Loading...
16. Historic Preservation PolicyCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO Agenda Item No. SUBJECT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 717 -3333 CITY COUNCIL LiTAFF REPORT Agenda Date: Tune 1, 2010 Consider approving the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendment, Application No. CP- 2007 -03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends (4 -0, Kaneda absent) that the City Council approve the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of the work program for 2007 -08. The Council was interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing sites/ buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. On May 5, 2008, the Council formed the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). On April 20, 2010, the Council considered the recommendations presented by the HPC and authorized staff to move forward with the public review process to adopt the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments. The City Council provided the HPC and Planning Commission with the following parameters to be incorporated in the Historic Preservation Policy: 1. Update and re -rank the existing historic structures or site list 2. Define the potential historic categories and method of preservation 3. Limit policy to public /semi - public and commercial properties Please refer to the Attachments A & B for additional background information. DISCUSSION Proposed Historic Policy On May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Historic Preservation Policy and the relevant General Plan amendments. The Commissions recommendations are summarized as follows: New Sites Based on a set of criteria formulate by the HPC (Attachment C), a total of ten (10) new sites have been identified. These sites are in addition to the existing historic resources list in the 16 -1 Historic Preservation Policy General Plan. A summary table has been prepared that includes all existing and proposed historic resources and the recommended preservation categories (Attachment D). Historic Resource Categories In the interest of defining a clear and simple historic preservation review process and policy, the following resource categories have been defined: ❖ Historic - these sites have great historic significance and should be preserved. Any renovation or redevelopment of these sites must be consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standard for treatment of historic properties. ❖ Commemorative - these sites have been identified to possess historic resources that should be commemorated via plaques, reader boards and/or similar educational tools that explain and capsulate the historic significance of the resource to the public. ❖ Historic Mention/Interest - these sites have been identified to possess historic resources but are located outside the City's boutidary. The City will correspond with the agency/ city with jurisdiction over the resource regarding the City's recommendation and findings. ❖ Additional recommendations include periodically reviewing and updating the historic resource list and retaining the Community Landmarks listed in the General Plan. Please refer to Attachment E for the full list of existing and newly identified historic resources in the City and the pertinent review process with details on preservation/ commemorative guidelines. General Plan Amendments Based on the recommendations of the HPC and Planning Commission, the following modifications to the existing Historic and Cultural Resources Section of the General Plan (Attachment F) are proposed (additions are shown in underline font and deletions are noted as strikeouts). They are intended to provide clear guidance to decision - makers, staff and the public when reviewing the resources. The current Historic Resources Map (Attachment G) includes two categories, the Community Landmarks and Historic Sites. Therefore, an amendment is needed to incorporate the newly updated Historic Site list, and the incorporation of the Commemorative and Historic Mention/ Interest Site list. 1. Amend Policy 2 -62: Rehabilitation of Historic Sites • Proiects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and provide a plaque, reader board and /or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource(s). The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. • For public and quasi -public sites, coordinate with property owner to allow public access of the historical site to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately -owned sites, property owners would be encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the public 16 -2 Historic Preservation Policy G PA- 201 -02 June 1, 2010 Page 3 of 4 _ e 2. Add Policy 2 -XX Commemorative Sites • Projects on Commemorative Sites shall provi a plaque, reader board and /or other educational tool on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. • For public and quasi - public sites, coordinate with property owner to allow public access to the historical site to foster Public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately -owned sites, proper owners would be encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the public. 3. Add Policy 2 -XX Historic Mention/Interest Sites Encourage agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage rehabilitation of the resource and provide public access to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. Commission Comments The above policies (1 - 3) mention that public access to the historic site and /or commemorative feature are encouraged, but not required. The Commission is recommending that the Council consider changing the requirement for private properties from, "encouraged, but not required to provide access to the public" to ",encouraged, but in no way required to provide access to the public," to clarify that public access is not mandatory. One of the goals of identifying the City's historic resources and having a framework for preservation /commemoration is to encourage and promote :public awareness and educational opportunities. The Commission's recommendation may potentially eliminate the possibility to accomplish this goal. Staff believes that the original proposed language should be retained since it clearly expresses that public access is encouraged but not mandatory. 4. Add Policy 2 -XX Community Landmarks Projects on Landmark Sites shall provide a plaque, reader board and /or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic sig lificance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and Shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. 5. Add Policy 2 -XX. Incentives for Preservation of Historical Resources The City should utilize a variety of techniquf!s to serve as incentives toward fostering the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Sites including: 16 -3 Historic Preservation Policy GPA- 2010 -02 June 1, 2010 Page 4 of 4 • Allowing flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety. This could include flexibility as to use, parking requirements and /or setback requirements. • Using the California Historical Building Code for rehabilitation of historic structures; • Tax rebates (Mills Act or Local tax rebates); • Financial incentives such as grants/ loans to assist rehabilitation efforts. 6. Add Policy 2 -XX. Recognizing Historical Resources An inventory of historically significant structures should be maintained and periodically updated in order to promote awareness of these community resources. 7. Amend Figure 2G - Cupertino's Historic Resources Map to include the amended list of Historic, Commemorative, Historic Mention and Landmark sites. 8. Create a new Appendix with photographs of the Historic, Commemorative and Historic Mention sites. Environmental Review The proposed Historic Preservation Policy is considered Categorically Exempt based on Article 19, Section 15331 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consequently, the project is not subjected to the environmental review provisions of CEQA. Prepared by: Gary Chao, City Planner Submitted by: - '4�0 a� �- Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Approved by: 9 David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment A Planning Commission Staff Report, May 11, 2010 Attachment B City Council Staff Report, April 20, 2010 Attachment C Historical Designation Criteria Attachment D Summary Table Attachment E Updated Historic Resources List and Review Process Attachment F Historic and Cultural Resources Section of the General Plan Attachment G Existing Historic Resources map Attachment H Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 11, 2010 Attachment I Photos of Resources G \ Plantzitig � PDREPORT� CCU 2010 \ GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Policy CC 6- 1- 2010.doc 16 -4 ATTACHMENT A CUPERTINO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 - planning@cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 APPLICATION SUMMARY Agenda Date: May 11, 2010 Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments, Application No. GPA- 2010 -02, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of the work program for 2007 -08. The Council was interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. On May 5, 2008, the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee consists of one member from the Historic Society and two City residents. Methodology The Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisor. Committee held regular bi- weekly meetings at City Hall from June 2008 through November 2008. The purpose of the meetings was to update and re- evaluate the existing historical site list in the General Plan, and the historical sites listed in the 1997 Historical Report. The Committee was also charged with providing a list of additional historical resources significant to Cupertino's past. Committee members worked individually or as a team in collecting information, visiting sites for a photographic survey and evaluating the current condition of the buildings. To assist in the evaluation of sites, the Committee utilized the Historical Designation Criteria providedby staff (See Attachment 1). The Historical Designation Criteria is a list of clear standards that allows for a varieb7 of resources to be considered for aesthetic, historic, social, cultural, economic, and other reasons specific to Cupertino "s 16 -5 GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Preservation Policy May 11, 2010 Page 2 history. The standards were drawn from local, state and national designation criteria listed by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. Once all the sites were researched, they were evaluated for their historical significance by determining if the site met one or more of the criteria. If the site met any one of the criteria, preservation or commemoration was determined. The recommendations chosen are intended to ensure that any change to the resource would not create a substantial adverse impact to the historical resource, or that appropriate commemoration is provided to capsulate the history. A total of eleven (11) sites were chosen by the Committee. These sites are in addition to the existing historic resources list in the General Plan. A summary table has been prepared that includes all existing and proposed historical resources, criteria met by the sites and recommendations for preservation/ commemoration (See Attachment 2). City Council Authorization On April 20, 2010, the City Council reviewed and authorized staff to move forward with the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments. DISCUSSION Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee Recommendations 1) New Historic Sites Add the following sites to the Historic Sites list in the General Plan: i. Glendenning Barn (10955 N Tantau Avenue - Hewlett Packard) ii. Miller House (10518 Phil Place): Although Council did not want to include residential properties; this residence was already determined to be a historical resource as part of a previous development application (Application No. 6 -U -94, 1 -Z -94, 2- TM -94), with conditions of approval to retain the historical status through continuous preservation methods. As part of that approval, a historical plaque was also placed on the house. Recommended Preservation Actions: a) Initiate rehabilitation and restoration efforts consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties for structures owned by the City of Cupertino in order to retain their historic significance. b) Initiate an active partnership with private, public, and quasi - public owners of historical sites to rehabilitate, or restore the buildings consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties for public or semi- private occupancy in order to retain their historic significance. c) Allow public access to public and quasi - public historical sites to foster public awareness and educational opportunities. 