Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-02 - AGENDA REPORTS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Frank Ferry and City Councilmembers FROM: George A. Caravalho, City M iag ' v DATE: January 2, 2002 SUBJECT: HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council receive and discuss the pros and cons outlined in the Historic Preservation report and provide direction to staff. Should the City Council wish to pursue expanded historic preservation requirements, it should direct staff to include a dialogue with community members. BACKGROUND In early 2001, the City Council directed staff to prepare a study identifying the pros and cons of various options for an expanded historic preservation program. A consultant was hired to prepare this report. In March of 2001, preparation of the report was completed and provided to staff. On April 23, 2001 and November 26, 2001, staff met with the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society to receive input regarding the report. The comments of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society have been attached for your review in the letter dated September 4, 2001. This report evaluates various approaches that other municipalities have utilized in implementing historic preservation programs. The historic preservation programs outlined in the attached report range from those that offer advisory guidelines to interested property owners to strict regulations enforced by the City. Attached for your review are the Historic Preservation Report, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society Letter and the general Plan Open Space Element. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS No alternative actions have been identified Agenda Item:, FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Historic Preservation Report Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society Letter Historic Resources Map GAC:JJL: VPB:KP:lep s:pbs/cur ent/2001/historic preser ation/study session memo Historic Preservation Report City of Santa Clarita Prepared by Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP March 2001 Historic preservation Report — City of Santa claeta Purpose The Santa Clarita General Plan, adopted in June 1991, identifies historic preservation as a goal for the City. The City is now considering the implementation of a historic preservation program. This report evaluates various approaches that California cities have used in local historic preservation programs. Existing programs range from those that provide advisory guidelines to interested properties owners to those that are highly regulated by the city. It is important that the City adopt an approach that complements other land use programs and regulations in the community. This will reduce conflicts that may arise from the mismatch of the community's expectations with the outcomes of the program. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 2 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report - City of Santa Ciarits Existing Historic Preservation Policies The City of Santa Clarita has already identified some goals and policies relating to historic preservation and cultural resources. These are included in the City's General Plan and are the legislative basis for enacting ordinances, guidelines, incentives and educational programs. They appear in two chapters as follows: Community Design Element p. CD -16 Goal 4: To continue to preserve and maintain special historical features and landmarks as focal points in the planning area Policies: 4.1 Identify historical areas and structures of local significance to the Santa Clarita Valley. 4.2 Encourage design measures for new development in historic areas, such as requiring adequate physical and visual buffers between historical areas and other land uses, and the use of compatible or similar construction materials and architectural styles so as not to detract from the integrity of historical features. 4.3 Preserve and maintain historic neighborhoods and reinforce the historic theme by requiring new development to be compatible with existing historic structures and historical point of interest. 4.4 Allow flexibility in applying building codes to buildings of historical and/or architectural significance. 4.5 Permit non -conforming uses, as appropriate, for building of historical and/or architectural significance. 4.6 Encourage low-level pedestrian scale lighting. 4.7 Encourage the use of historic lighting styles in historical districts to create a special sense of place. Open Space and Conservation Element p. OS -13 Goal 10: Protect the historical and culturally significant resources which contribute to community identity and a sense of history. Policies: 10.1 Strongly encourage the preservation of valuable historical structures and consider the development of a historical and cultural resources ordinance for this purpose. 10.2 Consider relocation of valuable historic structures to Heritage Park, whenever they are unavoidably endangered by incompatible development. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 3 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarita 0101 NNENNN� 10.3 Continue to support programs established by the Santa,Clarita Valley Historical Society and others to identify and preserve historical sties. 10.4 Establish development guidelines to identify and preserve significant archeological sites. 10.5 Integrate historic sites with recreational and open space areas whenever possible. 10.6 Incorporate historic sites into proposed development in such a manner as to preserve the integrity of the site whenever possible. The General Plan contains a list of thirty-five historic sites in Santa Clarity along with a description of the historical significance of these sites (see attached.) Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 4 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarita Analysis Many California cities have implemented preservation programs. Later in this report, there is a list of components found in preservation ordinances that you will find useful as you begin to draft program language. However, there are a few fundamental policies that distinguish these ordinances. A discussion about these policies and an agreement on how to proceed should take place before any further action is taken. Voluntary versus Mandatory ordinance Some historic properties are publicly owned and operated, These properties, particularly if they are owned by the City of Santa Clarita, are relatively easy to evaluate and designate. However, a majority of the properties in the City, including those with historic merit, are privately owned. The most significant decision the City must make is whether to require the owner's consent for the designation of historic property. The term `mandatory" is often used to describe an ordinance that allows the city to designate properties without consent of the owner. The term "voluntary" is often used to describe an ordinance that limits designations to those that are either initiated by the owner or require the owner's consent. There are benefits and drawbacks to both of these models. These will be described in the context of some case studies. Model #1: Mandatory Ordinance; Owner consent not required (South Pasadena, West Hollywood) The model ordinance developed by the State Office of Historic Preservation is a mandatory ordinance. The guiding principle of this model is that historic preservation is a necessary component to protect the health, safety, and welfare like any other zoning action. It is the city's role and responsibility to identify and protect historic resources. The interests of individual property owners are secondary to the overall interest of the public. This is not unlike other zoning actions like zoning a property low-density residential rather than high density residential. Another example of a similar zoning action in Santa Clan'ta is the tree preservation ordinance. The City does not rely on the property owner's consent to protect a specimen tree. In mandatory ordinances, an application for designation can be initiated by the property owner OR by any member of the public, city staff, appointed officials or elected officials as long as information in the application shows that the property meets the criteria for historic designation. Benefits of this approach: • The City can take a proactive stance towards preservation. This gives the City the broadest range of control over preservation. If a property owner wants to Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 5 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarita demolish or detrimentally alter a historic structure, the City has every tool available to prevent this from happening. • This approach benefits a city that has numerous historic properties at risk. • The City can develop an inventory of historic properties based on objective criteria. Unless the accuracy of the information is questioned, properties can be easily designated. • Because it is easier to develop an inventory of historic resources, there are fewer questions about environmental review. If a property is deemed historic, then it's clear that development actions on a historic property could have negative impacts on the resource. • It is possible to designate a lot of properties in a short period of time • This approach is looked upon favorably by the State Office of Historic Preservation, thus opening up opportunities for partnership and funding from the State. Drawbacks of this approach • Although preservation proponents argue that a historic designation enhances the value of a property, there are some property owners who believe that a historic designation has a negative impact on their property value. They perceive the additional scrutiny of their property as a limitation. • In order to be successful, the City must make extraordinary efforts with reluctant property owners to educate them about the benefits of the preservation program. • Public hearings regarding property