HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/05/26 (9)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 26, 1993
Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-SS-OS: Historic District Studv - Citv of Chula Vista
A. BACKGROUND
1. The establishment of a Heritage Park or Heritage Row has been the
subject of discussion and examination for several years by the City, first
in conjunction with the proposed relocation of "Our House" from 666
Third Avenue and later with regard to the relocation of "Greg Rogers
House" from 699 "E" Street. In each case, the objective was to find a
suitable relocation site because of the impending demolition of the
structure.
At Council direction, a Staff report was prepared discussing the concepts
of a Historic Park, Historic Row, and the Historic District. The focus area
of these concepts is the neighborhood bounded by "I" Street to the
north, "J" Street to the south, Second Avenue to the east and mid-block
between Del Mar Avenue and Third Avenue to the west.
The Resource Conservation Commission, Planning Commission and Parks
and Recreation Commission considered the report and voted unanimously
to study further the concepts of either a Heritage Row or Heritage
District, but dismissed creation of a Historic Park. Council concurred
with these recommendations and approved an agreement with
consultant Patrick J. Crowley to complete a more detailed study
{attached, titled Historic District Studv (Study)).
2. On June 22, 1992 the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) held
a public hearing to review the Historic District Study prepared by the
consultant. The Staff report accompanying the consultant's report made
two specific recommendations to the RCC. Among the alternatives
proposed in the study, Staff recommended:
A. Per Chapter 7 of the Study, it is recommended that a Historic
Modifying District Ordinance creating a historic overlay zone be
drafted, adopted and incorporated into Title 19 of the Municipal
Code (Zoning Ordinance). The ordinance would include elements
describing its purpose, method of application clear criteria for its
application, land use regulations for the properties within the
district, possible expansion of permitted uses, description of the
appeal process, and necessary definitions. The ordinance could
be applied to any area in the City.
-/
.:>. l'
City Planning Commission
Aoenda Item for Meetino of Mav 26, 1993
Page 2
B. In addition, the study recommends the appointment of a Historic
District Task Force with representation from the Council, the
Planning Commission, the Resource Conservation Commission,
the Design Review Committee, the Historical Society, the
Chamber of Commerce and other interested citizens. The Task
Force would, among other assignments, assist the City in the
implementation of the Historic Overlay Zone Ordinance creating a
historic overlay zone.
In response to substantial concerns expressed by residents of the focus
area, at a public hearing held on June 22, 1992, the RCC voted
unanimously (5-0) to adopt Alternative No.3, "No Formal Public
Participation," and that the City take no further action with respect to
historic preservation (Minutes attached).
As a result of the hearing before the RCC, and after consultation with
area residents, it was determined by staff that there may have been
some confusion on the part of the residents with respect to the
recommendations of the Study and that at least one additional informal
meeting needed to be held with the focus area residents before
presenting the Study to the Planning Commission, and therefore an
informal public forum was scheduled.
3. On August 6, 1992, the public forum was held with Planning Staff and
22 residents of the focus area in attendance. At the meeting, Staff
explained the recommendations of the Study in detail and took a straw
vote to determine whether or not there was support for forwarding the
Study on to the Planning Commission and City Council. It was made
clear prior to the straw vote that the study and its two recommendations
would not be calling for creation of a specific district as part of the
Planning Commission's actions; that the Planning Commission would be
considering a recommendation that Council direct that an ordinance be
drafted; and that at a later date, after adoption of the ordinance, a
specific geographic area be studied for application of the Historic Overlay
Zone. Sixteen residents had no objection, four others were in opposition
to any action, and two stated no opinion.
4. For environmental review purposes, the study is exempt. If, however,
Council directs that a historic ordinance be drafted, environmental review
will be mandatory.
F:\HOME\PLANN ING\MARTIN\HISTDIST\880BPC. RPT
-
'-"(
City Planning Commission
Aqenda Item for Meetinq of Mav 26, 1993
Page 3
B. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council
accept the Historic District Study and its recommendation to prepare a Historic
Modifying District Ordinance (Alternative No.4) creating an overlay zone, and, as a
separate action, create a Historic District Task Force (HDTS) with the duties as
described in the Study (see Chapter 7 of the Study).
C. DISCUSSION
Alternatives
The Historic District Study discusses five alternative actions related to historic
preservation. These are discussed in detail in Chapter Six of the study, and are
summarized here. They are:
Alternative No.1: Chula Vista Historic Row - As the name implies, this
alternatives proposes to designate a row of historic structures along a portion
of the west side of the six hundred block of Second Avenue. Several of the
structures along this portion of Second Avenue are already considered
historically or aesthetically significant and would provide a core for a Historic
Row.
Alternative No.2: Chura Vista Historic District - The historic district concept is
an expansion of the historic row. Where the previous concept is limited to
eight lots on Second Avenue, this alternative would expand on that to include
the entire west side of the six hundred block of Second Avenue and houses on
both sides of the six hundred block of Del Mar Avenue, thus forming a district.
This district would include more dwellings considered historically significant.
In some cases, the structures could possibly qualify for designation as historic
or as structures otherwise contributing to the district. This alternative should
not be confused with Alternative No.4: Historic Overlay District. Where this
alternative targets a specific area of the City, Alternative No.4 would be an
ordinance applicable to any part of the City that qualifies under the definition.
Alternative No.3: No Formal Public Participation - Under this alternative the
City would not take any other formal action at this time to preserve historically
significant structures other than the current procedures already in place through
F :\HOME\PlANNING\MARTIN\HISTDrST\880BPC. RPT
3 - :..>.
City Planning Commission
Aqenda Item for Meetinq of Mav 26, 1993
Page 4
the RCC. If this alternative were chosen, the Historic District Study would be
filed with no further action.
It should be noted that this is the alternative unanimously recommended by the
Resource Conservation Commission.
Alternative No.4: Historic Overlay Zone - Alternative No.4, the Staff and
consultant recommended alternative, if adopted, would create a Historic
Overlay Zone through a Historic Modifying District Ordinance. The overlay zone
could be subsequently applied to property anywhere in the City. The current
underlying zoning would remain in force, but the unique historic characteristics
of a particular area, whether residential, commercial, industrial, etc., would be
recognized and specific measures would be authorized to aid preservation of
district structures. This type of an overlay zone is similar to other modifying
zones already in force in the City such as the Precise Plan and Hillside
Modifying Zones.
Alternative No. 4 constitutes the Staff recommendation along with the
appointment of the Historic District Task Force (see pages 7-2 and 7-9 in the
Historic District Study for the consultant's recommendations).
The pros and cons of having an overlay zone, as outlined in Recommendation
1 on page 7-2 of the Historic District Study, are summarized below:
PROS
· The Historic Overlay Ordinance would be flexible in that it would
be incorporated into the Code and be available to be applied to
any property where preservation of unique characteristics is
desirable. A Historic District, on the other hand, would be limited
to one specified area of the City. An established historic district
could provide property suitable for relocating additional historic
structures from other locations. However, the removal of a
historic structure should be a last solution, since part of its
historic value lies within the social milieu in which it exists.
· The ordinance would be enforceable in that it will be part of the
Zoning Ordinance and therefore its provisions subject to
enforcement by Code Enforcement.
F:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\HISTDIST\B80BPC. RPT
....:~. i_I
,
City Planning Commission
Aqenda Item for Meetinq of Mav 26, 1993
Page 5
· A degree of prestige may be associated with the designation.
· Being part of a historic zone would provide a degree of protection
from significant alteration which would degrade or diminish the
unique characteristics of the neighborhood/district or of the
individual resource.
· Designation as part of a historic zone could have a positive effect
on property values.
· Incentives, if included either in the historic ordinance or applied
separately, may allow financial, altruistic or other benefits for the
property owners (see the discussion under Incentives).
CONS
· In return for recognition and possible protection from undesirable
alterations, property owners would have to accept a level of
control over demolition, removal or exterior alterations to their
structures.
Alternative No.5: Creation of a Historic Site Commission - This alternative
would create a Historic Site Commission (HSC) which can be considered on its
own or in conjunction with Alternatives 1, 2 or 4. This Commission would
assume and perhaps expand the powers now vested in the RCC with respect
to historic preservation. It would be composed of experts in the specialized
fields of architecture, real estate, law, construction, history and archeology.
The HSC would have similar powers to that of the Design Review Committee
in so far as it would be empowered to make decisions without the project
necessarily having to go to the Planning Commission or the City Council unless
appealed. It's powers would also be similar to the Resource Conservation
Commission's related to designation of candidate historic properties. The HSC
may be called upon to make initial determinations regarding demolition,
relocation or alterations to designated structures. For example, one power the
Resource Conservation Commission already has which the Site Commission
would then assume, is that, with concurrence of the City Council, it could
cause a proposed action to be delayed up to 180 days and, in some cases, up
to 360 days, in order to arrive at alternatives which would preserve a resource.
F:\HOME\PLANN ING\MARTIN\HISTDIST\B80BPC. RPT
_5 ~ c
City Planning Commission
Aoenda Item for Meetino of Mav 26, 1993
Page 6
The Historic Site Commission described in Alternative No.5 should not be
confused with the Historic District Task Force described in Chapter 7 of the
Study and which is part of the Study's recommendation. The Historic Site
Commission, if created, would be a permanent body. The Historic District Task
Force, as proposed, would be an ad hoc committee with representation from
the Council, the Planning Commission, the Resource Conservation Commission,
the Design Review Committee, the Historical Society, the Chamber of
Commerce and other interested citizens that would assist the City Council in
creating and initiating the Historic District Overlay Ordinance and Historic
Overlay Zone. The Historic District Task Force would continue at the pleasure
of the Council until their functions were deemed complete.
Incentives for Historic Preservation
Where the Historic District Overlay Ordinance would be the mechanism for defining
a structure or area as "historic," an incentives program would be needed as the
"carrot" to induce property owners to file for or accept designation or, if designated,
make specific commitments to maintain and/or restore the property. As discussed in
Chapter 5 of the Study, certain incentives could be included as part of the overall
historic preservation program as this encouragement to have properties listed as
historic. For purposes of this report, incentives fall into three categories: Altruism,
Direct Financial and Indirect Financial incentives. These are summarized below:
1. Altruism
A. Pride of ownership
B. Public recognition and prestige
C. Civic pride
D. Awards programs
E. Plaques and signs
F. Tour map route markings
G. Inclusion in educational material
H. Preservation for future generations
Although the above incentives are less measurable than financial incentives, they are,
nonetheless, important factors in establishing a viable historic district. Pride of
ownership by the property owner and civic pride by the community, added to the
public recognition and the prestige of winning an award, appearing on maps and in
educational material, and having a plaque or sign designating the property as historic,
all contribute to the meaning of a historic district.
F :\HOME\PlANNING\MARTIN\H 15TDIST\8808PC. RPT
C'.0'
City Planning Commission
AQenda Item for MeetinQ of Mav 26, 1993
Page 7
2. Direct Financial Incentives
A. Grants
B. Loan programs
i. Revolving funds
ii. Redevelopment tax increments
iii. Housing commission
iv. Marks Bond Act
C. Federal Historic Preservation Investment Tax Credits
D. Mills Act contracts: Property tax reductions
E. Tax rebates
F. Facade easements
G. Open space easements
H. Fee waivers and reductions
I. Reimbursements
i. Dumpster and landfill fees
ii. Appropriate materials
iii. Landscape improvements
iv. Maintenance allowances
v. Design fees
To encourage property owners to establish and maintain a designated historic
structure, grants and loans are available at various levels of government, as well as
tax credits, reductions and rebates. A significant financial incentive, however, is the
Mills Act contract. This has been used successfully in the City of Escondido where
seven structures with historic designations are currently under contract to receive
lower assessments in return for agreements for maintenance and restoration through
the Mills Act.
In brief, under this law, the owner of a property designated as "historic" or within the
historic district can enter into a 10 year contract with the city whereby the owner
agrees to conditions requiring the reasonable maintenance and restoration of the
exterior of the structure in its historic condition. Such structures must, however, be
visually accessible from a public street. The city, for its part and in cooperation with
the County, reduces or freezes assessments on the property (see Attachment "A").
Another less popular incentive is the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act. Because of
the total dollar amounts required by this Act, most cities in California shy away from
its use (also see Attachment "A").
F ;\HOME\PLANN ING\MAATIN\H ISTDfST\8808PC. RPT
r
-. (
City Planning Commission
Aqenda Item for Meetinq of Mav 26, 1993
Page 8
3. Indirect Financial Incentives
A. Public improvements in historic districts
B. Historic status yields value to businesses, e.g. bed & breakfast inns
C. Enhanced property values within an improving district
An overall, comprehensive historic preservation program can also can also be
considered a benefit to the general community. Public improvements, enhanced
business and property values, and increases in real estate values all have positive
benefits to the community as a whole besides to the property owner.
A number of cities across the United States have incorporated and instituted the
above incentives in their own historic preservation programs. Rather than go into
detail on these examples, the reader is referred to Attachment" B," Local Incentives
for Historic Preservation.
D. CONCLUSION
As time passes, there will be greater pressure to replace older structures with more
energy efficient, more cost-effective buildings. In many cases demolition and
replacement is appropriate as the structures are old, worn or may pose a health or
safety hazard. In other cases, because of the unique characteristics associated with
a particular structure or area, demolition may be inappropriate, since once the
structure is razed or the site inappropriately altered, the unique value is lost and the
social fabric diminished because of the loss. In cases where valuable historic
resources are endangered, there is currently no authority to intervene in support of
preservation except with respect to four specially designated properties in the City.
The Historic District Overlay Zone could provide a degree of protection which would
benefit the community as well as the property owner. Given the right circumstances,
the structure's or site's preservation and rehabilitation may be undertaken. However,
without suitable legislation, this is very difficult.
The recommended action with respect to the recommended Historic Overlay Zone
would create an ordinance that is flexible because it can be applied to any zoning
district and to most situations where preservation is desirable, yet it is also
enforceable because it will become a part of the Zoning Ordinance. The Historic
Overlay Zone could then, following public hearings, be applied to any structure or
group of structures that qualify, or it could provide incentives to move the structure(s)
to an area where the Historic Overlay Zone has already been applied.
F:\HOME\PLANN ING\MARTIN\HI~TDIST\8808PC. RPT
- '-...-,:
1.__'
City Planning Commission
Aqenda Item for Meetinq of Mav 26. 1993
Page 9
Attachment "C" lists forty-two structures that are considered historically significant.
As mentioned previously, only four Chula Vista properties are protected from
alteration. demolition, or relocation by the Resource Conservation Commission and
can not be architecturally changed or demolished without RCC approval. The
remaining houses do not enjoy protection from arbitrary alteration, change or
demolition. Thus, the vast majority of designated properties have no protection
whatever. The recommended Historic Modifying District Ordnance would allow a
comprehensive approach to preservation, and an approach that could be applied on
a neighborhood rather than structure-by-structure basis.
[NOTE: On Page 2-6 of the Study it is mentioned that there are forty-four structures
listed as being historically significant. There are actually forty-two, since "Our House"
at 666 Third Avenue burned down and the Marry Miller House was counted twice.]
Therefore, staff has concluded that an ordinance for a Historic Overlay Zone is
appropriate at this time. Placement of the zone would be done only after formal
application, staff analysis and community in-put through the same noticing and public
hearing process as is the case for all zoning changes. No final determination would
be made without favorable action by the City Council.
Such actions will allow the City the flexibility to establish areas within the community
in which structures or places of historic significance would receive a degree of
protection from demolition or arbitrary and inappropriate alterations.
F:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\H ISTDJST\880BPC. RPT
-
'(
. ..
.. ,
. . ~., -..
..
1._______
I
WlJ.NT'Y
COu rz.n! OU?e-
ST.
~
~
...,
a:
a:
CI:
(:>
,...J---i
I.T --t
~ r"1
I ; I
--,....
I I . :--_.
..\ I . I
u.J _.. ";-""1' ~ _;... :..:.'; ~
> I.... r-' . .
~ ,:.:.::::
~T~e~T
.
l.~ i: i I I ; i ~__ I . , . , ---.. f .j.-..
, I . : , , :
I ~.J I-J-- ,
",..1.1...../
---'- 1.1..._1-_ , ---- ------
---a: 1-_1.__ ... .. .. .. -- w
---- ---- :> --..----
.-- "w .I..~-r- z .... .., ......
w .
-I. ......~-- .- .......... .. ---- -....-..--
> ---.
~-.",,",: ~ ---- ------ CI:
,
-.--- -----.. - -'...--..
~ .. .. ..... ... .. ...-----
PL - .. .. .... .. .. .. ~-----_.
~= VI- -----.. r '. - - - - -
--- -...---- J-1L
t--o .. ..... --- . - - - n.
Z t -----.. .. ..... .. ....- a:
1--..1 - .. - .... ... -. -- --..... <I: .. .............. ........... -
r-no ::I r--
f-- - .. .. ..... A --r---- I
'-- I ., ----~_...
..J ...... -- .-..
w
- PI'OJ~ v r- .. ...,-.. Q -- - - -
- l..Oc,A1l0N-- ..... ---'--- -.. -..-
,
I ... - ,- .,. ..- "~-'r' ... ... " , , ,
, . . .";-'1 , . .
I , , , , , , .
, , . ,
.:.J ';7 nz.f:~~:;r ;
. III ; I.
t r:a- ~ , - III ,
. -- _u -~ > . .
~ .1.
- -.. f'\ u_ =
f-- - - n_ - - -
IrJ - u ~
f---. -
~ t-- '-- i--
a: I \- - -~ I:
-----
_u ...
~ 0 - f--I
'" -..
- r--- I~ ,
,
--- 01 KEA~N Y m
' ~ --- h]
- -
- --
- I
(HI"TO~IC.I HE.RlT!I~~ A~ ~TUDY 1 LOCATOR
Non';;; ( rC/.1 - jj6- P,; ) -' / c
[
~
L
f
f
]
~
, , ,
---, , ,
~
r
, , ~
, , ,
I , ,
, ,
Q
7.
~
~
, , ...
...., , ---,
--..'. w ___ J.. .,
,
>
CI:
::I
..J
.. .. T- W
,
- -j .
----I
-
t
---.. '-.,1 I I I \I
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, June 22, 1992
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by
Chairperson Hall. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present:
Commissioners Fox, Kracha and Ghougassian. Absent: Ray. [Commissioner Johnson arrived
at 6:10 p.m.]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of May 18, 1992 were not approved due to lack of
quorum present from that meeting.
1. Public Hearing on the Historic District Study PCM-88-08. Martin Miller presented a
brief outline of the study. He noted the action to be taken by the commission would be to
accept the study as presented, modify the study as presented, or take no action. Patrick
Crowley, the author of the study, was introduced to answer questions of the commission.
Mr. Crowley's slide presentation was of historic buildings. He answered questions on creation
of historic districts versus preservation of historic sites. The staff report included five
alternatives; recommendation by staff was the Historic District Study of February 1992.
Discussion was held on the economic and market value impact to the surrounding properties
and to its property owners.
The public hearing was opened by Chairperson Hall at 6:57 p.m.
Hector Diez de Bonilla, 621 Del Mar, is against the plan for redistricting. More homes from
2nd Street north to National City and 4th Avenue between I & K exceed the standards for
historical designation. Noted Ihat those owners have restored their own homes without
government influence.
Bob Ford, owner of property at666 and 668 Del Mar since 1940 - questioned the feasibility
of a 20 ft. aUey betyJeen I & J Streets so that dC0p lets ~rs S2p~~~tcd from busir:es$ lots and
available for access through those lots.
Berta Alicia Gonzales owns a Spanish house at 629 Del Mar, where three generations were
raised in that home. Part of the land behind her property has been acquired by a business on
2nd Avenue for parking purposes. Ghougassian questioned her fear of loss of ownership to
the government. Mr. Crowley noted that historic designation would mean major changes
cannot be made without approval by site board. City acts as an agent to protect the owner
and would control the exterior of building to keep in conformance with historic district.
Paul Goya's home, 682 2nd Ave., is designated potential. He is against the study because
he doesn't want to go through government control. Sees no benefit in historical districting.
Frank Williams spoke for his daughter living at 647 Del Mar. The house was bought with
intention to build another home on the large lot. He suggested selected homes be chosen for
historical designation throughout area, but not to designate a whole block area.
3. j(
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 2
Kracha asked if the residents who received the Historic District Study were within the
proposed blocked area. Notice was sent to those within 1000 feet of proposed area.
AI Belmontez, 681 Del Mar suggested the Task Force also determine which homes are in need
of repair. He also questioned who would pay for the restoration. Invasion of privacy would
be disturbed if the quiet neighborhood is open to public viewing. Some residents have made
improvements on their homes but now don't qualify for designation because of renovations.
Gabriela Bonilla, 629 Del Mar - multi-generations of families in that home. Expressed lack of
privacy with historical designation.
John Yamata, 690 Del Mar, related homeowners are already taking care of own properties.
Corinne McColl, 642 2nd Ave., lives in the historic Harris & Frank Home, which was moved
to its present location to preserve the home. She spoke in favor of the historic districting.
Janet Griffin, 647 Del Mar, takes care of her own property. She presented a list of attendees
to a meeting of residents affected by this study.
Maggie Helm, 162 Mankato. is within 1000 feet of the study. 1) not all .Q!Q homes are
historical; 2) don't deny owners of control; 3) increase in traffic for an R-1 zoned
neighborhood. The difference is in their large lots; 4) worked to save orchard houses; 5) not
much is left on 3rd Ave. of historical value, although it should have been saved; 6) on Del Mar
towards J Street, homes are not much older and not a family home. Her home is not as old
as the others; 7) E & F Streets and 2nd & 3rd St. are really historical (built in the 20's and
30's) but they're small; 8) don't do an historical district as the area is not that big. Further
questions by Ms. Helm included: 1) cost to the city to maintain historical district? 2)
Restrictions to keep it historic? 3) The Money home on 2nd Ave. has a modern home in front;
how to deal with that?
Dick Schuller. 650 Del Mar, opposes the study.
Nancy Park$, lives at 124 Hilltop and owns the property at 220 I Street. Her home is not
historical, although it is in the study.
Frances Carvajal. 633 Del Mar, home built around 1926. Will lack privacy.
Corinne McCall noted her home was built around 1896 and still remains to be a family home.
Marjorie Wheeling Watrons, 646 Del Mar Ave., against government control. This study is
untimely introduced due to the falling economy. City should not take control.
J.L. Craig, 630 2nd Ave., wanted to know if residents will know the outcome of the vote.
Informed it would be voted on this evening.
The public hearing was closed by Chairperson Hall at 8:00 p.m.
~ -
~,. / t:-..(
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 3
Discussion by Commission included the following:
· Kracha - The first presentation of this study was heard over three months ago,
including the alternatives. Noted it was not presented the same way this evening as
it was then. He originally supported option #4, but now supports #3.
· Ghougassian will vote in support of the public heard tonight.
· Johnson - questioned who pays for renovations already made. Individuals are not now
required to make any changes.
· Fox - noted his support for the people and expressed concern that a plan of this
magnilude but be forced on the residents. Support option #3.
· Johnson asked Crowley to look at alternatives to preserve Chula Vista. He said that
this was just a study, not a proposal.
· Hall voiced her objection to historical districting.
· Fox - noted p. 611, the wording of major advantage not to seek consent of property
owners, and his objection to such wording. Favors option #3.
· Kracha - regardless of decision and recommendation of RCC, the issue is still going to
Planning Commission. Residents were advised to attend all public hearings held
regarding this issue.
After discussion, it was then moved and seconded (Kracha/Fox) to forward the Historical
District Study to the Planning Commission, recommending Alternative #3, no formal public
participation. Further discussion by Fox - on p. 6-14, no listing of criteria with addition of
historical site. Mr. Crowley noted Alternative #3 will undo the current duties of RCC,
however, Doug Reid corrected that voting for no formal districts would not affect RCC's
duties. Mr. Johnson supports #3 and encouraged residents to give value and significance to
their opinions. The motion was unanimously carried, 5-0.
Following the motion, Mr. Fox asked when the "$125,000 over 4 years" was to take effect.
Mr. Crowley answered the criteria for historical sites needs to first be established; money not
yet spent. It was then MSUP (Fox/Kracha) under RCC's stated duties to correct a sentence
to read, "Recommend to Planning Commission and Council that RCC establish or review its
current criteria for historical site designation", deleting the wording, "if there are any"; motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
[A five minute recess was taken.]
2. MaryAnn Miller reviewed EIR 91-05, Telegraph Canyon Estates (Baldwin). Discussion
and questions from Commission included the following:
· Ghougassian - noise impacts from 125 could be a future impact.
. Kracha - p. S-5, proposed project will precede the Otay Ranch project. What would
happen if they do not become a part of Chula Vista? What happens to funding of
Chula Vista schools? Steve Doyle of Baldwin, 11975 EI Camino Real, clarified.