16 -6 GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Preservation Policy May 11, 2010 Page 3 d) Provide plaques, reader boards and /or other educational tools on each site that explain the historical significance of each resource. 2) New Commemorative Sites Add the following sites to the General Plan as "Commemorative Sites ": i. Apple One Building (10240 Bubb Road) ii. Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino (21840 McClellan Road): Monta Vista High School, State of CA Historical Landmark #800 iii. Baldwin Winery (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard): Foothill -De Anza Community College) iv. City of Cupertino Crossroads: StevE!ns Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard Intersection V. Engles Grocery "Paul and Eddie's" (21619 Stevens Creek Boulevard) vi. Hazel Goldstone Variety Store (21700 Stevens Creek Boulevard) vii. Interim City Hall (10321 South De Anza Boulevard) viii. Palm Avenue Palm Trees (Palm Avenue, cross street is Foothill Boulevard) Recommended Commemorative Actions: a) Initiate an active partnership with private, public, and quasi public owners to provide plaques, reader boards and/or other educational tools that explain the historical significance of each resource. b) The commemorative elements should be specific to the resources and be available for public viewing. Please refer to the Review Process for Historic Resources (Attachment 3) for detailed applicability of the above commemorative actions. 3) Honorable Mention Sites Add to /relist the following sites as "Honorable Mention" because they are located outside the City's boundaries: i. Montebello School(15101 Montebello Road): Santa Clara County ii. Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar: Ridge Vineyards (17100 Montebello Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District iii. Picchetti Brothers Winery (13100 Montebello Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District iv. Woodhills Estate (Cupertino /Saratoga Hills at the end of Prospect Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Listed on the National Register of Historic Places The City will communicate with the relevant agencies to inform them of the potential historic significance of these sites. 16 -7 GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Preservation Policy May 11, 2010 Page 4 4) Review and Update List - The historical resource list should be periodically reviewed and updated. New resources may be discovered, or some that were omitted may assume a new significance. 5) Community Landmark Sites - Retain the existing Community Landmarks in the General Plan. Environmental Review The proposed Historic Preservation Policy is considered Categorically Exempt based on Article 19, Section 15331 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consequently, the project is not subjected to the environmental review provisions of CEQA. Authorization of the General Plan Amendments Based on the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee, the following modifications to the existing Historic and Cultural Resources Section of the General Plan are proposed (additions are shown in underline font and deletions are noted as strikeouts). They are intended to provide clear guidance to decision - makers, staff and the public when reviewing the resources The current Historic Resources Map includes two categories, the Community Landmarks and Historic Sites. Therefore, an amendment is needed to incorporate the newly updated Historic Site list, and the incorporation of the Commemorative and Honorable Mention Site list. 1. Amend Policy 2 -62: Rehabilitation of Historic Sites • Proiects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and provide a plaque, reader board and /or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource(s). The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. • For public and quasi - public sites, coordinate with property owner to allow public access of the historical site to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately -owned sites, property owners would be encouraged, but nor required, to provide access to the public 16 -8 GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Preservation Policy May 11, 2010 Page 5 Flexible Standards. Allow flexible inter-piFetation E)f zopdng ordinance and building eede standards not essential to publie health - and -- safety. n„Fl aE k di s t a ees 2. Add Policy 2 -XX Commemorative Sites • Projects on Commemorative Sites shall provide a placme, readerboards and /or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. • For public and quasi - public sites, coordinate with property owner to allow public access of the historical site to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately -owned sites, property owners would be encouraged, but not required, to prov: access to the public. 3. Add Policy 2 -XX Honorable Mention Sites Encourage agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage rehabilitation of the resource and provide public access to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. 4. Add Policy 2 -XX Community Landinark Projects on E Sites shall provide a plaque, readerboards and /or other educational tools on the site to explain th historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be >:)laced in a location where the public can view the information. 5. Add Policy 2 -XX: Ificentives for Preserva Pion of Historical Resources The City should utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives toward fostering the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Sites including: • Allowing flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety. These could include flexibility as to uses, reduced parkin requirements and lesser setbacks. • Using the California Historical Building Code for rehabilitation of historic structures; • Tax rebates (Mills Act or Local tax reb ates • Financial incentives such as grants/ loans to assist rehabilitation efforts. 6. Add Policy 2 -XX: Recognizing Historical Resources An inventory of historically significant structures should be maintained and periodically updated in order to promote awareness of these community resources. 16 -9 GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Preservation Policy May 11, 2010 Page 6 7. Amend Figure 2G - Cupertino's Historic Resources Map to include the amended list of Historic, Commemorative, Honorable Mention and Landmark sites. 8. Create a new Appendix with photographs of the Historic, Commemorative and Honorable Mention sites. CONCLUSION The recommendations by the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Committee allows a proactive approach to recognize, incentivize, preserve and /or commemorate significant historic resources in Cupertino and clarifies the process for evaluating projects. Next Steps The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on June 1, 2010. Prepared by: ao City Planner ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Historical Designation Criteria Summary Table Review Process Photos of Sites City Council Staff Report, April 20, 2010 G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT \ CC \ 2010 \ GPA- 2010 -02 Historic Policy PC 05- 11- 2010.doc 16-10 ATTACHMENT B OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE: • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 • planninw@cupertino.org CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. B Agenda Date: Aril 20, 2010 APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider authorizing staff to move forward with the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendment, Application No. CP- 2007 -03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to move forward with the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendment, BACKGROUND On January 8, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of the work program for 2007.08. The Council was interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee On February 19, 2008, the City Council directed staff to define a committee of five to seven persons, of which two to three were from the Historical Society with a majority of the Historical Society members being residents. The City Council also directed staff to solicit Cupertino residents through outreach, including a press release. Based on the outreach, staff received four applications, two Historical Society- members, and two Cupertino residents. On May 5, 2008, the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee appointing committee members: Helen Davis & George Monk. On June 2, 2008, Mike Sanchez was also appointed to the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee. The City Council provided the Ad Hoc committee with the following parameters: 1. Limit the policies to Public /Semi - Public and Commercial Properties 2. Update and re -rank the existing historic structure or site list 1,3- 111 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy April 20, 2010 Page 2 3. Define a public hearing, review, and noticing procedure process, which includes the involvement of property owners 4. Define the potential methods of preservation: ✓ Physical preservation or relocation • Commemorative measures (plaques or pictures, recycle building or architectural materials/ elements) • Proper disclosure of significance (special zoning or covenants) DISCUSSION Methodology The Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee held regular bi- weekly meetings at City Hall from June 2008 through November 2008. The purpose of the meetings was to update and re- evaluate the existing historical site list in the General Plan, and the historical sites listed in the 1997 Historical Report. The Committee was also charged with providing a list of additional historical resources significant to Cupertino's past. Committee members worked individually or as a team in collecting information, visiting sites for a photographic survey and evaluation of existing conditions. To assist in the evaluation of sites, the Committee utilized the Historical Designation Criteria provided by staff (See Attachment A). The Historical Designation Criteria is a list of clear standards that allows for a variety of resources to be considered for aesthetic, historic, social, cultural, economic, and other reasons specific to Cupertino's history. The formation of the criteria was drawn from local, state and national designation criteria listed by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. Once all the sites were researched, they were evaluated for their historical significance by determining if the site met one or more of the criteria. If the site met any one of the criteria, preservation or commemoration was determined. The recommendations chosen are intended to ensure that any change to the resource would not create a substantial adverse impact to the historical resource, or that appropriate commemoration is provided to capsulate the history. A total of eleven (11) sites were chosen by the Committee. These sites are in addition to the existing historic resources list in the General Plan. A summary table has been prepared that includes all existing and proposed historical resources, criteria met by the sites and recommendations for preservation/ commemoration (See Attachment B). 