designations can be combative when the property owner is unable to be persuaded and the commission has no choice but to designate the property because it meets the objective criteria. • Commission members can be perceived as being insensitive to the property owner's interests and thus arrogant. • It can be difficult for the Council to designate a property when the property owner is at the podium fighting the designation. • It is virtually impossible to impose fees for the application, mailing labels, public hearing notices and staff time. • Because the ordinance does not require property owner participation, city staff can have a heavy workload researching potentially historic properties. Model #2 voluntary Ordinance; Owner consent required (Monrovia, Redondo Beach) The other choice is to require the property owner to make the application for designation, or at least to require the consent of the property owner when considering the designation of a resource. The guiding principle of this approach is that preservation is a community- based activity. The city provides a process for owners to request designation, provides incentives to make the designation attractive and provides expertise by way of a commission to advise on alterations to the property. Acme Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 6 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarity Benefits of this approach: • Property owners buy -in to the process thus eliminating the conflict that can occur under a mandatory ordinance. • The property owner is predisposed to preserve the property and often seeks the advice of city staff or commissioners, rather than resisting it. • The city can work to educate reluctant property owners without the threat of designating their property without consent. • The workload of staff, commission and city is more manageable. First, the onus is on the property owner to gather data. Second, applications tend to come in over time as property owners become aware of and develop interest in the program. • The City can recoup some of the costs of implementing the ordinance by charging application fees. Drawbacks of this approach • The citymay be at risk of losing potential landmarks if the property owner does not elect to designate the property. • In order to encourage property owners to participate, incentives must be offered. These may be monetary or non -monetary. Examples of such incentives are included below in the discussion of components. • The process for designation is slower. It takes time for the City to develop a substantial historic resources register. • The environmental review process can be confusing. Even if a property owner does not voluntarily designate a property, it may still be deemed historic under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.) This is discussed in greater detail under the next section about surveys. The models discussed here are directed at individual property designations. Different standards apply when evaluating historic districts and historic overlay zones. Quite often only a percentage of owners must agree to the establishment of a historic district. Historic overlay zones may not require any property owner approval, even in a city with a voluntary ordinance. For example, the City of Monrovia has a historic overlay designation in the historic commercial downtown — Myrtle Avenue. Allrenovations to properties in this district are referred to the historic preservation commission. To survey or not to survey The next decision the city must make is whether to conduct a survey of historic resources. This is a common step in the establishment of historic preservation programs, both mandatory and voluntary. Surveys can be performed by volunteers in the community with or without the assistance of a preservation consultant. Standard survey forms are given to volunteers and they do a reconnaissance of every property in the city. Due to the breadth pf this effort, properties are usually very superficially evaluated and placed into general categories that distinguish potentially historic properties from those that clearly do not meet the established criteria. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 7 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarita Benefits • A survey can give the city an idea of how many potentially historic properties are in the city. • If the city adopts a mandatory ordinance, the survey can be used to narrow down the number of properties that the city must further research. • If the city adopts a voluntary ordinance, the survey can be used to develop a mailing list to inform potential historic property owners about the preservation program. • The process of conducting the survey can be a community -organizing tool. If the local historic preservation society participates, a positive relationship is established between the city and the society. • If the city adopts a voluntary ordinance, the survey can be used to delay or stop the demolition of potentially historic property EVEN