11/04/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WORK STUDY SESSION G. FUTURE POLICY FOR LISTING PROPERTIES ON THE HISTORICAL REGISTER (Paul Giles) Commission discussion ensued regarding potential reasons that property owners have for opposing placement on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties, valid reasons for not designating a property and forms of protection that are currently available for properties that are eligible, but not placed on the register. It was noted that some owners do not substantiate the reasons for opposing designation. Deputy City Attorney Otto noted that Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) does offer reasons whereby a property may be de- listed. Should a property meet any of these criteria at the onset, it would be proper to reconsider placement regardless if the property is a potential Landmark, Key, or Contributive designation. A property is either eligible for local designation or it is not. Currently, properties that are eligible, but not designated, are provided a level of review for architectural consistency through the implementation of Citywide Design Guidelines; while listed properties are protected through the use of the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Commission noted that overlay districts could offer protection to eligible properties. Discussion ensued regarding the selection of properties for placement on the register. Deputy City Attorney Otto stated that Chapter 30 does not offer guidance regarding the survey process, but does have eligibility standards and criteria. The Commission has the responsibility to make the findings required to show eligibility of an individual property. Further, Chapter 30 does not currently offer guidance for properties that may be eligible for listing, but are not listed. An amendment to Chapter 30 would be required should the Commission wish to make findings as to why a property is eligible but not listed in order to bring it ' back for consideration at a later date. Commission noted that efforts to list eligible properties with unwilling owners could be agendized pending further review of the neighborhoods. Staff conducted a survey of other city's processes for placement and how listed versus eligible properties not listed are treated. Approximately ten cities were surveyed. Only one surveyed city utilized the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for properties not designated (either individually or listed as contributive to a district). However, this city did not interpret the Standards as strictly as Santa Ana does. Additionally, staff noted that only west coast cities were surveyed since east coast cities' historic resources are often of national significance and are often much older. Chairman Giles summarized the discussion: • Commission is interested in listing all eligible properties. • Commission will consider not listing properties when presented with a valid reason from the applicant. • Promote historic preservation through outreach and expand first contact information packet to include a marketing piece similar to one being used in the current Historical Resources brochure. ' H. Public Comments (items not on the agenda) No public comments were made. STAFF AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Staff Comments Planning Manager Trevino introduced Karen Haluza, Principal Planner. Historic Resources Commission Minutes 3 November 4, 2004