Legislative Public Meetings

File #: 18-0678   
Type: Report to Board/Commission Status: Passed
Meeting Body: Heritage Preservation Commission
On agenda: 8/1/2018
Title: Proposed Project: RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT to consider the historic significance of a single-family home which is listed as part of the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory. Location: 335 Charles Street (APN: 165-13-037) File #: 2018-7441 Zoning: R-2 (Low Medium Density Residential) Applicant / Owner: Design Discoveries / Steve Caroompas Environmental Review: Environmental review will be conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines upon determination of significance by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Project Planner: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659, ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Noticing Map, 2. Updated DPR Form Completed by Anthony Kirk, dated June 14, 2018, 3. Original DPR Form Completed by UrbanRural Conservation, dated September 1979, 4. Images, 1988

REPORT TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

SUBJECT

Title

Proposed Project:                      RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT to consider the historic significance of a single-family home which is listed as part of the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory.

Location: 335 Charles Street (APN: 165-13-037)

File #: 2018-7441

Zoning: R-2 (Low Medium Density Residential)

Applicant / Owner: Design Discoveries / Steve Caroompas

Environmental Review: Environmental review will be conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines upon determination of significance by the Heritage Preservation Commission.

Project Planner: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659, ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov

 

Report

REPORT IN BRIEF

 

General Plan: Low Medium Density Residential

Existing Site Conditions:                     Single-family home

Surrounding Land Uses

North: Single-family home

South: Single-family home

East: Commercial/Denny’s (recently approved for mixed-use development)

West: Single-family home

Issues: Historic significance

Staff Recommendation: Determine that the single-family home does not have local historic significance and recommend that the home be removed from the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Description of Proposed Project

The subject property was added to the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory (referred to as “Inventory” in this report) in 1979. The property is not listed on any National or State registry. The property owner is requesting that the property be removed from the Inventory based on information in the cultural resources evaluation, but has expressed interest in maintaining the existing home and adding to the back.

 

A determination from the Heritage Preservation Commission is required for staff to be able to conduct appropriate environmental review on the future home addition.

 

Previous Actions on the Site

Several building permits have been issued for the property, including a permit to enclose a front porch in 1949, re-roof to asphalt shingles in 1982, and add a sunroom to the back of the home in 1996. The front porch modification was approved prior to the creation of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance. The remaining two permits were approved at staff-level due to the limited impacts to the façade of the home. 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) § 21084.1, any application that may cause a substantial adverse change to a Heritage Resource is subject to environmental review. Since the applicant intends to add to the back of the existing home, there is a potential adverse impact to the environment if the structure is considered historic, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not significant.

 

If the property is removed from the Inventory, a future addition to the back of the home would potentially be exempt from CEQA. If the property remains on the Inventory, additional analysis will be required to ensure that the addition would not impact the historic designation and/or an extensive environmental review process could be warranted. 

 

sunnyvale Heritage Preservation ordinance

To determine local historic significance, the Commission should evaluate the home based on criteria listed in Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 19.96.050:


(a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic engineering, architectural, or natural history;

(b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;
(c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
(d) It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect;
(e) It contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically or by plan or physical development;
(f) It has a unique location or singular physical characteristic or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city of Sunnyvale;
(g) It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
(h) It is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif;
(i) 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;
(j) It is one of the few remaining examples in the city, region, state, or nation possessing
distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historic type or specimen;
(k) With respect to a local landmark, it is significant in that the resource materially benefits the historical character of a neighborhood or area, or the resource in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community or city.
(l) With respect to a local landmark district, a collective high integrity of the district is essential to the sustained value of the separate individual resources;
(m) With respect to a designated landmark and designated landmark district, the heritage resource shall meet Criteria of the National Register of Historical Places, which are incorporated by reference into this chapter.

analysis
The property was added to the Inventory in 1979 due to its “unique design elements”, primarily associated with the unusual curved gable eaves along the middle of the façade (see Attachment 3). The property is also included in the 1988
Images book, which is a book containing buildings that are considered to be “exceptional examples of architectural styles, represent elements of reasonable intact and contiguous older neighborhoods and street scapes” (see Attachment 4). 

 

An updated historical and architectural evaluation was prepared by Anthony Kirk, dated June 14, 2018, evaluating the historic significance of the property (see Attachment 2). The report found that the property was not associated with events or individuals that contributed to the National, State, or local history. While the architectural style is Craftsman Bungalow, the report found that the existing structure lacks character-defining features of that style. In fact, the unique features acknowledged in the 1979 analysis and 1988 Images book, namely the curved gable eaves and a bracketed window box, are not considered characteristics of the Craftsman style. Additionally, the original front porch was enclosed and all original windows have been replaced. Therefore, the report concludes that the property is not eligible for listing at the National, State and local levels and could be removed from the Inventory.

 

This is the third request in 2018 for a property to be removed from the Inventory. Two requests were recently approved, including one on 562 S. Mathilda Avenue and 435 E. McKinley Avenue. The Commission has expressed concern about the case-by-case removal of properties and the need for a more comprehensive evaluation. In fact, the Commission has proposed a study issue to re-evaluate the current list and seek out new properties to be added. However, the study issue was not funded for this year.

 

Fiscal Impact

No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected. The property does not have a Mills Act Contract.

 

Public Contact

Notice of Public Hearing

                     Published in the Sun newspaper

                     Posted on the site

                     66 notices mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site. A notice was also sent to the Washington Park Neighborhood Association. See Attachment 1 for a map of the vicinity and mailing area.

Staff Report

                     Posted on the City’s website

                     Provided at the Reference Section of the City’s Public Library

Agenda

                     Posted on the City’s official notice bulletin board

                     Posted on the City’s website

 

Public Contact: Staff has not received any correspondence or phone calls from neighbors at the time of writing of this report.

 

ALTERNATIVES

1. Determine that the single-family home does not have local historic significance and recommend that the home be removed from the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory.

2. Determine that the single-family home does have local historic significance and remain on the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory.

 

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation

Alternative 1: Determine that the single-family home does not have local historic significance and recommend that the home be removed from the Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory.

 

Staff

Prepared by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Senior Planner

Approved by: Amber Blizinski, Principal Planner

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1. Vicinity and Noticing Map

2. Updated DPR Form Completed by Anthony Kirk, dated June 14, 2018

3. Original DPR Form Completed by Urban/Rural Conservation, dated September 1979

4. Images, 1988