· Kracha - Questioned air quality, park, recreation and open space. Park fees were
collected and distributed within districts. It is noted Mello Roos is proposed for
schools only. Builder fees pay for the public services.
· Hall - Discussed fiscal impact study; profitable balance in Eastlake High School,
considering elementary schools are going in the red. Auto license fees collected.
Effect of tax money collected. Effect of traffic on 125 if it becomes a toll road. Subir
Wada, City Engineer & Traffic discussed the toll road.
.:~' /5
STATE OF CAUFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETE WILSON, GOVM11Of
Q
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 9429~1
(916) 445-8006
FAX: (916) 322~377 .
Adopted in 1972 and amended in 1984, the Mills Act provides
a reduction in property taxes on a historic property when
certain conditions are met. owners of designated historic
properties must enter into a preservation contract directly
the local government agreeing to restore the property if
necessary, maintain its historic character, and use it in a
manner compatible with the historic characteristics.
MILLS
ACT
for
with
Contracts must be made for a 10-year period, during which time
the owner is entitled to a reduction in property taxes under the
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 439. Until amended in 1984,
the Mills Act was not widely used. The amendments, however,
have made it more palatable and have eliminated, among other
things, the requirement that the property be made open to the
public for a limited number of days.
Use of the Mills Act requires a contract professionally drawn up
between the historic property owner and the city. The city tor
county) must monitor the provisions of it until its expiration.
The county tax assessor is directed by state law to adjust the
assessed value of the property downward to reflect the
restrictions placed on the property. A lower assessment will
result in lower taxation.
Mills Act contracts have the net effect of freezing the base
value of the property, thereby keeping property taxes low.
Often the benefits are minimal the first few years, but as the
value of the property climbs, a significant property tax savings
may be experienced. Mills Act contracts remain in force upon
resale of the property; if a significant jump in assessed value
results from the resale price, the property tax bill remains
low.
MARKS HISTORICAL REHABILITATION ACT
This act provides authority for cities, counties, and
redevelopment agencies in California to issue tax-exempt revenue
bonds for the purpose of financing historical rehabilitation of
buildings with local, state or national significance.
The act specifies the conditions and criteria under which the
bonds can be issued. Thoughh these are quite generous, the
Marks Bond Act program has been rarely used in California,
seemingly because of the requirement that developers may make no
more than $10,000,000 on capital expenditures. cities or
counties are rarely willing to exPend the time and money
involved in issuing bonds for this small amount. If, however,
several major historic projects are undertaken in a jurisdiction
at once and the collective costs and expenses total an amount
high enough to justify staff time and fees to issue a bond, then
the Marks Bond Act may prove to be a useful and desirable tool.
3 /4
Attachment "A"
..s..s.....s..s..s...s..s.....s..s.......s.....s..s.s....l..s.....s..s.......s.....s..s..s...s........s..s.s...s..s.....s..s..s...s..s.....s..s..s...s..s.....s..s..s..s..s........s...
J
LOCAL INCENTIVES
FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
y--
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Center for Preservation Policy Studies
May 1991
~
J /S
Attachment "B"
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
The National Trust for Historic Preservation
Center for Preservation Policy Studies
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel. (202) 673-4255
Copyright to 1991, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. All rights
reserved. This material may be reproduced on the condition that an appropriate credit be
provided to the National Trust.
u.:5" /' /'
... (,-
.,-::1"",
"'11;;"
.-;,:\..~
'::::'t
'.",
'."1
\
;~- -'-~
...
,
~
t
.
!
j
.
~.
;
;
-
LOCAL INCE.'ilIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Prepared by
Constance E. Beaumont
May 24, 1991
Many local governments provide incentives to encourage private property owners to
preserve or rehabilitate historic buildings. Such incentives can be an important
complement to regulatory controls embodied in local preservation ordinances.
,
Among the different types of historic preservation iDcentives used by cities and towns
around the country are:
. tax incentives
. financial assistance (e.g., rehabilitation
grants or loans)
. regulatory relief (from building code or
parking requirements)
. zoning incentives (e.g., transfer of
development rights, density bonuses)
. technical assistance (e.g., design
assistance)
In addition to providing preservation incentives, many co=unities are creating
disincentives for property owners to demolish historic landmarks and replace them with
surface parking lots. This memorandum cites examples of such disincentives as well as
incentives.
It should be noted at the outset that some preservation iDcentives discussed hereiD may
not be pennitted under state law. Local governments considering incentive programs are
advised to review their state historic preservation or zoning enabliDg laws to determine
whether they have the legal. authority to put certain incentives in place. If they lack such
authority but wish to obtain it, they might consider working with statewide preservation
organizations to amend their state enabling legislation. (See "Successful State Advocacy,"
National Trust Infonnation Sheet No. 57)
Additional references on preservation incentives are cited at the end of this
memorandum.
1
.3 Jr7
A. TAX INCE!'<'TIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
I. San Antonio. Texas
One of the more mature tax incentive programs for preservation is found in San
Antonio, where in 1980 the city council authorized property tax relief for owners of
historic properties.
Under this program, taxpayers who substantially rehabilitate historic residential
structures may have their property tax assessments frozen for 10 years at pre-
rehabilitation assessment levels. After that period, tax assessments must again reflect a
property's full market value. Both rental housing and owner-occupied residences may
qualify for this benefit.
Rehabilitated commercial structures may be exempted completely from city property
taxes for five years. During the following five years, taxes are assessed on only half of
the renovated building's value.
San Antonio preservation advocates are currently working with the Bexar County
Appraisal District to persuade county tax assessors to tax historic landmarks according to
their actual use, rather than their "highest and best" use.
For more information: San Antonio Historic Preservation Office, Box 839966, San
Antonio, Texas 78283-3966. Tei: 512/299-8308.
2. Boulder. Colorado
Boulder law authorizes a waiver of city sales taxes on construction materials used to
rehabilitate historic landmarks if at least 30% of the cost of materials is for a building's
exterior. This program has been used extensively and reportedly makes property owners
happier about complying with design review requirements applied to historic buildings.
For more information: Department of Community Planning and Development, Rm. 305,
Park Central Bldg., 1739 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80306. Tel: 303/441-3270.
3. Other Examples of Communities with Tax Incentives
_'\'; 0
._...;;'1~;.....,.....
Jackson. Mississippi authorizes property tax exemptions for
up to 7 years for designated landmarks or buildings in
historic districts. Both commercial and residential structures
2
.3 / S
qualify.
o Atlanta. Georgia provides a freeze on property taxes for
income-producing historic landmarks.
o Buffalo. New York allows 50% of the value of a rehabilitated
landmark property to be excluded from tax assessments for
up to 20 years.
o Seattle. Washington pennits tax assessments on rehabilitated
historic properties to exclude the increased values
attributable to rehabilitation for up to 10 years.
!L GRANTS A.~D LOANS
I. Roanoke. Virginia
In 1989 Roanoke created a "Historic Buildings Rehabilitation Loan Program." The
program is the result of a partnership involving Downtown Roanoke, Inc., the Roanoke
VaHey Preservation Foundation, the City of Roanoke and locai co=erciai lender..
Under this program, the banks provide rehabilitation loans of up to $100,000 per project.
The interest rate is set at 2% below prime; the loan term, at seven years. The program
is limited to buildings in Roanoke's central business district.
In addition, the city of Roanoke offers matching facade improvement grants of up to
$5,000 and provides free architectural design assistance to property owners in local
historic districts. To qualify for these grants, a person must rehabilitate a deteriorated
building and increase job opportunities for low to moderate-income persons. All
renovations must comply with special rehabilitation standards. This program is funded
through community development block grant funds available from the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
For more infonnation: City of Roanoke Co=unity Planning Office, Room 355,
Municipal Bldg., 215 Church Ave., S.w., Roanoke, Virginia 24011. Tel: 703-981-2344.
\
\
\.
3
::> (?
!:, EXEMPTIONS FROM PARKING REOUIREMENTS
Many communities recognize that it is difficult for historic areas to meet parking
requirements that were intended for new construction. Inasmuch as the enforcement of
such requirements can easily destroy the pedestrian-oriented character of historic
districts, many zoning ordinances allow for flexibility in this area. Cited below are some
examples.
1. Eugene. Oregon
Eugene's preservation ordinance states:
The (historic review) board or council may modify... general provisions
regarding (the)...number of off-street parking spaces required...in the final order
designating landmark status if the modifications:
l) are necessary to preserve the historic character, appearance or integrity of
the proposed historic landmark, and
2) are in accordance with the purposes of zoning and sign regulations.
2. Durham. North Carolina
Durham's preservation ordinance authorizes parking variances to protect the special
character of its historic districts:
When the Histon'c District Commission finds thai the number of off-street
parking spaces required by the zoning regulaiions for a building or structure for
which a Certificate of Appropriaieness is requested is inconsistent with the
historic character and qualities of the District, the Historic District Commission
shall recommend to the Board of Adjustment thai the Boarri...grwzt a
variance, in part or in whole, of the number of off-street parking spaces
required. The Board...may authorize a lesser number of off-street parking
spaces, provided: (l) the Board finds thai the lesser number of off-street
parking spaces will not create problems due to increased on-street parking, and
(2) will not constitute a threat to the public safety.
3. Austin. Texas
Austin authorizes its landmark commission to:
4
3'. :;? c_~
review the parking regulations in exi$tence in the (historic) district and
recommend any changes in numbers, or Ioca/ion of on-street and off-street
parking requirements it feeLs necessary to enhance the district. (The
commission) shall review the adequacy of parking facilities in or affecting the
district and may offer recommendations for such public and/or priva/e parking
lots, garages or structures it deems to be in the best overall interest of the
district.
4. Richmond. Vir~inia
Section 16-11 of Richmond's ordinance states:
The...off-street parking and loading reguIations...shalI not apply to buildings or
premises in an old and historic distric1 when it is demonstraJed to the
satisfaction of the commission by competent evidence that it is necessary to
depart from such regulations and provisions in order to accomplish, encourage
and promote the purposes and objectives set out in (the ordinances statement
of purpose).
5. Seattle. Washington
Seattle's land use code helps to maintain the walkability of the downtown area through
reduced parking requirements. No parking is required for new uses located in existing
structures, even when they are remodeled. No parking, either long- or short-term, is
required: for the first 30,000 square feet of retail space on lots in areas with high transit
access; for the first 7,500 square feet of retail and service space on lots in other areas;
and for the first 2,500 square feet of non-retail co=ercial space.
Seattle also has a special ordinance governing development in the historic Pioneer
Square Preservation District. Among the stated purposes of that ordinance are:
o to avoid a proliferation of vehicular parking and vehicular-oriented uses;
o to provide regulations for existing on-street and off-street parking; and
o to encourage the use of transportation modes other than the private
automobile.
The Pioneer Square ordinance prohibits free-standing gas stations and such other auto-
related land uses as automotive retail sales and services, drive-in businesses and surface
parking lots. The ordinance explicitly discourages parking garages and subjects them to
special design review. Curb cuts and street-level entrances to parking facilities, when
they are allowed, are subject to special review.
5
::>
-'
:;;' I
'\.
For more information: Dept. of Community Development, 700 3rd Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98104. Tel: 206/684-0228.
.Q, Denver. Colorado
The zoning ordinance for Denver's Lower Downtown Historic District includes the
following restriction to guard against the construction of parking garages that could
destroy with the special character of this area:
Parking is prohibited within a space which extends from street
level upwanis a distance of 12 feet in any structure located
within 35 feet of the zone lot front line which is part of the long
dimension of any block
Denver also exempts buildings in the Lower Downtown Historic District that were
constructed or altered before 1974 from the normal parking requirements.
For more information: Denver Planning Office, 1445 Cleveland Place, Denver, Colorado
80202. Tel: 303/640-3609.
D. EXFMPTT01\i'S FROM BUILDING CODE REOUIREMENTS
As is the case with parking requirements, today's building codes were written with new
construction in mind and are often inappropriate for historic structures. For this reason,
many communities allow waivers of certain building code provisions for historic
structures provided that the public safety is not endangered. Usually this is done through
tradeoffs: the existence of certain characteristics in a historic structure may compensate
for the absence of features required by the building code. Examples of communities that
provide such flexibility are cited below.
I. Duluth. Minnesota
Duluth's ordinance encourages building code enforcement authorities:
to be open to acceptable alternative sollltions and alternative compliance
concepts, where practical, that will permit the continued u.se of existing
buildings and structures without creating overly restrictive financial buniens on
owners or occupants. (But) nothing in this oniinance shall be construed to
prevent the oniinary maintenance or repair of any exterior elements of any
building or structure required by city oniinance.
6
-~ ~::?
2. Taos. New Mexico
The model code followed by Taos is the Uniform Building Code. However, the Taos
preservation ordinance explicitly authorizes building code officials to consider alternative
ways for historic buildings to comply with code requirements:
Rehabilitalion or restoration of an officially designated historic strcuture can
be made without conformance to all of the requirements of the codes upon
the review and authorizalion by the building official who has legal authority.
3. Sarasota. Florida
The building code relief provided for historic structures in Sarasota is as follows:
Historically designated structures and structures which are 10Caled in a
designated historical district...shall qualify for the exemption accorded to
special historic buildings under... (the) Sarasota Building Code (Standard
Building Code, 1985 edition)...provlded that the building meets all other
requirements of that section to the satisfaction of the Building and Zoning
Administrator...
If 'D.....:....... T....:I....~.....
.,.. L.JV~.J..... lUUUV
Boise allows flexibility in the fire code as well as the building code:
The Council, in order to promote the preservation and restoration of any
historic properties, landmarks or property within an historical district may,
upon the recommendation of the Commission, exempt an historic property,
landmark, or property within an historical district from the applicalion of City
Fire or Building Codes upon compliance with the criteria for exemption set
forth in said codes and upon a finding thal non-exemption would prevent or
seriously hinder the preservalion or restoration of said historic property,
landmark or property in an historical district. Upon recision of an historic
designation, any code exemption herein granted shall be revoked effective the
date of recision.
5. Austin. Texas
Austin's preservation ordinance permits the local landmark commission to:
review and recommend arry amendments to the building regulations it feels
necessary to preserve the architectural and historic integrity and authenticity of
structures within each such district.
7
--J ::::..
t--'f'-j
6. Richmond. Virginia
Richmond authorizes flexibility in fire code requirements for historic buildings:
when the chief of the bureau of fire certifies to the (landmark) commission
that in his opinion such building or structure and the character of construction
thereof will not materially increase the danger from f/J"e...
(Portsmouth, Va., has a similar ordinance.)
7. Seattle. Washinlrton
The Seattle Building Code, which is based on the Uniform Building Code, allows the
director of the Department of Construction and Land Use to modify building code
requirements for landmark buildings. The director has the discretion to request
alternate requirements so long as they do not compromise the public health and safety.
E. ZONING INCENTIVES
I. Transfer of Development Rights
The transfer of development rights (TDR) is a publicly created mechanism through
which owners of historic properties may sell unused development rights (air rights) to a
property owner who uses these rights on another site. With TDRs in hand, a developer
may build a larger building on the "receiving site" than the zoning would normally allow.
Historic property owners who sell TDRs may use the proceeds from their sales to pay for
necessary repairs to their property.
In order for TDR programs to succeed, there must be a market for the development
rights that owners of historic properties want to sell. Co=unities in which the overall
real estate market is sluggish may not find TDRs very useful. Cities with robust real
estate markets have established TDR programs but often destroy the TDR market by
zoning "receiving sites" too liberally. That is, they make building density and height
limits so generous that there is little incentive for developers to purchase TDRs. If the
zoning already permits developers to build exceedingly large buildings as a matter of
right, why sh~uld they pay extra for TDRs?
Anther prerequisite for a successful TDR program seem to be a city planning staff with
expertise in real estate matters, as TDR transactions can be complicated.
Although TDR programs exist in a number of cities, as can be seen from the experiences
8
-". ~)4
of the following communities, TDRs have not been used very often:
o Seattle. Seattle's TDR program, created in 1985, permits TDR
transactions for two purposes: to produce or preserve low-income housing
and to save historic landmarks. Although the program has been used for
housing, it has never been used to preserve landmarks. Efforts are
currently being made to correct the problems with Seattle's TDR program
for preservation.
o San Francisco. San Francisco included a TDR program in the
Downtown Plan the city enacted in 1985. Approximately 10 to IS TDR
transactions involving historic buildings have been carried out since then.
o Atlanta and Dallas. Both Atlanta and Dallas authorize TDRs for historic
preservation. However, because their zoning codes permit such
extraordinarily high floor area ratios (25 to I in Atlanta, 20 to I in Dallas),
developers have had little incentive to purchase TDRs.
o Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh's program, established in 1987, allows TDRs in
three circumstances: I) if new housing is constructed on the receiving site;
(2) if the sending site is a designated historic strcutures; and (3) if a
nonprofit performing arts facility is a sending site. The city has used this
progranl only once:, to transfer d~ve10p!!!~!!! rig.b.~ f!0!!l !.he Benedum
Center, a historic building and a performing arts center. The transfer of
development rights was used to accommodate a twin office tower project
across the street.
o Philadelphia. A TDR program is under active consideration in
Philadelphia at this time.
o New York. A TDR program run by the city dates to 1961 but has been
used for only about 24 TDR transactions in the last 20 years.
2.
ZI)r.ing Variances
,
During the 1960s, many communities revised their zoning ordinances to require
suburban-style yards, with large lot sizes and front- and side-yard setbacks. In older
neighborhoods where houses were often built more closely together on smaller lots, this
type of zoning has made it difficult to construct compatibly designed "in-fill" housing. As
9
....::. ~-? .-.:.-'
a result, vacant lots have proliferated and neighborhood revitalization efforts have been
stymied. Some communities have acted to overcome this problem.
a. Lansing. Michigan.
Lansing's historic district ordinance contains the following language:
Due to particular conditions of design and construction in historic
neighborhoods where structures are often built close to lot lines, and since it is
in the public interest to retain a neighborhoods historic appearance by making
variances to normal yard requirements where it is deemed that such variances
will not adversely affect neighborhood properties, the Historic District
Commission may recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that a variance
to standard yard requirements be made.
b. Roanoke. Virginia
The city of Roanoke reduced the minimum lot sizes in historic residential neighborhoods
as part of a comprehensive revision to its local zoning code in 1987. At the same time,
Roanoke moved to permit special uses of historic residences to make their preservation
more economically feasible. For example, the city amended its zoning to permit large
Vl'c.or:an houses .1-...... "'-e ............ .......... \...;.... +.....- ...............+ .t'...........;,;"... +.... 1-..0 ,.ro~ ....'" 'h.4~ .,nd b~o~kf~ots
1. ! LJ.J.Q.L Q.! .1.LVV'l' LUV UJ.& LV.!. u...v.:tl,. ...~....J ~v ......... -........... ....... ............_~... ..................,
art galleries and other uses that do not destroy residential neighborhoods.
To encourage downtown housing, Roanoke's zoning permits multifamily apartment
buildings, townhouses, and the conversion of upper floor space to residential uses in the
downtown and adjacent areas. These residences accommodate people who enjoy walking
to work and provide a market for downtown stores.
For more information: Office of Community Planning, Rrn. 355, Municipal Bldg., 215
Church Ave., S.w., Roanoke, VA 240ll. 703/981-2344
c. Sarasota. Florida
Sarasota authorizes variances and special exceptions to zoning rules to make it easier for
owners of hIstoric structures to find economically viable uses for their properties:
Owners of historically designated structures...may petition the Planning Board
for a speciLll exception for any type of use which would serve to perpetuate the
viable conJemporary utilization of the historic structure, regardless of whether
10
-::-~. 0 (.
such use is permitted by special erception in the zone district in which the
histon'c structure is located...
When a petition for a variance is filed with the Board of Adjustment for an
historically designated structure...then the petition for such a variance need
only demonstrate that the grant of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare.
d. Miami. FJorida
Miami authorizes flexibility in zoning, parking and building code requirements when
necessary to encourage the preservation of historic structures.
Under a recently adopted historic preservation overlay zone ordinance, the city may
approve conditional uses -- e.g., professional offices, tourist and guest homes, museums,
private clubs and lodges -- in order to make the preservation of historic structures more
economically feasible in certain cases. The ordinance has helped to save large historic
houses located on the fringes of commercial districts.
Miami also permits waivers of minimum lot size, floor area, open space, height, building
spacing and footprint requirements to encourage historic preservation. A provision in
the South FJorida Building Code permits the waiver of certain building code provisions
under certain circumstances. Finally, where the size or configuration of a historic
district is such that compliance with offstreet parking requirements would destroy the
area's historic character, the city may authorize a reduction of up to one-third of the
number of parking spaces that would otherwise be required.
For more information: Miami Planning Department, Historic Preservation Office,
Miami, FJorida. Tel: 305/579-6086.
G. DISINCENTIVES FOR SURFACE PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
1. Pasadena. California
Pasadena's preservation ordinance contains this provision:
No building or construction related permits shall be issued for a period of 5
yeGTS from the date of demolition for property on which demolition has been
done in violation (of the ordinances requirements) and no permits or use of
the property as a parking area shall be allowed during the 5 yetIT'S...
11 3.,;;;?
All property subject to (the above provision) shall be maintained in an orderly
state. The owner shall maintain all existing trees and landscaping on the
property, and, when appropriate shall sod and seed the property, or otherwise
install planting and landscaping materiaLs in a manner satisfactory to the
City'.s zoning administrator. Any new constrUction on the property after the
time period within which building and other development permits may not be
issued shall be subject to design review by the Design Commission with
recommendations from the Cultural Heritage Commission to be received by
the Design Commission prior to rendering decisions on the design of new
development.
The Pasadena ordinance also forbids the demolition of structures. over 50 years old
"unless there has been issued a building pennit for a replacement structure or project
for the property involved." A property owner may be exempted from this requirement if
he can show that "demolition without replacement will not result in harm to the public."
Harm is defined as "the loss of low-income housing stock which will not be
replaced...nuisance uses of the vacant property...(or) significant adverse visual impact(s)
on the neighborhood."
2. Lowell. Massachusetts
Lowell seeks not only to discourage surface parking lots but also to ensure that new
parking garages are built to fit in harmoniously with their surroundings:
Where off-street parking provision is necessary, vehicles shall be
accommodated in multi-story structures which are sensitively designed to fit
into their architectural context. Removal of buildings to aeale ground-level
parking space shall generally be prohibited.
Ground level parking spaces proposed to be located on existing open land
shall be adequately landscaped utilizing a combination of shade trees and
shrubs for screening.
3. Salt Lake City. Utah
Salt Lake City prohibits demolitions of historic buildings unless their
owners have plans for replacement structures:
All applications for (demolition) permits must be accompanied
by post-demolition or post-removal schematic construction plans
12
.-., <;;:-,1
c_-/ v-
or landscaping plans for the site, which plans shall be submitted
to the historical landmarks committee for recommendation...
A. Prior to approval of any demolition permit, (the) planning
(department) shall review the post-demolition or removal plans
to determine if a faithful performance bond is required
hereunder to ensure the installation and maintenance of
sprinkled landscaping upon the regraded lot according to:
L The landscaping plan approved by the
committee; or
2. In absence thereof, a minimum standard of
automatically sprinkled sodded grass, within 6
months following the demolition...
B. If a bond is required, it must be issued by a corpOrale surety
authorized to do business in Utah, in a form approved by the
city attorney, or a cl1$h bond under an escrow agreement
approved l1$ to form and terms by the city attorney. The bond
shall be in an amount determined by planning and shall be
sufficient to cover the estimated costs, as determined by the city
engineer to:
1. Restore the grade as required...
2. Install a working automatic sprinkling system
3. Revegetate and landscape with sodded grass.
4. Continuing (sic) obligation to maintain the
same in an orderly, clean condition until a
structure is constructed upon the site.
5. The bond shall require installation of
landscaping and sprinklers within six months,
unless the owner hl1$ obtained a valid building
permit and commenced pouring foundations. It
shall be the owner:S responsibility at all times to
maintain the landscaped lot in an orderly, clean
and good condition to avoid becoming an
eyesore, weed patch or otherwise detrimental to the
streetscape or public health.
13
s: . v? /
D. The bond shall be required under the following
circumstances:
L upon applications involving
property located within any historic
distrct; and
2. upon applications involving
property located upon a landmark
site.
F. PACKAGES OF INCENTIVES
Some cities provide a whole package of preservation incentives. Examples of such
comprehensive approaches are cited below.
I. Portland. Maine
The preservation ordinance of Portland, Maine, authorizes the city council to approve an
"Incentive Plan" for property owners who could not preserve a historic property without
facing undue economic hardship. The ordinance states:
This Incentive Plan may include, but is not limited to, loans or grants from
the City of Portland or other public or private sources, acquisition by purchase
or eminent domain, building and safety code modifications to reduce cost of
maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation or renovation, changes in applicable
zoning regulations including a transfer of development rights, or relaxation of
the provisions of this article sufficient to allow reasonable use of the structure.
