Cultural Heritage Board Workshop on Landmark Alteration Permit Process Simplification

The Cultural Heritage Board held a workshop on December 11, 2023, to review and brainstorm improvements to the Landmark Alteration Permit (LMA) process for residential properties in historic districts. The session aimed to identify obstacles, reduce costs, and encourage compliance by educating property owners and streamlining procedures. Chair Brian Meuser led the presentation, which was followed by board discussion and a vote to continue the item to a future date.

Consent Calendar

• No consent items were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public spoke in person. A written comment was received and noted by the board (read after the meeting).

Discussion Items

• Workshop Presentation: Chair Meuser presented a step-by-step overview of the major LMA process, using a recently approved front porch restoration project as a case study. He highlighted the following:
  • Concept Review (free) – property owners can present initial ideas to staff and the board informally; public hearing at this stage is free, but a $50 posting sign is typical.
  • Major LMA Permit Fees – $1,041 for owner-occupied residential; $555 public hearing fee; plus costs for signs (~$400), historical resource evaluation ($1,000–$2,000+), architectural drawings ($2,000+), and other required forms (e.g., Storm Water LID worksheet).
  • Timeline – The case study took seven months from application (September 25, 2020) to approval (April 21, 2021), partly due to quorum issues.
  • Potential Process Changes Proposed by the Chair:
    • Eliminate LMA permit and hearing fees for residential properties in historic districts (noting the city lost $0 in 2023 from such fees due to lack of applications).
    • Update the Processing Review Procedures to emphasize concept review.
    • Allow the board to delegate minor approvals to the zoning administrator (similar to the city’s Reduced Review Authority for priority development areas).
    • Empower the board at concept review to specify the type and extent of historic documentation required, avoiding unnecessary reports.
• Staff Comments (Susie Murray, Supervising Planner):
  • Clarified that a neighborhood meeting is required for major LMA (public hearing).
  • Noted that signs can be made cheaply (e.g., $50 if creative).
  • Explained that some historic reports are triggered by CEQA but many small projects can be exempted if the board makes findings at concept review.
  • Supported the idea of a reduced review authority model, where the board gives guidance at concept and then the zoning administrator approves, potentially cutting months off the timeline.
• Board Discussion:
  • Board Member Fennell and others advocated for eliminating homeowner fees entirely, noting that high costs deter compliance (e.g., unpermitted work done on Sundays).
  • Concern about the “homeowner vs. non-homeowner” fee distinction being confusing; proponents suggested fees should be based on property type (single-family vs. commercial) rather than ownership.
  • Board members agreed that the historical report requirement is often overkill for minor projects and should be waived when the board is comfortable at concept review.
  • The stormwater worksheet was noted as an odd requirement for small residential lots.
  • The idea of an “over-the-counter” LMA for very minor alterations (e.g., matching wood windows) was raised; staff indicated such work is already approved over the counter if it meets materials and design standards that match the original.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Continue: Board Member Fennell moved to continue the item to a date uncertain for further development of specific recommendations. Seconded by Vice Chair Garrett.
• Vote: 5 in favor (Chair Meuser, Vice Chair Garrett, Board Members Carney, Fennell, Marzlin); 2 absent (Board Members Boren and Klyn).
• Next Steps: Staff will prepare draft recommendations for the next regular meeting where the board will refine and potentially adopt a list of proposed changes, which may include fee elimination/reduction, simplified application forms, delegated authority to the zoning administrator, and enhanced use of concept review.