HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 10 35 HISTORIC PRESERVATION (2)We, the undersigned, are very concerned about preserving the few
remaining historic structures and sites in the Santa Clarita Valley.
However, we strongly disagree with the proposed Ordinance No. 88-7.
This dictatorial proposal would achieve the opposite of its goal:
it would accelerate the destruction of historic str6ctures.- The heavy_..
restrictions it places on owners of properties, arbitrari Y determined
to be historic without their consent, amount to inverse condemnation.
There are no provisions made for monetary compensation to7property
owners burdened with these restrictions. This could force property
owners to seek leqal redress from the City of Santa Clarita, tile
Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, its Officers, Board of Directors,
and members, for the resulting loss in property values and marketability.
.We.would rather see the.City of Santa Clarita provide encouragement
to property owners in preserving their historic structures and sites
with an official designation that would enable the owners to use the
California State Historic Building Code to facilitate maintenance,
repairs, and restoration by waiving the Uniform Building Code. Tile
Historical Society could assist the City in determining whether a
structure or site offered by its owner for evaluation has enough
historical significance to qualify for such a designation.
Since the proposed ordinance is totally unacceptable and adequate
public input from the body of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical
Society, the property owners and the community has not been sought or
obtained we urgently request that the proposed Ordinance No. 88-7 be
rejected by the Santa Clarita City!Council.
C/
1� Ile