For more infonnation: Dept. of Planning & Urban Development, Rm. 211, City Hall, 389
Congress St., Portland, Maine 04101. Tel: 207/874-8300.
2. Aspen. Colorado
Aspen provides a $2,000 grant to residential property owners who ''volunteer to landmark
designate" their property. The city also provides zero-interest grants of up to $10,000 to
help persons who demonstrate economic hardship pay for minimum maintenance of their
property. In addition, historic property owners may be exempted from processing fees
and park dedication fees that would normally be required for regular building permits.
14
C' ~:n
Landmarks are exempt from the Aspen Growth Management Quota System as wen as
from an annual competition for a limited allocation for commercial square footage, lodge
or residential units. There is a 3.4% cap on growth.
Aspen also makes special conditional uses available only to landmarks and authorizes
flexibility in the zoning rules with respect to building setback requirements for historic
structures, floor area ratios, and Uniform Building Code requirements when appropriate.
For more information: City of Aspen, Planning & Zoning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,
Colorado 81611. Tel: 303/920-5909.
3. Seattle. Washington
Seattle's landmark preservation ordinance explicitly authorizes a variety of economic
incentives to encourage the maintenance or rehabilitation of historic structures. The
ordinance states:
Examples of economic incentives include tax relief, conditional use permits,
rezoning, street vacation, planned unit development, transfer of development
rights, facade easements, named gifts, preferential leasing policies, private or
public grants-in-aid, beneficial placement of public improvements, or
amenities, or the like.
For more information: Office of Urban Conservation, Dept. of Community
Development, 700 Third Ave., Seattle, Wash. 98104. Tel: 206/684-0381
G. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Many communities have found that plain old friendly persuasion can be an effective way
of getting property owners to maintain their historic buildings and to rehabilitate them in
a way that respects the distinctive character of the neighborhood. The National Alliance
of Preservation Commissions encourages local preservation commissions to provide
helpful guidance to property owners on design matters. Such advice can be provided by
qualified planning department staff members, through special neighborhood workshops,
or even on a "circuit rider" basis.
For more information on communities using this approach, contact the National Alliance
of Preservation Commissions, 444 N. Capitol St., Washington, D. C. 20001.
15
"
.'
,. >/
.~
16
~":.'
'_.1.,>
3~
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
America's Downtowns: Growth. Politics and Preservation, by Richard C. Collins, A.
Bruce Dotson and Elizabeth B. Waters. Preservation Press. 1991.
This 159-page book describes the efforts of 10 cities to establish local
historic preservation programs. The cities are Atlanta, Boston, Cincinnati,
Denver, Jersey City, Philadelphia, Roanoke, St. Paul, San Francisco and
Seattle. Preservation incentives were included in programs adopted by
several of these cities and are discussed in the book. Available for $14.95
(plus sales tax and $4 for shipping) from the Preservation Press, National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20036.
Fiscal Incentives for Historic Preservation, by Susan Robinson and John E. Petersen.
January 1989.
This 69-page report discusses preservation incentives from the perspective
of local governments. It addresses such issues as: eligibility criteria, timing
and duration of incentives, impacts on tax bases, administrative concerns
and assessment practices. Available for $10 from the Center for
Preservation Policy Studies, National Trust for Historic Preservation.
"State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation," by Constance E. Beaumont.
Marchi April 1991 Historic Preservation Forum, the journal of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation.
This six-page article describes approaches taken by six states to encourage
historic preservation. The tax relief programs discussed are those of Texas,
Georgia, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon.
17 ,;;:; 5"::;'
Transferable Development Rights Programs, by Richard J. Roddewig and Cheryl A.
Inghram. American Planning Association. 1987.
This 38-page Planning Advisory Service Report (Number 401) defines
IDRs and discusses their application in 8 communities: Montgomery
County, Md.; Collier County, Florida; New Jersey Pine1ands; Santa Monica
Moutains, Calif.; New York City; Denver; Seattle; and San Francisco. The
report also discusses the legal basis for a IDR program and the design of
an effective IDR system. Finally, it includes sample ordinances and a
bibliography. Available for $16 from the APA ($8 to PAS subscribers), 1313
E. 60th St., Chicago, llJinois 60637. (312) 955-9100.
Using A Revolving Loan Fund for Downtown Preservation, a Critical Issues Fund issue
paper by J. Myrick Howard. 1988.
This 22-page report discusses: revolving fund techniques, selecting
properties, the problem of profit (or lack thereof), establishing property
values and potential uses, recouping expenses, working with brokers and
fundraising for the revolving fund. Available for $5 from the Center for
Preservation Policy Studies of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Preserving Sma]] Buildings in Downtown Washin~on. D. c., a Critical Issues Fund
report by Tom Moriarity of Halcyon, Ltd. 1988.
This 77-page report sununarizes techniques available to preserve small
historic buildings in a downtown area. The report includes brief
explanations of such preservation tools as zoning (overlay, performance,
bonus), tax abatements, differential assessments, investment tax credits, tax
increment financing and special taxing districts. Available for $10 from the
Center for Preservation Policy Studies of the National Trust.
"Economic Incentives for Historic Preservation," a Critical Issues Fund paper by Richard
J. Roddewig. 1988.
This 16-page paper discusses historic buildings as an economic resource and
comments on the advantages of different approaches to preservation
incentives. Available for $5 from the National Trust's Center for
Preservation Policy Studies.
18
-',
J
"i
Carrots and Sticks: New Zoning Downtown, by Terry Jill Lassar. Urban Land Institute.
1989.
This 203-page book discusses incentive zoning, density bonus programs,
design review, street-level retail uses, view protection, open space and
streetscapes, parking and transportation. Information is included on zoning
tools used by such cities as Portland (Oregon), Pittsburgh, Seattle, San
Francisco, BeIlevue (Washington) and Charlotte (North Carolina).
Available from the Urban Land Institute, 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20004. (202) 624-7000.
Appraising Easements: Guidelines for Valuation of Historic Preservation and Land
Conservation Easements.
An 82-page book published jointly by the Land Trust Alliance and the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, this publication includes:
guidelines for the appraisal of charitable gifts of conservation easements,
excerpts from the U.S. Treasury Dept. regulations concerning easements;
selected IRS revenue rulings, and sample easement restrictions.
Th;: book may be obtained for $8.95 from the Preservation Bookstore, 1600
H St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006. 202/673-4200.
The Conservation Easement Handbook: Managing Land Conservation and Historic
Preservation Easement Programs.
Authored by Janet Diehl and Thomas S. Barrett, this 269-page book
discusses such matters as: the different types of conservation and
preservation easements; criteria for easement programs; marketing
easement programs; tax benefits of easements; and preventing easement
violations. The book also includes model historic preservation and
conservation easements and conunentary.
Available for $19.95 from the Preservation Bookstore, 1600 H St., N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20006.
19
::> f
_.-" L_~----,
Preservation Law Reporter.
Published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Preservation
Law Reporter covers new developments relating to federal, state and local
preservation laws and ordinances. State laws affecting tax incentives for
preservation are included as part of this coverage.
Subscriptions to the PLR are $90 ($50 for members of the National Trust's
Preservation Forum). A subscription includes 12 monthly issues plus a
year-end report sununarizing highlights in preservation law. Write to the
Law and Public Policy Department, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20036.
202/673-4035.
The Alliance Review
Published quarterly by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions,
this newsletter offers helpful advice on a variety of matters: design
guidelines for historic districts, local ordinance provisions dealing with
special problems, such as "demolition by neglect," workshops and
conferences, etc. Annual subscriptions are $15, available from NAPC, Hall
of the States, Suite 332, 444 N. Capitol St., Washington, D. C. 20001
20
~-s -" /0
- -:=;V'
ATTACHMENT "C"
Protected Historical Structures
Name of
House
Address/APN
Last Known
Owner
1. Nadine Davies 614 Second Avenue 573- Lee & Eileen Burch
House 180-16
2. Greg Rogers House 614 Second Avenue 573- Lee & Eileen Burch
180-16
3. Garrettson-Frank 642 Second Avenue 573- John & Jean McCall
House 180-22
4. Jennie McDonald 644 Second Avenue 573- John & Jean McCall
House 180-23
Unprotected Structures of Historical Value
1. Clara Smith House 264 "I" Street Orville & Emma Myles
573-170-20
2. Frances Fisher 617 Del Mar Avenue 573- Glen & Phylis Roberts
House 180-05
3. George Riffe House 630 Del Mar Avenue 573- Bernard & Rosemary Bullen
170-16
4. Herbert Bryant 30 "F" Street Michael & Glennis Carson
House 569-171-20
5. Herman Hotel 50 "F" Street William & Cleoann Smith
Carriage House 569-171-18
6. W,J.S. Browne 3921 Avenida Palo Verde William & Jane Browne
House 569-171-15
7. San Diego Country 88 "L" Street San Diego Country Club
Club 61 9-040-01
8. Hazel Gose Cook 62 Cook Court John & Margarita Norton
House 574-010-78
9. Theodore Thurston 89 Country Club Drive James L. Hodge
House 575-031-26
10. Dupree-Gould House 344 Hilltop Drive Thomas & R. Huse
569-200-01
11. L.G. Spring House 1 70 Cypress Street Lee & Ruth Weatherbee
569-142-06
12. Carl Boltz House 34 Davidson Street Gordon F. Boltz
569-080-56
13. Leo Christy House 1 24 Hilltop Drive John D. Parks
570-311-08
-, ,? /?'
.....-::. ~
ATTACHMENT "C"
Unprotected Structures of Historical Value. continued
Page 2
Name of
House
Address/APN
Last Known
Owner
14. Albert Barber House 151 Landsi Avenue 566- Robert C. Walton
232-01
15. Nancy Jobes House 209 "D" Street Lew & Lucia Skang
566-102-22
16. Kindergarten 503 "G" Street Jessie L. Proust
Building 567-150-12
17. Insectary Building 511 "G" Street County of San Diego
567-130-14
18. Lucious Wright 10 Second Avenue Elmer & Carol Pasimio
House 566-060-07
19. Edward Gillette 44 N. Secone Avenue 563- John M. Jones
House 302-17
20. Melville Block 301 Third Avenue Thomas Money
House 568-333-01
21. Elmer Mikkelson 410 Church Street Richard R. Manola
House 568-420-09
22. Marry Miller House 655 Del Mar Avenue 573- Peter Degraaf
260-04
23. Mark Skinner House 374 Roosevelt St. Jay & Patricia Hollister
568-730-05
24. The Boarding House 155 "G" Street James S. Duberg
569-150-13
25. Robert Mueler 753 First Avenue Mrs. Celia Flynn
House 569-381-01
26. Evelyn Haines 379 "J" Street Theodore & Louise Curtis
House 573-231-24
27. William Sallmon 435 First Avenue William & Laura Smith
House 569-270-29
28. Allison Crockett 320 Secone Avenue 568- Raymond & Emma Araiza
House 332-07
29. Bulmer House 2 North Second Avenue Seymour & Sara Reichbart
563-310-26
30. Cordrey House 210 Davidson Street 568- Fredrick & Henrietta Kohl
164-02
F:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\HISTDIST\HOUSE. LST
t(...---'
.;> <:-'
::...-..:>:.--
ATTACHMENT "C"
Unprotected Structures of Historical Value. continued
Page 3
Name of
House
Address/APN
Last Known
Owner
31. First Congregational 276 "F" Street First Congregational
Church 568-333-10 Church
32. Johnson House 525 "F" Street Margaret E. Grant
567-080-10
33. EI Nido 669 Del Mar John & Rebecca
573-260-05 Hernandez
34. Haines House 671 Fourth Avenue 573- James R. Buss
231-05
35. Starkey House 21 "F" Street August B. Starkey
569-071-20
36. Bronson House 613 Second Avenue 573- Philip E. Barney
190-11
37. Branson Carriage 611 Second Avenue 573- Patrick & Vicki Neill
House 190-12
38. Stafford House 640 Fifth Avenue Ysmael & Ernestina Ochoa
572-090-33
F:\HOME\PLANNING\MAATINIHISTDIST\HQUSE.LST
~
"-' '
~ <-0
~/
HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PATRICK J CROWLEY AlA AICP
ARCHITECT / URBAN PLANNER
1985 Guy Street
San Diego, California 92103
Telephone: 619/295-5210
May 1993
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . .
INTRODUCTION AN~ BACKGROUN~
Background of the Study
Scope of the Study . . .
HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN CHULA VISTA
The Resource Conservation Commission
Designated Historic Sites
HISTORIC DISTRICT MOVEMENT IN CHULA VISTA
Heritage Park Proposal by the City Council
Proposal Options: Heritage Park, Heritage
Row or Heritage District . .
Heritage Park Option Rejected
OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
The Historic Preservation Movement in
the United States .......
Early Private Sector Efforts in
Historic Preservation .....
The Government Role in Historic Preservation
The Structure of Historic Preservation
Why Preserve? . . . . . . . . . . .
THE LEGAL BASIS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Controls in Historic Preservation: Private
Use and Public Benefit
1. Eminent Domain
2. Police Power
3. Taxat ion
The Mills Act .......
Federal Income Tax Incentives
for Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . .
Other Government Strategies for Historic
Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building Code Enforcement and Anti-Neglect
Or d i na nee s " ............
i
iv - vii
1 - 1
1 - 1
1 - 1
2 - 1
2 - I
2 - 6
3 - 1
3 -
3 - 2
3 - 4
4 - 1
4 - 1
4 - 3
4 - 4
4 - 7
4 - 8
5 - 1
5 - 1
5 - 1
5 - 5
5 - 9
5 - 10
5 - 14
5 - 15
5 - 15
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
NOTES
REFERENCES
APPENIJICES
THE LEGAL BASIS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION (Continued)
Transfer of Development Rights. . . .
The Conditional Use Permit Process
in Preservation ..........
Local Government Historic Preservation
Incentives Programs
5 - 17
5 18
5 - 19
6 - 1
6 - 3
6 - 3
AL TERNATIVES
. .. . ..
Alternative Historic District
and Related Strategies. . .
.. .. .. .. ..
Alternative No.1: Chula Vista Historic Row
Alternative No.2:
Historic District
Chula Vista
.. .. . . ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..
6 - 7
Alternative No.3:
Participation
No Formal Public
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
6 - 9
6 - 11
6 - 13
7 - 1
. 7 - 2
7 - 9
N -
R - 1
Alternative No.4:
Historic Overlay Zone
Alternative No.5:
Site Commission
Creation of a Historic
RECOMMENDATIONS . .
Recommendation No.1: Chula Vista Histori.c
Modifying District .
Recommendation No.2: Historic District
Task Force
A. National Register of Historic
Places Criteria ..........................
B. Historic Resources Inventory Forms .........
C. San Diego Historical Site Board
Ordinance............. ...................
D. Monterey Draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance............................... .
E. City of Escondido's Incentive Program ......
F. Mills Act Contract .........................
A - 1
B - 1
C -
D - 1
E - 1
F - 1
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Heritage Park/Rowand District Concept Areas. . . . 1 - 3
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The preparation of the following study was authorized by the Chula Vista
City Council for the purpose of investigating the potential of one, or more,
historic districts within the city. Specifically, the scope of the
investigation was to include the creation of a Historic Row on Second Avenue
and/or an expanded Historic District incorporating historic properties
along Del Mar Avenue and including additional properties on Second Avenue
between "I" and "J" Streets. The Consulting firm retained to prepare the
study, Patrick J. Crowley, Architect/Urban Planner, was charged with
addressing five basic questions relating to historic district feasibility.
They were: 1) What is a district?, 2) How is it formed?, 3) What does it
mean when one is in place?, 4) What are the pros and cons for the City and
district (property) owners?, and 5) How to proceed with implementation?
The Consultant, working with the Planning Department staff, undertook to
answer these questions. To do so and provide an examination of the issues
which are involved in the creation of a historic district, it was felt that
a discussion of historic preservation in general was necessary to give the
responses to the questions meaning. It was also the Consultant's intent to
describe the history behind the Council's action for the benefit of those
not thoroughly familiar with the actions to date.
The following document is intended to serve several purposes. Primarily,
it is to provide answers to the Council's initial questions. Secondly, the
report explores the history of historic preservation and the current state
iv
of the drt as it has evolved in the United States and in California.
Thirdly, based on analysis of the Council's stated desires and the
Consultant's understanding of the status of historic preservation in Chula
Vista, a series of alternatives are presented which suggest a range of
various strategies to maintain or expand the level of historic preservation
activity in the community. Finally, after discussions with the Planning
Director and members of his staff, specific recomffiendations favoring one of
the alternative strategies are made for the consideration of the Council and
appropriate commissions and committees.
The recommendations call for two actions by the City. As mentioned above
and in the body of the this report, they are based the Consultant's opinion
of the form of preservation most appropriate to the city's needs and the
available resources to carry out the recommended program.
Recommendations
1. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, AFTER REVIEW AND FAVORABLE ACTION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, DRAFT AND ADOPT A HISTORIC MODIFYING DISTRICT
ORDINANCE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
(ZONING ORDINANCE). THE ORDINANCE WOULD INCLUDE ELEMENTS CESCRlBING
ITS PURPOSE, METHOD OF APPLICATION, CLEAR CRITERIA FOR ITS APPLICATION,
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT, POSSIBLE
EXPANSION OF PERMITTED USES, DESCRIPTION OF THE APPEAL PROCESS, AND
NECESSARY DEFINITIONS. THE ORDINANCE COULD BE APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED
SECOND AVENUE HISTORIC ROW AND/OR AN EXPANDED PROPOSED HISTORIC
DISTRICT WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE THE HISTORIC ROW SITES PLUS THE
ADDITIONAL AREA WEST OF SECON[ AVENUE AND BETWEEN "I" AND "J" STREET~
v
2. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, UPON ENACTMENT OF A HISTORIC MODIFYING DISTRICT
ORDINANCE, APPOINT A HISTORIC DISTRICT TASK FORCE WITH REPRESENTATION
FROM THE COUNCIL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION, THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE Hl~-ORlCAL SOCIETY, THE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND OTHER I',TERESTEG CITIZENS. THE TASK FORCE
WOULD, AMONG OTHER ASSIGNMENTS, ASSIST THE CITY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE HISTORIC MODIFYING DISTRICT ORDINANCE.
In making the above recommendations, it was considered that creating one
or more historic districts by the use of the modifying district zoning
process has distinct benefits over the formation of more traditional
historic districts by action of the Council. As a coning technique,
district creation would require favorable action by the Planning Commission
and Ccunci1, but would not require a majority vote of property owners
effected. In this respect, the application of a historic district to an
area would, as is the case with designating individual properties as
historic, not require property owner approval. The methodo1gy and
application of a historic district are more fully discussed in Chapter 7.
As an adjunct to the recommended Historic Modifying District Ordinance, the
Consultant strongly recommends the creation of a broadly based Task Force to
help determine the level of commitment to historic preservation within the
community and to provide a forum to discuss the many issues involved. The
findings of the Task Force would be invaluable in giving direction to the
Planning Commission, the Council and City government in the application of
the Historic Modifying District Ordinance. The Task Force could also
develop consensus for the design guidelines to be establish to assist the
Planning Department and the Design Review Committee in its review of
vi
applications to build or alter non-historic buildings within a historic
district to insure compatibility of new construction with existing adjacent
historic structures. The Task Force could also assist in developing
specific criteria for designation of historic buildings to qualify for
listing on the City's Historic Register.
It is proposed that these recommendations and the information contained in
the study be fully reviewed in a series of public meetings before the
Resource Conservation Commission, the Planning Commission and the City
Council. Through the public hearing process, interested citizens will have
the opportunity to participate in and help direct the final form of the
City's role with respect to historic preservation within Chula Vista.
vi i
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Background of the Study
The following report has been prepared by the architectural and urban
planning firm of Patrick J. Crowley, ARCHITECT/URBAN PLANNER under contract
with the City of Chula Vista to be coordinated with staff of the Planning
Department. The consulting contract is in response to interest by the Mayor
and members of the City Council in studying the possibility of establishing
a Heritage District and Heritage Row involving properties bounded by "I"
Street, Second Avenue, "J" Street and mid-block between Third and Del Mar
Avenues in the area designated as the Central Chula Vista district under the
General Plan (the area referenced is illustrated on Figure 1 - Park/Rowand
District Concept Areas, page 1-3). As a result of a selection process among
planning consultants knowledgeable in the areas of historic preservation and
development of such districts, and as directed by Resolution No. 15443 of
the City Council, Patrick J. Crowley AlA, AICP was retained to undertake the
following study.
Scope of the Study
The Scope of the Study as advertised is to address the following issues
associated with the establishment of one or more historic districts within
the City of Chula Vista:
1. What is a historic district?
1-1
2. How is it formed?
3. What does it mean when one is in place?
4. What are the pros and cons for the City and district property
owners?
5. How to proceed with implementation?
In response to the above questions posed by the City, the Consultant
suggests that, to better understand the rather simplistic questions stated
above, an exposition of specific aspects of preservation needs to be
analyzed to put into the proper context questions relating to the creation
of a Historic District and/or Row. To put the analysis of a historic
district for Chula Vista into an overall perspective of historic
preservation, the Consultant recommended to Staff that the following
questions and issues be addressed in the study:
1. The legislative basis, including State enabling legislation and local
ordinance form, for a historic district. Also to be investigated is
the advisability of creating a Historic Preservation Element in the
General Plan, or, lacking that, the addition of language addressing
historic preservation to an existing mandatory element of the General
Plan.
2. A full review of current practices in the City with respect to
designation of properties considered historic and deserving of
recognition and/or protection, a look at existing conditions,
procedures and policies.
1-2
.
-
I.J'
. ,-
-..
..,
. ,
. ,
. '
. '
-
'LT
-
-
~'; ~,..~
,:';~... """I
....-- ---~._;"-:: -
"._,_., ___..1" W
...~ : : I I
"H"
:':-L ~~O'f1_ ~ i i: ::j - - - ~
~==- ~
3 =.:,. SHl.STA STREET ,~...J
",--' c I J- J lJ U \ II c :::/rSHASH \' .,..;~~ = t
.uTO ""5'r CO ~'j., ~ ..l\~ ~ -- ,\ ;-1 '-
~J.-l. :\~ ~~~ ~~~,/ iAI".:;1 TI~CCI~~'
;::::1~ ';../\ ".....,:.; i -, \. I I I I ITTT7,-.
>-1;; -I .(f Z -'"H' 'C, ,<co"/-
lr~~ -;:::':.T";::i ::- " R~3':M ~ . = I I I I i \ \ =
! I ,I !; I : : : : ....... I I I - I I -1 I I I I I I I I )-
-- '~TF'-'-''''' "I" Street
I IIII~II,:,I' .~..::-,!' !-c4',' t-.-.,...J,,~-:ln.".,,'111 11111111
., 1:.-1 1 I" "',. .":X .,"" :..,,-~_'1~ ---1 "'- ,
)\.JA~~:::ill~~ L~:,- ,- ~j ...:::-,~_ w ,~~~ ~-'A.d~~1 =::)__ ~ Perk/Row Concept I ,.l.hn; J
~ ~:r:1 . I--.J.. -- .--,:-- => ; --- --.... . .
:. II I ., , ,1Qi Z -{ - .u:. " " AreB. . , , " j
_ ) --. --:> "..... -""'-- ~ ~-;...~ -''i.''--'"~I I ,......'.........' .....&'-'..........11
---, / ,~IT~RL- ____c _____' oct y - .....:: ....,<:"... 1 ", I W
:j I 1.. .-. -- ., . , '''ceo::> -
~L"pl : ~= ----~ ___u 'fYR'~-. :5~~~~~n:1 f- : ;~': f-~ 111";\:, 1~'
--1 I I ,~- ____ ~ jX_:--:-_,~~( Iv ':",il I ~'I V ,~II II I j",
; . 1.-=1~= t :o::::::t-:-X-io::;~v--.Ji:t-I',I' "URR~7~T ...-1"-'~ITlll
mJ. . I I~~ ....J - C~:~: I- __u__ ';'[:':~-:y ~ 'n:~'X'-;:-~.1 I. ' ,'-i-~ -,I. J
, J>SO' - .:.....<>.. -' ~-.\l~~--_:-. I. District Concept -, E
- ,;;:::--. --- .X, w X ' 'X . W-'
- C-C ~_,..'__,u Q -7~--' Ii --' 111 AreB I", in
....,..... ,~- f:.:;--r:--:~::-I ^,";;:vI:: X I,: :: :.;,u:":-:-'-'-~~,:"-1-;'==
It. I .;.r.:, ," I"J" .' , , ; I "
_ . ~._._._._.::J "J"Street
= ~U t u_ = . .- = .L;;:; ...L - ::~. w :::.:.. .~): ~
..:.. _ I-- u.r __ = --- W .u_ .:...:.:.:... ~ _ ~ CI u... ..~--
_a: _~ _ _ -~ -- = :::: _... .___ ____ '...__
-> a: W ~ _G> _w_ ___ -f--w.___ _0_
-3 ~~ ~ -;;uw~.., CI ~ UP ~ f---~
I-' _ QJ --T- _ u.r --:- ...J --~.-
I ~ ~_q) ",,,'y b:,' .!. n_;- ~ --:-,m. .....i....---L.. n'~ ,
_ ___ ~ ~__~_ ~=m ~ __-; .