16-12 13 -2 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Presen Policy April 20, 2010 Page 3 Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee Recommendations 1) Existing Historic Sites Retain the following existing historical si .es currently listed in the General Plan: Ouiner: City of Cupertino i. Baer Blacksmith (22221 McClellan Road - McClellan Ranch Park) ii. Gazebo Trim (Mary and Stevens Creek Boulevard - Memorial Park) iii. Nathan Hall Tank House (22100 Stevens Creek Blvd) iv. Enoch J. Parrish Tank House(22221 McClellan Road - McClellan Ranch Park) Ozoner: Public /Quasi Public V. Montebello School(15101 Montebello Road) vi. Snyder Hammond House (22961 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Oznner: Private vii. De La Vega Tack House (10805 Stevens Canyon Road) viii. Old Collins School (20441 Homestead Road - Cupertino De Oro Club) ix. Maryknoll Seminary (2300 Cristo Rey Drive) X. Union Church of Cupertino (20900 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Recomniended Preservation Actions: a) Initiate rehabilitation and restoration efforts consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of His Foric Properties for structures owned by the City of Cupertino in order to retain their historic significance. b) Initiate an active partnership with private, public, and quasi - public owners of historical sites to rehabilitate, or restore the buildings consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties for public or semi - private occupancy in order to retain their historic significance. c) Allow public access to public and quad- public historical sites to foster public awareness and educational opportunities. d) Provide plaques, reader boards and /cr other educational tools on each site that explain the historical significance of each resource. Please refer to the Review Process for Historic Resources in the staff report for detailed applicability of the above preservation aci:ions. 2) New Historic Sites Add the following sites to the Historic Sites list in the General Plan: i. Glendenning Barn (10955 N Tantau Avenue - Hewlett Packard) ii. Palm Avenue Palen Trees (Palm Avenue, cross street is Foothill Boulevard) - since this is already on the Heritage Tree list in the City's Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18.050), staff does not recoriniend adding it to the list of preservation sites. iii. Miller House (10518 Phil Place): Altr.ough Council did not want to include residential properties; this residence was already determined to be a historical 13 -33 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy April 20, 2010 PaLye 4 resource as part of a previous development application (Application No. 6 -U 94,1 -Z -94, 2- TM -94), with conditions of approval to retain the historical status through continuous preservation methods. As part of that approval, a historical plaque was also erected. Recommended Preservation Actions: (See actions previously outlined for Existing Preserved Sites) 3) Existing Commemorative Sites Retain the following existing historical sites currently listed in the General Plan: Oztmer: City of Cupertino i. Elisha Stephens Place (22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Existing Plaque) ii. Stocklmeir Farmhouse (22120 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Ozcmer: Public /Quasi Public iii. De Anza Knoll (Off of Cristo Rey Drive) iii. Le Petit Trianon and Guest Cottages (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard): Foothill - De Anza Community College, Listed on the National Register of Historic Places Oztmer: Private iv. Doyle Winery "Cupertino Wine Company "(Visible from McClellan Ranch Park) V. St. Josephs Church (10110 North de Anza Boulevard) vi. Woelffel Cannery (10120 Imperial Avenue - demolished) Recommended Commemorative Actions: a) Initiate an active partnership with private, public, and quasi public owners to provide plaques, reader boards and/or other educational tools that explain the historical significance of each resource. b) The commemorative elements should be specific to the resources and be available for public viewing. Please refer to the Reviezt; Process for Historic Resources section of the staff report for detailed applicability of the above commemorative actions. 4) New Commemorative Sites Add the following sites to the General Plan as "Commemorative Sites ": i. Apple One Building (10240 Bubb Road) ii. Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino (21840 McClellan Road): Monta Vista High School, State of CA Historical Landmark #800 iii. Baldwin Winery (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard): Foothill -De Anza Community College) 16 -14 13 -4 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy April 20, 2010 Page 5 iv. The Crossroads (Intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard) V. Engles Grocery "Paul and Eddies" (21619 Stevens Creek Boulevard) vi. Hazel Goldstone Variety Store (21700 Stevens Creek Boulevard) vii. Interim City Hall (10321 South De Anza Boulevard) Recommended Commemorative Actions: (See actions for existing commemorative sites) 5) Honorable Mention Sites Add to /relist the following sites in the General Plan under the title "Honorable Mention" because they are located outside the City's boundaries: i. Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar: Ridge Z (17100 Montebello Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space Disixict ii. Picchetti Brothers Winery (13100 Montebello Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District iii. Woodhills Estate (Cupertino /Saratoga Hills at the end of Prospect Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Listed on the National Register of Historic Places The City will communicate with the relevant agencies to inform them of the potential historic significance of these sitE -s. 6) Review and Update List - The historical recourse list should be periodically reviewed and updated. New resources may be discovered, or some that were omitted may assume a new significance. 7) Community Landmark Sites - Retain the existing Community Landmarks in the General Plan CEQA and Historic Resources All projects undertaken by a public agency a: -e subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff therefore resear&ed the historical review process outlined in CEQA to ensure that the City's review processes for projects are consistent with CEQA requirements. Historical resources identified in a local histcrical resources inventory, such as the General Plan, are presumed to be significant by CEQA (PRC § 5024.1,14 CCR § 4850). According to CEQA, the City is responsible f or determining if a project would create a substantial adverse change to a historical resource, which may include demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired (PRC § 5020.1(q)). IS=F CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy April 20, 2010 Pale 6 Protecting historical resources from "substantial adverse change" through mitigation efforts can generally reduce or eliminate the impacts. The following mitigation options would be acceptable under CEQA (and would apply only to the Historic sites but not to the Commemorative sites): 1. Redesign the project to meet the Secretanj of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 2. Relocate the historical resource, as long as relocation does not constitute an adverse impact to the resource. However, in situations where relocation is the only feasible alternative to demolition, relocation may mitigate below a level of significance provided that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource and the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register (14 CCR § 4852(d)(1)). The above requirements are consistent with the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, Review Process for Historic Resources Based on the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee recommendations, and to be consistent with CEQA requirements, the following review process is proposed for sites on the Historic or Commemorative list. Historic Sites a) Confirm that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (a historic architect may be used to review projects). b) If the project does not meet the Secretany of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, then the historic architect would provide mitigation recommendations to lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the historical resource. c) Coordinate with applicant to provide a plaque(s), reader board(s) and /or other educational tools on the site that explains the historical significance of the resource. d) For quasi - public and public sites coordinate with applicant to allow public access to the historical site to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately -owned sites, applicants would be encouraged but not required to provide access. Commemorative Sites When projects are proposed on a site that has a historical resource listed for commemoration in the General Plan, the property owner should work with staff to provide a plaque, reader boards and/or another educational tool that explains the M5 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preser7ation Policy April 20, 2010 Page 7 historical significance of the resource. The commemorative elements should be specific to the resources and be placed in a location iiisible to public views. The following information should be included in the design: • City Seal; • Name of resource consistent with naive listed in General Plan; and • Date the resource was built; • Written description of the historical contribution of the resource; and • Photo or image representative of the original resource. Honorable Mention Sites Historical resources located outside the City's boundaries, currently registered on another Historical Register, and/or no longer exist should continue to be recognized for their historical contribution by listed in the General Plan under the title "Honorable Mention." Additionally, a letter could be sent to the agency with jurisdiction over the resource regarding the City's recommendations. Incentives A number of cities in California provide monetary incentives to property owners of historic resources. Examples of these state and local incentives are provided below. Federal ■ 20% Federal Tax Credit The 20% rehabilitation tax credit equals 20% of the amount spent in a certified rehabilitation of a certified historic structLnre The 20% credit is available for properties rehabilitated for commercial, industrial, agricultural or rental residential purposes. It is not available for properties used exclusively as the owner's private residence. The 20% rehabilitation tax credit applies only to certified historic structures, and may include buildings built after 1936. ■ 10% Federal Tax Credit The 10% rehabilitation tax credit equals 10% of the amount spent to rehabilitate a non - historic building built before 1936. T'. 10% rehabilitation tax credit applies only to non - historic, non - residential buildings built before 1936. State State Historic Building Code The SHBC allows reasonable alternatives to the requirements of regular codes and ordinances, applicable to all qualified historic resources. Any condition permitted to continue within existing occupancies is permissible in historic buildings. CHBC Part 8, Title 24, regulations require enforcing agencies to accept reasonably equivalent alternatives to the regular code. �� = 7 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy April 20, 2010 PaLye 8 Local ■ Mills Act Contracts The Mills Act is a state law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures. Each jurisdiction individually determines the criteria and requirements for participation. Such contracts require a reduction of property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of the property for a minimum of 10 years. Property taxes are recalculated using a formula in the Mills Act and Revenue and Taxation Code. Cities wl provide this incentive include Mountain View, Berkeley, San Jose, and Fremont. Historic Rehabilitation Loans /Grants These programs are typically offered to facilitate the rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of historic buildings. Loans can also achieve additional goals such as eliminating blight, revitalizing older shopping or redevelopment areas, and benefitting low- income owners. Loans can range from $1000 - $10,000 and above depending on local resources and the project scope. Cities that provide such programs include San Francisco. The General Plan amendments allows the flexibility to provide incentives if the City wishes to do so. If the Council wishes to pursue one or more of these monetary incentives, staff will bring back a report regarding the incentives. Authorization of the General Plan Amendments Based on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to begin the General Plan Amendment process to update the following preservation policies and strategies of the General Plan to provide guidance to decision - makers, staff and the public: 1. Add Policy 2 -XX. Recognizing Historical Resources An inventory of historically significant structures should be maintained and periodically updated in order to promote awareness of these community resources. 