,2 d O r0 a v ♦� O J0 g, e�, V 0 m V co ti r V- N N co O O O O 0 0 O O O C O 0 _ N? C O SC CY A N O Q U O t0 2lt� � vQO l � ' a Vl N N _ CL fn i O ted = O� Gq f!1 p p (D .O. C N N.0 O CC COHa Q L O .0 OO O N p p r- LO L L C o >0O C O C d O C O N �' 4--0°' �� 0.0 =E0 >�l�j rn E> O V w CL o Cd ,+. o > O Zy N �p +�-.'a— 7 NQ n o 3rd+— capes 3 NQ �o C> *'� =oV�=QN Jv m pCa �Nm —U 0O V O = N 0 B CpU 0 C_ O C� CO cc 0, IO -Cc- OCC p p U) _ L E � � p 00 �o co� Z. ->> - �nv5 OCA O N Q E O H m co L� � r. � m r• r. r ti V- � ti rn o ci o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c N C O U j•V O U) L3 t to Ui m vJ CO Ui N CO a U (U U U U N L OL -) N L L L O O O 3 O 3 OO 3 O .0 O G O .0 r o z �c L a a o �n 0 a o o 0 to V) O O d CV Q O Q � m � ° E °— c ° c o .�G O ° za m z r U m 0)c0 � 3 ._ ccoAZm L. z M cr c O OEE C m � ,C a4) C ==n ao ° o 0a =a m _� .. �. F- to 3 c m ~ •. N CO m O C oNm I- �- m N o m °� C m lor. c3icdy =za 0L) w O O., 0 8409 a` ym §2a` Ia za b �c C J C 3 Q Ea 'Ch r �^ � eC'- •- N o N C U O F- (A a. U U U U U o L z t O O to 0 tLO 4 t7 O O O rte+ O 0E 7-J C 0�C E = Q 0 :r -0 7 O � _ C � CD m 4° cmc oo 0 Z o •� .. m � .-. N m •- .-, (3) 0 C ca m mac? N 0 o+' c"a��po 'o W:p ao�B ac�ao O :� ��o� 0�+� m O m I-c�t4� m F -c tam 1: .� F�"y o�.c E� m w Cao 0 O m Nuc o m �.gV) �L6 on C m a =a izzm vciF,-w C O L O O l0 C l0 O T- ATTACHMENT E TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BULLETIN #4 (EXCERPT - SECTION 3) 14 C _ Q 1\ 4-0C:i �\ fu O ) L V �� V .L 0-6 fu L � r\ O 0 V p E fu 0 U All, TNF ( .�'t411f Rj '• a % 1 _ r� CALIF011N�' 1416 9th St, Rm 1442-7 Sacramento CA 95814 PO Box 942896 Sacramento CA 94296-0001 phone: (916) 653-6624 fax: (916) 653-9824 email: calshooCdoarks.ca.aov website: www.ohn.narks.ca.aov DEL i SISKIYOU I MOriOC TRINITY�I SHASTA i LASSEN TEHAMA O ...-.._ \.../" MAS �4 L` r3,,GLENN T I1 r LAKE ( l 1 I I PLACER J y ./ ,POLO w ! � EL DO 6APA ' ,4O'kq '\ N,,,.._ t RA_,_., .. •ALAI ISOLp Y ,.....'!a' yERP `,'• CONTRA CY ;% OLUMNE .,,COSTA } *t SAN FRANCISCA? R y...»• �Q .,,,.�,? y9 0A ,IZPNjS�'l+s, MARIPO`5a fJ� SANTA • !, � t•"" k.CIARA ' ! ER D� ow FRESNO 41 /KINGS Y SAe 1. QBISPO L. 4. n L., SAN 0 a BAR I N:4 lzz�� r • zn ,q• i e t MONO �* y % a C % ------ INVO ♦1 % TULARE t �jj • `` a t I SAN BERNARDINO 1 - — .— .— 1 �> cles t. 4 O� "\ RIVERSIDE 4r�,GE y d ------------ SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL . i � ! r rr rrr 4.+.wr rrrr rr SECTION 3: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION The ordinance must identify the local entity charged with administering and enforcing the ordinance and list their specific responsibilities. In many cases the preservation commission is a separate decision-making body within the local government. In other cases the City Council or its equivalent may act in the capacity of a preservation commission. This manual reviews key issues to consider when drafting this crucial section. For example, should the community require professional qualifications of preservation commission members? What types of activities should fall under the preservation commission's jurisdiction? Should the commission have decision-making authority, or merely be advisory to some other body, such as a planning commission? The possible strategies for organizing a preservation commission by ordinance are endless, limited mainly in California by practical political and staffing considerations, which vary widely by community. This section addresses four basic issues: composition of the review body, the scope of its powers, the location of final review authority, and disclosure of pecuniary and personal interests of review board members. COMPOSITION Because local preservation ordinances in California are grounded in very broad enabling authority, communities have wide leeway in the composition of preservation commissions. Members of a local preservation commission typically are appointed by the local governing body or chief executive. Preservation commissions typically have five to nine members—an odd, number helps prevent tie votes. Terms vary widely, with three years being a typical length. Terms usually are staggered to ensure that experienced members always will be serving. Some communities may want to consider setting a maximum limit on the number of consecutive terms that any person can serve, to prevent the commission from becoming too closely associated with any one individual. Each jurisdiction should consider whether to require professional qualifications for some, or all, members of the review body. Qualifications are important from both a legal and a practical standpoint. There currently are different approaches in use throughout the state. Some communities require that a few (e.g., Napa) or all (e.g., Fresno) members be trained in history, architecture, archaeology, or a related field, in order to ensure that preservation decisions benefit from professional expertise. Other communities require no such qualifications and'simply ask that members express an interest in preservation in order to serve. There are merits to both approaches. A broadly based membership can protect the ordinance and its administration from a claim of arbitrariness and can help distinguish preservation restrictions from other aesthetic controls that are sometimes invalidated by courts. Some observers argue that the overall quality of preservation anti design review in the community suffers if commission members do not have solid credentials and the experience necessary to carry out their responsibilities. There is value in having a mix of backgrounds on a preservation commission. Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 12 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 Requiring professional qualifications ensures that members have the necessary technical expertise to review adequately matters before the preservation commission. Requiring professional qualifications for at least some members also is consistent with the national requirements for cities participating in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program, which provides a source of grant money for preservation programs in participating communities. The California CLG procedures encourage local governments to have at least two professionally qualified persons. A local government in California may be certified without the minimum number or types of disciplines established if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of that state that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those positions, or that some alternative composition of the commission best meets the needs of the protection of historic properties in the local community. The CLG guidelines outline professional qualifications in a handful of areas, including history, architectural history, archaeology, and architecture. For each discipline, the guidelines require a minimum level of education and professional experience, which are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. 61). In addition to the disciplines identified in the CLG guidelines, it also is useful to have planners and landscape architects on a local preservation commission. Some communities believe that requiring qualifications may deprive the review body of valuable common-sense perspectives from citizens not professionally involved in preservation -related fields, and also might prevent service by individuals who are well- qualified though not professionally trained. To some, "qualifications" equal bias, and thus decisions made by commissioners with qualifications may carry less weight with the legislative body, because they are perceived to be less representative of the whole community. In an attempt to reach a middle ground between these two philosophies, many communities have adopted a balanced system made up of both professionally qualified members and also citizens -at -large who bring a broader perspective of community affairs. In such jurisdictions, only some (e.g., four out of seven) commission members are required to meet professional qualifications standards, in order to bring expertise in urban design and preservation to the commission. The Alameda, California, approach is typical: Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 13 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 �uncil rna -fill any, such position by appointing persons qualified "under ibsectons (a), (b)c),_or�(d) s Around the country, numerous courts have examined the composition of the preservation review body in the context of challenges to local ordinances. While none have held that the particular composition of a review body is fatal to the validity of a historic preservation ordinance, these courts nevertheless have noted that representation by a range of disciplines and interests helps refute any claim that the actions of the review body are arbitrary. For example, in a famous case involving a challenge to the New Orleans preservation ordinance, the court noted that the ordinance "curbed the possibility for abuse by the Commission... by specifying the composition of that body and its manner of selection."$ Similarly, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a case from Georgetown, Colorado, acknowledged the importance of a commission's expertise in helping to prevent arbitrary action.9 These cases indicate that careful wording can strengthen the legal case for an ordinance by specifying a knowledgeable, representative membership for a local preservation commission. Settling on the composition of a local commission is sometimes a difficult undertaking in small communities that simply do not have a large cadre of professionals with relevant experience. There may be only one or two architects in the area, and they may be hesitant to serve if volunteering means foregoing preservation or restoration projects that might come before the commission. The solution is not an easy one. State historic preservation offices can be of great assistance by making available an architect to "ride circuit," rendering expert advice to key members of small preservation commissions (though of course staffing such a position requires a high commitment of resources by the state.) In summary, across California, historical review boards and preservation commissions represent a wide diversity of sizes, generally five to fifteen members, and skills, such as varying degrees of experience in preservation -related fields. In addition to the Alameda language included above, several excerpts from adopted California preservation ordinances are included below to illustrate the range of approaches used in the state today. They range from the Berkeley ordinance, which simply specifies a number of commission members and contains no detail on professional qualifications; to the Colton ordinance, which identifies a general range of disciplines from which all commission members should be drawn; to Santa Monica, which sets strict qualifications for some but not all seats on the local commission. The Los Gatos ordinance requires a mixture of lay members and planning commission members on its preservation commission; this common approach ensures a linkage between preservation and other planning and land -use activities in the community. 6 Alameda, California, Municipal Code, Title II, Article 3, Sec. 332. 