Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - MemorandumDRAFT 1 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Date: February XX, 2020 From: Historical Resources Commission Subject: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING HISTORIC RESOURCES POLICIES AND REGULATIONS The Historical Resources Commission (HRC) conducted workshops with PBA staff in July and October of 2019 and discussed issues the HRC desires to advise and make recommendations to the City Council, to enhance historic resource preservation within the City. The recommendations by the HRC address the following topics:  Historic Resources Commission powers and duties;  Historic application fees;  Historically sensitive neighborhoods;  Historic resources protection and enforcement; and  Preservation of historic trees. Some of the issues discussed are procedural and administrative in nature and can be addressed by the Commission and staff. However, the policy topics below require direction and feedback from the City Council. COMMISSION POWERS AND DUTIES Section 2-374 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) outlines the powers and duties of the HRC. These duties include, but are not limited to, advising and making recommendations to the Planning Commission, City Council and other city boards and commissions regarding historical projects and property; and recommending to the City Council policies and regulations regarding the protection, reuse and rehabilitation of historical properties. Issue 1: The HRC has expressed concerns that many buildings, structures, and properties potentially eligible or eligible for historic preservation that should be preserved are not protected because they have not been listed or identified as a historical resource and can potentially be remodeled or demolished. The Commission’s current authority limits their preservation efforts to those structures/properties on the local historic register. The Commission also expressed preservation interest in protecting the historical fabric and integrity www.santa-ana.org 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. DRAFT 3 Issue 3: The HRC consists of nine members, two of which are representatives from the planning commission and the community redevelopment and housing commission. The intention of this structure was to allow each representative to advise and make recommendations to their corresponding commissions regarding potentially historical projects and properties. However, the HRC has been concerned that in recent months the Planning Commission has reviewed and acted on projects with the potential for historic significance, without adequate conversations and consideration. The recommendations outlined below would allow the HRC to lend a voice to the Planning Commission regarding historically or potentially historically related items as non-voting or “non-full voting” members. HRC Recommendation(s): Amend Section 2-350 of the SAMC to require that representative(s) from the Historic Resources Commission be appointed to the Planning Commission. Consideration could include allowing the HRC representative to be a non-voting member(s) of the Planning Commission or “non-full voting” member(s) (i.e., only voting on historically related items). Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-350 of the SAMC would require City Council review and approval of a municipal code amendment. In addition, staff resources would be required to analyze the full implications of amending the code section to include HRC representatives on the Planning Commission. HISTORIC APPLICATION FEES Issue 4: The FY 19-20 fee for each of the historic applications (i.e., Mills Act application and the Historic Register application) is $3,589.14. Although this is a significant reduction in application costs from the recent years (as high as $5,814.41 for historic registration and $4,422.59 for mills act) the HRC has expressed concern that the high cost has been a financial burden and discourages property owners from applying to place their properties on the historic register, contributing to reduced preservation efforts Citywide. An informal survey conducted both by staff and HRC members of regional cities with historic programs, highlighted that the City of Santa Ana has the highest application costs for both historic register and mills act applications. The cities surveyed include Orange, Tustin, Anaheim, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. The implementation of these application costs dates back to 2009, when the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a fee for nominations of properties to the local historic register. This decision was based on the determination that the most significant properties had received historic status and further listings of nominated properties were primarily for the purpose of receiving the mills act tax reduction. At the time, the fee was developed based on a full cost recovery. In September 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution to temporarily reduce fees for mills act applications by 50%, and waive the $5,015.05 fee for nominations of properties to the historic register. The proposed fee waiver was in effect for one year with an option for the City Council to renew for an additional two years. In August 2015, the City Council adopted a second resolution authorizing the extension of the previously approved waiver and the reduction of fees for two additional years. The waiver and fee reduction expired in August 4, 2017. DRAFT 4 During the time that the reduced fee waiver was in effect (2014-2017) the City saw a noticeable increase in historic applications received, as can be seen in the Attachment 1. The line graph provided highlights the steep decrease in applications received once the waiver and fee reduced expired. Therefore, the HRC is making the recommendations to facilitate and encourage property owners to place their properties on the local register, thereby spurring historic preservation efforts. HRC Recommendation(s): Reduce the historic application fees for (1) placing properties on the register of historical properties (i.e., self-nomination); and (2) processing historic property preservation agreements (i.e., mills act). The HRC recommends that the fees should be from $200-$500 for self-nominations to the historic register and no more than $2,000 for a Mills Act application. In addition, the HRC discussed the following alternatives be implemented to determining appropriate fees: a. Establishing historic fees that are less for self-nomination than for mills act; and b. Introducing a sliding scale for historic application fees (e.g., location of structures within the City). Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: The proposed recommendations to permanently reduce the historic application fees for the mills act and historic registration would require review and approval by the City Council of a resolution amending the City’s miscellaneous fee schedule. A process would have to be established in order to determine the metrics to be used for the recommended sliding scale. In addition, an impact analysis would be needed to determine the short- and long-term effects of the reducing the fees. Additional analysis may provide insight as to the impact on revenue to the City. For example, while the exact savings is dependent on a number of factors, many property owners realize as much as a 50% savings on their property tax bill through the mills act application. As a result, the City sees a loss of property tax dollars annually. The analysis may take into account local economic growth through invigorated historic preservation efforts, and cultural and aesthetic benefits that may have a positive impact on property values, both in residential and commercial. HISTORICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND HISTORIC RESOURCES PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Issue 5: As previously discussed, the HRC has expressed the concern for demolition or alteration of structures that have not been designated historic or surveyed, but that are over 50 years old and located within neighborhoods of potential historical significance. These five neighborhoods have been informally referred to as Historically Sensitive Areas (HSA) and include Eastside, Floral Park, Park Santiago, Washington Square and Heninger Park. Historically, there’s been an increased sensitivity regarding additions and exterior alterations to properties within these neighborhoods due to their potential significance. The process of reviewing projects (e.g., new additions, exterior alterations, construction alterations, etc.) for historic appropriateness and context within these areas has been largely informal in nature as none of the areas have been formally designated as historic districts either DRAFT 5 at the local, state or federal level, nor has a policy been adopted by the City Council to officially recognize the term Historically Sensitive Area. Therefore, the HRC is making the recommendations outlined below in an effort to establish a program that protects any structure over 50 years of age within certain neighborhoods by retaining and preserving the historic character, regardless of designation and/or eligibility. HRC Recommendation(s): 1. Direct planning staff to explore the designation of “Historically Sensitive Areas (HSA)” through the implementation of general plan policies within the new Historical Cultural Element considered as part of general plan update; and/or 2. Direct planning staff to engage in efforts to establish an HSA program that includes the following: a. Establish criteria for selecting critical neighborhoods within the City with a high concentration of historic resources; b. Identify critical neighborhoods to be designated an HSA and establish boundaries; c. Develop guidelines and standards for the newly created HSA that establish the following: i. Set criteria for review of non-designated structures over 50 years or more within HSA that includes a heightened level of review for modifications and alterations; ii. Set design standards for new infill-development projects or additions within the HSA that are consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation and the City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines, and which are mindful of community context and architectural sensitivity. Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: In order to establish historically sensitive areas, the City Council would be required to direct staff to analyze the implementation of one of the two above-mentioned options. In addition, the City Council would be required to direct staff to make a recommendation as to what option would be most feasible and cost-effective. Establishing an HSA program would require staff time and resources in order to establish the necessary criteria for selecting neighborhoods with high concentration of historic resources for inclusion into the HSA. In addition, impact analysis would be required to analyze the short- term and long-term implications of establishing HSAs in order to preserve properties not currently designated as historic. Lastly, property owners located within HSAs would be required to be notified of potential property improvement limitations. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC TREES Issue 6: The HRC has expressed concerns that there is no current ordinance in place for the protection and preservation of private property trees such as oaks, sycamores and/or mature DRAFT 6 trees. They’ve expressed that such trees could be significant aesthetic and ecological resources that would help enhance the aesthetic and scenic beauty of the neighborhoods, protect property values, and protect heritage tree resources. The recommendations outlined below are intended to establish a process for the preservation and enhancement of property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique aesthetic character that specific trees species provide in many areas in the City. HRC Recommendation(s): Recommend that the City Council or Environmental & Transportation Advisory Committee (ETAC) develop a Tree Preservation/Protection Ordinance that establishes the following: a. Identifies all tree species to be protected/preserved on private and public properties (e.g., Oak trees, Southern California Black Walnut, Western Sycamores, California Bay, etc.) and trees species not subject to tree preservation requirements (i.e., unprotected trees); b. Sets criteria to be used to define a protected tree including, but not limited to the following: species, age, trunk diameter, historic significance, ecological value, aesthetics, location, or other unique characteristics. Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Adopting a Tree Preservation/Protection Ordinance would require staff time and resources to develop the required language, definitions, and standards as part of the ordinance. Additional staff resources may involve research into successful tree preservation/protection ordinances from adjacent cities and an impact analysis on the short-term and long-term implications of establishing a tree preservation/protection program. If implemented, additional staff resources would be required to implement and enforce required protective measures (i.e., code enforcement). RECOMMENDATION The HRC is requesting the City Council to consider and provide directions to staff to proceed with initiating the process to implement above recommendations. DRAFT 7 Attachment 1: $0.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00 $5,000.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 APPLICATION COST# OF APPLICATIONSFISCAL YEAR Mills Act Applications and Cost 2007-2019 Mills Act Fee Mills Act $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 APPLICATION COST# OF APPLICATIONSFISCAL YEAR Historic Listing Applications and Cost 2007-2019 Historic Register Fee Historic Listing Applications Received