2. Amend Policy 2 -62 Landmark Rehabilitation of Historic Sites and Commemoration of Commemorative Sites and ComfnuniN Landmarks Undertake an active partnership with pjj: owners of landmark . t,.,,,.s,,,. Historic Sites to rehabilitate the buildings pablie eT seiR 12-iy to eeeupaney in order to retain their historic character Explore similar partnerships with owners of Community Landmarks and Commemorative Sites to commemorate locations with plaques at the site. Coordinate with owners of public or semi - private Community_ Landmarks, Historic and Commemorative Sites to allow public access to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. 16 -18 13 -8 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy April 20, 2010 Page 9 3. Add Policy 2 -XX: Incentives for Preservation of Historical Resources The City should utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives toward fostering the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Sites, 4. Add Strategies a. Community Landmarks /Commemo:rative Sites. Require that projects proposed on Community Landmark and Commemorative Sites; provide plaques, reader boards and other educational tools that explain the historical significance of the resource. The commemorative elements should be specific to the resources and be placed in a location where the public can view the information. b. Historic Sites. - Require that projects on Historic Sites meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. c. Incentives for Historic Sites. Provide the following incentives to encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Sites: i. Allow flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety. These could include flexibility as to uses, reduced parking requirements and lesser setbacks. ii. Alternative building code provisions for the reuse of historic structures; iii. Tax rebates (Mills Act or Local tax rebates); iv. Financial incentives such as grants/ loans to assist rehabilitation efforts. 5. Reanove Strategy (included in Strategy 4.c. above) Flexible Standards. Allow f1e.xibk-iF&eYj3r-etatien of zening eFdinanee and building cede standards net essential to publie h&alth and safety. These could incl:u4e ,-1 n si par provisio nr �rn.. tbk distance seae r�u us^.c -u vii �ici. 7 � CONCLUSION The recommendations by the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Committee allows a proactive and clear approach to recognize, incentivize and preserve and/or commemorate significant historic resources. The Council may, at any time, choose to authorize staff to begin the Genera Plan Amendment process. In that case, staff will bring back a report regarding all recommended amendments, the incentives and budget implications for the Council's review. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner 16 -19 13 -9 CP- 2007 -03 Historic Preservation Policy Page 10 Reviewed by: Approved by: A i Shrivastava Coirununity Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attaclunent D Attaclunent E April 20, 2010 David W. Knapp City Manager Historical Designation Criteria Summary Table Preservation Photos Commemorative Photos Honorable Mention Photos C: \ Planning \ PDR EPOR T\ CC \ 2007\ CP- 2007- 03_ Hisfa• icOrdiirrtnce _CC04- 20- 2010_FINAL.docs 16 -20 13-10 Attachment C HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA To assist in the evaluation of sites, the Committee utilized the Historical Designation Criteria provided by staff. The Historical Designation Criteria is a list of clear standards that allows for a variety of resources to be considered for aesthetic, historic, social, cultural, economic, and other reasons specific to Cupertino's history. Upon the recommendation of the historical preservation advisory committee and approval of the city council, a structure, site, or other improvement may be designated a historical resource if it meets.one or more of the following criteria: 1) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a master builder, engineer, designer, artist or architect whose individual genius influenced his era; 2) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. 3) It exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, archaeological, or architectural history; or 4) The proposed resource or district identities with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the history and development of the city; or whose work has influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the United States; 5) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 6) It has potential of yielding information of archaeological interest; 7) It has integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well -being of the people of the city. 8) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. 9) It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality. 10) It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning. N ATTACHMENT E 1. Historic Sites: Existing Historic Sites Retain the following existing historical sites currently listed in the General Plan: Owner: Citlj of Cupertino i. Baer Blacksmith (22221 McClellan Road - McClellan Ranch Park) ii. Gazebo Trim (Mary and Stevens Creek Boulevard - Memorial Park) iii. Nathan Hall Tank House (22100 Stevens Creek Blvd) iv. Enoch J. Parrish Tank House(22221 McClellan Road - McClellan Ranch Park) Owner: Public /Quasi Public v. Snyder Hammond House (22961 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Owner: Private vi.De La Vega Tack House (10805 Stevens Canyon Road) vii. Old Collins School (20441 Homestead Road - Cupertino De Oro Club) viii. Maryknoll Seminary (2300 Cristo Rey Drive) ix. Union Church of Cupertino (20900 Stevens Creek Boulevard) New Historic Sites Add the following sites to the Historic Sites list in the General Plan: i. Glendenning Barn (10955 N Tantau Avenue - Hewlett Packard) ii. Miller House (10518 Phil Place): Although Council did not want to include residential properties; this residence was already determined to be a historical resource as part of a previous development application (Application No. 6 -U- 94,1 -Z -94, 2- TM -94), with conditions of approval to retain the historical status through continuous preservation methods. As part of that approval, a historical plaque was also erected. 2. Commemorative Sites Existing Commemorative Sites Retain the following existing historical sites currently listed in the General Plan: Owner: City of Cupertino i. Elisha Stephens Place (22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Existing Plaque) ii. Stocklmeir Farmhouse (22120 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Owner: Public/Quasi Public iii.De Anza Knoll (Off of Cristo Rey Drive) iii.Le Petit Trianon and Guest Cottages (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard): Foothill -De Anza Community College, Listed on the National Register of Historic Places 16 -22 Ozvner: Private iv. Doyle Winery "Cupertino Wine Company" (Visible from McClellan Ranch Park) v. St. Josephs Church (10110 North de Anza Boulevard) vi. Woelffel Cannery (10120 Imperial Avenue - demolished) New Commemorative Sites Add the following sites to the General Plan as "Commemorative Sites ": i. Apple One Building (10240 Bubb Road) ii. Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino (21840 McClellan Road): Monta Vista High School, State of CA Historical Landmark #800 iii. Baldwin Winery (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard): Foothill -De Anza Community College) iv. City of Cupertino Crossroads: Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard Intersection v. Engles Grocery "Paul and Eddie's" (21619 Stevens Creek Boulevard) vi. Hazel Goldstone Variety Store (21700 Stevens Creek Boulevard) vii. Interim City Hall (10321 South De Anza Boulevard) 3. Historic Mention/Interest Sites Add to /relist the following sites in the General Plan under the title "Honorable Mention" because they are located outside the City's boundaries: i. Montebello School(15101 Montebello Road): Santa Clara County ii. Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar: Ridge Vineyards (17100 Montebello Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District iii. Picchetti Brothers Winery (13100 Montebello Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District iv. Woodhills Estate (Cupertino /Saratoga Hills at the end of Prospect Road): Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Listed on the National Register of Historic Places The City will communicate with the relevant agencies to inform them of the potential historic significance of these sites. 16 -23 Review Process for Historic Resources Historic Sites a) Confirm that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (a historic architect may be used to review projects). b) If the project does not meet the Secretanj of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, then the historic architect would provide mitigation recommendations to reduce or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the historical resource. c) Coordinate with applicant to provide a plaque(s), reader board(s) and/or other educational tools on the site that explains the historical significance of the resource. d) For quasi - public and public sites coordinate with applicant to allow public access to the historical site to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately -owned sites, applicants would be encouraged but not required to provide access. Commemorative Sites When projects are proposed on a site that has a historical resource listed for commemoration in the General Plan, the property owner should work with staff to provide a plaque, reader boards and/or another educational tool that explains the historical significance of the resource. The commemorative elements should be specific to the resources and be placed in a location visible to public views. The following information should be included in the design: • City Seal; • Name of resource consistent with name listed in General Plan; and • Date the resource was built; • Written description of the historical contribution of the resource; and • Photo or image representative of the original resource. Historic Mention/ Interest Sites Historical resources located outside the City's boundaries should continue to be recognized for their historical contribution by being listed in the General Plan under the title "Historic Mention." Additionally, a letter could be sent to the agency with jurisdiction over the resource regarding the City's recommendations. 