...:-t::7D CI _ 0 ,"
.... 0_ U ___...
II> '
-_ U) MilLAN
7-
~=
. . .. ;-:- : ~- "w; .... . . ; . I . , , ,
.." .... ...,. I.... I
,. ,
-;- .-;-;-
.-i.-. "'" I I
-;;....,...
I (C-O)
-
,..
-.-.
-
...
-__ ~o::
'--:0
d_ f-J:
--- f- U
f-
, , . ,
. , , ,
ST R T
t
i
-
-' .
~I
n::l:
, .
;! .' j
E
'-- H
:
. .
r
0_...Locally designated historicaL sites...__.___....,..,
X Potentially significant heritage houses
HERITAGE PARK/ROW AND DISTRICT CONCEPT AREAS- FIGURE 1
1-3
inventoried.
north
3. The financial aspects and possiblp incentives to oroperty owners
seeking designation in terms of possible reduction of property taxes to
reflect the actual use as opposed to "highest and best" use, exterior
easement purchases, tax credits or similar strategies.
4. Development of precise criteria for historic designation as required to
make a historic ordinance legally acceptable.
5. Specific recommendations for the creation of historic districts
including the proposed Historic Rowand/or the proposed Historic
~strict, as illustrated on Figure No.1 of this report, along with
other potential sites. Such recommendations could include district
boundaries, issues regarding public access (for at least viewing the
exterior of buildings), methods of expanding district boundaries and/or
acquisition by the City or private groups of additional property and
the desirability of relocating existing structures to new sites within
a district or historic row.
To fully understand what is involved with respect to a historic district, it
is necessary to look at the field of historic preservation in general. In
practice, under law, and from the point of view of incentives, regulation
and maintaining historic districts, it needs to be recognized that historic
districts are only one of many options available in the area of historic
preservation. As such, historic districts are usually treated under the
same rationale as individual structures. For that reason, this study will
look at a broader view of the field in order to put historic districts into
an overall context of historic preservation.
1-4
Chapter 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN CHULA VISTA
Many cities throughout California and the nation have active programs for
the designation and protection of historic buildings. The form and power
which various jurisdictions impose on the historic preservation process vary
widely ranging from very stringent controls for designation, use, alteration
and demolition of historic or landmark buildings to situations in which
structures worthy of designation are identified and listed with no
additional controls or responsibilities. In communities with strict
regulation, highly codified controls require extensive public review of any
proposed demolition, alteration or relocation of designated buildings.
Following is a presentation of the conditions regarding historic
preservation as they currently exist within the City of Chula Vista.
The Resource Conservation Commission
In the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 2.32 serves as the legislative
basis for the Resource Conservation Commission. The stated purpose and
intent of the City Council in establishing such a body was to "create a
broadly based multifunctional commission which is to provide citizen's
advice to the city council in the areas of energy conservation, resource
recovery, environmental quality, historic and prehistoric site protection,
and other related fields as determined by the city council.-1 This chapter
goes on to create the appointment process for seven citizens to serve for
four year terms on the commission.
2-1
In Section 2.32.030 city goals and policies are s.ated relating to the
duties of the commission which include a broad range of areas of
responsibility under resource conservation. As items J. and K., historic
preservation is included among several duties listed with the following
charges to the Commission:
"J. Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic, social, economic, political
and architectural past;
K. Protect finite cultural and scientific resources which provide the only
record of our historic, prehistoric and natural past."
This rather broad charge includes preservation of historic buildings,
landmarks and sites under a broad umbrella of other artifacts and records of
the city's past without specifically using words such as "buildings" and
"sites". For a specific enumeration of duties pertaining more narrowly to
historic preservation from among a list of other duties relating to
energy, the environment and resource recovery, Section 2.32.070 lists
"Additional duties - Historical protection." Under this Section, the
Commission is charged with the following duties:
"A. Recommend to the city council the designation of any site which it has
found to meet the criteria as a historical site. The commission shall
also recommend if the historical site permit process as provided in
Section 2.32.090 of the chapter, should be imposed on the site;
B. Inspect any site which the commission has reason to believe could
meet the criteria for a historical site;
C. Explore means for the protection, retention and preservation of any
2-2
historical site, including, but limited tc, appr0Jriate legislation
and financing, such as the establishment of a private funding
organization or individual, local, state or federal assistance;
D. Recommend standards for historical and aesthetic districts and the
establishment of such districts within the city;
E. Coordinate its activities with the county, the state and the federal
government as appropriate to prevent duplication of efforts.
F. Provide direction to staff for the preparation and maintenance of a
register of all designated historical sites. The register shall
include a description of the site, its location, the reason for its
designation and other information that the commission determines is
necessary. The register shall be distributed to city departments, the
owners and/or occupants of designated historical sites and other
interested civic or governmental agencies;
G. Ten days prior to the consideration by the commission of any site for
designation as a historical site, the owner shall be notified in
writing that the site is under consideration for inclusion in the
register. The notice shall include the date, ti~e and place of the
meeting. For purposes of this cho r, the owner of the property is
the person appearing as owner of such property on the last equalized
assessment roll of the county. Such notice shall be mailed to the
address shown on the assessment roll, in order for a person to appear
and protest such inclusion. The owner shall also be notified of any
subsequent discussion Dr possible actions regarding the potential site
by the commission or city council."
2-3
Listed under administrative functions of the RCC is a singll paragraph
pertaining directly to historic preservation which goes beyond the statement
that the Commission shall adopt reasonable rules, regulations, procedures
and standards, which are consistent with the law, necessary to implement
goals, policies and intent of the Municipal Code and the related goals,
policies and regulations of the City. Under Paragraph E. of Section
2.3~080, it is stated that "the resource conservation commission shall have
no power or right to acquire any property for or on behalf of itself or on
behalf of the city, nor shall it acquire or hold any money for itself or on
behalf of the city. Further, the resource conservation commission shall not
have the power or right to negotiate with any party for the acquisition of
property designated as a historic site."
With respect to protection of sites once designated, the Municipal Code
outlines the role of the Resource Conservation Commission in its capacity as
an advisory body to the City Council. Specifically, in the case of sites
identified at the time of designation to have the historical site permit
process imposed, the issuance of a permit to demolish, make substantial
alteration, or remove any building as it relates to a designated building,
structure or site is not to be allowed without first referring the matter to
the resource conservation commission, except when the City Manager
determines an emergency situation exists. Such a situation would exist
where matters of public health, safety or general welfare are determined by
the Manager. The building, engineering and planning departments are
required to notify the RCC within five days of any request received for such
a permit to demolish, make substantial alterations or remove a designated
building which has been specifically identified to receive such treatment.
2-4
In add'tion to powers relating to historic buildings, the RCC has thirty
days from the date of notification by one of the named departments that a
permit has been applied for to file an objection to a proposed demolition,
major alteration or removal of the trees, plants or other major landscaping
from a designated site. Should the Commission file objections with the City
Manager or his delegate, no permits for demolition, major alteration or
removal from the historic site is to be issued for a period of not less than
thirty days nor more than one hundred eighty days. Failure of the
Commission to file any objections constitutes a waiver of all objections and
the permit can be issued. When objections are filed by the Commission with
the Manager, a notification of the RCC's objections are required to be
transmitted to the applicant for the requested permit.
After filins objections, the RCC is required to take whatever steps it feels
necessary, within the scope of its powers, to preserve the property in
question. Any actions of the RCC, however, require prior approval by
the Council. After thirty days after filing its objections, the RCC
is required to present a progress report to the Council on actions proposed
or taken. At that time, based upon the progress report, the Council may
cancel the objection and allow the requested permit for the proposed
demolition, major alteration or removal to be issued. If the Council finds
that there is cause for the requested permit to be delayed, the RCC can
proceed with efforts to preserve the property in question.
If, at the end of the first one hundred days of the one hundred and eighty
day period, its is determined that the preservation of the site can not be
accomplished within one hundred eighty days, and the RCC determines that
such preservation can be accomplished within an additional period not to
2-5
exceed one hundred eighty days, the RCC may recommend to the Council that it
grant such an extension. If sufficient findings are made to convince the
Council that the proposed action will be completed within the extended time
period, the additional one hundred eighty days period will be granted
provided that the initial one hundred eighty day period has not expired.
The review process described above outlined in the Chula Vista Municipal
Code is similar to provisions of historic preservation ordinances in force
in communities such as the city of San Diego.
What is not contained within the Code section is the criteria used in
designating historic buildings, structures or site. As with the lack of
criteria for individual buildings, no criteria for the formation of
historic districts is contained in the Code section nor is there any record
of the RCC having made recommendation to the Council that any historic
district be created. With respect to the protective powers grpnted to the
RCC, staff was unable to cite the use of the described provisions of the
Municipal Code where such powers were used to preserve sites under threat of
demolition, major alteration or relocation.
Designated Historic Sites
Under the provisions established by the Municipal Code governing the
operations of the Resource Conservation Commission, Forty-four sites have
been listed. The first listed is the Greg Rogers House in keeping with its
role in heightening local interest in historic preservation. This building,
located originally at 699 "E" Street, has been relocated to its present site
at 614 Second Avenue where it has been successfully restored. This two
story Craftsman style house dating from 1910 can be credited with forming
2-6
the nucleus for the movement to create a historic district. The issues
raised over the possible destruction of the Greg Rogers House and its
subsequent restoration after it was relocated, serve as a case study for
historic preservation in Chula Vista.
Within Chula Vista's recent history, the historic preservation movement does
not appear to have been as active at those in several adjacent communities.
Whether this is a function of the relatively few older buildings which exist
in Chula Vista or a lack of development pressure within the older areas
where the historic building may exist is not clear without further research.
Chula Vista's history as a predominantly agricultural community in the
period preceding World War II would suggest that the community did not have
a large inventory of older buildings of the type that are generally thought
desirable within preservation circles. The history of historic preservation
in nearby San Diego, for example, has been heavily involved with saving some
of the remaining Victorian houses or early commercial structures associated
with San Diego's past. The best known collection of early commercial
buildings is grouped together in the Gaslamp Quarter Historic ~strict which
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the City of San
Diego a substantial number of residential properties are designated under
the authority of San Diego's Historic Sites Board (See Appendix C), many of
which are Victorian although other styl.s and periods have good
representation. Controls beyond those imparted by historic designation are
granted through the creation of planned districts where significant
groupings of historic buildings are found in close proximity. The planned
district methodology provides for application of tailored zoning protection
for historic buildings and establishes special zoning and design controls
2-7
relative to the non-historic buildings and future development within the
planned district. The Golden Hill Planned District, created for the purpose
outlined above, is an example of protection extended to one of San Diego's
earliest residential neighborhoods.
While the evidence seems to indicate that Chula Vista lacks a large number
of historic houses, this is not the case when the scope is enlarged beyond
Victorian and Craftsman houses. The criteria for what constitutes a
historic structure encompasses a number of additional architectural styles
and historical periods. One measurement for a building being historic is the
age of the building. This standard is arbitrary and obviously changes over
time; if fifty years is the criteria used, then buildings dating from 1943
become historic by definition by this particular measure. Within the
National Register criteria, for example, age is only one measure. To be
historic additional factors help to determine significance.
With the attention given to Victorian and Craftsman houses, there is the
potential danger that a large number of very interesting buildings within
Chula Vista's older neighborhoods may be overlooked. The houses that
establish the character of entire neighborhoods and of the overall community
are frequently seen as being undistinguished by the public and some
preservationists. The general residential fabric of cities of the San Diego
region is rich with houses built since World War I and during the population
boom experienced during World War II. The style which was predominant
during that time span is the California Bungalow. This style, with its low
pitch roofs with large overhangs and extensive wood trim at openings,
porches and gables, is an outgrowth of the wood frame tradition of the
earlier Victorian and Craftsman periods and reflects influences of the work
2-8
of California architects including Irving Gill in San Diego, Greene and
Greene in Pasadena and Bernard Maybeck in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Also represented during the period are a number of houses reflecting the
Spanish heritage of California with the extensive use of exterior plaster,
or "stucco", with a variety of building forms including pitched, mission
tile roofs or parapet walls concealing flat roofs. This style, generally
described as Spanish Colonial Revival, covers a range of styles with
influence from Mexican haciendas, Southwest adobe ranch houses, homes of
general Mediterranean character and more ornate forms of Spanish
architecture stem~ing from the Spanish Renaissance period. This latter
style is best typified by the Panama Exposition buildings remaining in
Balboa Park which have influenced the architectural character and decorative
features of even small, modest homes. While the styles described above
represent the majority of houses constructed within the period of the two
World Wars, there are numerous examples of other styles including English
Tudor, French Provincial, Prairie, and Moderne.
Local recognition of the various periods or historic styles of architecture
in the South Bay is reflected in a survey undertaken by the City of Chula
Vista in 1985. Using predominantly visual survey techniques, an inventory
of more than four hundred buildings was assembled by a consultant retained
by the Planning Department. The survey recorded the basic pertinent
information on the identified structures which became candidates for
designation. The information was recorded on standard Historic Resource
Inventory forms published by the California State Department of Parks and
Recreation (For sample survey forms, see Appendix B). This core of basic
information served as the basis for designation of the City's present forty-
2-9
four Historical Sites.
It should be emphasized that utilizing the National Register criteria for
designation is highly desirable and can be crucial with respect to state and
federal programs both for designation and, in some instances, for tax
benefits. The Consultant's research has not revealed clear criteria
employed by the RCC for historic designation which was used exist or served
in developing the list of forty-four sites currently designated as historic
in Chula Vista. The importance of clearly establishing criteria will be
further addressed in the review of requirements for the legal basis of a
historic district.
In reviewing the efforts in historic preservation in the City of Chula Vista
to date, there exists both an identified collection of historic buildings
and the basic mechanism for their preservation. The success of these
efforts to date is reflected in the Council's interest in a more formal and
permanent form of recognition through investigation of a Historic Row
and/or Historic District on Second Avenue which will help focus public
attention on Chula Vista's past.
2-10
Chapter 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT MOVEMENT IN CHULA VISTA
Heritage Park Proposal by the City Council
In 1986 Mayor Greg Cox, in his State of the City address, raised the issue
of a Heritage Park. In his statements he called attention to the Greg
Rogers House which had been relocated to 614 Second Avenue. He further
suggested that properties from 614 through 644 Second Avenue, with a
collection of existing historic houses, could serve as the nucleus for such a
park. The Mayor also suggested that the intervening properties between the
historic homes which did not have historic structures might be acquired by
the City to be "landbanked" as future "orchard/historical home sites." When
placed on the market for sale, Owners of the subject properties would be
contacted and offered the appraised fair market value for their property to
be purchased by the City. The acquired properties would be held as future
relocation sites for orchard homes or homes with historical and/or
architectural significance. An assessment district would be created to pay
for the maintenance of a park at the center of the district and, perhaps,
for maintenance of the exteriors of the historic bUildings. The goal was
not for public ownership of the properties. Presumably, City ownership
would be limited to the park itself.
The creation of a park or square around which the historic buildings would
be assembled and for lots upon which to relocate additional historic or
orchard homes would be facilitated by lot splits of the extremely deep lots.
A consultant was asked to prepare sketch of what the project would look
3-1
like. Dcllar amounts were assigned to the City's efforts, calling for a
funding of $125,000 a year over a maximum of four years. The funds would
come from the General Fund reserves.
At the direction of the Council, the Planning Department undertook a study
of the feasibility of creating a Heritage Park. In July of 1987 a report
submitted by the Planning Director addressed the issues relating to
purchasing any or all of the 8 identified parcels, including the existing
four historic homes. The properties in question totalled 2.9 acres with a
combined frontage along the west side of Second Avenue of more than 430
linear feet. Issues concerning public access, museum or commercial use and
maintenance of the park to be created were analyzed. One approach
considered the acquisition of 1.7 acres of land to be used as a park with
historic homes sites ranged to the rear of the property. The report
concluded that museum or commercia 1 uses would be inappropriate and that the
best way to maintain the area was in its present residential use. The
purchase of one of the existing houses for use as a museum would commit the
City to considerable cost. However, if the City were to purchase property
for resale that could be done at little or no ultimte public expense.
Having the interiors or exteriors available for public view on a limited
basis might serve a function such as a museum.
Proposal Options: Heritage Park, Heritage Row or Heritage District
The Planning Director's report proposed three options for consideration,
summarized as fo llows:
Option No.1: Heritage Park: A public park surrou~ded with privately-owned
heritage homes with a loop drive aro'Jnd the park. This could
3-2
involve possible noise and security problems for the homes;
it would create an artificially created environment
(generally not supported by state and federal guidelines for
preservation) and might require the use of eminent domain
powers by the City. Privacy and security for the homes might
be enhanced by making the park a fenced private park for use
of the residents only. This would create the desired visual
environment while providing security for the adjacent homes
and their occupants.
Option No.2: A Heritage Row: Existing lots would be purchased by the
City to be resold as presently configured or resubdivided
as relocation sites for heritage homes. A continuous row
of historic homes would result with site and exterior
design review by the City. Limited public access would
be possible through the grounds and interiors once or
twice a year. A landscape district for maintenance of the
front yards would be possible. In this approach, no city
park would be involved and the more traditional neighborhood
setting would be maintained. This solution could be funded
piecemeal over a period of time.
Option No.3: Heritage District: This approach would establish a district
which would not only include the homes along Second Avenue
but surrounding properties with historic or architectural
significance, including properties on Del Mar, as well.
The area suggested would include properties bounded by "I"
Street, Second Avenue, "J" Street and mi~-block between Third
3-3
and Del Mar Avrnue. The historic resources inventory
identified 30 of the 62 houses in the area as potentially
significant heritage properties. This approach would entail
controls and incentives rather than public acquisition and
would be more consistent with state and federal guidelines
which support maintaining historic structures within their
existing context. The creation of a district which could be
included on the National Register of Historic Places was
suggested as a possibility under this option.
As another option, the City could chose none of the three alternatives
listed. The City could continue to designate sites and support a
preservation program by private sector efforts.
After review of the Director's report, the Council accepted it as presented
and sent the item on for review by the Resource Conservation Commission, the
Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission wlth instructions
to review it and forward their comments and recommendations to the Council.
Heritage Park Option Rejected
The unanimous position of the three bodies consulted was to endorse Options
No. 2 and No.3; further, the Planning Commission suggested that some
limited outdoor seating be provided to view the houses. In the Council's
action and based upon the advice of the boards and commissions consulted the
concept of a publicly owned park was rejected. The Council appeared to
favor a Historic Row within a Historic District, incorporating Options No.2
and No.3.
3-4
Maintaining the historic structures as private residence~ would represent
the lowest cost to the City. Further, the Council action rejected operation
of one of the historic homes as a museum as it would present considerable
expense which was not felt to be desirable. Interiors of the homes would
not be open to the public except on a limited basis. The Council did
suggest that Community Development Block Grant funds might be used to assist
in rehabilitating historic buildings under the proposal.
Planning Department staff, prior to the Council meeting in October, had
written a letter to the Chula Vista Historical Society asking for their
response to the Planning Director's report. In that letter, it was stated
that the Resource Conservation Commission, at their meeting of August 17,
1987, had voted to support Options No.2 and No.3. The following week the
Planning Commission had taken a similar position, adding support for a small
area with limited seating to view the homes. According to the letter to the
Historical Society, the Park and Recreation Commission had endorsed option
No.3.
In a telephone call from Mr. John Rojas to Mr. Steven Griffin of the
Planning Department, Mr. Rojas, as president of the Historical Society,
indicated that they would not formally consider the report but stated that
several members of the Society informally contacted expressed opposition to
a heritage park or any other proposal which might draw visitors into the
area.3
Mr. Griffin, in an interview with the Consultant, indicated that similar
concerns were expressed at a meeting called as a response to a letter from
the Planning Director to local property owners to discuss the proposal
3-5
resulting from Council action at its the October 2~, 1987 meeting.4
In actions taken in connection with the concept of a historic district
and/or park summarized above, the strongest advocacy to date for historic
preservation, apart from the several property owners who have rehabilitated
their own houses, has come from the City Council with general support, when
consulted, by the three commissions. Vocal support from the citizenry in
general or from the Historical Society does not appear to be present.
Whether this is truly indicative of the public's view of historic
preservation or merely a response to the specific proposals is unclear. The
Council apparently felt that there was sufficient merit in the proposal to
order that a consultant be retained to further investigate the creation of a
Historic District or Historic Row.
3-6
Chapter 4. OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The Historic Preservation Movement in the United States
To better understand the alternatives available to the people of Chula Vista
in the creation of a historic row or district, it is necessary to understand
the field Jf historic preservation in general and the implications of
various approaches or levels of preservation. Within the overall area of
historic preservation, the use of a historic district as investigated by
the City represents but one of the many approaches possible to achieve the
broad goal of preserving structures and sites which represent the past.
Webster defines "preservation" as "the act of preserving, or keeping in
safety or security from harm, injury, decay or destruction."S By adding
the modifier "historic" the meaning is further refined so as to apply to
preservation of those things or places which have a significant relationship
to our history. To be historically significant, a thing need not only be of
certain age, but have additional aspects which add importance and meaning.
When related to buildings or places, the significance can be in the
structu' or site itself such as being one of a kind, a representative
example of a general type of structure, a place where significant historical
events may have taken place, the home or birthplace of a historically
important individual or the work of a recognized architect, engineer or
builder. An essential element of ordinances guiding historic preservation
efforts is a listing of one or all of these relationships which constitute
criteria for determining formally whether a building or site is significant
4-1
for designation as a place worth special protection through the powers of
local government (See Appendix B for the criteria used to qualify sites
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places).
Informal protection of our built history has always existed. Individuals
and organizations who own buildings which they consider historic have cared
for them out of pride or a sense of stewardship in the interest of the
community in general. Government has traditionally preserved some of the
important public buildings for the same reasons. Also, public monuments,
created to memorialize important events or people, are usually held in
public ownership to insure their preservation and continued maintenance.
Public libraries and museums, in addition to housing historic books and
artifacts, are often buildings which, in of themselves, have historic or
aesthetic value to the community.
While significant relics of national, state and local history have been
preserved by government ownership, clearly there is a limit to the extent to
which the taxpayers are prepared to encumber common resources for these
purposes. By far the greatest number of significant historical buildings
and sites is held in private ownership either by individuals or groups of
individuals.
The greatest threat to existing buildings which may be of historical
significance lies in the normal processes of decay, dilapidation and changes
of use and land value normal to the life and growth of cities. As
commercia 1 districts of a community grow, for example, economic pressures
are placed on existing buildings which no longer represent the "highest and
best use" of the property upon which they stand. This is the case for all
4-2
buildings, whether consioered significant or not. An additional issue
relates to who decides whether a particular structure or site is significant
and once decided, who pays for its preservation if a conflict exists between
keeping and maintaining the structure in question and allowing the reuse of
the land for a greater financial yield. Immediately a clash is created
between the interests of the property owner and the interests of those in
the community who view preservation as important. At the heart of the
conflict inherent to historic preservation is the question of who determines
which buildings are to be saved and what means are available to insure that
at least some of our important buildings and places are to be protected for
the appreciation of future generations.
The central dilemma and questions described above are at the roots of the
movement for historic preservation. If the preservation of historic places
is a task which is beyond the financial means or capability of private
parties or the public by methods such as outright acquisition, how can
buildings and sites deemed important to the broader community be saved from
alteration or destruction?
Early Private Sector Efforts in Historic Preservaticn
Probably the earliest efforts in this direction were undertaken by groups of
history oriented individuals acting as historical societies or interest
groups who banded together to combine resources to preserve threatened
buildings or groups of buildings. These same types of organizations over
time have been instrumental in bringing pressure on government to undertake
preservation. A famous case not involving a building but a historic object
was in the successful movement to save from the wreckers the frigate U.S.~
4-3
Constitution, or .Old Ironsides,. which represented a piece of irreplaceable
American history. Whether by pressure of voters on their legislators or
through public subscription, means have been found to acquire some of those
representative fragments of our history.
For the most part, however, these singular efforts have not addressed the
large quantity of places which need to be protected if we, as a people, are
to maintain a sense of history and an understanding our past achievements.