7 See, Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood, 39 Cal.AppAth 490, 494 n. 1, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 (Cal. App. 1995) (noting the availability of experts within the commission as the court upheld the preservation commission's determination that certain structures were not of historic significance). 8 Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051, 1062 (5t' Cir. 1975). 9 South of Second Assoc. v. Georgetown, 580 P.2d 807, 808-09 n.1 (Colo. 1978). Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 14 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 15 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 SCOPE OF POWERS Just as important as who sits on the review body is what authority that body has to regulate building and land -use activities. Review bodies in various communities across California have wide-ranging responsibilities, including, but not limited to, the following: • Survey and identification of historically and architecturally significant structures and areas; • Establishment of standards and procedures for designation of historical resources; • Designation of historical resources; • Review of applications for alteration, construction, or demolition of historical resources and all structures within historic districts; • Coordination and supervision of educational activities; • Purchase or sale of property; • Acceptance of easements and other less -than -fee -simple donations of property; • Enforcement of ongoing maintenance requirements for historical resources, Acceptance of preservation funds from various sources, and • Review of zoning amendments and comprehensive plans relating to historic preservation. The most important powers that can be vested in a preservation commission have all been held valid under the U.S. Constitution by various courts: the power to deny an application to demolish or alter historical resources; to regulate new construction or development in the vicinity of a historical resource or historic district; and to impose affirmative maintenance requirements on historical resource owners. Of course, courts retain the authority to review how such powers are exercised in individual cases, but, in legal parlance, such provisions are valid on their face. Thus, there is wide latitude available in granting powers to a preservation commission in an ordinance, keeping in mind appropriate federal and state constitutional requirements. Just as there is no one correct way to empanel an effective review body, there is no commonly accepted set of responsibilities for that body. There are, however, common elements found in most ordinances. The City of Glendale's historic preservation ordinance contains a representative list of express authorities (See excerpt below.). A preservation commission is commonly given the power to investigate and recognize as -yet unprotected historical resources within the locality through various mechanisms, Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 16 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 such as preparation of historic resources surveys. Some communities establish a list of "structures of merit.s10 The Eureka, California, ordinance also provides several examples of other proactive powers that may given to a preservation commission (See excerpt below.). As is true with other provisions of a preservation ordinance, practical considerations, as much as legal requirements, will shape the scope of powers granted to a commission. If a community is concerned primarily with exterior facades of historical resources, then it makes little sense to add to the administrative burden by asserting control over interior changes. Similarly, in a town with a volunteer preservation commission able to meet only once a month, the commission may be overwhelmed if it must review every application for a building permit within a historic area. In such instances, it may be advisable to exempt certain changes or allow the local building official or planning staff to handle applications for "minor alterations" as defined by the commission (See the discussion below under "Section 5: Procedures and Criteria for Actions Subject to Review: Allowing Staff -Level Reviews."). On the other hand, in situations where any alteration in the general vicinity may be detrimental, the commission may need to control not only all external alterations to historical resources (even in the rear of a building) but also alterations to neighboring structures that are not of landmark quality, 11 and even interiors that are visible to the public. The City of Berkeley, for example, grants its preservation commission the power to condition the designation of a publicly owned historical resource upon the ability to review "proposed changes in major interior architectural features." 12 In the City of Davis, the Historical Resources Management Commission is empowered to provide advice on landscaping at the sites of historical resources. 13 Probably the most crucial consideration in drafting the powers of a preservation commission is that the review body be given adequate power to protect historical resources. This will in many cases require that it have the power to forbid demolition or alteration, not just delay -it, even though such power may be exercised infrequently. rAI IFARNIA CADF- FX[ FRP-TS' rs and Duties. 10 See e.g., Berkeley, California, Code of Ordinances, § 3.24.070(A) ("the commission may establish and maintain a list of structures, site and areas deemed deserving of official recognition, although not yet designated..."). 11 See, Glendale, California, Code of Ordinances, § 2.76.100(M) (commission may render a decision on any design review application "affecting" designated historical resources). 