Laserfiche WebLink
HR-2013-01-RML <br />April 25, 2013 <br />Page 4 <br />• Santa Ana Register Criterion Four [SAMC 30-2 (6)] <br />The property is also culturally significant because of its association with the Maharajah of Indore <br />who commissioned the construction of the house, and lived in the home with his wife and <br />daughter far a little over a year. When the Maharajah and his Maharani returned to India, they <br />left their daughter to be raised in the house so she could continue to attend public schools. <br />The Maharajah governed Indore since the abdication of his father in his favor in 1926. The <br />Maharajah and his American Maharani returned to India following an only one-year residence in <br />the house, leaving Princess Usha in the care of a governess in Santa Ana, where she continued <br />to attend public schools. The pair divorced in 1943. The Maharajah married again, to another <br />American, who bore him four children including a male heir, but Princess Usha, as the only <br />offspring born of an Indian woman, succeeded her father as ruler in 1961 following the death of <br />her father. Marguerite, who also remarried, remained in the house until 1952. As of 1994, <br />Princess Usha occupied one of the Holkar's hereditary palaces in India, although, other <br />information indicates that she was stripped of her rank and titles by the Indian state in 1970. <br />The Maharajah and Maharani afro had a home in Emerald Bay, a county area in Laguna Beach, <br />According to research, the modest Emerald Bay home was built by the Maharajah's American born <br />wife in 1942 because of her love for the beach. They did enjoy the exclusive area together, but their <br />main home remained the Santa Ana property since it was large enough to accommodate all of their <br />servants. It is believed that the Emerald Bay home has been demolished. <br />Removal of a property from the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties requires that one of the <br />following findings be made pursuant to Section 30-2.3 of the SAMC: <br />1) The building, structure, object or site does not meet the criteria for being placed on the city <br />register of historical properties; or <br />2} Discovery of information subsequent to placement on the register of historical properties <br />regarding the significance of the building, structure, object or site, such that the criteria for <br />placement on the city register of historical properties is not met; or <br />3) The building, structure, object or site has been substantially damaged or destroyed by a <br />catastrophic event such that it no longer meets the criteria for placement on the city register of <br />historical properties; or <br />4} There has been a loss of the integrity of the building, structure, object or site, provided the loss of <br />integrity was not the result of any illegal act or willful neglect by the owner or agent of the owner; <br />or <br />5) The owner proves that helshe would have no economically viable use of the property unless the <br />building, structure, object or site is removed from the register of historic properties. <br />