A major step in this direction was the creation of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation by an Act of Congress in 1949. The National Trust was
established as a charitable and non-profit corporation to encourage public
participation in historic preservation, to acquire historic property, and to
administer, preserve or hold historic sites, buildings, or objects. The
organization is open to public membership.
The National Trust has continued to grow over time, owning more than a dozen
properties outright. Its main role is to serve as an educational and
informational forum to aid the cause of preservation nationwide. In this
capacity and through its large membership, it functions as a clearinghouse
for information relating to preservation. It also plays a role as an
advocate for federal appropriations to provide funding for tax credit
programs to facilitate historic rehabilitation and other legislation.
The Government Role in Historic Preservation
A significant event having a major impact on the historic preservation
movement in the United States was the passage by Congress of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This single piece of legislation put in
place some of the major tools used by preservation forces to further their
4-4
goals. Among other things, it expanded the ~ational Register of Historic
Places to include places of local, state, and regional as well as national
significance in American history, architecture, archeology, or culture.
Maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior, it lists buildings,
structures, sites, districts and other objects of historic significance.
Prior to 1966, the National Park Service had maintained a similar list which
included National Historic Landmarks.
Also created under the Act was the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
within the Executive Branch. Made up equally of specified government
officials and public members, it functions as the review body regarding
preservation matters. It reviews federal undertakings which might effect
National Register listed properties. It also reviews Environmental Impact
Statements for potential impacts of federally financed projects on these
properties. In addition, the Advisory Council recommends federal, state
and local legislation and conducts studies in the field of historic
preservation.
The Act also provides for designation of State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs) by the Governors of each state. Their role is to
coordinate the statewide and local activities in preservation and serve as
the link with the National Register and the federal government. The State
Historic Preservation Officers are particularly important in that they
administer efforts to initiate historic sites surveys, coordinate statewide
plans, serve as the clearing house for nominations of properties to the
National Register, request and distribute federal grant-in-aid funds and
consult with federal agencies concerning potential effects of federal
projects impacting National Register properties. In California, the State
4-5
Historic Preservation Officer is the Director of Department of Parks and
Recreation.
Assisting in the carrying out of his functions, the SHPO is advised by a
State Review Board under the provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act. This body is required to have professionals in the fields
of architecture, history and archeology within its makeup. The State Review
Board oversees the state Historic Preservation Plan and reviews nominations
to the National Register. In California this function is performed by the
California Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee.
Other federal programs are in operation which are not addressed here due to
their rather specialized nature and involvement with predominantly federal
properties. Some very exceptional buildings can be designated as National
Historic Landmarks under the authority of the National Historic Sites Act of
1935. National Historical Sites and National Monuments are additional
categories of designation which pertain principally to sites of national
significance.
The State of California also maintains a structure of historic preservation
addressing predominantly historic places of statewide significance. The
California History Preservation Program, administered by the Department of
Parks and Recreation, provides a number of services. Among them are a
registration program for state landmarks, nomination of properties to the
National Register, disbursement of funds granted under the National Historic
Preservation Act and formulation of a comprehensive statewide historic
preservation plan known as the California History Plan.
An element of the California History Plan is the Inventory of Historic
4-6
Features. This inventory lists historic properties whether formQlly
designated, or not, throughout the state. Each county has primary
responsibility for surveying eligible properties and submitting data
relating to each to the state.
The Registered California Historical Landmarks program functions to
recognize sites of statewide historic importance by listing and issuing
plaques to marl them. To be listed affords no special protection, but
identifies landmarks important to California's history. For properties
which are seen as having only local significance, such properties or sites
may be designated as Registered Points of Historical Interest. To be
listed, applications are presented by counties and forwarded to the
Historical Landmarks Committee. As with the Registered California
Historical Landmarks, no protection is afforded.
The Structure of Historic Preservation
The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the functions performed
under guidance of the federal government based upon the National
Preservation Act of 1966 and other legislation help shape the national and
state response to the needs of h~ toric preservation. The National Register
of Historic Places and its criteria for designation establish the guidelines
used as a universal measure of authentication for classifying buildings as
historic. Structures and sites meeting the National Register's criteria are
recognized as establishing a legal basis of being historic as well. For
example, for locally designated structures to be considered for federal tax
benefits or to receive certain protection under federal law, they must be
listed individually in the National Register or be part of a listed
4-7
Historic Di strict.
Parallel forms of designation at the state level, as described above,
provide a form of recognition but have less power to protect properties from
alteration, relocation or demolition than the federal programs.
Even with the importance of the National Register and the aura of acceptance
which it imparts, the greatest number of properties recognized throughout
the country as historic fall under the designation powers and regulatory
authority of local government.
Why Preserve?
Why is historic preservation necessary? As mentioned above, there will
always be individuals or groups who take upon themselves the maintenance of
sites, buildings, landscapes and other artifacts of the past for whatever
reasons they deem appropriate. Relics of the nation's history are saved
from deterioration, alteration and demolition for the enjoyment and
appreciation of future generations. In many cases, the public receives the
benefits of preservation through the generosity of those who preserve
historic places either gratis or with costs underwritten through payment of
admission charges, requests for support or bequests of private parties or
foundations.
As interest in history and our built environment has increased over recent
years, so has the desire to preserve the more significant and interesting
buildings and sites. In a country with a relatively short history when
compared to the Old World, there is a growing appreciation of how our
ancestors and earlier residents of the United States lived, constructed
4-8
their bUildings and developed our cities. As the normal processes of decay,
growth and modernization have taken place, a great deal of our constructed
history has been lost. The new structures that replace individual
buildings, neighborhoods and entire cities, despite benefits of convenience
and adherence to current tastes, have left ~any with a sense of loss of the
familiar things which they associate with their own past and that of their
ancestors. An appreciation of a variety in architectural and decorative
styles, craftsmanship which longer exists and a feeling of continuity with
the past have created a movement to preserve the best or more interesting
examples of the built environment. The limited number of historic places
preserved by those individuals and groups who could afford to do so has
fallen far short of the need to save a sufficient percentage of our heritage
to be meaningful to sCiciety. For this reason, largely with the leadership
provided by histor~~ally minded individuals and organizations, the public
has increasingly attempted to provide a framework for historic preservation
which goes beyond private ownership. The desire for an expanded scope of
historic preservation led to an increased use of legal means to provide
incentives, recognition and sanctions to further the goals of preservation.
Arguments for historic preservation, in fact, go well beyond what some might
characterize as nos: ~Iia for the past. In preserving the best elements of
our cities we provide iI sense of continuity and character of place which is
important to an area's residents. From the view of husbanding scarce
resources, an economic argument can be made for reuse of existing sound and
well located structures. Communities which have preserved their interesting
history have benefited through tourism and resurrection of neighborhoods
which have fallen into decay or out of current favor. A well known l''Jmple
4-9
of revitalization of a deteriorated historic area is the the Georgetown
district in the nation's capital.
The use of the available preservation techniques frequently generates
conflict with those who hold property rights paramount. It is generally
accepted that a property owner should be able to do with his property as he
sees fit consistent with his best economic interest. If society feels the
preservation of a building or site is important when the owner does not, the
public is, from time :0 time, provided with the option of purchasing the
property as an alternative to the property's development. The alternative
of government imposed controls on the use of private property for historic
protection, a device becoming increasingly employed, is sti 11 seen by many
as an infringement upon the owner's constitutional rights.
In fact, the right to complete freedom in the use of one's property has
never been the case in this country. Society has rights which need
protection concurrent with, and occasionally, superior to the rights of the
property owner. As in the case of building codes and zoning, the public
health, safety and general welfare need to be balanced with private property
rights when considerin" the ultimate use of property.
4-10
Chapter 5.
THE LEGAL BASIS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Controls in Historic Preservation: Private Use and Public Benefit
A central issue in historic preservation is in the control of private
property. Under our system of law, private property may be controlled, as
a matter of right, by the owner and, in some cases, by the government.
Limited control over the use of land can be purchased by private parties as
in the case of easements which can limit certain uses, design or other
aspects which inhibit total and free use.
The government may also acquire all or some of the rights to use property by
negotiating for its purchase from the property owner. In addition, however,
the government has powers which exceed those of a private party. Among the
powers delegated to government are eminent domain, police power and the
power to tax. In one form, or another, these powers can be used to further
historic preservation. Their uses are as described below:
1. Eminent Domain:
Under eminent domain, the government may acquire property or require its
sale to another party at a fair market price provided certain conditions
exist and specified procedures are followed. This power can be exercised
without the owner's consent. Among other uses of eminent domain, it
may be used to acquire a property for preservation. This tool can only be
used subject to limits established under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution as well as under the California State
5-1
Constitution under Article I, Section XIV. Both of these documents limit
what can be taken and under what circumstances.
In the use of eminent domain, taking of a fee interest in the property is
possible. In addition, interest less than fee can also be acquired such as
easements, leases, franchises, and contract rights, for example. In the
the taking of interest, the California Code of Civil Procedure requires
that the interest taken not exceed that required to accomplish the public
purpose involved. If outright possession by the public for occupation or to
prevent a disaster is not required, only an easement may be acquired. If
the goal is to preserve the exterior of a historic structure, only an
exterior easement controlling the use is necessary in most cases. This
allows the jurisdiction to prevent alterations or demolition of the exterior
without controlling the use of the interior of the building. If the
legislative body deems taking of fee interest in the property necessary, the
Code finds a resolution of that body based on a justifiable public purpose
as conclusive and the taking may not be overturned by the courts.
The taking of only exterior easement rights is not frequently used. More
often, a building is taken for use as public museum, park, or Some other
public use such as public offices. Also, property can be taken in the
redevelopment process to allow it to be resold to parties agreeable to
redeveloping it to achieve a public purpose.
A major drawback to taking of property to further preservation goals is
that in government ownership the property is off of the tax rolls. There-
fore, if preservation can be assured without a full taking in fee, it is
fiscally more prudent. With regard to justification of the government's use
5-2
~f eminent domain, such taking has been traditionally allowed when the
property in question is to be put to public use as a library or museum, for
example. Over time the public use concept has evolved to include public
benefit as equivalent to public use. That interpretation would support
condemning property for resale to another party who will put a site to use
for historic preservation purposes.
The California Legislature has recognized that historic preservation is a
legitimate use of the power of eminent domain as a public benefit under
Government Code Section 37361. This Code Section is one source of
enabling legislation in California which empowers local government to
regulate the use of historic property. The Code language is as follows:
"The legislative body may acquire property for the preservation or
development of a historical landmark. It may also acquire
property for the development of recreational purposes and
facilities in connection therewith.
The legislative body may provide for places, buildings, structures,
works of art, and other objects having a special character or
special historical or aesthetic interest or value, special
conditions or regulations for their protection, enhancement,
perpetuation, or use, which may include appropriate and reasonable
control of the use or appearance of neighboring private property
within public view, or both."
Specific means of acquisition of historic property are not listed, but any
of the usual methods available to local government are recognized. Under
the general grant of authority to control historic properties it is
5-3
important to specifically list in an ordinance the powers taken bJ local
government. A carefully drafted ordinance needs to fully address the level
of control desired to reduce the potential for legal challenges which might
be invited through ambiguity or lack of clarity in the drafting.
An example where eminent domain was used to further preservation through the
creation of a historic district is the Old Sacramento Redevelopment Project
where the City of Sacramento condemned land for that purpose. This not only
facilitated the development of the district, but allowed the city to impose
necessary design guidelines and controls. This procedure parallels the
better known use of eminent domain to acquire property for urban renewal.
The basis of the use of such powers relates to the public benefit derived.
When property is taken through use of eminent domain the fair market value
is required as compensation. That procedure is clear cut and within the
usual experience of local government and redevelopment agencies. When
historic properties are taken, the usual tests regarding fair market value
are more difficult as historic value and market value have no well defined
correlation. Particularly in the case of condemning only the exterior of a
historic building, valuation of the resulting easement is difficult to
establish due to the fact that there are no comparable sales to establish
fair market price and no clear way to determine what value should be
assigned to the owner's loss of free use to the building's exterior. In
this situation, negotiation with the property owner might be the only
feasible way of arriving at a value. Where the intent of the City is to
obtain an exterior easement, perhaps the use of other devices, such as tax
concessions or other incentives, might be better tools and be far less
confrontational.
5-4
In the long run, and in terms of efficiency and cost to locol government,
eminent domain is probably best used as a device of last resort,
particularly if there are a number of properties in question.
2. Police Power:
By far the most used power of local government for the furtherance of
historic preservation are the police powers. This grant of authority to
cities, counties and states relates to government's power to enact laws to
promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.
The California Government Code Section 37361 cited above also empowers local
government to regulate the use of histori' properties as well as to acquire
them. This grant of authority by the State under Section 37361 and Section
25373 is the foundation for zoning in California which permits the
regulation of land use by cities and counties, respectively, for the benefit
of the overall community. For legislation and ordinances to have validity,
they must address the furtherance of one of the four areas cited above which
validate government's use of police powers. One limitation on the exercise
of police powers by government is that public action may not bestow a
private benefit but only a public one. In other words, the goals involved
must have value to the community. In addition, a second limitation relates
to protection of the constitutional rights of the individual. The use of
police powers by local government is available only if specifically
delegated by the state which, in turn, is granted these powers under the
U. S. Constitution. In California, these powers have been delegated to
local government in the California Goverc"ent Code section previously
referenced. Of the tools available, zoning provides an inexpensive means to
control privately owned property of historic or architectural interest. As
5-5
with other forms of zoning controls, consent of the land owner is not
required.
Through the zoning process it is possible to establish historic districts by
ordinance which specifically regulates land use within prescribed
boundaries. In creating a historic district, not all buildings within its
limits need to be designated as historic. It is essential, however, that
all regulations apply uniformly within the district to be free from legal
challenges regarding application of the regulations.
The form of administration of a historic district can vary to meet local
conditions and preferences. In most cases, a volunteer public body is
employed. Such an authority, in addition to dictating, through established
criteria in the governing ordinance, the method of designating historic
properties, would also have the power to approve all applications for
construction, demolition or alteration of any building within the district.
In addition, by establishing the necessary guidelines, the design, size,
character and general compatibility with existing buildings of new buildings
to be placed within the district can be controlled. Establishing what
constitutes compatibility is not easily achieved. Requiring new structures
to imitate the genuine historic buildings is not considered desirable in
preservation terms. It is important that the new in-fill buildings have
size, height, mass and proportional characteristics which will respect and
be sensitive to the design context of the designated structures within the
district.
Under Chula Vista's Resource Conservation Commission ordinance the
Commission is required to recommend standards for historic and aesthetic
5-6
districts along with ~he autholity to recommend to the Council that such
districts be formed. The RCC does not have the power to create such
districts or standards on its own. Also, under the ordinance as written,
the recommendation powers stated are advisory to the legislative body and
are separate from any power the Planning Department might exercise to create
such districts through the zoning process.
Should the City chose to create historic districts through the zoning
process it is permissible to do so under the zoning authority delegated
under current state enabling legislation. For a recent proposal to
establish controls through the use of a historic district overlay zone by
the City of Monterey, see Appendix D. This device permits the use of
existing zoning and design review processes to produce similar results
without the formal creation of a historic district by separate ordinance.
Establishing such districts through zoning does not constitute spot zoning
provided zoning s, ndards are evenly applied to properties meeting certain
reasonable criteria which relate to the goal of historic preservation. The
legal test for this type of overlay zoning is whether special rights or
consideration are granted to some individuals while denying the same
benefits to others in similar circumstances. As always, creating the
district would n' -d to demonstrate the furtherance of histor~c preservation
as a public benefit.
Monterey's proposed overlay zone constitutes a floating zoning which may be
applied anywhere within the city provided that certain criteria are met.
This approach allows the Council to approve an ordinance which states that
such districts are a recognized land use and permits the selection of
actual locations to be by the Planning Commission eliminating the need for a
5-7
new ordinance each time a new di strict is formed. Through this methodology
floating or overlay zones can be incorporated into the comprehensive
zoning process.
Another exercise of police powers addresses threats of demolition of
historic buildings. A permit is required to demolish structures and
criteria to be used in the case of designated historic structures currently
exist under the Resource Conservation Commission's historical site permit
process for sites specifically identified by the commission to have this
process imposed. The current ordinance powers are limited to delaying the
issuance of a permit under specified circumstances and for a maximum of 360
days. Protection is afforded to the demolition permit applicant by
requiring that specific deadlines be met by the RCC in diligently pursuing
its review of the permit and its efforts to find alternative solutions to
the requested demolition. Further, actions of the RCC are subject to
approval by the Council as a safeguard to overly zealous use of such delays.
In cases where the City Manager feels that there are compelling reasons of
public health, safety and general welfare for the immediate issuance of the
requested permit, he may direct that the permit be issued. In the case of
the review process under Chula Vista's ordinance, it also applies to
applications for alterations and removal of historic structures.
In reviewing the ability under the delegated zoning powers to create
historic districts, California permits a class of preservation bodies
to be formed which serve as landmark commissions. Landmark commissions are
used to exercise power to designate historic structures and sites on a
citywide basis as opposed to only historic districts. The RCC generally
5-8
fits this model in its authority to recommend designation of historic
buildings by the Council as well as performing other duties and exercising
authority granted by ordinance. The RCC, at present, deals with individual
sites and structures of historic interest. Review boards for historic
districts, however, may be given power to control non-historic structures as
well if they are located within the boundaries of the district.
The Resource Conservation Commission under the current ordinance lacks
certain duties and authority which are exercised by other similar boards
such as the San Diego Historical Site Board. These differences will be
addressed later when looking at alternatives available in creating a
historic district.
3. Taxation:
An additional power available to government in the promotion of historic
preservation is its authority to levy a tax on property. Although
intended for the purposes of raising revenue to operate local government
and a multitude of special governmental functions such as education, fire
and police protection, property tax has a significant impact on the economic
viability of property. In the case of income producing property, the
property tax can be a major factor in the cost of doing business and must be
considered in balancing profits and losses. With non-income property, such
as an owner occupied residence, property tax represents an on-going expense
to the owner which can negatively impact upon the affordability of property.
In the effort to maintain a stock of historic buildings in a community,
property taxes can constitute a significant factor in the holding costs of
such resources. In many cases, particularly when historic residences are
5-9
adjacent to or within areas zoned ~or commercial or other uses, there is
constant pressure by the Assessor to tax the land upon which buildings stand
for its highest and best use rather than for its present use. A logical
response to increased taxes is to intensify the use through major
alterations or additions, often impacting negatively on the historic
character of the property. It can also lead to demolition or relocation of
the historic resource to make property available for more profitaLle
development to meet the property tax obligation.
In order to protect historic properties against the economic pressure caused
by property tax, local government has the authority to reduce the tax or, at
least, prevent it from increasing to the point where owners of historic
properties can no longer afford to own or maintain their holdings. The
increased assessment may influence the owner's decision to restore or
improve historic property. In many cases, the certain knowledge that his
assessment will be increased deters needed maintenance or improvements.
4
For local government to modify the tax rate in order to encourage
preservation, the county government must also participate as the property
tax function is vested with the county. The Assessor, as a county officer,
controls the assessment of property for tax purposes.
The Mills Act
Under law, properties are required to be assessed on an uniform and
equitable basis. Enabling legislation at the state level, however, permits
special assessment techniques for recognized purposes having a demonstrated
public benefit. A familiar form of preferential treatment of assessment is
the Williamson Act which allows agricultural land to be taxed for its
5-10
present-use value rather on its value when ,'edeveloped for urban land uses
A similar piece of legislation which allows for special treatment of
historic resources is the Mills Act (California Government Code Section
50280 et seq), enacted in 1972 under the sponsorship of State Senator
James Mills.
The Mills Act, like the Williamson Act, allows assessment for property tax
purposes to be based on its current use. The theory behind such assessment
is that, to the extent that keeping taxes at existing levels contributes to
the economic viability of historic or open space property, such assessment
can further the goals of historic and open space preservation. This form of
assessment, a type of present-use assessment, can take three possible forms.
The first form, and probably the least complicated, is preferential
assessment. This allows for a historic property to be assessed on its
existing use. The preferential treatment lasts only as long as the property
is kept in its existing use. In states where this method is permitted,
there is no penalty for demolition or alteration of the historic resource.
California does not have this form of tax treatment.
A second form of present-use assessment is deferred assessment. This
mechanism allows taxes to be based on present use, but maintains a record of
taxes that would be due should the use change. Upon any chan92 in status,
the past taxes become due and payable with a limit on the number of years of
past tax liability to be levied in case of termination. Since imposing
deferred taxes constitutes a penalty, the incentive for maintaining the
historic property is significant.
The third form of present-use assessment, available in California for the
5-11
uses described above is Contract Assessment. This permits a formal
agreement between government and a land owner to keep his property in
designated uses and out of development. This is the form of present-use
assessment employed under both the Williamson Act and the Mills Act.
Since its initial enactment, the Mills Act has been modified and its
provisions relaxed. Initially, it provided for contract tax assessment
solely for properties listed on the National Register or those designated as
California Registered Historical Landmarks. Properties listed on local
government registers or located within historic districts, local as well as
federal, now qualify for coverage by reduced assessment.
As in the Act's earlier form, in return for special assessment consider-
ation, the property owner must agree to maintain the property in its
historic condition. All properties covered must be visually access iDle from
the public street. The form of agreement is a written contract between the
property owner and the jurisdiction. In return for reduced, or frozen,
assessment, the property owner agrees to certain conditions which govern the
use and reasonable maintenance of the exterior of the building.
The term of the contract, originally established at twenty years, has been
reduced to shorter periods. The City of Escondido, which currently has
seven historic properties under Mills Act contracts, uses a term of ten
years. Once approved by the city council, the contract is renewed annually
on its anniversary date. If renewed by the property owner, the contract
term continues without renewal until the end of the originally agreed upon
term, or nine years if not renewed. There is no penalty for non-renewal
other than abiding by the restrictions on the property for the remaining
5-12
term while continuing to receive the reduced assessment. The local
government, on the other hand, has the right to cancel the contract, to be
effective immediately, if the owner has failed to maintain his property
under the terms of the contract. Upon cancellation, and based upon
necessary findings, an assessment of 12 1/2 percent of the market value of
the property at the time of termination is made against the property. The
local government has the option of suing to recover the assessed costs.
Some of the uncertainty associated with methods of calculating the new
assessed value when the legislation was first drafted have been resolved. A
formula in the Act now provides a specific method of establishing the new
valuation. It is based upon potential income from the property if rented at
a "fair rent", a capitalization rate based on several factors including the
property's current mortgage rate, the historical property risk component as
prescribed by the state Revenue and Tax Code, the current tax rate, and an
assumed remaining life of the structure of twenty years.
By means of this method of computation, the property assessment may be
substantially reduced. In the case of historic properties in Escondido
covered by contracts, the assessed value has been lowered to 25 percent of
the previous rate. The rationale for such reduction is the benefit to the
community in exchange for the owner's commitment to using the tax savings to
help offset the frequently higher costs of maintaining historic structures.
The added savings may be applied to costs associated with restoration of the
building as well. The City of Escondido requires the owner of a property
under contract to agree to a specific ten year program of restoration and
maintenance to protect the community's "investment" by accepting lower
property taxes during the contract period. A sample of the agreement and
5-13
application used by Escondida for Mills Act contracts is included in
Appendix F of this report. Part of that appended document includes samples
of the computation method to arrive at the reduced assessment and items
normally contained in a list of improvements and repairs proposed as part of
the contract.
Federal Income Tax Incentives for Rehabilitation
In addition to incentives for rehabilitation and preservation of historic
properties provided by relief from property taxes there are incentives
available through federal income tax credit programs. These programs,
involving credits toward income tax indebtedness for funds expended in the
rehabilitation of older and historic properties, are most applicable for
income-producing property. Under the original program, initiated under the
Tax Reform Act of 1976, benefits amounting to a 25 percent credit against
federal income tax of costs directly associated with rehabilitation and
restoration were made available. This program was used successfully in
several restoration projects in San Diego's Gaslamp Historic District.
The properties were commercial and were required to meet rather demanding
standards regarding percentage of original exterior walls used in the
restored building, listing of the original building in the National Register
of Historic Places, and other detailed requirements. Unfortunately,
enthusiasm at the national level has lessened for these programs, possibly
due to their success. Instrumental in numerous rehabilitation projects
around the country, they also had the effect of significantly reducing
federal revenues. Subsequent to the early successful years of the program,
the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1984 reduced benefits and the
economic attractiveness of these programs has been lessened.
5-14
Despite the changes under federal legislation, economic benefits continue to
be available for commercial, industrial and rental properties. Properties
in historic districts are eligible for assistance whether designated as
historic or are merely buildings categorized as contributing within the
district.