IF THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED. CEQA establishes a lower threshold for analysis than a voluntary local ordinance does. This provides protection to a city with a voluntary ordinance. Drawbacks • The last benefit listed above may also be the biggest drawback. A property owner in a voluntary ordinance city is likely to be under the impression that no restrictions will be placed on the property if it isn't designated as a landmark by the City. When that property owner plans to alter or demolish the property, CEQA may be invoked if the property is listed on the survey. This can send a confusing message to the property owner and can result in a public relations dilemma. • Surveys require a great deal of manpower and, potentially, cost. • The survey may list properties that, upon further inspection, do not meet the city's criteria for designation. This can also confuse or disappoint a property owner. • If the State Office of Historic Preservation receives a copy of the survey, and it typically does, then the State.can place requirements on the city in its evaluation of local landmarks even if the landmark does not have statewide significance. Preservation Commission It is highly likely that the implementation of a historic preservation program will mean the creation of a new commission. In order for the program to be meaningful and to protect the interests of the city as well as the rights of property owners, it needs to contain designation criteria, alteration guidelines, and a clear process of review. While these functions could be performed by the Planning Commission, it is not common. Further, most cities find that the Planning Commission is already too busy to add another program to its workload. Most property owners want assurance that the review process is streamlined. Therefore, it is advisable to establish a full commission that makes recommendations directly to the City Council and has certain decision making authority itself, particularly relating to proposed alterations. Another model is to appoint an advisory board that reports to staff, the Planning Commission and/or the Council and does not have any final decision Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 8 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarita making authority. While this may seem attractive, it actually adds time to the review process. West Hollywood began with this model, and based on complaints from property. owners that the process was too cumbersome, amended the ordinance to create a full commission in place of the advisory board. Unlike other city commissions, which comprise members of the community "at large," it is typical that historic preservation commissioners are selected based on expertise. Various combinations of skills can be considered for members. Some are historian, architect, planner, builder, historic property owner, realtor, and historical society member. This both strengthens the city's legal stance in making determinations about historic value, but it also allows the commission to provide advice to property owners and city staff regarding proposed alterations of potentially historic property. How much do Historic Preservation Programs cost? The cost of implementing preservation programs range widely. The budgets for three cities are listed below: Monrovia Craig Jimenez, associate planner for the City of Monrovia provided information for fiscal year 1999-2000. Revenue from applications and surcharge fees attributed to preservation totaled $5,550. Expenditures were $541. These funds were used for reference materials, conference attendance, and other supplies related to the program. Monrovia estimates that .1 full-time employee is attributed to the preservation program. This represents participation by the associate planner, division manager and community development director. It should be noted that the City implements the Mills Act program as a financial incentive. The Mills Act contract reduces the taxes paid by property owners and therefore impacts the tax income that the City receives. The City does not track this information as the contract is between the property owner and the County. Redondo Beach Teresa Gianos, planner for the City of Redondo Beach stated that no revenue is acquired for preservation because no fees are charged for applications. Approximately $7,000 of the planning budget is spent on conferences, postage, noticing and other costs. Redondo Beach currently allocates 30-50% of one full-time planner, at an estimated cost of $30,000440,000 to this program. When the preservation program was operating at its peak in the 1980s, a full-time senior planner was assigned exclusively to the program. When activity slowed and through staff attrition, the staffing of the preservation program was absorbed by the rest of the planning staff. Redondo Beach also implements the Mills Act and also does not track the revenue losses due to that program. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 9 3/13/2001 Historic Prasarvatlon Report _ Clty of Santa Clarlta West Hogywood Iwft John Keho, planner for the City of West Hollywood stated that the City does not receive revenues from preservation. The City has a budget for the Cultural Heritage Commission of $18,619. This pays for costs associated with commission meetings, training memberships, etc. Further., there is a preservation fund of $32,000 that provides funding for historic signs, brochures and other capital and operational costs of the program. Income Expenditure FrE equivalent Mills Act At a glance cost comparison $541 10% Yes (30 contracts) $7,000 33-50% Yes Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 10 $50,619 50%+ Yes (52 contracts in 8 buildings) 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report— City of Santa Clarita Determining the ingredients of a historic preservation program for Santa Clarita Following is a comprehensive list of the standard components of a preservation program, Some of these components are optional and will be more or less appropriate depending on the City's goals. Statement of the goal The City must first determine what it wants to accomplish with a preservation ordinance. Here are some questions to consider in establishing the goal: 1. Is the primary goal to preserve major landmarks and cultural resources in the community that are at least 75 or 100 years old? 2. What about old structures that may or may not have historic or architectural significance other than their age? 3. Is there an interest in preserving structures or properties that only date to the 1940s, 1950s or later? 4. Do you want to require new development in certain areas to be compatible with nearby historic properties? 5. Are you hoping to strengthen the concept of community within neighborhoods through preservation? 6. Do you want to educate the community about its history with this program? General Plan The City's General Plan language regarding preservation should be reviewed and possibly amended so that it establishes the long-term goals of preservation in the community as determined above. At a minimum, the General Plan must be consistent with the ordinance or these documents could be challenged in court. Naming the Program Some jurisdictions prefer the title "historic preservation" while others use the term "cultural heritage preservation." Typically, the term "historic" is used when your primary goal is to focus on the history of the area in a traditional sense — sites where important historical events have occurred or structures that have exceptional site or architectural design. The term cultural heritage is preferred in communities that celebrate their unique and diverse populations. For example, a town that experienced an influx of immigrant populations who left behind distinct cultural traditions like a "Chinatown" or 'mining town." The distinction in terminology is subtle. In reality, either term can be used. Regulatory Language To the extent that a historic preservation program regulates land use, the city would implement the program in the zoning ordinance or uniform development code. Processes need to be established for designating historic properties as well as considering alterations to historic properties. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 11 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarita Criteria for designation Based on the goals that the city has established for preservation, criteria for what constitutes landmark status must be developed Voluntary versus mandatory participation As described earlier, the most important, yet the most controversial decision the city has to make is whether the program is voluntary or mandatory. Do you want to require owner consent or do you want the City to be able to designate properties with or without owner consent? Guidelines Guidelines for appropriate alterations of historic properties can be developed that are either required or advisory in nature. Incentives While many would argue that a historic designation increases the value of a property, it is also true that the maintenance of historic properties may have cost impacts that discourage the property owner's interest in preservation. A number of incentives are available that can be offered to offset costs. The most meaningful incentive is the Mills Act. This is a state tax incentive law that allows cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures. The contract provides a method of reducing property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of the property. Other incentives such as variances and use of more lenient building codes for historic structures are also commonly employed by cities. Review process/Decision making authority The public review process should be based on the complexity of the preservation program the city adopts. The Planning Commission can act as the review body or the city may want to establish a historic preservation commission comprised of community members with expertise in the area ofpreservation. Another alternative is ahistoric preservation advisory board that makes recommendations to the commission but does not have decision-making authority. Application Materials The City will need to develop application materials for designation, alterations, and any incentive programs that will be put into place. Fees The City may want to charge application fees. Some cities waive fees as part of the incentive package. Surveys and Inventories The City may wish to undertake a survey of potential historic resources. Further, the city may wish to develop an inventory of sites that are known to meet the criteria for landmark designations. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 12 3/13/2001 Historic Preservation Report — City of Santa Clarity Education The City may wish to implement an educational component to the program. This can include self guided tours, docent led tours, brochures, photo books, virtual tours on the internet or cd rom, educational programs in local schools, and more. Partnering with local historic society The City may want to formally or informally join with the local historic society to develop the program and/or various elements listed above. This often works well if the city decides to conduct a survey and needs volunteers to compile the data. Partnering with the State Office of Historic Preservation The California Parks Department has within it an Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The stated purpose of OHP is "to coordinate a wide range of activities that encourages the preservation of tangible remains of California's unique past -- communities, neighborhoods, commercial districts, buildings, archeological sites, and other historic and cultural resources." OHP provides technical advice to local governments and has programs (some with funding) that assist city's in implementing local programs. OHP also acts as a liaison to the federal government in the area of the national register of historic places. The City should evaluate whether it wants to have state oversight of its local program. Environmental review The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists historic resources as a review category subject to evaluation. The City may wish to establish specific standards outlining when environmental review will be required for local historic or potentially historic properties. Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP Page 13 3/13/2001 -MqTln�r� City of :Santa,Clariza OS -15 6125191 TABLE HISTORIC USOURCES 4 Map 0A of 41V a Gold wvA first 1di"vvrodUCWff*r-Wa (Stvt Muoric,L, u4pw, k# 1,68), under this tree in 1842. Platizer OR Rorines 2 This is ilso oldest existing Oij:"fijM$y 17.2.) in 23M- -Plue4eywi: A 9`. NCO A41 3 First successful OR WON in: CWA bmia f Lan. M (State Historic . k #516) i and longest p=du-4ngwnumrCW- oil (Nati",W Angivier MI wC:I I e iu -tA-W Orl 21 'fit diwxu C*YIIA Standard; Oil. 2 4 The town grew around Pim-44 for- or(State (StaleHistoric LanOknark #516.2) 1, derrick workers. nme buil&ngs 1 27201 West Fico Capyon remain. Many others have been Ntwbafl- relocated,to Now.hoU..: Franqisco. 5 The Sam Clara River VOCY.'W'40,14 (StawMsoWc mark #566) part of.M.1ission.Se-a Fernando -14.1707. twin Ira kNay A granery'.and Assiskoncia (mission)-wa-s near 1.129;i,Plaqae located at-B14C established here in. ISM. Lang Station 6 A lical-Lb spa, hotel, and freight statibn ($iota Historic Lan*nark #590) were established hotein, 1871, It IS76, east or Lang Stautiql Road a goldva-ispike. -was%dnven, connoafihg San F-Taticisco and Us. AnVIes -by J rail. Only relics of the station-vemain. City of :Santa,Clariza OS -15 6125191 Map LYQWS!ati,an/Et*r*j Valley 7 C*06tary (.State HWrk Lwftark # 689) Newhall Saint Franeas Da :Disaster Sica 8 ,g (State Historic Laziawark # 919) DWP -Po'iw piant.-t Sian Francisquito Canyon Road Interest) 24275 Walaut Stredt f 22621 13th Stmt I 1-j (City Point of Hist4xical Interest) P1 Z A MS.; glop was buitt. 12creAn 1$52. 11:was tsad by the BuUerGcWA9%0.rl6nd ligate lite from 1.857 1� 186:1 as a r4sting Place for. Drago"Sond caml Mraft" *QW'Fbft_*'TojW'm s ty -On Mat0h A M. 8 ;Rft_dam apww the LosAngeles taquadgutw fta, FranQiSqultoCagYPx4..coUaP -*4 over 12`.bi11ibn.g"*uAofwMer. the Valley. 4nd killing 460,,Vib Needham PMWbfti0xiist=2W4UWur president in 1920. Moved: W Ripftient 1*920. Moved 10 its,-prcsoat.jccw'v* by 1892.Used a mqvie.sxftTwl� Singiz-family -dW6-l1*.g: Bufu.'in' February 1873 for Adam Majil=wsld at, LYOW,5St bort•;... motrcd;: ;:_:1: O. ingbe 4479. At:iht-^.'tttrn:n� tato cagy ic;as acquired by the Who were pioneer blat-kautift, thcu,.Mr. Ed Jauregui, who moved it to, its presellulocation. City of -,Santa Clarita : OS -16 6/25/91 1 ji Map I.mcaMan '24,14M 41, (Cit r Point Of Hu*tlml IWM=t) 9 as &IMest homrke,�.�t,..Visg, Wcftw&l a andpol*.clam it to JOsbWQojAbd.4S*f vVed; *'*m until hisi4eaWil Mo. E 9 24MV245M San F+Man4JlO.RO&d IOIYV�ftl Of Ma4fta. Imemot) known as'"ift 1ftDISAIPW5, U*fOr a jail: h0use- WOP0. optAied Spanish: Mission style. JVW'IdtW,IO this daY the, OngiMt c011:40-arx. ltd barred 'Windows., it .