16 -24 ATTACHMENT F HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Historic Resources Before European settlement, Native Americans resided in t area that is now Cupertino. The Ohlone Indians had lived in the Rancho San Antonio area for over 3,000 years. The area was first explored by Spanish soldiers when an expedition led by Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza passed through in March of 1776, and later was settled by numerous European immigrants who recognized the potential of the fertile land. They established farms and soon enjoyed a thriving agricultural economy. The village of Cupertino sprang up at the crossroads of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (now De Anza Boulevard) and Stevens Creek Road. It was first known as West Side, but by 1898, the post office at the Crossroads needed a new name to distinguish it from other similarly named towns. John T. Doyle, a San Francisco lawyer and historian, had given the name Cupertino to his winery, in recognition of the name bestowed on the nearby creek by Petrus Font. In 1904, the HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES namEt was applied to the Crossroads and to the post office when the Home Union Store incorporated under the name, The Cupertino Store, and moved to the north- east --omer of the Crossroads. Many of Cupertino's pioneer settlers planted grapes in the late 1800s. Vineyards and wineries proliferated on Montebello Ridge, on the lower foothills, and on the flat lands below. As these orchards flour - shed the valley became known for a profusion of blossoms in spring. Many more people passed through the Cupertino area first by electric railway and later by car to view all the blossoms in the "Valley of Heart's Delight." Because of the electric railway, the Morita Vista area of Cupertino developed. Monta Vista was the name: of its first housing tract. In the late 1940's, Cupertino was swept up in Santa Clara Valley's postwar population explosion. Con -cemed by unplanned devel- opme nt, higher taxes and piecemeal annexa- tion i.o adjacent cities, Cupertino's communi- ty leaders began a drive in 1954 for incorpo- ration. Incorporation was approved in a September 27, 1955 election. Cupertino offi- cially became Santa Clara County's 13th City on October 10, 1955. Today, Cupertino is part of a world - renowned high technology center, known as "Silicon Valley," and is home to several companies producing leading edge computers and software. Historic properties show Cupertino's past. These sites remind residents of the col- orful people who built and occupied them. Most of the historically significant properties are privately owned. Private owners and City CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2 -41 I rn 16 -25 he We set out from Arroyo de Las Liagas at quarter to eight in the morning, and at four, in the afternoon halted at the arroyo of San Joseph Cupertino .. . Along the way many Indians came out to us.... FONT'S COMPLETE DIARY OF THE SECOND ANZA EXPEDITION, MARCH 17761 i Elisha Stevens, Cupertino's first settler 2 -42 LAND USE/COMMUNITY DESIGN government can work together to maintain the historic value of these properties. A suc- cessful example of this cooperation is the rehabilitation of the De La Vega stable in the Rancho Deep Cliff residential subdivision. The "Tack House" was refurbished exten- sively inside but its exterior remains much the same. It is the 61 -home community's recreation center and meeting hall. PROTECTION OF HISTORICALLY AND ARCHAEO- LOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES, SITES AND ARTIFACTS Policy 2 -62: Landmark Rehabilitation Undertake an active partnership with private owners of landmark structures to rehabilitate the buildings for public or semi - private occupancy in order to retain their historic character. Strategy Flexible Standards. Allow flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance and building code standards not essential to public health and safety. These could include reduced on -site parking provi- sions or lesser setback distances. Policy 2-63: Archaeologically Sensitive Areas Protect archaeologically sensitive areas. Strategy Development Investigation. Require an investigation for development pro- posed in areas likely to be archaeologi- cally sensitive, such as along stream courses and in oak groves, to determine 7 `''`' CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN if significant archaeological resources may be affected by the project. Also require appropriate mitigation measures in the project design. Policy 2 -64: Native American Burials Protect Native American burial sites. Strategy Upon discovery of such burials during construction, take action prescribed by State law, including stoppage of work in surrounding area, notification Of appro- priate authorities and reburial of remains in an appropriate manner. ' Policy 2 -65: Heritage Trees Protect and maintain heritage trees in a healthy state. Strategy Heritage Tree List. Establish and.peri- 16 -26 Cupertino De Oro Club ATTACHMENT G HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 2 -43 Historic Resources . - •�~ Las Altos Sunnytule I Santa Clara 1 2 Mlle -- i. - -- I I San Jose West -- ! LEGEND City Boundary ' Urban Service Area Boundary -- -- Sphere of Influence bnnu 6aM1 Rritnun '` 1'NDSPFl7i1(Mp � — • Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas - Saratoga I 0 0.5 1 Mile 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet D 5D0 10DD Meters COMMUNITY LANDMARKS = _= HISTORIC SITES -- -- 13 Hanson Permanente a Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar, Nathan Hall Tank House 0 Downtown Monta Vista now part of Ridge Vineyards ® Gazebo trim, Memorial Park 13 Cupertino Historical Museum Montebello School, 1892 ® gingerbread Le Petit Trianon © Picchetti Brothers Winery Ranch Memorial Park, and Community Center, 0 Maryknoll Seminary � Union Church of Cupertino Sports Complex ® Cupertino De Oro Club De Anza College © De La Veaga Tack House St.Joseph's Church 13 De Anza Industrial Park Q Enoch J. Parrish Tank House Snyder- Hammond House a Cupertino Civic Center Q Replica Baer Blacksmith Shop De Anza Knoll monument 03 Vallco Fashion Park Q Doyle Winery Site (foundation only) Woelffel Cannery (former site) Vallco Industrial Park Q Louis Stocklmeir Home Site of Elisha P. Stephens home, 1850, now part of Blackberry Farm Figure 2 -G. Cupertino's Historic Resources,:- 1` I, CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 16 -27 ATTACHMENT H Draft Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2010 were not available as of Wednesday, May 26 and will be provided as a desk item at the hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2010. 16 -28 ATTACHMENT I Existing Historical Sites alreadj- listed in the General Plan ;. . 1 Baer Blacksmith (22221 McClellan Road — McClellan Ranch Park) Enoch J. Parrish Tank House (22221 McClellan Road — McClellan Ranch Park) (Mary & Stevens Creek Blvd, Memorial Park) (15101 Montebello Road) 16 -29 Montebello School Gazebo Trim Nathan Hall Tank House (22100 Stevens Creek Blvd) Snyder Hammond House (22961 Stevens Creek Boulevard) (20.41 Homestead Rd - Cupertino De Oro Club) New Historical Sites 16 -30 De La Vega Tack House (10805 Stevens Canyon Road) Union Church of Cupertino (20900 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Old Collins School Glendenning Barn (10955 N Tantau Avenue — Hewlett Packard) Maryknoll Seminary (2300 Cristo Rey Drive) Miller House (10518 Phil Place) Existing Commemorative Sites already listed in the General Plan t. 1A A.aa a n� •'l De Anza Knoll (Off of Cristo Rey Drive) NO PHOTO AVAILABLE 16 -31 Le Petit Trianon and Guest Cottages (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Foothill -De Anza Conununity College, Listed on the National Register of Historic Places Elisha Stephens Place (22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Existing Plaque) St. Josephs Church (10110 North de Anza Boulevard) Doyle Winery "Cupertino Wine Company" (Visible from McClellan Ranch Park) Stocklmeir Farm House (22120 Stevens Creek Road) (10120 Imperial Avenue - demolished) 16 -32 Woelffel Cannery Neiv Commemorative Sites Ir ".I The Crossroads (Intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard) Engles Grocery "Paul and Eddies" (21619 Stevens Creek Boulevard) NO PHOTO AVAILABLE +S Hazel Goldstone Variety Store (21700 Stevens Creek Boulevard) 16 -33 Apple One Building (10240 Bubb Road) Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino (21840 McClellan Road) Monta Vista High School, State of CA Historical Landmark # 800 Baldwin Winery (1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard) Foothill -De Anza Community College Interim City Hall (10321 South De Anna Boulevard) 16 -34 Historic Mention Sites NO PHOTO AVAILABLE Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar: Ridge Vineyards (17100 Montebello Road) Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District Picchetti Brothers Winery (13100 Montebello Road) Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District 16 -35 Woodhills Estate (Cupertino /Saratoga Hills End of Prospect Road) Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District National Register of Historic Places SUMMARY TABLE Existing Sites listed in the General Plan as Historical Sites Attachment D Site /Structure Location Owner j Existing General Criteria Significance I Plan Historical Site { Owner: City of Cu ertino Baer Blacksmith 22221 McClellan Ranch City of Cupertino I X 4 The Charley Baer House was originally at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (Highway (McClellan Ranch Park) 9). The house was built by William T. Baer, Charley's father, who also built the first Blacksmith shop in Cupertino. The shop was closed after the death of William, but Charley built a replica behind his house. The replica was moved to McClellan Ranch Park. The barn at the site dates from the 1890s. Gazebo Trim Memorial Park City of Cupertino X 2,4 The gazebo is an example of successful preservation methods: The wood trim was salvaged from one of Enoch Jasper Parrish gingerbread homes. ***Two plaques exist on site. Nathan Hall Tank House 22100 Stevens Creek Blvd City of Cupertino X 2,3,4,8 The tank house was built in the 1870's and is the last remaining structure from Nathan Halls Victorian -style residential homestead. Nathan Hall was one of the Monta Vista area's earliest settlers. An employee of Nathan Hall was said to have lived on the first floor, and the second floor served as a storage area for water tanks of about 7,000 to 10,000 gallons. It is believed that people used the balcony as a prime vantage point to view horses on the ranch, which is now Phar Lap Drive; so named for the famous champion thoroughbred horse (Phar Lap) that belonged to the property owner. ** *The Tank House is currently in the process of being renovated. A new roof was put on along with new siding, windows and paint. Recent improvement methods have been chosen to maintain the historical integrity of the structure. The intent of the proposed landscape design is to encourage interaction with the structure, and learn about the historical background through visual aids, such as a reader board. Enoch J. Parrish Tank 22221 McClellan Ranch City of Cupertino X 2,3,4,8 Born in Kentucky in 1858, Enoch Parish came to the Santa Clara Valley in 1879 where he worked on a ranch House (McClellan Ranch Park) and studied carpentry. He purchased 15 acres on the corner of what are now Mary and Stevens Creek in 1883 i where he built his tank house. Seven years later he built a large Victorian and in 1906 added a barn. Because of his skill in building and design, Parish is responsible for many homes in the Cupertino area, as well as the San Jose Union store and the Union Church of Cupertino. Owner: Public /Quasi Public Snyder Hammond 22961 Stevens Creek Cupertino Historical X 2,4 The two -story Craftsman house dates back to the 1880s, having been built by John Snyder for his daughter after House Boulevard Society ! her marriage to W. H. Hammond in 1881. The house appears to be a good example of the architecture of the period. Owner: Private De La Vega Tack House 10805 Stevens Canyon Rd. Rancho Deep Cliff HOA X 2 The large horse barn (the last remnant of the estate of De La Vega) is now part of a gated community. The barn has been restored and incorporated into the Rancho Deep Cliff development. There is little of the original structure left, though the rebuilding and refurbishing was done in the period. The original structure was built in 1909, with the refurbishing done in the 1980s. Old Collins School 20441 Homestead Road Cupertino De Oro