The described federal income tax credit programs probably have little
significance for buildings in the Second Avenue Study Area because of the
lack of National Register status. However, there are benefits which could
be realized in other areas of Chula Vista should the opportunity to preserve
older commercial property arise. In addition, within the body of regulation
on income tax incentives for rehabilitation there are provisions for income
tax credits available in the case of charitable donation of exterior
easements and for deductions and credits available to tax exempt organi-
zations who are involved in historic restoration projects.
Other Governmental Strategies for Historic Preservation:
Building Code Enforcement and Anti-Neglect Ordinances
Building codes used to enforce minimum levels of property maintenance and to
encourage upgrading of historic properties represent another area of the
government use of police powers. Used in combination, minimum enforcement
of building standards and the recently enacted California Historic Building
Code (HBC) can provide both the stick and the carrot for upgrading historic
buildings.
Beyond the normal powers administered by the Department of Building and
Housing to assure that structures are maintained in a safe and sanitary
5-15
condition, it is possible to enact specific anti-neglect ordinances.
Having such an ordinance allows a community to protect against property
owners who, when denied permission to demolish a designated historic
building, allow the property to deteriorate to the point where it becomes a
hazard to the public. Enforcement of anti-neglect ordinances is a justified
use of police powers in protection of public health, safety and welfare.
The carrot referred to above can be provided through the application of the
Historic Building Code. Until its passage local building officials were
required to enforce the provisions of the currently adopted Uniform Building
Code (UBC) regarding standards of safety and rehabilitation. Older
buildings, whether designated historic or not, could not be substantially
restored, remodeled or even repaired beyond a certain percentage of their
original value without being brought fully up to current code standards.
The costs to totally modernize an older structure by this standard can be
prohibitive and can not be justified in terms of economic benefit to the
property owner. In some instances, features of historic buildings would
need to be removed to comply with safety requirements resulting in serious
damage to its historic character.
The Historic Building Code, while still demanding standards of health and
safety, permits a relaxation of strict interpretations of standards more
appropriate to new structures. In some cases, this has been achieved by
substitution of regulations which protect the building against damage for
provisions which address life safety rather than building survivability
in the case of earthquakes, for example. The Code also allows a more
liberal view of equivalency in allowing fire sprinklers, for example, to
substitute for existing materials which, if brought into compliance, would
5-16
destroy the historic character of the building. Prior to the enactment of
the Historic Building Code, valuable local historic buildings were lost to
demolition due to the inordinate costs of bringing them fully up to current
standards of the UBC. As a valuable preservation tool, the HBC allows the
local building official to work in concert with other branches of municipal
government to further preservation rather than obstruct it.
Transfer of Development Rights
While of limited potential use in connection with the Second Avenue Study
Area for a historic row or district, a valuable tool in preserving historic
buildings in place is through transfer of development rights. This device
is particularly useful in cases where historic buildings are located on
property subject to heavy redevelopment pressure.
The basic concept behind transfer of development rights relates to the fact
that many older buildings underutilize the property upon which they stand.
As the price of comparable lots increases there is a strong incentive to
redevelop property to realize its full development potential. Not only is
there potential profit to made from redevelopment of the site, but tax
assessment increases reinforce the business decision to improve the
property. A freqJent result of the pull of such forces is demolition or
relocation of the existing structure.
In an effort to provide an incentive to maintain the building in place,
particularly if it has historic or aesthetic value, the owner is allowed to
sell his excess development potential to another party for use on another
site within the same jurisdiction. In the case of a single family residence
on a lot which, under current zoning might support four dwelling units, for
5-17
example, a potential developer could purchase the right to build three
additional units as part of another project. The payment for the transfer
of development rights might be sufficient to allow the continued use of the
property in question. The action described, however, is a one time action
and conditions prohibiting development to a more intensive use are
permanently attached to the property.
Although the transfer of development rights technique is not widely used,
there are legal precedents for its use. It can be kept in reserve for the
appropriate situation which could occur, particularly in connection with
historic properties adjacent or within commercial or multi-family zones.
The Conditional Use Permit Process In Preservation
Another device which allows economic use of historic properties which can
lead to their preservation exists in the citjs current zoning ordinanc~
In the R-l and R-3 zones, existing historic buildings may qualify for
limited use as professional offices as a conditional use under the
provisions listed under Section 19.58.244 of the Municipal Code when
approved by the Planning Commission. On order to qualify for such use, the
building, in addition to being designated as historic, must meet specific
criteria including minimum lot area, be on level, developable land, be
located within 300 feet of a thoroughfare or heavily travelled collector
street and the proposed use must be limited in the amount of additional
vehicular ~raffic it will generate. Required changes for professional
office use to the structure and the landscaping must be in keeping with the
basic design and character of the property.
5-18
To utilize the provisions of the ordinance, an applicant must provide the
required detailed submittal, including plans and a complete application as
provided in the Zoning Ordinance, for review and processing by the Planning
Department. In addition to Planning Commission approval, the project is
likely to be require approval by the Design Review Committee as well. If
approved, as a conditional use, the use can be terminated if the conditions
set out in the approval are not adhered to.
This form of conditional use has proven successful in the City of Sar ~iego
as a means of saving valued historic residential propE y in both com~rcial
and residential neighborhoods of the city. With strict design controls and
ready enforceability of the conditions of operation, the conditional use
permit process encourages retention of buildings which might not otherwise
be economically v' e. The CUP process is an example of the constructive
use of zoning in tr cistoric preservation process.
Local Government Historic Preservation Incentives Programs
A concern often e :ssed by owners of properties which are candidates for
historic preservation is what, other than psychic rewards, is being given by
government in exchange for the controls which come as part of listing of a
property on a his -ic register. By seeking designation, tht property owner
is bestowing cert~ n cultural and aesthetic benefits on the community. In
recognition of these benefits, local government may choose to provide
specific incentives for the owner's participation in the historic
preservation process.
Earlier, the use of contract assessment under the Mills Act was discussed.
As explained, a substantial reduction in the property tax burden can r' lt
5-19
in a reduction in the "holding cost" of a historic property.
The City of Escondido, in addition to the use of the Mills Act, has also
initiated incentives ranging from reduction or waiving of application fees
for required planning and building department approvals. In addition, there
are reimbursements towards the cost of a dumpster, building and maintenance
materials, and fees for design services of an architect or landscape
architect.
The specific amounts, listed in Appendix E, vary depending on the type of
property, its location and its status as a registered structure. Also, the
incentive program has specific criteria for qualifying for the incentives.
These relate to the visibility of the structure from the public street, the
need for any improvements to conform to design guidelines established for
homeowners of historic structures, a limit to the frequency which such
assistance may be bestowed, approval of completed work by the.city prior to
actual reimbursement, and verification of monies actually expended by the
property owner for improvements.
Incentives are available to the owners of 1) non-registered properties within
the boundaries of the Old Escondido Neighborhood (historic) district, 2)
properties listed on the local register of historic places, and 3)
properties listed on the local register and designated as landmarks, a
special category with higher criteria. Additional benefits are available
for property zoned commercial or professional for listed properties or if
the structures are located within a particular subarea of the historic
district. The amount of potential savings or reimbursement to qualifying
properties ranges from a total of $750 for a non-register property in the Old
5-20
Escondido Neighborhood to as much as $3,400 for a landmark property listed
on the local register.
Incentives in addition to financial assistance in the form of relaxed
property development standards are available to commercially and
professionally zoned properties listed on the local register or within the
specified subarea of the Old Escondido Neighborhood. These include
relaxation of parking and on-site circulation requirements, 50 percent
credit for adjacent on-street parking spaces, and approval of tandem
parking for employees. Fifty percent of the fees for the necessary
conditional use permits are waived as well as 100 percent of building
department and plot plan fees. Expedited processing is also provided.
The public funds for such incentive programs are limited to $15,000
appropriated by Escondido for the current program.6 This puts the program
on a "first come, first served" basis. To date, a number of propert ies have
utilized both the historic preservation incentives and the Mills Act reduced
assessments.
For the City of Chula Vista to adopt a similar incentive program, a number
of factors would need to be considered. Given the reductions in support
of local government by the State of California, the level of commitment for
such a program would have to be carefully weighed. However, if such a
program could be supported by the citizens and approved by the City, a fairly
modest amount of waived fees and cash outlays could very well leverage
expenditures by owners of qualifying properties which could have a
substantial impact on maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
Public/private sector cooperation is frequently discussed as a desirable
5-21
method of gaining public benefits. All too often, however, specific
programs to carry out such joint actions are all too few. A program of
economic and processing incentives, if offered by the City, would go a long
way toward overcoming the concerns of owners of historic properties that
preservation fails to provide the necessary encouragement for designation of
properties as historic.
5-22
Chapter 6. ALTERNATIVES
In the preceding review of the historic preservation experience in the
United States the importance of significance with respect to historic
properties and their treatment is apparent. The value of historic
properties in terms of the priorities for the distribution of scarce
resources to preserve the best of our built heritage is reflected in the
certification process. Particularly in the expenditure of public funds,
verification of authenticity and quality of historic resources is necessary
to insure that public monies are prudently committed.
As noted within this study, whether in areas of grants of federal funds,
allowing for special treatment for property tax assessment and, in most
cases, for federal income tax credits, the minimum standard normally
demanded is for the resource to be listed in the National Register for
Historic Places or to be eligible for such listing. The procedure for
nomination and acceptance to National Register status, while not perfect,
is the legally recognized measure of what is truly historic. The
requirement at all levels of government, from local to state to the federal,
for qualified experts to serve on historic committees or boards is intended
to insure that proposed nominations meet minimum criteria of historic value.
In the evaluation criteria for properties eligible for listing on the
National Register and in the guidelines used by the National Park Service in
the nomination process, the listing of buildings removed from their original
sites is discouraged. The importance that a building be associated with its
6-1
location to be historic 1S such that relocation of already listed buildings,
for example, is grounds for removing them from the Register.
Because of the language in the National Register regarding relocation of
buildings, districts created predominantly of buildings assembled from
other locations are also not eligible for listing. The rationale behind the
stated position is that recreation of historic neighborhoods fails to meet
the test of historicity. The process of removing a building from its
historic context destroys its interpretive value and breaks the chain of
history. With an exceptional historic building, relocation at an earlier
time and a subsequent meaningful history may allow it to qualify as
historic under the criteria. In the case of National Register eligible
properties already existing within a potential historic district area,
buildings relocated into the potential district would not necessarily make
the district ineligible but such buildings could be considered as
contributing buildings without need for historic designation or listing.
In the options investigated previously by the city Council, creation of a
historic district did not appear to be predicated upon its eligibility as a
National Register historic district although it was suggested. Indeed, such
recognition is not essential. The local historic designation process and
creation of a district may operate without Register listing. The lack of
listing may eliminate the district from certain programs. For example,
some of the federal income tax credit programs are geared specifically to
buildings located within registered historic districts. However, these
credits are also available to buildings based on other criteria, as well,
including building age alone and experience with previous rehabilitation
efforts. Also, absence of National Register listing does not preclude the
6-2
use of Community Development Block Grant Jnds. 'DBG f ~ds may be used for
rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of historic properties based on
local designation alone.
In connection with the use of contract assessment as provided by the Mills
Act, the lack of National Register status for a district is not a factor
provided an individual property can qualify on its own merits. However, as
in the case of the National Register, California Registered Historical
Landmark status would probably be adversely effected if a given property
was not located on its original site.
Alternative Historic District and Related StrateQies
The potential benefits of a historic district for Chula Vista are worth
pursuing and the following alternatives are offered for consideration. In
many cases, features of one altlrnative may be incorporated into another.
The first two alternatives listed address the two options previously
investigated by the Council in its deliberations.
Alternative No.1: Historic Row
This Alternative would create a historic district limited to the properties
between and including 614/616 and 624/644 Second Avenue. This area
coincides with the area studied under the Council's Option No.2. These
properties provide a strong core of existing residences with historic and
aesthetic value which can serve to anchor a well defined district. To
implement the creation of a Historic Row, the following actions could be
taken:
1. By recommendation of the Resourc' Conservation Commission, the City
6-3
Council could prepare an ordinance creating a Second Avenue Historic
Row district to include the properties described above. For a
district created by Council ordinance to be legal, a majority vote of
the property owners within the proposed district boundaries would be
required to approve the Council's action. Under a historic district
ordinance, controls over design and standards for minimum maintenance
could be included.
2. Administration of the created Historic Row district could be under the
City Manager with major staff assistance fro~ the Planning Department.
Designation of new buildings within the Historic Row district as well
as review of applications for demolition, alteration or relocation of
properties within the district could continue to be by the Resource
Conservation Commission. A provision of the ordinance could assign
all design review for compatibility with historic buildings for
existing or new non-historic structures to the Design Review Committee.
Criteria for non-historic buildings in the Historic Row District will
need to be drafted.
3. Upon formal creation of a Historic Row district, the City could have
a master plan developed for the ultimate land-use which would create a
framework for resubdivision of parcels without historic homes to create
future sites to provide a village-like clustering of buildings to
insure design continuity, circulation and redistribution of utilities
to serve future move-on qualifying structures.
4. Using funds already accumulated under C.I.P. Project 600-6000-GF34
along with additional annual appropriations to create a revolving fund,
6-4
the City could purchase existing non-historic properties as they
become available. The acquired lots, after resubdivision, could be
sold to private parties interested in using the resulting lots for
relocation of historic buildings judged to be compatible with the
existing historic structures. The RCC could determine suitability of
the proposed structures for inclusion in the Historic Row district.
5. In the process of acquiring existing propert'es with non-historic
buildings, the City could proceed with a subdivision of each parcel as
acquired in compliance with the approved master plan. The new lot
pattern could include new streets with future utilities for adjacent
as yet unacquired parcels as required. If necessary, half streets with
future utilities could be constructed. Costs of improvements could
be passed on to future purchasers or could be paid for under the
Capital Improvement Program. The use of Community Development Block
Grant funds might be used to create an incentive to property
purchasers.
6. Under the federal Community Development Block Grant program, the City
could assist both owners of existing historic properties and owners of
relocated qualifying structures in the rehabilitation and restoration
of their homes, CDBG funds may be used to fund a full range of
rehabilitation including acquisition of property, relocation and other
activities in addition to the actual rehabilitation of residential
structures. The regulations specifically provide that "CDBG funds may
be used for the rehabilitation, preservation and restoration of
historic properties whether publicly or privately owned," Local
designation of the historic buildings is sufficient for the purposes of
6-5
COSG funding.
7. Investigate the nomination of qualifying non-relocated residences
within the Historic Row district to the National Register of Historic
Places. While listing as a district will probably not be possible, as
discussed above, there would be benefits to individual structures so
designated.
8. In the master plan of the Historic Row district investigate innovative
forms of street design including publicly maintained landscape areas in
conjunction with parking pockets for local residents' cars and a
narrowing of travelway below normal city standards to increase
landscaping opportunities. Utilize standards developed for private
streets used with flag lot development. Consider limited seating,
without parking, for pedestrian resting and viewing buildings from
landscaped streetside parkways.
9. Investigate the feasibility of an open space district or similar device
to provide for maintenance of landscaping in the front and street
sideyards and parkway areas of the Historic Row district. Funding for
maintenance could utilize an assessment district process similar to
used for the EastLake development.
10. D:velop a program for special signage to identify the district along
with a plaque program for identification of designated structures.
11. To generate interest in historic preservation, recommend that some or
all of the historic homes in the Historic Row district participate in
an open house program, perhaps in connection with National Preservation
6-6
week. A simj'ar very successful program was initiated by San Diego's
Gaslamp Quarter Foundation providing for guided tours conducted by
volunteers. Viewing of interiors would not be contemplated unless
volunteered by district residents. This type of activity is used
throughout the country for fund raising for historical preservation
groups to operate their programs of public information. As such the
City could consider offering such a program to a volunteer organization
in return for assisting the City in its preservation programs.
Alternat ive No.2: Chula Vista Historic District
This Alternative would create a historic district which would include the
property described above for Alternative No. 1 and the area on both sides of
tEl Nar Avenue between "I" and "J" Streets. Included within the proposed
district would be additional properties on Second Avenue shown on Figure
No.1 of this report. This area coincides with the Council's Option No.3.
Within the described boundaries are four additional residences identified
among the forty-four properties listed as historic sites by the City. A
number of residences in the proposed district could possibly qualify for
designation as historic or as structures contributing to the district.
1. By recommendation of the Resource Conservation Commission within its
present powers, the City Council could prepare an ordinance creating a
Chula Vista Historic District to include the properties described
above. As in Alternative No.1, a majority of the property owners of
the overall area would be required to vote to approve the district.
The ordinance should establish controls over design of both historic
and contributing structures.
6-7
2. Administration of the Historic District wc~ld be as proposed for
A lternat ive No. 1 above.
3. The Council could direct that a master plan be prepared for the Del
Mar Avenue area of the District in addition to that proposed for the
Historic Row to investigate a redesign of Del Mar Avenue within the
District boundaries. The master plan could include a street tree and
landscaping program, possible narrowing of the street with parking
pockets sufficient for residents' use and consider a mid-block
childrens' play park created in the right-of-way with the street
terminating in back to back cul-de-sacs on either side of the play
park. In addition to creating a play park, this would create a street
closing which would eliminate through traffic. In addition, the master
plan could investigate resubdividing some of the larger lots using
flag lots or access streets to allow for additional single family units
in the neighborhood. Such lots could allow in-fill dwellings, either
move-ons of relocated historic homes, or move-ons of non~historic
buildings, or new construction following design guidelines to be
drafted to insure compatibility with historic homes in the District and
the neighborhood context. In the Del Mar section of the mstrict, the
initiative for resubdivision could rest with the property owners but
with assistance from the Planning and Engineering Departments to
expedite and simplify the process. New access roads or drives could be
non-dedicated streets built to standards used in other flag lot
situations in the City. Utility extensions could likewise be paid for
by the property owner. The distinction between Historic District and
Historic Row standards and levels of public assistance would have to be
6-8
clearly defined in the or'dlnance to establish public benefit to allow
for the variation in treatment of District properties.
4. With the number of homes designated as historic already and with the
prospect of additional existing structures to be so recognized, the
Chula Vista Historic District might qualify for nomination as a
National Register historic district. Such designation would lend
prestige to the neighborhood and help both District and individual
properties qualify for added assistance in tax treatment at the ,federal
and local levels. The added recognition would have the potential of
attracting additional preservation-oriented individuals to participate
in the District and give added impetus to the restoration and
rehabilitation of all properties located within the District.
5. As with the Historic Row under Alternative No. I, a landscape
maintenance program could be investigated for front yards, parkways,
street trees and the play park. Special signage for the District as
well as a plaque program for designated structures could be pursued by
the City. The use of an assessment district as recommended for the
Historic Row might be considered.
6. Policies regarding limited open house programs can be pursued with
voluntary participation. The need for ~ay back" to the community with
cpen houses is less for the Del Mar Avenue properties than for the
Historic Row as the level of City participation would be less.
Alternative No.3: No Formal Public Participation
This alternative would not require direct involvement of the City or use of
6-9
public funds.
1. Continue current forms of recognition by the Resource Conservation
Commission through its designation and permit review programs. The
Council, by recommendation to the RCC, could encourage increased
efforts to expand the current number of sites designated, provided
that they meet criteria equal to the sites presently designated.
2. Encourage private organizations, such as the Historical Society or
other volunteer groups, to become more active in promoting historic
preservation in Chula Vista. Consider organizing a group similar to
San Diego's Save Our Heritage Organization (SOHOJ to provide a private
source of information and encouragement for historic preservation.
3. Encourage neighborhood residents to investigate programs of neighbor-
hood conservation through the Planning Department to encourage
maintenance and appropriate rehabilitation to promote the goals of the
Chula Vista General Plan for preservation of single family residential
neighborhoods.
4. Organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce in other communities have
actively promoted "Fix-Up, Clean-Up, Paint-Up" campaigns to encourage
trash removal, relandscaping and repainting of neighborhoods through
the use of volunteer labor and the donation of materials and equipment
made available by local businesses to property owners. The study areas
could serve as a focused demonstration area for this type of private
sector prograrr~
6-10
Alternative No.4: Historic Overlay Oistrict
As a separate action or in conjunction with other Alternatives, create a
Historic Overlay District zoning ordinance similar to the proposal appearing,
in Appendix D as drafted by the City of Monterey. This approach would be
directly applicable to the Second Avenue and Del Mar Avenue Study Areas as
well as other areas within Chula Vista which may be determined in the future
as candidate areas for such treatment. District designation by use of a
zoning overlay does not require consent of the property owners in the areas
where it is applied. Further, it does not effect the underlying zoning but
provides for additional levels of control to achieve goals associated with
historic preservation.
I. Council may direct the Planning Department to draft or cause to be
drafted an ordinance to create a Historic Overlay District. The
language of the ordinance should be appropriate to the City's current
programs supporting historic preservation including the Resource
Conservation Commission preservation functions and duties, the Design
Review Committee's role in community design and statements in the 1989
General Plan regarding protection of single family residential
neighborhoods.
2. Coordinate criteria for inclusion in a Historic Overlay District
relating to age, architecture, archeology, historic events and people,
works of noted architects or builders and other characteristics
indicative of historic character with those used for historic site
designation by the Resource Conservation Commission.
3. Draft regulations to be applied to all property where zoned as a
6-11
,
Historic Overlay District appropriate to improve maintenance standards
and enhance both historic and non-historic structures located therein.
Establish a program of historic permits to control demolition,
alterations or removal of structures within the zone or utilize the
current permit program of the Resource Conservation Commission.
4. Establish administrative procedures for permit applications, decision
making and an appeals process to either the Planning Commission or
the City Council.
5. Adopt more detailed levels of control such as a Historic Preservation
Program process wherein owners of historic property could describe the
existing resource, the historic basis of the property including
photographs, title history, factual material identifying the architect,
builder, original owner, etc. and the owner's proposed restoration or
up-grade goals for the property. This information, much of which
already exists for existing designated properties, would-be used in
making application for designation for undesignated properties and as
an attachment to any permit applications related to historic
properties.
6. Establish specific design guidelines for both historic and contributing
buildings within the Historic Overlay District. Review of alterations
to the properties could be addressed by the Design Review Committee and
the Resource Conservation Commission; review of demolition or removal
applications could remain with the Resource Conservation Commission.
For the DRC to establish consistency in the review of projects within
the Historic Overlay District, a carefully drafted, illustrative set of
6-12
urban design and architectural guidelines sh~uld be developed. Such
guidelines could be made available to the public as well as the DRC
and Planning Department staff. An appeal process, similar to that
which currently exists, should be incorporated into the new ordinance.
Alternative No.5: Creation of a Historic Site Commission
This Alternative would create a separate Historic Site Commission and can be
accepted on its own or be applied with any of the above Alternatives. At
present the powers and responsibilities normally performed by a Landmark or
Historic Site Commission are vested in the Resource Conservation Commission.
The potential benefit of having a separate body to oversee historic
preservation activities in Chula Vista is based on a number of factors as
stated below.
1. The control and encouragement of the community's historic preservation
is a rather specialized function requiring the concentrated efforts of
a volunteer board with particular interests and expertise in historic
preservation. The complexity of the issues and the growing body of
information relating to preservation could best be handled by a single
purpose entity considering the tasks to be performed.
2. As the role of local government in historic preservation has generally
increased throughout the country, so has the need of a public body
directing the community's efforts to possess greater sophistication and
to exercise due diligence. An increasingly important function of
historic site commissions is the review of applications for demolition,
alterations and removals relating to historic sites. The large number
of legal challenges to historic site commission actions makes it highly
6-13
desirable that such bodies be properly constituted with representation
in specialized fields such as archeology, history, architecture, real
estate, construction and law. The use of experts helps validate the
decisions of a historic site commission.
3. Within the ordinance creating the present Resource Conservation
Commission which has responsibility for the current historic
preservation function for the City, along with many other areas of
concern, there is no listing of criteria for the designation of
historic sites. It is important for the understanding of the public,
the operation of the commission and to help resist legal challenges
that the criteria be clearly stated as part of the empowering
ordinance. The criteria selected should be carefully considered and,
wherever possible, to be consistent with those of the National Register
of Historic Places (see Appendix A for a list of criteria) to
facilitate nominations of selected properties for listing and to
establish credibility of local designations.
4. The RCC's current role is advisory to the Council. In the interest of
reducing the Council's work load, the authority to make decisions
regarding designation and permit applications could be delegated to a
Historic Site Commission with appeal of its decisions to the Councilor
the Planning Commission. Following the same rationale as used in the
creation of the Design Review Committee, members of a Historic Site
Commission with expertise in the appropriate specialties are best
qualified to deal with the technical aspects of historic preservation.