12 Berkeley, California, Code of Ordinances, § 3.24.100(B)(1). 13 Davis, California, Code of Ordinances, § 40.23.050(J). Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 17 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 18 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 19 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 FINAL REVIEW AUTHORITY Another important issue closely related to the scope of the reviewing body's power is the question of where final authority should rest for designating structures and reviewing permit applications. In many communities, final decision-making authority rests with the preservation review body, while in other jurisdictions that body makes a recommendation to a planning commission or city council, which makes the final decision. Under California's broad enabling authority, local governments have wide leeway in where they place final decision-making authority, and the choices may be difficult. One approach, perhaps the least attractive to preservationists, is to have the local law grant the preservation commission advisory authority only regarding designations and permit reviews, and vest no absolute power to deny demolition permits in either the preservation commission or the legislative body. The City of Burbank, California, has adopted this approach, which, while providing for close political control over preservation and limiting restrictions on owners who may - want to demolish their historical resources, is not as aggressive in protecting historical resources as some preservationists might like. • -A second approach is to split authority between the preservation commission and the local legislative body. For example, in both the California cities of Alameda and Davis, the preservation commission makes decisions on permit reviews (though its decisions can be overridden by appealing to the local legislative body). The legislative body makes decisions on designations (with appeal to the courts), with only advisory input from the preservation commission. This model, more acceptable to preservationists because of the balance it strikes among conservation goals, property rights, and political control, is common throughout the country and has been upheld regularly by the courts. 14 Another option is to vest final review authority over designations and permit reviews with the preservation commission, with appeal to the city council or to the courts. From a preservation point of view, this approach is most attractive because, to a certain extent, it removes preservation from the political arena and 14 See, e.g., City of New Orleans v. Pergament, 198 La. 852, 5 So.2d 129 (1941); Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5"' Cir. 1975); 900 G Street Associates v. D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development, 430 A.2d 1387 (D.C. App. 1981); and Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cale 165,172 n. 3,105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214,19 P.3d 567 (Cal. 2001) (Upholding Sierra Madre Ordinance No. 1036). Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 20 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 allows local commissions to forbid demolition according to prescribed standards and procedures. Courts also have upheld uniformly this type of ordinance around the country. In California, the cities of Berkeley and Eureka have adopted this approach. Finally, some communities might assign some preservation -related responsibilities to other entities altogether, such as a design review commission. For example, in Pasadena, California, the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) has responsibility for most preservation review in the city, but the Design Review Commission (DRC) handles design review in the downtown preservation district. Also, for city -owned properties, the CHC serves in an advisory capacity to the DRC. If other entities exist besides the preservation commission, such as a design review body, then the community should think carefully about the relationship between the multiple entities and ensure that there are no duplicative reviews that may unnecessarily add time and costs to the development review process. The jurisdiction of each entity should be carefully distinguished from the other entities (e.g., by geography or by type of project). The sequence of decision-making should be coordinated to prevent contradictory decisions. In California, local governments increasingly are moving toward fewer boards, rather than more, to avoid these types of potential complications. If strong preservation controls are to be exercised by the preservation commission, then local elected officials almost inevitably will want final review authority over designations and permit applications to rest with the local legislative body, the mayor, or with a planning commission or similar body that has a broader view of community development. Preservationists may have to choose between having stronger controls exercised by a less sympathetic body or weaker controls vested in a friendly preservation commission. There are pros and cons to either approach. If the local planning commission or zoning board is put in charge of making final decisions, then preservationists may find that it is more difficult to get historical resources listed or that the review body occasionally allows demolition or site development that a more preservation -oriented body might reject. Yet the occasional reversal on appeal to another board may be worthwhile to preservation advocates if the alternative is vesting limited powers perhaps authority only to delay demolitions rather than veto them — in a preservation commission. In most instances, a good case can be made for establishing final review authority in a separate preservation commission with specific expertise and the time to devote to preservation programs. Moreover, as discussed earlier, for a local government to qualify for certain federal historic preservation programs and funding and to assert authority over local National Register nominations, the community must establish a preservation commission with adequate authority to designate historic districts, review proposals for alteration within a district, and protect significant structures. Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 21 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 In terms of vesting a preservation commission with final review authority, there are practical aspects to keep in mind as well. Is there sufficient expertise, or are there enough willing citizens available in the community to establish yet another volunteer commission, particularly in smaller towns? If an existing body, such as the planning commission, is given authority over historical resources, will these added duties overburden it? Who will do staff work for the review body? Would staff from a planning or zoning commission be sympathetic to preservation goals? Should the review body concern itself only with major alterations or demolitions, or is greater control warranted? DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY AND PERSONAL INTERESTS People are often appointed to preservation commissions because they have some special expertise (i.e., architectural training, real estate experience, or legal knowledge) that should be helpful to the commission in making decisions. But the use of this expertise, and the past affiliations that are often part of such expertise, raise several interesting legal issues to which commissioners should be sensitive. Occasionally, members of the preservation commission will have a pecuniary or personal interest in a case before the commission. What if a commissioner has a direct pecuniary interest in a case, perhaps through a partnership with the developer applying for a demolition permit? Almost universally, the commissioner should disqualify himself or herself in such situations. But that is the easy case. What about cases in which the interest is only indirect — for example, when a commissioner owns nearby property that might appreciate in value if a big, new high- rise office building is allowed in a historic area? That question is a difficult one. In several zoning cases around the country, courts have invalidated zoning decisions because of the possibility of a conflict of interest. 15 Commissioners should be very careful to disclose any potential direct or indirect gain or loss that could flow from a commission decision. Where a potential conflict of interest may be perceived but the commissioner has no tangible interest at stake, disclosure and affirmation of unbiased decision-making is still important. What if a commissioner, because of a past affiliation — say, the presidency of a local private preservation advocacy group — is perceived to have an inherent bias against, or for, a particular proposal? Should that person be disqualified? Generally not, unless the commissioner cannot keep an open mind and is not willing to consider evidence supporting a contrary position and to make a finding on the record presented. Present activity with local groups actively supporting or opposing a particular case 15 For an example, see Buell v. City of Bremerton, 495 P.2d 1358 (Wash. 1972), striking down a local zoning decision because the chairman's property might increase in value as a result of the zoning. A recent California case involved the City of Torrance, where several council members had received campaign contributions from an opponent of a proposed conditional use permit before the board; Breakzone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 467,477 (the court held that recusal by the council members was not required because each had stated their decision would not be affected by the contribution and the court found no indication that the decision -maker's impartiality was tainted). Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 22 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 before the commission will raise more questions and potential challenges to the commissioner's ability to vote in an unbiased manner; therefore disqualification or recusal may be appropriate in cases of active affiliation with a party in interest. A related, common disclosure issue is whether commissioners can base decisions on personal knowledge or expertise. For example, if an architect knows from long years of study and personal experience that a proposed development in a historic district is not compatible with the character of the district and that alternative designs are possible, can such knowledge form the basis for a negative decision? Similarly, can a commissioner make a personal visit to a historical resource that an owner wants to demolish and base his decision on impressions from that visit? Generally, the answer to both of these questions is "yes." A decision can be based on personal knowledge and expertise, provided that knowledge is noted in the record. 16 16 For a sampling of cases in support of this position, see Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U.S. 292 (1937); and Russo v. Stevens, 7 App. Div. 2d 575,184 N.Y.S.2d 981 (1959). Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances 23 OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14