Saving the Architectural Jewels of Time.*

Interior's Standards are followed. The City partially agrees with the finding. However, the City does not agree with the following statement on of the report: "..., if an owner has a historic resource, and agrees to follow the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards, the owner can be granted a Class 31 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines exemption, and not have to appear before the Historic and Design Review Commission, thus saving the owner and City staff time." Following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards allows the applicant to be eligible for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 31 Categorical Exemption. This Categorical Exemption does not authorize an exemption from CEQA or City of Arcata Design Review permit and it also must still be evaluated for other potential impacts to the environment. Such other potential impacts are included in the CEQA Initial Study Checklist and include but are not limited to: hazards and hazardous materials, water quality, air quality, noise and traffic. As an example, if an applicant proposes exterior alterations to a designated historic resource and has designed the project to fully comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, but the parcel on which the historic resource is located is contaminated with hazardous materials or is going to be used as a bar with loud music in a residential neighborhood, the project may not be eligible for a Class 31 Categorical Exception and an Initial Study with an associated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report may be required. In addition, a Design Review permit covers much more than alterations to character defining features of potential historic resources. It regulates landscaping, parking, traffic circulation and other design features that may or may not contribute to the historic resource. The Zoning Administrator is empowered to interpret Land Use Code as to whether or not

a building is eligible to be a historic resource in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City agrees with the finding. Arcata City staff was inconsistent as to whether the Lord House was historic.

The City partially disagrees with the finding. The Lord House is not a designated Historic Landmark because the property is not listed as a National, State or Local historic resource. This point was consistently stated in the September 26, October 10, and November 14, 2012, and July 18, 2013 Staff Reports to the City's Historic and Design Review Commission (HDRC). As the Design Review permit approvals are discretionary, CEQA applies. The HDRC as the decision making authority determines if a proposed project has the potential to impact a historic resource under CEQA. Staff's role is to make a recommendation to the HDRC. An inconsistency among City Staff existed whether Staff should recommend that the HDRC consider the structure a historic resource and therefore either draft conditions of approval that the project follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and utilize the Class 31 exemption, or remain silent on the issue. The following are the basis for this partial disagreement 1. The HDRC referred the project to the City's Historic Landmark Committee and the Historic Landmark Committee on October 4, 2012 and July 18, 2013 did not include as part of their recommendation to the HDRC that the City designate the structure a historic resource. 2. City Staff in neither the October 13, 2012 nor the July 24, 2013 Staff Reports recommended that the HDRC designate the structure a historic resource, nor did City Staff recommend that the HDRC adopt a Class 31 exemption.

Confusion exists among Arcata City staff as to the process and protocol in the design review process. The City disagrees with the finding. The Design Review process and protocol is well defined and the City has a well- trained Staff and an experienced HDRC that has followed the same process and protocol numerous times. The City has a Design Review Handout and Checklist of required materials. In general, once the City receives an application it is reviewed for completeness against the Checklist. If additional materials, documents, or clarification are required, such items are requested. Once an application is complete, Staff refers the project to other City departments and outside agencies and committees as required. After all referrals are returned Staff either requests additional materials, documents, or clarification, or drafts Staff recommended conditions of approval, findings, CEQA document, noticing, and a Staff report. The Staff report provides a written recommendation to the HDRC. If the project involves a structure that is either an existing designated historic resource or is over 50 years old and potentially a historic resource, Staff suggests that the HDRC consider forwarding the item down to the City's Historic Landmark for review and recommendation. The HDRC is the final decision making authority unless their decision is appealed to the City Council.

The City of Arcata, as lead agency, did not go through the review process as outlined in their Land Use Code or California Environmental Quality Act as to whether or not the Lord House was eligible as a historic resource. The City disagrees with this finding based on the City's responses to Findings F-1 through F-4 above, as well as the conclusion of the Grand Jury in the Summary section on of their report: "We disagree with the complainant that the City of Arcata Department of Community Development did not follow their own municipal code, but we do agree, because of contradicting staff reports, the process was confusing."

The owners/complainants were unclear as to which codes applied to their project. The City disagrees with the finding. The City does not know whether the owners/complainants were or were not clear as to which Codes applied to their project.

The Arcata City Staff sent out contradictory memos during the design review process for this project, and during interview of city staff, they gave the jury conflicting and confusing testimony. The City disagrees with the finding. City Staff strive to be clear when communicating to the public and honest when testifying before the Grand Jury. The City regrets any contradictions or confusion that may have occurred.

A difference exists between how City Staff and the Historic Landmark Committee interpret Arcata's Land Use Code with respect to the designation of the Lord House as a significant historic resource. The City agrees with the finding. The Lord House is listed in Susie Van Kirk's book, a compilation of notable historic

resources compiled by the city in 1979. Furthermore, the Lord House was found eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the highest designation for a historic structure. The City partially agrees with the finding. The Lord House is listed in Susi Van Kirk's 1979 book, but the City has no evidence to support the finding that the Lord House is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Grand Jury Report appears to base this finding on the following statement in their report regarding events which reportedly happened over 30 years ago: Furthermore, after her compilation of these structures, two leading experts in historic preservation came to Arcata and viewed every photo that was in her survey as to their local historic significance and National Register eligibility. During that visit, they decided that the Lord House was not only a significant historic resource, but is eligible for the National Register for Historic Places, the highest designation of preservation in the United States. Second, we learned the Lord House was included in a list of Noteworthy Structures within Arcata, brought to our attention by a member of the Historic Landmarks Committee. The Grand Jury received hard copies of this list, indicating that it was referenced as Table HP-2, List of Noteworthy Structures and Sites, in the General Plan 2020 Design and Preservation Section. The Grand Jury discovered that this list was removed in the 2008 revision of the General Plan 2020, and we are unaware of its current status. The Grand Jury's assertion that the Table HP-2 that was given to them by a member of the Historic Landmark Committee was included in the City's General Plan 2020 but removed in the 2008 revision is not supported by the facts. The General Plan 2020 was adopted by the City Council in 2000 and there is no reference to a table HP-2 List of Noteworthy Structures and Sites in the approved document. General Plan Policy H-2a Noteworthy Structures List directs that a "Noteworthy Structures" list be recommended and kept current, but no initial list was adopted by the Council and neither the HDRC nor HLC has formally recommended a list to the Council. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the City of Arcata's Land Use Code is

posted on the City of Arcata's website without approval of the Arcata City Council. The City agrees with the finding. It is not a common practice, nor would it be practical for the City Council to approve in advance every Zoning Administrator decision that is posted on the City's Web site. The appeals process cost of approximately $2,000 may be prohibitive to many

landowners. The City disagrees with the finding. The City's fee for filing an appeal is a fixed $1,690. With a fixed fee, there are no additional noticing fees or other time and materials charges added to the City's appeal fee. The City contacted other jurisdictions and found that the City's appeal fee is higher that some jurisdictions but lower than others. Contact Fee - Appeal to PC or Council/Board of Supervisors Jurisdiction Kyle Knopp $250 Flat Fee Rio Dell Jay Parrish $710 + $58/hour after deposit is exhausted Ferndale 795 Administrative Decision $ Website Eureka $2,060 Discretionary Action $425 Flat Fee for Administrative and PC appeal to the Liz Shorey Fortuna Council Same as "filing fee" (i.e. application fee). Average fee John Bachtold Blue Lake @ $430 $ 750 Appeal to PC or B of Supervisors PLUS $ 488 County Council cost for appeal Humboldt Website 240 Appeal or Rehearing fee (in addition to others) County $ $1,478 Total cost The City of Arcata should direct staff to use the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for