5. In drafting of an ordinance creating a separate Historic Site
6-14
Commission it is important that the resulting document oe as
comprehensive as possible and consistent with both enabling legislation
and responsive to case law in the field of historic preservation.
Increasingly, successful challenges to the community's authority to
control historic preservation is based on inadequate or unclear
language in ordinances, lack of expertise in the body's make-up and
failure to follow procedures by the historic site commission and staff.
The increasing quantity of litigation in connection with preservation
decisions seems to indicate that municipalities should either up-grade
existing ordinances and procedures or withdraw from historic preservation
altogether. The latter alternative is not totally negative in that, if the
community has an active constituency for .istoric preservation, it can find
ways to provide some level of recognition of historic structures. A number
of cities have active preservation programs run by private volunteer organi-
zations that meet some of the usually recognized goals of historic preserv-
ation. However, for any meaningful level of recognition and protection of
endangered properties, the powers delegated to local government provide the
greatest deterrent to continued erosion of our built historic heritage.
For the City's efforts in developing some form of historic district to be
founded upon a sound legal basis it would be highly desirable that the
underlying structure for designating and regulating historic resources be
up-graded to currently recognized standards.
6-15
Chapter 7. RECOMMENDATIONS
In the preparation of the Historic District study, the Consultant reviewed
the previous preservation experience in Chula Vista and attempted to assess
the current level of interest in this subject in the community. At the
same tir.,e, inquiries were made regarding the resources available to support
an expanded program of historic preservation in the city. The resources
examined were availability and experience of personnel, public and private,
staff time necessary to operate an expanded program and financial capabil-
ities of the local government. As important as are the available resources
to the success of a historic preservation program is the demonstrated
interest of the community to not only establish a specific program but to
maintain it over time.
The City of Chula Vista continues to be a major growth area in terms of
population increase and major land development. The continuing growth
of Chula Vista's eastern areas, projected development in adjacent county
areas, the challenges associated with the incorporation of Montgomery and
the on-going effort to develop the bayfront all represent substantial
demands on Chula Vista's resources. These commitments are over and above
the usual day-to-day activities such as redevelopment of older neighbor-
hoods, repair and replacement of aging infrastructure, control of in-fill in
the built-up areas, expansion of public transportation and the maintenance
and operation of the county's second largest city.
Recognizing the competing demands on local government and the community an
7-1
expanded preservation program should reflect the limitations of available
resources by developing the most efficacious methods to further the goals of
historic preservation in Chula Vista. The use of existing commissions,
boards and personnel to the maximum extent possible to achieve a measured
expansion of present preservation efforts appears to be the prudent course
of action. The following recommendations select among methodologies
contained in the Alternatives chapter of this report. The program outlined
below is intended to meet minimum preservation objectives and provide the
basis for future expansion as the program warrants. The recommendations
consist of two proposed actions. First, the creation of a historic
modifying district ordinance and, second, the appointment of a task force to
develop guidelines and suggestions for the implementation of the ordinance.
Recommendation No.1: Chula Vista Historic MOdifying District Ordinance
It is recommended that an ordinance to create a Historic Modifying District
be drafted and adopted by the City Council after review and favorable action
by the Planning Commission. For the most part, this recommendation would
incorporate the points covered under Alternative No. 4 as stated in Chapter
6 of this study. The district would be applied in manner similar to that
employed currently for modifying districts under Title 19 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). The current districts address issues
such as design control and regulation of hillside development. As with
other modifying districts, a historic modifying district would combine with
any zoning district creating an overlay zone or additional level of control
over the underlying zoning. As in the case of other modifying districts
already in place, a historic modifying district would be applied by zoning
action wherever the appropriate conditions exist. Thus, new historic
7-2
districts could be created without the need for drafting a new conventional
historic district ordinance for each future historic district.
The recommended ordinance for a Historic modifying District would be
drafted in language and format to conform with other modifying district
regulations under Chapter 19.56 of the Zoning ordinance. Specific elements
to be included are as follow:
1. A description of the purpose of the ordinance, i.e., furthering the
community goal of historic preservation.
2. The method of applying the zoning designation, to be used in combining
with the underlying zoning.
3. Criteria for application of the Historic Modifying District including
minimum age (50 years) of the site, structure or historic feature to be
preserved. Qualifying factors would be based on archeology, historic
events, associated historic or notable people, works of notable
architects or builders, architecture or distinctive local feature.
Also to be addressed would be the basis for creating districts which
would include more than one such qualifying building, contributing non-
historic structures and establishing the extent of the the district
required to provide minimum protection for the resource or resources.
4. Land use regulations addressing treatment of historic sites or
buildings as designated under the existing Resource Conservation
Commission process including issues of alteration, demolition or
removing designated structures, treatment of non-historic buildings
within the district and landscaping requirements. Treatment of non-
7-3
, ,
histcric buildings could include design controls regarding alterations
to existing buildings and for new or moved-on non-historic buildings.
Reference could be made to the design manual (to be created) which
would be intended to provide design guidelines to insure compatibility
of non-historic structures with adjacent designated buildings within
the district. All applications for alteration, new construction or
move-ons of non-designated buildings to be reviewed by the Planning
Department and/or the Design Review Committee.
5. The Zoning ordinance currently permits professional offices in R-l and
R-3 zones if they are located in buildings listed on the city's
Historic Register and meet other specific and non-specific criteria.
This provision could be included with the Historic Modifying District
ordinance and expand the level of control to include design review. In
addition, more specific criteria concerning parking and landscaping
could be included. Also included could be other uses in addition to
professional offices if compatible uses could be found which would
directly contribute to the economic viability of sites seeking
preservation.
6. The usual language regarding the appeal process would be included to
allow appeals of decisions made in connection with permit applications.
7. Definitions relating to Historic MOdifying Districts and structures and
more specific design standards for non-historic buildings within a
district could be included in the ordinance to clarify terms not
otherwise covered in the Zoning Ordinance.
A major advantage in the use of the zoning process to create historic
7-4
districts would be its ease of application. Such districts could be
created without the need to craft a new piece of legislation for each new
area. Its establishment would be through the normal public hearing and
decision process used for other zoning issues as provided under the
Municipal Code. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance contains modifying district
regulations which address design, precise plans, equestrian districts,
planned unit developments and hillside development. A principal advantage
of a similar treatment for historic preservation is that procedures
concerning administration, processing and implementation are well understood
by the public and the city. As a zoning tool, the modifying district
approach places the designation and regulation of historic resources in the
Planning Department, the department whose personnel are best suited by
training and expertise to deal with it.
The administration of a historic modifying district by the Planning
Department would not change the role of the Resource Conservation Commission
in designating historic sites or in acting on applications for demolition,
removal or alterations of a designated property. The Planning Department
would continue to serve as the entry point into the system for applications
for designation of candidate sites or removal from designation of previously
designated sites, for review of applications to remove, alter or demolish
historically designated sites and to control similar applications for non-
designated structures within the district. As already established in the
Municipal Code for applying a modifying district, any action to create a new
historic modifying district could be initiated by a resolution of intent by
the Planning Commission, the City Councilor by application of one or
more affected property owners or parties having legal interest in the
7-5
property to be affected by the proposed action. As with other zoning or
rezoning, a public hearing with notification of affected property owners
within the boundaries of a proposed district and those within an appropriate
radius would be required. The right to appeal a decision of the Planning
Commission to create a historic modifying district would be the same as for
any zoning or rezoning action of the Commission.
The creation of a historic modifying district would empower the Planning
Department to review applications for proposed alterations, additions and
new construction as well as demolition, removal, or alterations to
designated historic buildings within such a district. Currently, the
Planning Department does not have the authority to review applications for
alterations or additions to non-historic buildings adjacent to designated
historic structures when only a building permit is required where no zoning
issues are involved. In its review, the Department could process an
application internally or forward it to the Design Review Committee as
appropriate depending on the issues involved. Where existing designated
historic sites are involved, ORC review could be coordinated with the
Resource Conservation Commission either formally or informally depending on
the circumstances and wheth~r design questions existed. In the case of
simple designation as a historic site, after an initial screening by the
Planning Department, applications could be sent directly to the RCC as
is done in current practice. Such a procedure will continue to insure that
the land use issues, not necessarily apparent in a limited analysis based
solely on historic criteria, would come to the attention of the Planning
Department as a result of the initial screening. Under the proposed
ordinance when applications are submitted for properties within a historic
7-6
modifying district the applicant could be made aware of the zoning
regulations which would apply to his property. Independent of RCC action
regarding designation, an applicant could be advised of regulations
relating to any future additions or alterations to the structure within
a historic modifying district.
Under the current provisions of the Municipal Code, the Resource
Conservation Commission, in its process of designating historic sites,
determines whether individual sites are to receive protection under the
historical site permit process which requires that the RCC be notified in
the event an application is received to alter, demolish, or relocate a
designated building. At present, only a small number of sites are so
protected. In its review of the historic preservation function, a task
force (see below) could evaluate the desirability of extending the
protection afforded by the historical site' ermit process to all designated
sites. The conventional rationale for designation historic sites, i.e., to
afford a higher degree of protection, might be applied to a greater number
of structures than is now the case.
As an incentive to the listing of qualifying structures as historic, the
current zoning ordinance section allowing professional offices as a
conditional use within :he R-I and R-3 zones where housed in structures
placed on the Historic Register could continue. Other uses might also be
permitted provided that is was determined that such uses would help insure
the continued preservation of a historic property. This provision, used in
other jurisdictions, allows for such uses in return for the public benefits
to be gained through the supposed higher level of protection which
designation affords' historic buildings. Under the recommended historic
7-7
modifying district ordinance, additional criteria and requirements could
control issues such as parking, landscaping, signage and related items which
are not spelled out in the current ordinance section. This incentive should
continue to apply only to registered structures, whether within a historic
modifying district, or not. Where such historic buildings exist as isolated
sites the application of a historic modifying district could provide a
device for providing a uniform sets of development standards which currently
do not exist under the conditional use permit process. At present, these
are usually addressed on a case by case basis.
In addition to a list of criteria and regulations required as part of a
historic modifying district ordinance, an essential component of the
implementation of the ordinance will be a set of design guidelines to
serve as the basis for staff and DRC review of submittals for alteration and
additions to non-historic buildings within the district. These guidelines
would not propose to create "formula design", but serve to illustrate, in
graphic form, aspects such as building massing, shape and, in some cases,
materials of roof, proportions and arrangement of windows and doors and
ancillary elements such as porches, garages, patio covers, etc. It would
not be the intent of the guidelines to copy or mimic the architectural
style of adjacent historic structures, but to encourage new or remodeled
non-historic buildings to be compatible with their historic neighbors and to
contribute to the character and overall urban design context of the
district.
While a vital part of the overall historic modifying district approach, the
guidelines could be developed after the ordinance is in place and in
operation. It is recommended that the guidelines be generated by an
7-8
individual with a background in urban design and historic preservation with
review of the resulting guidelines by the task force prior to their formal
adoption. Similarly, criteria for designation of historic designation of
buildings, structures, and sites would also be finalized by a qualified
person to conform more closely with the criteria used by the National
Register of Historic Places. This would more precisely define the criteria
currently applied by the RCC in the designation process and would be
consistent with language in the ordinance establishing the Commission. As
mentioned above, the use of National Register criteria will assist those
individuals wishing to seek national registration of their property.
Recommendation No.2: Historic District Task Force
As an adjunct to the enactment of a historic modifying district ordinance,
it is recommended that a task force be appointed by the City Council to
assist in providing guidance for implementation of the ordinance. The task
force should represent preservation interests in Chula Vista in both the
public and private sectors. In particular, membership could include
members of the Council, Planning Commission, Resource Conservation
Commission and the Design Review Committee on the government side.
Representing the public could be members from the Chula Vista Historical
Society, the Chic '2er of Commerce and citizens interested in the planning
process, particularly from the older areas of the city and Montgomery.
Early work assignments for the task force could include review of design
guidelines for non-historic buildings within historic modifying districts
and criteria for use by the RCC in designating historic buildings, both of
which could be prepared by a qualified individual on the Planning Department
staff or a consultant. These two efforts should receive high priority in
7-9
order for the guidellnes and criteria to be available as soon as possible to
the DRC and RCC respectively.
It is further recommended that the person, or persons, developing the
guidelines participate in the deliberations of the task force in additional
areas of study proposed below for the task force. Among these areas for
investigation would include a number of aspects relating to furthering
historic preservation in Chula Vista.
In addition to the quite specific efforts described above, the task force
could examine the factors to be addressed in determining which areas within
the city should be considered for historic modifying district treatment. In
the process of fact finding and deliberations open to the public, the task
force would have the visibility which would encourage citizens to learn more
about preservation and the potential benefits for both designation of
individual sites and creation of historic districts. This type of activity
would help determine the level of interest in preservation and provide a
conduit between the city and interested citizens. The exercise would permit
task force members to become more familiar with specific candidate sites or
neighborhoods. In particular, the task force could evaluate the benefits of
preserving neighborhoods of special architectural integrity and character
which, through preservation efforts, could be preserved as representative of
particular periods in Chula Vista's development.
In the minds of the public, and among some preservation groups, historic
preservation has been equated with victorian homes. Clearly, there are many
more recent styles which characterize periods of local development that are
worthy of recognition and qualify as historic. The current city register of
7-10
'f""" b"J'"" ",',',' , "'b" 'f p",-"""", """,'" 'f ,.;,
category.
Th, ",' f"" "'J' 'J" b, , J""'J b"y " "~"~,"~ 'h, P""",) "~I, 'f
'h, 'f,y ;, "R""', P"p""" "'h', h'""" ''''fy", ",',',', '0
"~'I"~ """",), ""',' J", f" 'h, ")",,;,, 'f .;""" b"J'""
'hf'h '" 'h"""" by ""J;,;" " 'h", p""" )"""". T.;,
""'P', ";""J)y "~"~"~"~"~ by 'h, C;'y C""'J " ,., "'J'" P"P",J
f" , H;""" ,,' " S"", A""" ",J' b, p""" by,., ",' f"".
Sp";f', '"."""", f" "R""', "'h P"P""" 'h" "" " 'h, ",','
,,' 'h, ,,",' 'f "'h J", "';J'b', f" ,,',',',' h;""" h"" "~'I' b,
,,""'"",. A, P'" 'f ", "R"'y, ,., ",' f"" "'h' """ ,.,
""" f" "'b P'dp",y, J", " f"", "'h " ""'f'""" ';"" ,
",',',' ,,' "',,',,' "PJ,'"" df J"" 'h, f""b;J',y 'f 'h, "'y
writing down land costs, and assisting with pUblic improvements and
f'"""" "'h" by"""", .,,, d'"" "'h J" "" J"" " ,,',",
loans from a revolving fUnd established by the City.
I, "'P""'d' "'h ,., p""", D,p""", ,,' 'h, C;'y """"P' A"h;"",
'h, ",' f"" "'J' ",k " )"""p, """'" ""h ,;", b, 'PpJ"d
along with the other planning controls appropriate for the historic
''';fy;" "",;". S"""" df f"" y", "',',"'" by bd', """ "
'h, ,)"""", df "'y """;'" J"""p, ,;""", ",J, b, "',',',.
I, '" d"'J,p"", ,., "'y h" b", ""J", ",. ,,',',"'" 'f """
open space or requiring that developers and/or home Owner's associations
provide development and maintenance of Common open space. Irrespective of
'h, "',',"'" I"~"~, 'h", f, " dpp""",y 'd ""bJ". J"""p",
standards for move-ons and new cOnstruction within historic districts or
7-11
individual historic sites.
As mentioned above in connection with the proposed Historic Row, the issue
of increased density within future historic districts is an appropriate
area for the task force to study. Both from the prospective of potential
increased property tax revenue and more efficient utilization of urban land,
increasing density in many of Chula Vista's neighborhoods with large lots or
lots of extra depth may have merit. The opportunity to replat or
reorganize existing lots for additional single family residences can spare
many neighborhoods from pressures for rezoning to permit multifami ly
housing. The task force could assist in the development of specific
policies respecting the advisability of this approach to urban in-fill and
examine whether the city should have a role in leading this type of
development or respond to private sector initiative as is now most often the
case. Any resulting recommendations from a diversely constituted task force
might be better received than such suggestions from either the Councilor
from staff.
An additional area of investigation by the task force could be an in-depth
analysis of potential programs to encourage historic preservation in Chula
Vista. As discussed earlier in this study, methodologies for contract
assessment to lower the tax burden and actual subsidies have been developed
in other communities. The potential for their application in Chula Vista
could be investigated. Each of these approaches should require specific
commitments of participating property owners to use the funds to maintain
and restore their properties. The resulting improvements would serve as a
demonstration of the benefits of historic preservation to other owners not
currently participating in the process.
7-12
As important as the specific review function to be performed by the task
force of a new historic modifying district ordinance, there is a singular
opportunity for the task force to capitalize on any interest in historic
preservation to address related wider issues. A logical extension of
historic preservation efforts directed to isolated areas and structures is
the whole issue of neighborhood conservation. With the pressures of
expansion to the eastern areas and need for up-grading neighborhoods in the
Montgomery district, it is easy for the existing neighborhoods of Chula
Vista to receive less attention and public expenditure than is warranted by
their importance to the community. The underlying impressions of Chula
Vista are heavily influenced by these older areas and the stock of housing
and public infrastructure represents much of the city's worth in capital and
esthetic terms. A heightened awareness of Chula Vista's older homes and
neighborhoods should be the main benefit and incentive for development of an
expanded historic preservation program.
7-13
,
NOTES
1. City of Chula Vista. Ordinance No. 1928 Section 2 (part 2), adopted by
the Chula Vista City Council, 1980.
2. City of San Diego. Golden Hill Planned District Ordinance, adopted by
the San Diego City Council, August 24, 1981.
3. Steve Griffin, Planning Department, City of Chula Vista, interview with
Patrick J. Crowley, March 24, 1989.
4. Steve Griffin, Planning Department, City of Chula Vista, interview with
Patrick J. Crowley, November 12, 1990.
5. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged. Second Ed it ion.
6. Peggy Gentry, Associate Planner, City of Escondido, interview with
Patrick J. Crowley, April 13, 1993.
N-!
REFERENCES
California. Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. (1990)
City of Chula Vista, California. Chula Vista Municipal Code. (1989)
City of Chula Vista, California. General Plan. ( 1989)
City of Monterey, California. Draft Historic District Ordinance. (1990)
City of San Diego, California.
of the San Diego Municipal
Historical Site Board.
An Ordinance Amending Chapter II, Article 6,
Code by Amending Sectlons 26.02 Relating to
City of San Diego, California. Golden Hill Planned District. (1981)
Costonis, John J. Space Adrift: Landmark Preservation and The Marketplace.
Urbana: Univeristy of Illinois Press, 1974.
Fitch, James Marston. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the
Built World. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1990.
Gammage, Grady, Jr.; Jones, Philip N.; and Jones, Stephen L., eds. Historic
Preservation in California. Stanford Environmental Law Society and
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1975.
Kass, Stephen 1.; LaBella, Judith M.; and Hansell, David A. Rehabilitating
Older and Historic Buildings. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.
Roddewig, Richard J. Preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance. Chicago:
American Planning Association, 1983.
R-1
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CRITERIA
National Register of Historic Places.
Part 60, sec. 60.4 (1981)
The criteria applied to evaluate properties for possible inclusion in the National Register are listed
below. These criteria are worded in a manner to provide for a wide diversity 01 resources. The
following criteria shall be used in evaluating properties for nomination to the National Register, by the
National Park Service in reviewing nominations, and for evaluating National Register eligibility of
properties. . . .
National Register criteria for eualuation. The quality of significance in American history, architec-
ture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures. and ob.
jects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associa-
tion, and:
(a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
(b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type. period, or method of construction, or
that represent the work 01 a master, or that possess high artistic values. or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, inlormation important in prehistory or history.
Cnterlo considerations. Ordinarily cemeteries. birthplaces, or graves of histoncal figures. pro.
perties owned by religious institutions or used lor religious purposes, structures that have been
moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings. properties primarily com-
memorative in nature. and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall
not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are
integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the fo~lowing categories:
(a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or
historical importance.
(b) A building or structure removed Irom its original location but which is significant primarily lor
architectural value. or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic per-
son or event.
(c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance il there is no ~ppropriate
site or building directly associated with his productive iiII'.
(d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent im.
portance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.
(e) A reconstructed building, when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented
in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure
with the same association has survived.
to A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition. or symbolic value has
invested it with its own exceptional significance.
(g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years il it is of exceptional importance.
. Criteria (or Eligibility for Listing in the National Register. 36 C.F.R.. part 60, sec. 60.4 (1981).
Appendix A - Page 1
APPENDIX B
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY FORMS
Slat. of c.lifomie - Th. RI'I('I""ott; Agenc:y
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AN .CREATION
Sar. No.
HABS_ HAER_ NR_
UTM: A '14?'?-'~D B
C D
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
SHL _ Loc_
'?,C::>IO ~(PD
IDENTIFICATION
1. Common nam.: Greg Rogers House
2. Historic nam.: Greq Roqers House
3. St....tor rural addr...: 616 Second Avenue
City
Chula Vista
Zip
92010
County
San Diego
4. Paral number: 573-180-16
5. .......nt Owner: Lee R. & Eileen J. Burch
Address: 614 Second Avenue
City
Chula Vista
Zip 92010 Own.rship i.: Public
Privltl
x
6. Present Use: residential
Original usa: residential
DESCRIPTION
7a. Archit8CtUral style: Craftsman
7b. Briefly describe the prasant physial dflSt:riprion of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from Its
origin.' condition:
Legal: CV Villa Tct, Blk 2, por Lot 15 (N 70')
This large two story Craftsman house features a high cross gable
roof with shed dormers, wide eaves, exposed and carved rafter ends,
and large carved brackets. The exterior of the first floor has
wide clapboard siding while the second level is sheathed with
wooden shingles. Windows in this house are double hung and have
mul tip Ie panes in the upper sas:,es. A one story enclosed porch
with an angled bay graces the facade. The Greg Rogers House is
currently undergoing =estoration. It was moved to this site in
1985 and placed at an angle to the street behind another house.
Attach Phoro{.) Hare
B. Construction data:
Estimated Factual 19 1 0
9. Architect unknown
10. Builder unknown
11. Approx.
Fronta
or IPpr
12. Dat.(.) of .nclosed photogr2Pl11.1
1985
Appendix B - Page 1
Dt'R 5Z3 IR.... ~I
13. Condition, Excallent _Good ~ Fair _ Deteriorated _ No 10"-' existence
House is unuergoing restoration in 198.
14. Alterations:
15. Surroundings: (Chad: more than one if r.ecessary) Open land _Scanared buildings _ Densely built-up 2-.
Residential ~lndustriaJ _Commercial Other:
16. Threats ro site: None known~Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism _
Public Works project _ Other:
17. Is the strUcture: On its original site?
18. Re4ated fenures: trees, driveway
Moved? x
Unknown?
SIGNIFICANCE
19. Brilflv state historical IIId/or architectural importance (include datil, IVents, and Plrsons associated with the sits.)
Gregoire Rogers and his family migrated west from Ohio in 1909. They
settled in Chula Vista and built their home, "Bay Breeze," at
699 "E" Street in 1910. Greg Rogers was a prominent Chula Vistan.
When the city incorporated in 1911, Greg Rogers was elected to serve
on the first city council. He soon became pre~ident of. the Peoples
State Bank, the first bank in the city. He was a member of the
Chula Vista Citrus Association and served on the Board of Education.
In Chula Vista, the Greg Rogers School and adjacent park were named
in honor of this well known citizen and his contributions to the city's
early development. The house is a fine example of the Craftsman
style as adapted to large homes.
L..ocational skltCt1 mop (d... and label sin and
surrounding streetS, ro.ds, and prominent landmarksl:
1t''"
20. Main 1Nme of the histone resourco: (It moro than one i.
choci<ad, number in order of importance.)
Arch iteaure 1 Arts & Leisure
E::onomicllndustrial _ Ex.lotnionlSettlament
Govemrnent 2 MiliWy
R"'igoon Soc:iaJlEdUC3tion
21. Sources (List books. documents, surwvs. -.anal intarvillWl
. and their datesl.
SOHO tour booklet
CV Booklet of Historic Sites
"Greg Rogers" by VirginJ.a S. Felix
22. Date form .prepared
By (....., K Webs te r
Organization Ci tv of Chula Vista
Addraa: 't' C ~<r><. 1 () g "1
City ('!-'ul<l. ",<;,'tlL Zip.4 q2.012-
Phone: c:-,q,- '510 I
9-1-1985
Appendix B - Page 2
-
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
,
,
.
.
, .
.
.
.
.
I
APPENDIX C
SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SITE BOARD ORDINANCE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
.
1-
.. ...
