2 - Memorandum - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT 2 of existing neighborhoods such as Floral Park, Washington Square, Wilshire Square, and Park Santiago, many of which have properties that may be eligible for historic preservation. Moreover, there’s been concerns regarding infill development, new additions, exterior alterations, and related new construction alterations that have altered potentially historic materials, features, and/or spatial relationships that characterize the individual properties and neighborhoods as a whole. The following recommendations would extend the purview and review authority of the HRC to preserve neighborhoods, and to retain the existing historic character of individual properties. For example, under the HRC’s recommendation a property over 50 years of age undergoing proposed exterior alterations, regardless of designation and/or eligibility, would be required to be reviewed and approved by the HRC. HRC Recommendation(s): Amend the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-374 of the SAMC to allow the following: a. Extend the HRC’s purview to include eligible or potentially eligible historic structures; b. Extend the HRC’s purview to include review of alterations and or/modifications to any structure over 50 years of age, regardless of designation and/or eligibility; and c. Grant the HRC the ability to impose conditions of approval on historic applications, including Certificates of Appropriateness (i.e., Historic Exterior Modification Application), Historical Property Registration Applications, and Applications for Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Agreements). Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-374 of the SAMC would require City Council review and approval of a municipal code amendment. In addition, an impact analysis would be required to analyze the benefits and implications of the recommended policies and regulatory changes. Issue 2: Currently, the HRC meets quarterly. The frequency of the meetings would not allow the Commission to effectively discuss items that could be considered urgent or time sensitive. Recent examples of this constraint includes the HRC’s desire to place items on the agenda that were scheduled for discretionary action by either the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The recommendation outlined below would provide clarification on how matters can be put on future agendas and provide a more streamlined approach. HRC Recommendation(s): Amend the Historic Resources Commission Bylaws to allow a more streamlined process of placing discussion items on the HRC agenda for review and consideration and clearly outline that process. Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the commission bylaws would require a Historic Resources Commission meeting and majority vote from the commissioners.