&-ftvod as a a sheriff's substation. was opened.. 1908 as:.a dwelling for the:Wj%R%jz family. Eugene Bj;cjOjjUZ 14ftr became- Los. Aagel.Os-.CDV* -.Sbotifr.. Cowboy staff and TADdco:. Wer 00 Anderson was tbo se v"d -owner, followed by w4n4aw Publo. AiMo, reknowned- Leamsmr�rnule skMar, Frew .. arrived in Navv#t'all tts 389 find opened a hlaqwHilth. shv'on Railroad Avcaur. 111c busiiess moved'to this Immi-ion in 19-10; wben Mr. Frew built a shop in the Mimion Revival style. This Aap was expanded in 1924. His-sen,'TheIRM Frew, Jr. changed it over to welding and a machine shop. City of &nta Clanta VS -17 0 TAX"- .AD$,3KOmIftItVd) W.111 W -4111 1" 0 �C*tiv POim.,*fv4iisW,. n* 101ves.O... 22616 Ninth, Streetl: 24287 Newhall Aviiiuc Cainmercial struqW.r;:.i#T OWW ITO cw'"Mi T.Wsnuwwv�ra bum in 1922 by,Frcd: 142". as &�MSe and %Qta go* yard. Logoibin. camo 10 Newhall' in .19r,.1 facing. Sim FtmotI46.11s 3? after converted imo Ao.jpolouaj WjOj* is CbUT4Ch v0f Ch-risr Tbt:Fivit Hux, Pastor. It ,was later, acquired , by the Soventh Day Admom, ists and finally, the Church of Christ. Single-family dwelling, Tbis,buil'ing was originally buill'a'AmAtt-Ilf" la rcsiJq.qp6 for :Ray- -Q$bv*'c' Superihiandantof the 81cph".'strax Works in Tick Canym It was _lej:j� ,od in the small mining town -ofL� in Canyon. ::Country. 1.1 was nvmc:4 I's this location in MM. Single-firnity -dwelhag: Califor.m4 Bum1ow 4-t.Yjv-4m4W hili -A, inlomO` House; Unusual i -n deskp„, .g4bc last Bungalows daft in Saina Gari*.. City of Santa clarita 612ql9l MILP LOGOnn 9 San Ft Sado Ra 1925, it. -was MOW va*:-p"% by the. tpl Angalas County .5l as the first sabota-den: in ft swft ClArka VAUCY. SWAB devel"ad, San Fernando Road as,a business.4mict. It -berms. the eiorcWafiosk.*OjW ibr the until tbay Mwamd: in.-IM1. 24239. San Fernando Road 9 243-07 Railroad % AvOnue 9 (Oky Point of Hisuical Interest) Ntwball Commorcial-buil4i P& Sborffs4sputies Captaiii:-Jeb Stewart. raft"V.M.Ahe second JaH in what is now k"i"vni as Santa Clarita. Tbazl' al tobit OW -'rho'bugftg, it as a nback shop'umil•tbaymored in 198,6. Commercial •W1410g; COMMOWY: NcWhW Ltd. was incorporated in JMVkid completed this two-stary County project in 1932., :' rh* :0ounhouse occupied the gro.und floor, and the Masonid Ledge the second 9W.Y. Lumber. 'from the older Maybue building,, was used, of the ljoprA• Land Dancel hall. n -e Court moved to VideociA in 1968 and the.couAToorn became offizes. City of Santa Clarita OS -19 6/25/91 MAP I.OrAtion NUT 24251 A and MvMUM 4atoresl) 243117 San Ferna4' Road Newhall (City"Polml P. v. MY 7 M. Commetvial stractum(7 Ommaidy known", small b�H&4 at 24247 Haboy. W. Russou Ini, 10S. in 22 the six other forming: a. motor -cert egftmji to drivers. an f . the eW X;Wge -R,�Ute- 17hose structures. Wort also Used:" by motion picture people as bo*Mg during the filming of status ifl.this area near "Wwolt". 71001 -Mix it; zd one as a dressing -room dU..sW.qrQ occasions. 10 TIM OW 'was filled w" westem -art and"KV4. Many western-movies.have.beftAfted here. 10 The last, remaining railroad depal in the Valley. Buiil in 1997 by-Soutborn Pacific, completing the Sur lint to Ventura. The structure was moved.t-D Hart Park. 10 Built in. 1:861 (and milarged in 1891) as the headquanors of Rancho San Francisco, the original land gAant comprising all of 'Valemcia and some of Castaic. This ranch was owned by Henry Mayo Newhall and was adrainisWred by his son, George.. City of Santa Clarita OS,20 612-519*1 W;11111�1* Flags, ,e l+�btt3ttaitrc�ir�pii�yl;�gs s WcWir, Was moved fzftbatiftgm JUAW.CM: in Augtal, 199-0. 10 harneswadlod: as his family's rour� of the adobe was used as. a sthoq&mkUO for the local childmn, the rfmI. in't.-he atft. and the ht=e offt. svaom.d, oldest,ashoolAariu, inAws Ales Co nv� In 1996. -Ihw-Adobt, *m - rescued Iram 6v#t;uctioa,,*d, ;4a;Q brick by brick to,Hm'itage J=otfon, where is has b;eurebuix 10 This hftse was boilt. in tba IMI as a residence in the -.40* �U-Nt 'a area, AM was *Ut Street ntarMtOket. it is. is stbry Colonial Revivaloottage: w.fth a pofth supported. by -four -m-mr.d.00larmm 10 The house. is� largely, im-cl 041b on-ginall features, - ineft4ft do.ole- hujig v4ndows. It ww movodi to Heritage Junctioft in 1987. 10 Ibis structure originated atCalla Old-Wat, aWts,1a=Wvm,./AR=emnt area that opt -rated -ial the, TOWjgs-jbr was rcierated to Mint Cknyonw4on the freeway was built: in the 1960% h was built to house: six antique school desks, which came'from a training City Of'smua cyarita 'OS -21 '.6/25/91 City of Santa' Clarita OS -22 Map 10 camp podium 'and blvdft"o,,104 to its fu*ction as schoolhouse. it was moved. to Heritage Junction in 1987, 10 De*xisg- noted composer, -this 4h"el Was based an the ont at R4mitcho boatitas made famous in Helen. Mai Jackson's novel MRMOW It- -was built in :1926 as' ;part Gf the, Mss6pn Village in Santa MoWal, and Callahaik's Old: iffiest when 11. Was. moved in the 196rs to aoamnattriate the freeway. W.