Club X 1,3,4 The first one room Collins School was built in 1869 on a portion of the ranch once owned by Lamuel Perry Collins. The school served the former districts of Collins, San Antonio and Doyle. In 1889 the first Collins school was replaced by a more modern one -room school on the same site. The architect was J. O. Mckee and the builder Enoch Parrish. In 1908, an addition was made on the west side of the one room school to make room for another classroom. Collins school closed in 1921. In 1959, when Homestead was widened, the building was I moved eastward to its present site. The bell in the tower is believed to be the bell from the 1869 school used 90 j years ago to signal the start of classes. The eucalyptus trees and the remnants of pepper trees to the west of the building may date back to 1876 planting. Maryknoll Seminary 2300 Cristo Rey Drive Diocese of San Jose X 2,8 The Maryknoll Seminary was constructed in 1926 by the Catholic Church as a training center for missionaries destined for China. The seminary portion was closed in 1968, but it still serves as a rest home for retired missionaries. The building was designed by Boston architects McGinnis and Walsh and is unique to the area. 1 The building was severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, but has been repaired and has a new roof. The courtyard of the Church (on the west side) is a cemetery for the missionaries. The grounds are well cared for, as is the building, though access has been restricted since the earthquake. Union Church of 20900 Stevens Creek Union Church of Cupertino ' X Protestants of the west side (Cupertino) did not have a place to worship until 1884 when the Cupertino Union Cupertino Boulevard parish was formed and the first structure was built and incorporated in the same year. The church was built on land donated by Alex Montgomery. A second Union church was built in 1907 and the present structure (built in i 1958 on its present site) is a modem chapel with additional frame buildings behind it. The architectural style is a good representation of religious structures built in the 1950s. ** *Two metal plates are mounted within the front entry on the main structure, each with a single date (1884 & 1907). New Sites Recommended to be listed in the General Plan as Historical Sit SitelStructure Location I owner 1 Criteria Significance Owner: Private Glendenning Barn 10955 North tantau Avenue - Hewlett- Packard (HP) 3,4,8 The 104 year old barn is one of the few remaining examples of the primary economic agricultural activity of Cupertino. Hewlett- Packard (HP) Industries Almost all of the land within Cupertino's present -day boundaries was covered by prune, plum, apricot, and cherry 22100 Stevens Creek Campus X 4 Captain Elisha P. Stevens successfully guided the Martin Murphy- Townsend party from Council Bluffs to Suttees Fort in orchards. The Glendenning's arrived in Cupertino from Scotland in 1850. They purchased 200 acres for $30 an acre, boulevard (Black Berry ? 1844. He settled in the Cupertino area in 1848, establishing Blackberry Farm. He left the area in 1864 and a resort built a homestead, worked hard and prospered. They also sold their apricots to Gerber Baby Food. The Glendenning Farm) hotel was built on the property, which operated until 1906 when the earthquake destroyed it. acreage eventually became the site of HP in Cupertino. * ** Existing historic commemorative metal plaque on site. * * *A dedication ceremony was attended in 2004 by the remaining Glendenning family to recognize the preservation of 22120 Stevens Creek Road Private Residence X 4 The Stocklmeir home was originally a simple farm house of no particular architectural note. The home has been the structure. A plaque was installed to commemorate the family's contributions to the local area. Miller House 10518 Phil Place Private Residence 2 The Miller house is the original home of the Miller Ranch. The house was restored and moved as the condition for of the contributions of Louis Emil Stocklmeir, a noted local businessman and historian. He was the first president of the approval to develop the property. The house was built in the 1880s by Elias Miller and was later occupied by Francis Trianon Foundation, formed to restore "Le Petit Trianon ". Miller Parrish. De Anza Knoll Cristo Rey Drive Santa Clara County " ** Existing historic commemorative metal plaque on site. Existing Sites listed in th e General Plan as Commemoration Sites Site /Structure Location f owner Existing General Criteria Significance i Plan Historical 1 i Site Owner: Ci of Cupertino Elisha Stephens Place 22100 Stevens Creek City of Cupertino X 4 Captain Elisha P. Stevens successfully guided the Martin Murphy- Townsend party from Council Bluffs to Suttees Fort in boulevard (Black Berry ? 1844. He settled in the Cupertino area in 1848, establishing Blackberry Farm. He left the area in 1864 and a resort Farm) hotel was built on the property, which operated until 1906 when the earthquake destroyed it. * ** Existing historic commemorative metal plaque on site. Stocklmeir Farmhouse 22120 Stevens Creek Road Private Residence X 4 The Stocklmeir home was originally a simple farm house of no particular architectural note. The home has been extensively modified over the years with little of the original structure visible. The significance of the property is a result of the contributions of Louis Emil Stocklmeir, a noted local businessman and historian. He was the first president of the Trianon Foundation, formed to restore "Le Petit Trianon ". owner: Public /Quasi Public De Anza Knoll Cristo Rey Drive Santa Clara County X 5 Located on Cristo Rey Drive in Cupertino, a portion of this park encompasses the historic trail corridor. It was from a (within the City of prominent knoll near the entry of this park that both Font and Anza said they could see San Francisco Bay. The Cupertino) Diocese of San Jose recently dedicated the knoll as permanent public open space. Significance: Relates to theJuan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. Le Petite Trianon and 1250 Stevens Creek Blvd- (Public) Foothill -De Anza X 1,2,3,4,5 Charles Baldwin had a home built for his new bride in 1887 on what is now De Anza Community College. The home Guest Cottages De Anza Community College I Community College was designed by San Francisco architect Willis Polk who was referred to as the "enfant terrible of western architecture" *Currently on the because he led California into Period design which adopted aspects of classical Baroque. After their marriage, the National Register of I Baldwin's called their home "Beaulieu "; today the building is most commonly known as "Le Petit Trianon ". Baldwin also Historic Places ! built a large stone winery and underground cellars that are still located on the campus. Owner: Private Doyle Winery Visible from McClellan I Private Ownership X 1 3.4 John D. Doyle is credited with naming Cupertino. Doyle established a large winery in the area in the 1870s, called the Ranch Park Cupertino Wine Company, at the corner of McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard. The 1406 earthquake severely damaged the buildings and the winery was not put back into service. All that remains is a partial foundation on the 1 I McClellan Park property. St. Joseph Church i 10110 North De Anza Blvd. i Roman Catholic Bishop of X 8 The original church was built on land donated by Alex Montgomery on the site where the current church is located. The San Jose 3 original building was heavily Spanish Mission in architectural style and completed in 1907. The current sanctuary was I i I build in 1953. There is no part of the original church visible. I * * *An existing commemorative metal plate is mounted on the main structure. WoetfPel Cannery 10120 Imperial Ave. Private Ownership )( 3 Woeffel Cannery was established in 1915 by Richard and Blanche Woeffel. This structure believed to have been built in (former site) ! the early 1920s, was purchased by Richard Woelffel in 1927. Most of the local residents were emplowed at the I cannery. The structures have been demolished. * ** Existing historic commemorative metal plaque on site. New Sites Recommended to be listed in the General Plan as Commemorative Sites Site /Structure Location t?wner Criteria i Significance Owner: City of Cupertino City of Cupertino Intersection of Stevens City of Cupertino 3,5 For more than a century, the hub of the commercial and civic activity in Cupertino area has been the Cupertino Crossroads: Stevens Creek Boulevard and De crossroads, where two major travel routes in West Santa Clara Valley meet. The village of Cupertino sprang up at the Creek Boulevard and Anza Boulevard crossroads of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (now De Anza Boulevard) and Stevens Creek Boulevard. It was first known De Anza Boulevard as West Side; but, by 1898 the post office at the Crossroads needed a new name to distinguish it from other similarly Intersection named towns. John T. Doyle, a San Francisco lawyer and historian, had given the name Cupertino to his winery in recognition of the name bestowed on the nearby creek by Petrus Font. In 1904 the name was applied to the Crossroads and to the post office when the Home Union Store incorporated under the name, The Cupertino Stores, Inc. Owner: Public /Quasi Public State of CA Historical Monta Vista High School W Fremont Union High 4,5 This arroyo honoring San Joseph, patron saint of flight and students, was first discovered and traversed by Spanish Landmark #800 Arroyo parking lot, 21840 McClellan j School District explorers in 1769. On March 25 -26, 1776, Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza made it his encampment No. 93, as mapped De San Joseph Rd by his cartographer, Padre Pedro Font, on his journey to the San Francisco Bay area where he initiated a colony, a Cupertino Plaque mission, and a presidio. *Currently on the CA ** *Plaque affixed to a 20,500 -pound boulder selected by the Historical Society from the Antone Voss Quarry. Register Baldwin Winery 1250 Stevens Creek Blvd- Foothill -De Anza 3,4 In 1892, Charles A. Baldwin purchased approximately 137 acres in Cupertino, at what is now the De Anza College De Anza Community Community College campus. The winery used several progressive methods of wine production. Baldwin exported to the East Coast, College London, and Central America, where it competed favorably with French wine, winning some ribbons at European and American expositions. Owner: Private Apple -1 Building 10240 Bubb Rd Private Ownership 3,4 Apple Inc., was originally located at 10240 Bubb Road. Established in Cupertino, California on April 1, 1976 and incorporated January 3, 1977, the company was called Apple Computer, Inc. for its first 30 years, but dropped the word "Computer" on January 9, 2007 to reflect the company's ongoing expansion into the consumer electronics market in addition to its traditional focus on personal computers. Interim City Hall 10321 South De Anza Private Ownership 3 The City leased half of the building containing Ann Zarko's beauty shop, and remained at that site until May 28, 1959. Boulevard Engles Grocery 21619 Stevens Creek Private Ownership 3 Elizabeth Engle's grocery is represents the original Monta Vista business community. The building now serves as a bar Boulevard Paul and Eddie's and has undergone major renovations since it was first built. Hazel Goldstone 21700 Stevens Creek Private Ownership 3 Oldest commercial building in Monta Vista, built in the early 1900s. Ms. Goldstone's barbershop was in the rear. Variety Store Boulevard I Although it has been refurbished, it is still in use. New and Existinq Sites listed in the General Plan as Historic Mention Site Site /Structure Location ; Owner Existing General Criteria ! Significance Plan Historical ` I I Site i Owner: Public /Quasi Public Montebello School, 15101 Montebello Road Cupertino School x 4,8 The Montebello school was built for the children of Montebello Ridge by the Picchetti family in 1892. It was moved 1892 District from its original site after 1975 so that a new school could be built. The structure