%jl painillp Wg by Frank Tinney Johnson. The 41W is said to be over 200. years .414, md the wooden pews date back to 11158. The chapel was moved to 1jentW Junction in 19S7, - is 10 This --Bavarian sty'lestruml!6%as-bWli in 1925 as apart of.a group -of houses provided for Edison workers assiped to the Saugus Substation. In 1928, when the St. Francis Darn broke end foode4-the area; dlfi*&,4$,Lp gople, these structures escaped :danMe. After years as rdsidontes for a succession of Rdison employees, the cottages• became property of the NewhaftmrAaaff Mmincompany, who demolished the other six cottages. This house, the beat -ofTht lot, was.moved to heritage Junction in 1989. City of Santa' Clarita OS -22 v4 map 11� Q. cut 12 " lu 'Of =0 WI-40*610 wra 41way zw San Ftmud*Aba- NvWwfl, "r III TVs+vtiaid ., 4 Beale's.tmt in 1010- yextp� bm. ft *AXWO.'41! ux, A 1by *�jbtjow- is$*,. at the at* A.W F ih scene of KewhQPs Otd-Ve% 41h of July cvlgbrapjA4;, V*en it. 'by Otne R-r#-W'A -I n buined, down' in meed r 4. 4062. and parts - Of the M;ui.x Wmj =d mem; at viItage nit `sig. 'fact. Curronv-,6wnzr.s -,pd; res;.Orvijap to a SOUTGe: MIC4ael Bmmdrnam As3och'tes 1 1989. SaAto Clarits Valley BistoriceI Society, 1991 City. of Santz Owita :OS -23 6/201 Mr. Jeffrey Lambert Director, Planning and Building Services City of Santa Clarita 23920 W. Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355 September 4, 2001 Dear Mr. Lambert: ANlyING DIVISIS C:F' SEP 0 s 2061 PL411ING AW BUILCIN6 Sc'RVICr; CITY OF SANTA rtARIL` Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the development of a Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of Santa Clarita. The board of directors of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society (the "Society") held a special meeting on August 2 to discuss the "Historic Preservation Report, City of Santa Clarita" (Anne Browning McIntosh, AICP, March 2001). The board developed comment on several areas of the report (the "Report"), particularly those where Ms. McIntosh outlined different options. The board's comments were ratified in the Minutes of the special meeting as adopted by the board at its regular meeting on August 27. The following constitute the Society's comments to that report. • Ordinance Title: There should be a historic preservation ordinance for the City of Santa Clarita, and its title should be "Historic Preservation Ordinance." • Stated goal of the Ordinance: "It is the primary goal of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to preserve historic landmarks and cultural resources in the community." • The ordinance should be "mandatory," as defined in the Report. • The ordinance should broaden the preservation concepts already outlined in the city's General Plan. Preservation should be part of the planning documentation/permitting/environmental review process for any designated property. • There should be a Historic Preservation Commission to oversee implementation of the preservation ordinance. As indicated in the Report, while the Planning Commission could handle review of historic structures, persons with specialized preservation expertise might be more appropriate; also, a separate commission would relieve the Planning Commission of additional and time-consuming responsibilities. • A formal survey should be conducted of potentially historic properties throughout the city, financed by the city. The Society can help conduct the survey, but in such case the Society should be compensated with grant funding (Mills Act). Headquarters — Saugus Train Station ORDINANCE - PAGE 1 OF2. P.O. Box 221925 • Newhall • California • 91322 Founded MCMLXXV • Guidelines for structures could be set up similar to the Historic Sign Ordinance, which applies to signs that meet a set of criteria, i.e., if the sign is more than 50 years old, or if it is otherwise important to the area's culture. • Any ordinance guidelines (particularly for designation of historic status) should follow those used by the Secretary of the Interior, which are the standards used by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the State Office of Historic Preservation. • The ordinance should include educational components, and it should specify that they would be implemented "in conjunction with the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, to educate the public about the city's historic resources and culture." • The ordinance should provide for the waiving of fees for owners of designated properties, as an incentive to maintain the properties. • The Society can conduct or facilitate training sessions in historic preservation for city staff. Again, thank you for the opportunity to work with the City of Santa Clarita toward the mutual goal of the preservation of historically and culturally important sites and structures. Please contact me if I may provide any further information, and to let us know what we can do to help move the process forward. ' ,/LEON WORDEN President, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society ORDINANCE - PAGE 2 OF 2