remains largely in its original state, though the windows are new, and the roof is of modern materials. Outside City of Cupertino Jurisdiction Perrone Ranch Stone 17100 Montebello Road Private Ownership X { 3,4 Built by Osaea Perrone, a wealthy San Francisco physician, the cellar was part of the winery he established in the Cellar (Ridge Vineyards) foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The winery produced many award- winning wines during its peak period. The MidPeninsula Regional cellar was constructed in the late 1880s. A house was built over the cellar about 1910. The property is in excellent Open Space District condition and is currently in the Midpeninsula Regional Park District and is maintained by that agency. The cellar is not visible because of the house that still covers the structure. Picchetti Brothers 13100 Montebello Rd., (Public) MidPeninsula x 2,3,4 Founded in 1872 by Italian immigrant Vincenso Picchetti, the winery was built, along with a house, in the 1870s. The Winery Southwest of Cupertino Regional Open Space Pichetlis first developed their vineyard to produce grapes for other wineries in the area. In 1896 the first labels using *Currently on the District their own name, the Montebello, were produced. They built a red brick building two stories high, the top level storing National Register of ranch equipment. The main floor held redwood wine tanks. The entire winery is now part of the Midpeninsula Historic Places Regional Park District and is preserved and maintained by that agency.' * * *In 2006 The Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission and the California Heritage Fund Grant Program provided funding for the restoration of the winery building and bring it in compliance with new seismic and ADA standards. Educational reader boards already exist. Woodhills Estate Cupertino /Saratoga Hills at I Mid Peninsula Open 3,4 Freemont Older was one of the most innovative journalists of the early 1900's and his influence extended throughout (Fremont Older) the end of Prospect Road Space District California. In 1914 Fremont Older and his wife Cora moved into the home, which was designed and built by architect *Currently on the ! Frank Delos Wolfe. The Olders hosted many literary, artistic and political guests including Jack London, Carl National Register of Sandburg and Senator Alan Cranston, Historic Places j ** *Restored by Mort and Elaine Levine, who offered to renovate and maintain Woodhills at no cost or liability to the district in return for a 25 -year, $1- per -year lease. Part of the lease agreement was that the Levine's would open the home to the public up to four times each year. EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE C /( (( / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL �S1.i9s� 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 CUPERTINO (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: June 1, 2010 SUBJECT Consider approving the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendment, Application No. CP 2007 03 CP- 2010 -02, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends (4 -0, Kaneda absent) that the City Council approve the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of the work program for 2007 -08. The Council was interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing sites /buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. On May 5, 2008, the Council formed the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). On April 20, 2010, the Council considered the recommendations presented by the HPC and authorized staff to move forward with the public review process to adopt the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments. The City Council provided the HPC and Planning Commission with the following parameters to be incorporated in the Historic Preservation Policy: 1. Update and re -rank the existing historic structures or site list 2. Define the potential historic categories and method of preservation 3. Limit policy to public/semi-public and commercial properties Please refer to the Attachments A & B for additional background information. DISCUSSION Proposed Historic Policy On May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Historic Preservation Policy and the relevant General Plan amendments. The Commission's recommendations are summarized as follows: New Sites Based on a set of criteria formulate by the HPC (Attachment C), a total of ten (10) new sites have been identified. These sites are in addition to the existing historic resources list in the 16 -1 cc 6C1 I/b CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. May 11, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL Item 3 — Historic Preservation Policy (Excerpt from Minutes) 3. GPA- 2010 -02 General Plan Amendment to update the City's Historic City of Cupertino Preservation policy and Historic Sites list. Tentative City Council Date: June 1, 2010 Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background for the preparation of the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments, as outlined in the staff report. On January 8, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of their 2007 -08 work program, since they were interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. On May 5, 2008 the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) and provided the committee with the four parameters as set forth in the staff report. On April 20, 2010 the Council reviewed the framework resulting from the work and recommendations done by HPAC and authorized staff to proceed with initiating the public review process and General Plan amendments. • The City Council prescribed the following: • The Council wanted the policy to be focused on public /semi - public sites, commercial properties. It was clear they did not want residential sites on the list. • The Council wanted the HPAC and staff to update and re -rank the existing historic resource list currently in the General Plan. • Define public hearing, review and noticing procedure process, including the involvement of property owners. • Define potential methods of preservation. • The City Council wanted a proactive approach, clear guidelines as to what property owners should expect when their properties make its way onto the list. • He reviewed the methodology that the HPAC used to evaluate and formulate the policy, as outlined on Page 2 of the staff report, including biweekly meetings from June 2008 through November 2008, compilation of information, site visitations, evaluation of both existing and potential new sites, reference to prior City reports, and previous preservation efforts. In the evaluation of the list collected, they used a set of historical designation criteria which are outlined in the staff report; each site was evaluated against the criteria; and the HPAC determined the level of significance ( preservation /commemoration/honorable mention) • The HPAC chose 11 additional sites, in addition to the 19 historic resources list in the General Plan. The three categories recommended for the Historic Policy are Historical Sites, Commemorative Sites and Honorable Mention Sites. The HPAC recommendation is to retain 10 of the existing historical sites currently in the General Plan and add the Miller House to the list. If the site is owned by the City, the City will work to rehab and restore the structure in order to retain its historic significance. If it is privately owned, the City will work in Cupertino Planning Commission 2 Excerpt from May 11, 2010 partnership with the private or public entity to work to restore and preserve the site. The policy also encourages and prescribes to allow public access to the site to foster awareness and educational opportunities; and seek opportunities to plaque and provide reader boards to ensure that occurs. • The HPAC suggested that 7 sites currently on the General Plan should be moved to the Commemorative Sites list, in addition to those listed in the staff report. Four sites will be moved or added to the Honorable Mention Sites in the General Plan; those sites are listed in the staff report. The city will work with the property owner, whether public, private or quasi - public to ensure that there are to be plaques, ruder boards or some feature that would be taken or drawn from the existing facility or the history to be located on the site to educate the public. He provided a sample of a commemorative plaque. • Relative to the Honorable Mentions category, the HPAC is recommending that 2 of the existing sites in the General Plan be moved to the Honorable Mention category, as well as 2 additional sites. The category was created because all of the sites are not located in the City of Cupertino and are outside the jurisdiction of the City, consequently even though they are historic significance, the City cannot require other cities to preserve the sites; the City will communicate with the jurisdictions to work with them to make sure they are aware of the fact that the sites are significant and recommendations will be provided to them. • Other recommendations include that the Historic Resource List be periodically reviewed and updated and that the list of Community Landmark Sites be retained in the General Plan unchanged. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council and adopt the Historic Preservation Policy and the General Plan Amendments. Council will review recommendations at their June 1 meeting. • Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the Policy. Com. Miller: • Referred to the summary table and questioned why the Union Church of Cupertino (which does not meet any criteria whatsoever) was on the Historical list. Staff responded that it embodied distinguishing architectural characteristics, which is in the description.) • Pointed out a discrepancy that the Glenn Denning Barn was listed but then was shown as being outside the city limits. (Staff clarified it should have been the Montebello School Site as opposed to Glenn Denning Barn; it is confirmed not to be in the city of Cupertino.) • Questioned why the Miller House was on the list; was it already designated a historic site. (Staff responded that there was a Use Permit at the time, there is prior approval; it was already designated and required as part of the condition of that prior approval to be preserved.) Chair Brophy: • Discussed the language for privately owned sites, "property owners would be encouraged but not required to provide access to the public "... Asked if it was an instance where if someone were to come in with a development application on that site, would staff interpret that as meaning that the public access would be up for grabs as part of any development permit. Aarti Shrivastava: • Discussed the interpretation of the word "encourage ". Provided an example of a historic building located a short distance from the main path; is there the ability to provide a plaque and for the public to get to that building and view it; that would be one of the considerations of the project. It is very clear that it is only an encouragement and not required; staff will look for ways to see if it can be done, but it will not be a necessity. Looking at the current language in the General Plan, it is very unclear about what needs to happen; staff wants to provide as much clarity as possible into the process, so if somebody comes in, they know they have a Cupertino Planning Commission 3 Excerpt from May 11, 2010 historic site, there are not too many non - public sites; it is very clear to everybody what needs to happen. Typically we only require these as part of projects, if they are existing sites, we do not go out and have them do something in addition unless the city is partnering with them. Corn. Giefer: • Pointed out that there was one California stake site included, but the one in the parking lot in Monta Vista was not included. Are existing historical markers in the community being inventoried? If the one at St. Joseph's is included, shouldn't the one in the Monta Vista parking lot be included also? (Staff response: It is included on Page 3 -17 of staff report) Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the goal was to look at the existing sites in the General Plan to look at existing properties in the City. The HPAC did an exhaustive review of sites, of past literature, of the existing General Plan and what is shown is their recommendation. Corn. Giefer: • Asked if the classification for them and the names were existing names in the General Plan or were they newly minted names? Aarti Shrivastava: • The General Plan addresses community landmarks and there is some confusion because it puts Vallco as a community landmark and not necessarily historic; staff tried to sort those out into what is truly historic. Commemorative sites are those where either the buildings have been demolished or the buildings themselves d not have significant merit, but something commemorative occurred at that site. The Honorable Mention category was set up to designate the fact that they are not within the city's jurisdiction, but they played a role in the city's growth and development. There was a brief discussion about a more appropriate term than Honorable Mention; suggestions included Historic Mention and Historic Interest. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Suggested Historical Significance or Historical Honor in place of Honorable Mention category title. • Said she was pleased that Cupertino has forged ahead in going into the realm of establishing the Historical Preservation Policy. She said she has spent a great deal of time at historical sites around the country, seen many different historical monuments and traveled to Europe where they have plaques everywhere. Cupertino has some incredible history including the Monta Vista area alone where the Monta Vista parking lot has a monument from 1776 when the DeAnza party went through and almost 200 years to the day, Apple had their first buildings on Bubb Road. • Said it is difficult to try to preserve and acknowledge the history of the city, but historical preservation begins at home, and that is what needs to be done. Cupertino will have some fabulous history in the years to come and by laying the groundwork by how to preserve and document sites in the city, when you are up against something 50 years from now and the President of the United States is from Cupertino, they will undoubtedly know how to preserve his /her home. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 Excerpt from May 11, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Recommended removing the language "for privately owned sites ". He said it was a foot in the door and his understanding is the Council was clear that they did not want the City to get involved in trying to use its leverage; if there is different language to make it clear that this is not a tool of leverage, he said he would support it. The City has a right to demand public access to private property but he did not think any of the sites are of a sufficiently important nature to justify that power. Said he was concerned that the language could be interpreted to mean that the City at the time of the development application could say the policy asks them to ask for public access when that is clearly not what the Council intended. Com. Giefer: • Said she would prefer to have the City Council sort that it out on what they intended. Chair Brophy: • Said he was willing to send it to the Council, but red - flagged so they recognize it as an issue. It is not required, but is a bargaining chip, an example of a development application on a site that includes a historical site; one could go down the checklist and say this is a historical site and we would like to add public access to this as one of the conditions. You can say well of course the applicant can always say No, but when you are negotiating a development agreement presumably the city has an inherent advantage; it is not simply a request; it is done with the idea that it potentially can be done with the idea that a development application is considering this. Com. Miller: • Said he did not necessarily disagree with Chair Brophy, but was looking at the language; another way is to view it as a protection because it specifically says it is not required. Chair Brophy: • Suggested changing the language; from "but not required" to read "but in no way required ". Com. Giefer: • Said she preferred it as is; and pointed out if it is something they have so few of on the list of historic sites, why not give it that consideration. She said they are not requiring that it be maintained, but giving it thoughtful consideration. Chair Brophy: • Said that Cupertino does not have that many historical sites but wants to preserve what they do have. The list includes such sites as the Union Church of Cupertino, and a tack house inside a gated community. He said he did not see them as sites in which the City has a reasonable expectation that they should be open to the public without the property owner's consent. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed; and said that if you remove the statement you are removing a protection. Com. Giefer: • Said it did not change her opinion; as written it meets her needs. It makes someone stop to see if there is something important about it that might be preserved at a later time; but it also does not obligate the owner to take that action. The goal is to make people pause and think about what they are doing and it achieves that. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 Excerpt from May 11, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Questioned if it puts the City in a position where should a development request occur on these properties, it is one more thing that the City can ask as a condition of development approval. Com. Giefer: • Said that the City did not have a track record of doing that. She said in her opinion it may change in the next 50 years, but not change politically in the next 10 years. The benefit is if they further define things, they have refined what those definitions are so people understand what they are working with more. When it involves private property, staff may use it as a negotiating chip; she did not see it as a business necessarily as a business inhibitor. It just makes them stop and reflect on what they are about to do, and give thoughtful consideration. • She said Council provided direction and if they chose to change the language to better meet their needs, she would support that. Chair Brophy: • Asked if there were any objections to approving it as is, but sending a notification to the Council of concern about whether or not this language protects the right of property owners to decide whether or not they wish to provide public access. Corn. Miller: • Said he supported Chair Brophy's first change and would support the second change as well. He said he was in favor of the protection, however worded. Chair Brophy: • Requested that the sentence remain, changing the wording "but not required" to "but in no way required." Chair Brophy and Com. Miller concurred; Vice Chair Lee supported change; Corn. Giefer opposed to change. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4 -0 -0; Corn. Kaneda absent; to approve GPA- 2010 -02 per the model resolution with the change suggested by Chair Brophy. r } 'f 41# . - . . . .., i A .. Glendenning Barn , .. w l ` r • �. • ,, 't "r^ mac , *- n . .x' I . �: x x Existing Plaque The Glendenning Ranch l i r January 8, 2007 - City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of the work program for 2007 -08. May 5, 2008 - Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee was formed by the Council. April 20, 2010 - Council initiated the public review process and appropriate General Plan amendments. May 11, 2010 - Planning Commission reviewed the draft policy /General Plan amendments and recommended approval to the Council. 1 CIJ'. S R > Provide clear guidelines on the existing Historic Preservation Policy > Limit the policies to Public /Semi- Public and Commercial Properties ➢ Update and re -rank the existing historic structure or site list > Define the methods of preservation: - Physical preservation or relocation - Commemorative measures (plaques or pictures, recycle building or architectural materials/ elements) - Public disclosure (special zoning or covenants) Cop °R ......._ • Bi- weekly meetings from June 2008 through November 2008 • Committee worked in collecting information, visiting sites for a photographic survey and evaluation of both existing and potential new sites • Prior City reports • Previous preservation efforts Y 5 Evaluation Process: • Historical Designation Criteria r • Evaluate against criteria • Determine level of significance (preservation /commemoration/ " '+' ' . honorable mention) 2 1� a " cuytitTtNC/ Findings: 10 sites were chosen by the Committee in addition to the existing 19 historic resources list in the General Plan - Two (2) new historic sites - Eight (7) new commemorated sites - Four (1) new historic mentioned sites Resource Categories: > Historical Sites > Commemorative Sites > Historic Mention /Interest Sites C9P RT(NNO'er Retain 10 of the Historical Sites currently listed in the General Plan Add the following sites to the Historic Sites list in the General Plan: > Glendenning Barn > Miller House Recommended Preservation Actions : • Initiate rehabilitation and restoration efforts for structures owned by the City of Cupertino in order to retain their historic significance • Initiate an active partnership with private, public, and quasi -public owners of historical sites to rehabilitate, or restore the buildings in order to retain their historic significance • Allow public access to public /quasi -public historical sites to foster public awareness and educational opportunities • Provide plaques, reader boards and /or other educational tools 3 CO . RT Move 7 sites currently listed in the General Plan from Historic to Commemorative Sites list Add the following sites to the Commemorative list in the General Plan: > Apple One Building > Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino (MontaVista High) > Baldwin Winery > The Crossroads > Engles Grocery "Paul and Eddie's" > Hazel Goldstone Variety Store > Interim City Hall Recommended Commemorative Actions : • Initiate an active partnership with private, public, and quasi public owners to provide plaques, reader boards and /or educational tools. • The commemorative elements should be available for public viewing. e . t t R T Old Collins School vI i ` n1 tl.I I h�� J41 I ual Prn+ I�IIIiI+. lli I�r.�l ,rJ Ih. furmrr iNe'..I. vl .' � v i, ,r 1 Ini 1 n 1 II i.l I I 1 f: l III I I 1 II II I rn I 1 i tl I t l I I LI . jai to,f 4l Sae. Partin rsfiiy „„,,,,,, 4 Ct.,P1=RTI NO '�' Move /Add to the following sites for Historic Mention /Interest in the General Plan (outside City boundaries) > Woodhills Estate (new) > Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar: Ridge Vineyards ( relist from Historic Site) > Picchetti Brothers Winery (relist from Historic Site) > Montebello School (relist from H :storic Site) Historical resources located outside the City's boundaries should continue to be recognized for their historical contribution by being listed in the General Plan under the title "Honorable Mention." Send letter to agency with jurisdiction over the resource regarding the City's recommendations. .; ,tip\ C (PE`RTlNO ' - > The existing General Plan - Policy 2.62 related to Historic and Cultural Resources will be updated to reflect the new Historic Preservation Policies > A total of eight (8) policies are proposed Planning Commission Comments: Policies 1- 3 mention that public access ;`o the historic site and /or commemorative feature are encouraged, but not required. The Commission is recommending that the Council consider changing the requirement for private properties from, "encouraged, but not required to provide access to the public" to "encouraged, but in no way required to provide access to the public," to clarify that public access is not mandatory. 5 L 1/, The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Historic Preservation Policy and the associated General Plan Amendments. 6