I
ORDINA~CE NUMBER 16327
(new Series)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER II, ARTICLE 6, OF
THE SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 26.02 RELATING TO HISTORICM, SITE BOARD
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as
follows:
Section 1. That Chapter II, A~ticle 6, of the San Diego
Municipal Code be, and it is hereby amended by amending Section
26.02 to read as follows:
SEC. 26.02 HISTORICAL SITE BOARD
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council to
establish a Historical Site Board as an advisory board to
advise the Mayor, City Council, City Planning Commission,
Park and Recreation Board, and City Manager relating to the
identification, protection, retention and preservation of
historical sites in the City of San Diego.
B. HISTORICAL SITE BOARD
There is hereby created a Historical Site Board which
shall consist of fifteen (15) members who shall serve without
compensation.. The members shall be appointed by the Mayor
and confirmed by the Council. The members shall serve two
(2) year terms and each member shall serve until his
success~r is duly appointed and qualified. The members shall
be appointed in such a manner that the terms of not more than
eight (8) members shall expire in any year. The expiration
date shall be March 1. During March of each year, the Mayor
may designate one 11) member as Chairman: however, in the
absence of such designation, the Board shall, on or after
April 15, select from among their members a Chairman.
The Board shall adopt rules consistent with laws for
the government of its business and procedures. The Board
shall meet not less than once a month.
C. HISTORICA~ SITES
A historical ~ite is any site (including significant
trees or other plant life located thereon), building,
structure, district or mark of historical significance due to
its association with such things as noted past events,
historical persons or distinguishing architectural
characteristics. .
D. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS
The Board shall:
1. Inspect any siter building or structure which
it has reason to believe is, or will be, a historical
site and coordinate its activities with the San Diego
PAGE 1 OF 4
Appendix C - Page 1
--
-
...
County Marking '::.Jrnmission, the State of California, aI\d
the Federal Government to prevent any duplication of
efforts.
2. compile and maintain a current register of all
sites, buildings and structures it has determined to be
historical sites. A description of the site and its
reason for inclusion shall be contained therein. Copies
of said register shall be transmitted to the Departments
of Planning, Parks and Public Buildings, Fire, Building
Inspection, Engineering, community Development, City
Clerk and other interested departments and/or
governmental or civic agencies.
3. prior to designation of any historic site, the
Historical Site Board shall also notify the owner of
each building, structure or other site, cultural or
historic, in writing, of the fact that his property is
being considered for inclusion on the list and that be
may, but is not required tOr appear and be heard. Upon
designation, the Board shall give such person written
notice of any further action which it takes with respect
to such property. For purposes of this section the
owner of such property shall be deemed to be the person
appearing as the owner of such property on the last
equalized assessment roll of the County of San Diego.
Such notice shall be mailed to the address shown on the
said assessment roll as soon as practicable after the
property is nominated for the list or not later than 15
days prior to the time the Historical site E~~rd t~kcs
any action designating it.
4. Explore meanS for the protection, retention and
preservation of any historical site including, but not
limited to, appropriate legislation and financing, such
as the establishment of a private funding organization
or individual, local, state or federal assistance.
5. Recommend standards for historical and
aesthetic districts and the establishment of such
districts within the City.
6. Consult with and advise the Mayor, City
Council, City Planning Commission and City Manager in
connection with the exercise of its duties and
functions. .
7. The action of the Historical Site Board in
designating any historical site as defined in paragraph
tIC" shall be final on the eleventh (llth) day following
the decision of the Historical site Board unless an
appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Clerk
within ten (10) days of the action by the Historical
site Board. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall
specify wherein there was error in the decision of the
Board. Upon the filing of the appeal, the Clerk shall
PAGE 2 OF 4
APpendix C - page 2
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
...
...
I
II
il
I
I
I
set the ,rat.'ler for public hearing ~:Hhin fifteen nS)
days or as soon thereafter as is practicable and sball
give written notice to the appellant of the time and
date set for the hearing. Upon the hearing of such
appeal, the City Council may by resolution affirm,
reverse or modify the determination of the Board.
E. DEMOLITION, ALTERATION OR REMOVAL OF HISTORICAL
SITES.
1. No permit for the demolition, substantial
alteration or removal of any building, structure or Bite
listed in the register of historic sites shall be iSBued
without first referring the matter to the Historical
Site Board, except where the City Manager determines
that demolition, removal or substantial alteration of
any such building, structure or site is immediately
necessary in the interest of the public health, safety
or general welfare. The Building Inspection,
Engineering and Community Development Departments shall
notify the Historical Site Board in writing within five
(5) days of any request it receives for any such permit.
2. No person shall remove trees, plants or
other major landscaping from any property designated as
a historical site without the prior approval of the City
Manager. The City Manager shall notify the Histor~cal
Site Board in writing of any such request within f~ve
(5) days of its receipt.
3. The Historical Site Board shall have
thirty (30) days from the date of such notif;cation
within which to object to the proposed demolition, major
alteration or removal of the trees, plants or other
major landscaping. The Historical Site Board shall file
its obje~tions with the City Manager or his delegate.
Upon the.filing of said objections, no permits shall be
issued for the demolition, major alteration, or removal
of said historic site for a period of not less than
thirty (30) nor more than one hundred eighty (lBO) days.
The :::Hy Manager shall notify the appropriate
dep"rt~\('nts of the filing of objections by the
Historjr~l Site Board. Failure to file objections
within the thirty (30) days period shall be deemed a
waiver of all objections, and the permit shall be issued
in due course.
4.' Upon the filing of objections, the Historical
Site Board shall take such steps within the scope of its
powers and duties as it determines are necessary for the
preservation of the historical site. No such action
shall be taken by the Historical Site Board, however,
until the same has been first submitted to and approved
by the City Council. At the end of the first thirty
(30)days, the Historical Site Board shall report its
PAGE 3 OF 4
Appendix C - Page 3
,-
.....
.....
.1
progress to ':1:8 City Council which may, upon review of
the progress report, withdraw and cancel the objection
to the proposed demolition, major alteration or removal,
and the necessary permits shall then be issued. If at
the end of the first one hundred (100) days of the
aforesaid one hundred eighty (180) day period it i~
found that the preservation of the site, building or
structure cannot be fully accomplished within the one
hundred eighty (180) days, the Historical Site Board may
recommend to the City Council that a request for
extension be granted. Such recommendation shall set
forth the reasons therefor and the progress to that date
of the steps take to preserve the site. The City
Council may accept such recommendation for good cause
shown, and if it appears that preservation may be
completed within the time requested, may grant an
extension of time not to exceed one hundred eighty (180)
days. No such request for extension shall be made after
the expiration of the original one hundred eighty (180)
day suspension period.
5. The Historical Site Board shall have no power
or right to acquire any property for or on behalf of
itself or the City of San Diego, nor shall it acquire or
hold any money for itself or on behalf of the City.
6. Said Historical Board may adopt such rules and
regulations as are necessary to carry out the purpose
and intent of this section.
F. NOMINATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF HISTORIC
PLACES
The City Council shall consider endorsing the nomination
of a site for inclusion in the National Registry of Historic
Places when the Historical Site Board has conducted a hearing
and at least eight members of the Historical Site Board have
voted in favor of endorsing nomination of the site in
question.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
on the thirtieth day from and after its passage.
APPROVED: John W. Witt, City Attorney
By original ~ignprl hy
Frederick C. Conrad
Chief Deputy City Attorney
PAGE 4 OF 4
Appendix C - Page 4
1-
~
-
I
APPENDIX D
MONTEREY DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
1-
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
-
...
...
DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation, April 2, 1990
(Staff recommended changes for the April 24 Planning Commission meeting are noted by bold
italics for additions and strjj,estlt for deletions)
ARTICLE 14 H mSTORIC OVERLAY DISTRIcr
Sections:
38.80
38-81
38-82
38-83
38-84
38-85
Specific Purpose
Applicability and Zoning Map Designator
Criteria for Adoption of H District Zoning
Land Use Regulations
Required findings for Historic Permit
Historic Preservation Program
38.80 Specific Purpose
A To implement the Urban Design Overview and Historic Preservation Element of the
General Plan. To implement historic preservation provisions of adopted neighborhood
plans.
B. To promote the preservation, protection, restoration, reconstruction, and enhancement
of historic structures, sites, and features.
C. To enhance and preserve the setting of historic structures, sites, and features so that
surrounding land uses, including design and color, do not detract from the historic
resources.
D. To encourage and promote public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the city's
history. To promote appreciation and use of historic resources.
E. To encourage preservation of structures, sites, and features which will, in the future be
considered to be historic resources.
F. To promote public awareness of the benefits of preservation.
G. To encourage public participation in identifying and preserving historical and architectural
resources thereby increasing community pride in the city's cultural heritage.
38.81 Applic:lbiIity and Zoning Map Designator
A The H Historic Overlay District may be combined with any zoning district. It may be
initiated ey the HisteJFie PreseF:atieJR Cemmissi0a, PIsBBiflg CellTiffiissioa, or Ci~ C~1:lfleil
under the procedures established by Article 26 or by the Historn: Preservalion Commission.
1
Appendix D - Page 1
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
[I
1-
....
I
..
A Land use and development regulations shall be those of the base district with which the
H District is combined, provided that the provisions of the H District shall apply where
conflicts arise.
B. A Historic Permit shall be required prior to:
1.. Alteration of any structure or any feature within the H District.
2. Demolition or removal of any structure or any feature within the H District.
C. A Historic Permit is not required for:
1. Any alteration or other work which conforms to an adopted Historic Preservation
Program. A Historic Preservation Program may identify non-historic elements of a
site which do not require Historic Permit Review.
2. Removal, alteration, or maintenance of landscape material other than trees unless
the landscape elements are specifically identified as historic elements in an adopted
Historic Preservation Program or by resolution of the City Council.
D. An adopted Histor.: Preservation Program may specify elements of the structure, site,
or feature which a:~ not subject to Historic Permit review.
E. Application for Historic Permit shall be made on forms provided by the Community
Development Department and shall contain whatever detailed information as is required
to review the application, including payment of fees.
E. The Historic PreseC'.3tion Commission shall approve, deny, or conditionally approve any
Historic Permit. T:.c Historic Preservation Commission may refer the application to the
Architectural Revie'~' Committee for advisory recommendation or for review and approval
of non-historic structures or features on the site.
F. Appeals. The applicant may appeal decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission
or Planning Commission in the manner provided in Article 27.
G. Additional Uses Allowed. Additional uses not allowed in the base district zoning may
be allowed by use permit in the H overlay zone. In order to grant such a use permit,
findings shall be made that the additional uses are necessary for the preservation of a
historic structure, site, or feature. As a part of a use pennit contracts and/or easements
between the property owner and the city may be required which would provide for
preservation or restoration of exterior or interior features of a historic structure, site, or
feature. AdditioTUJl uses granJed under this provision shall be limited to aJIowing R-G uses
in the R-l district, C.O uses in the R-G district, and C-l uses in the CoO district.
38-84 Required findings for a Historic Permit.
3
Appendix D - Page 3
-
....
...
A A Historic Permit for alteration of an H zoned structure, site, or feature s~all be issued
only upon a finding that:
1. The proposed work is consistent with an adopted Historic Preservation Program, or
2 The proposed work is necessary for the maintenance of the historic structure, site,
or feature in its original form or for restoration to its original form.
3. The proposed work is a minor change which does not affect the historic fabric of
the structure, site, or feature.
B. Prior to demolition of an H zoned structure, site, or feature, a rIDding must be made that:
1. The structure, site, or feature is a hazard to public health or safety and repairs or
stabilization are not feasible, or
2. The site is public property which will be of more benefit to the public if the historic
resource is demolished, and there is no feasible alternative location for the historic
resource, or
3. There is no reasonable beneficial use of the property, and it is not feasible to derive
a reasonable economic return from the property. The following information is
required in order to support these findings:
a. The applicant must submit the date of purchase of the property and amount
paid for the property.
b. The city shall, at applicants expense, have an appraisal of the property by an
MAl appraiser to determine value of the property under its current zoning and
the return which could be expected if used in accord with its current zorung.
C. Moving a structure or feature is an acceptable alternative to demolition if findings are
made that the move will not diminish the historic value of the structure or feature, that
the receiving site is an appropriate setting for the historic structure or feature, and that
the receiving site has H District zoning.
38.85 Historic Preservation Program
A A Historic Preservation Program is a program for maintenance or restoration of a historic
structure, site, or feature and the relationship between the historic and non-historic
elements on an H District site.
B. A Historic Preservation Program may specify that the goal is
1. To restore the structure, site, or feature to the identified interpretive period, or
4
Appendix D - Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
....
...
2. That the structure, site, or feature is suited for adaptive design in which the essential
historic elements should be retained but modifications to the structure, site, or
feature are allowed.
c.
A Historic Preservation Program shall include:
1. A written description of historic events connected with the Landmark.
2. An architectural history of the Landmark, including photographs and drawings.
3. Identification of the interpretive period. The interpretive period is the approximate
date which should be used as a model for restoration or preservation efforts. The
interpretive period should be supported by photographs and drawings.
4. A preservation Program for preservation of the building or restoration to the
identified interpretive period. The preservation program shall include drawings or
photographs identifying which should be changed to restore the building to the
interpretive period.
D.
A Historic Preservation Program shall remain in effect for a period of three years from
date of adoption. The Historic Preservation Commission may extend an adopted program
for periods of three years or less.
5
Appendix D - Page 5
...
-
.1
Definitions whiLh must be added
to conform to the Historic Preservation Ordinance
Demolition: Any act or process which destroys or obliterates all or part of a structure, site,
or feature, including architectural or design details.
Designation: Formal action declaring a structure, site, or feature to be a Landmark.
Feature, Any natural or man made object on a site in the H overlay district.
Maintenance: The act or process of conserving or repairing a historic structure, site, or
feature in the H overlay district without modifying the form, detail, and materials.
Reconstruction: The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished historic structure, site, or feature, or any part thereof, as it appeared at
a specific period of time. For properties with an adopted Preservation Program, the specified
period of time shall be the adopted interpretive period.
Remodeling: The act or process of modifying a historic structure, site, or feature through
repair, alteration, or addition.
Restoration: The act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a historic
structure, site, or feature as it appeared at a particular period of time by the removal of later
work or by the replacement of missing earlier work.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Definition Needs to be Changed
Alteration: Any exterior change to a structure, site, or feature.
6
Appendix D - Page 6
1-
Revisions to the "D" Combining District
to accommodate sites adjoining and intervening between Landmarks
Note: These are the design review provisions from the most recent draft of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Historic Preservation Commission proposed amendments to establish historic design review are
indicated with Bold and italk lettering.
PART ill - OVERLAY DISTRIcr REGULATIONS
Article 12 - D Desie:n and Development Control Overlav District
Sections:
38-70
38-71
38-72
38-73
Specific Purposes
ApplicabiIity and Zoning Map Designator
Land Use and Development Regulations; Conditions of Approval
Review of Plans
38.70
Specific Purposes
The specific purpose of the D Design and Development Control Overlay District is to ensure
appropriate review for projects in areas of environmental sensitivity or where urban design and
site planning considerations are judged important ~ Three subdistricts are established to accom-
plish this objective:
Dl - Desie:n Control overlay district will require Architectural Review Committee approval
of all new construction and exterior alterations and additions. Specific limitations are set on
conditions of approval to prohibit the Committee from imposing requirements that are more
restrictive than those prescribed by applicable base district regulations of a valid use permit
or variance.
D2 -- Development Control overlay district will require Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Committee approval of all new construction and exterior alterations and additions.
Conditions of approval may impose requirements that are more restrictive than those
prescribed by applicable base district regulations if the Planning Commission finds these
requirements are necessary to have a harmonious relationship with existing and planned uses
in the vicinity and with sensitive environmental resources.
D3 -- Historic Develooment Control overlay district wiD require Planning Commission and
Architectural Rev,'ew Committee approval of all new construction, exterior alteraJion, or addition on
a site which could affect a designated historic building or site. Conditions of approval may impose
requirements thal are more restrictive thmt those prescribed by applicable base district regu/aJions
if the Planning Commission finds these requirements are necessary to preserve the setting or create
a hannonious relationship with adjoining or nearby historic resources.
38-71 Applic:lbility and Zoning Map Designator
7
Appendix D - Page 7
,-
The D Design and Development Control Overlay Distri.;t may be combined with any Zoning
district. It may be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council under the procedures
established by Article 26, Amendments. Each D overlay district shall be shown on the zoning map
by adding a "-Dl" '* "-D2" or ".D-3" designator, as the case may be, to the base district designation.
Each D2 designator shall be followed by a reference to the ordinance adopting the district, which
includes the required findings and any specific conditions or standards applying to development
within the district. A D2 designation shall only be applied when rezoning a property from one
base district to another.
38.72
Land Use and Development Regulations; Conditions or Approval
Land use and development regulations shall be those of the base district with which the D district
is combined, unless modified by another overlay district. The following limitations shall apply to
conditions of approval:
A Dl District. In a Dl district, conditions relating to architectural design are acceptable.
However, no condition of site plan approval shall impose requirements pertaining to use,
density, FAR, private open space, yards, parldng. or loading that are more restrictive than
those prescribed by applicable base district regulations, unless modified by another overlay
district, a Use Pennit, or variance.
B. D2 District. In a D2 district, the Planning Commission may impose specific conditions or
standards pertaining to architectural design. use, hours of operation. special setbacks and
buffers, fences and walls, outdoor lighting, driveway locations, parldng area landscaping, signs,
landscaping, street dedication, and related public improvements, upon finding that:
1. Such requirements are necessary to protect the adjoining property and to assure
appropriate development and are consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of
this ordinance.
C. D3 District. In a D3 District, the Planning Commission may impose specijil: conditions of standards
pertaining to architectural design, building mass, bulk, and height, walls, outdoor lighJing, driveway
locations, parking area landscaping, signs, landscaping, strret dedif:ation, street dedication, and
related publif: improvements Upon finding that:
1. SUl:h requirements are necessary to protect adjoining or nearby historil: resourr:es, to assure
appropriate development, and to assure consistency with the General Plan and adopted historil:
preservation polif:ies.
38.73 Review or Plans
A Dl District. The submission requirements and procedures of Article 24, Development Review
Committee Approval and Article 25, Arr:hitectural Approval, shall apply.
B. D2 and D3 District. A two-part review process is required.
8
Appendix D - Page 8
1-
1. Initial Review. The P''nning Commission shall review the concept plan required by
Article 25 prior to any review by the Architectural Review Committee. In the D3 district,
the Historic P1J!Servation Commission shaJJ mala! advisory m:ommendation to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with modifications, or
deny the Concept plan within 45 days of receipt of a completed application, unless an
extension of time is acceptable to the applicant. Any requirements imposed pursuant to
Section 38-60(B) must be supported by the required findings. The Planning Com.mission's
decision shall be final, unless appealed to the City Council in a=rd with Article 28. The
Planning Commission, on its own motion, may refer its decision to the City Council for
further consideration. The City Council shall act on a referral from the Planning
CoIIUIUssion within 45 days or the Planning Commission's decision is deemed affirmed.
2. Final Review. Following Planning Commission or City Council review, all applications
for development approval shall be subject to Article 26, Development Review Committee
Approval, and Article 27, Architectural Approval.
C. Appeals. The applicant may appeal decisions of the Development Review Committee,
Architectural Review Committee, or Planning Commission in accord with Article 27.
9
Appendix D - Page 9
APPENDIX E
CITY OF ESCONDIDO'S INCENTIVE PROGRAM
RESOLlTIlON NO. 92-409
A RESOLUTION OF 11-IE CITY COUNCil..
OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALI-
FORNIA, ADOPTING A HISTORIC PRESER-
V A TION INCENTIVES PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1992. by Resolution No. 92-266 the City Council
adopted a Historic Preservation Incentives Program and on August 16, 1989, the City
Council adopted a Program of Incentives.
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the historic incentives for
applicable owners; and
WHEREAS, propcnies that meet specific criteria may qualify for incr=ntives if
they are localed in the Old Escondido Neighborhood district. propr=nies listed on Local
Register of I-liStoric Places, propenies on the Local Register and designated by a land-
mark; and
WHEREAS. this City Council desircs at this time and deems it to be in the
best public intr=rest to adopl an incentives progTam for historic Struclures and a specific
analysis procr=ss for the designation of Historic Landm:u-ks: and criteria for the
designation and exception from the allowable signage of historic signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Escondido, California. as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true.
2. That Resolution No. 92.266 and Resolution 89-321 are rescinded in
their entirety.
Appendix E - Page 1
-1
3. That the City Council adopts and approves an incentives program to
owners of non-register properties in the Old Escondido Neighborhood Disttict. properties
listed on the Local Register of Historic Places, and properties listed on the Local Regisra
and designated by a landmark.
4. A copy of the Historic Preservation Incentives is attached as Exhibit "I"
and is incorporated by this reference.
Appendix E - Page 2
f'L\ WJ)92J .12
-
-
II
Exhibit "I"
To Reso, 92-409
page 1 of 4
HISTORIC PRESERVATION INCENTIVES
The following incentives program is applicable to owners of (1) non-register propenies
in the Old Escondido Neighborltood district. (2) propenies listed on the Local Register of
Historic Places. and (3) propenies listed on the Local Register and designated by a land-
mark.
Criteria for Onafirvinp' for In~~nti~~
The following general criteria must be: met in order for an applicant to qualify for any of
the incentives:
1. Propeny owner is engaging in maintenance of the structure or yard that is "strcct
visible."
2. The exterior improvements to an historic structure are detennined by staff and/or
the Historic Preservation Commiucc (HPC) to be: in conformance with the Design
Guidc:lines for Homeowners of Historic Structures.
3. The maximum amount of the incentive is not given more than once every five years
to a propeny or propcny owner.
4. The work is approved by the HPC prior to the incentive being granted or work
perfonned.
5. Reimbursement for the work is made to the propeny owner only after all work is
completed and inspected by staff.
6. All receipts for materials and/or labor must be: submiued 10 staff to receive reim-
bursement.
Non-register propc::nies in the Old Escondido Neighborhood are eligible for the following
incentives:
I. Waiver of Building and/or Plot Plan fees not to exceed $300.
2. Reimbursement for a dumpster up to $300.
3. Reimbursement for a maximum of $150 for building or landscape materials.
Residential propenies listed on the Local Register of Historic Places are eligible for the
following incentives:
]. Waiver of Building and/or Plot Plan fees not to exceed $300.
2. Reimbursement for a dumpster up to $300.
Appendix E - Page 3
.....
...
.liliiii
page 2 of 4
3. Reimbursement for a maximum of $300 for exterior building or landscape mate-
rials.
4. Reimbursement for a maximum of $300 for design services rendered by an archi-
tect or designer experienced in the field of historic preservation. The architect must
supply a letter documenting their work on a minimum of three projects involving
historic preservation.
5. Eligibility to participate in the Mills Act contract provided that all criteria are met
6. Waiver of any applicable fee for site plan analysis as required for listing on Local
Register. '
Residential properties listed on the Local Register of Historic Places and designated as a
Historic Landmark are eligible for the following incentives:
I. Waiver of Building andlor Plot Plan fees not to exceed $600.
2. Reimbursement for a dumpster up to $300.
3. Reimbursement for a maximum of $1.000 for exterior building or landscape mate-
rials.
4. Reimbursement for a maximum of $1,500 for design services rendered by an archi-
tect or designer experienced in the field of historic preservation. (The architect
must supply a letter documenting their work on a minimum of three projects
involving historic preservation.)
5. Eligibility 10 participatc in the Mills Act contract.
If a structure is listed on the Local Registcr of Historic Places and is located on property
zoned commercial or professional, or the structure is located on the south side of Fiflh
Avenue between South Escondido Boulevard and Juniper Avenue. the property owners
are eligible for the same incentives as propertics listed on the Local Register. In addi-
tion, thcse properties can incorporate the following relaxed design standards into their
project:
I. Allow vehicles to back onto non-designated circulation element streets provided
that site distance requirements are met.
2. Provide individual trash cans instead of a dumpster with the wriuen consent of
Escondido Disposal.
3. The applicant may request a parking credil or variation from the total number of
spaces required for developmcnt under the Escondido Zoning Code as follows:
Appendix E - Page 4
II
I
~
~
I
I
~
I
-
I
page 3 of 4
a. Oedit of fifty percent (50%) of the total on-strc:c:t spaces contiguous 10 the
subjcct propc:ny applied to the total off.strc:c:t parldng required by the Zoning
Code.
b. On-site tandem spaces may be applied to off-strc:c:t parldng rc:quiremen., for
employees only, eltcluding the handicap space. Spaces shall be designated for
employees only.
A minimum of two (2) spaces shall be provided on site.
4. Waiver of one hundred percent (100%) of Building and/or Plot Plan fc:c:s.
5. Waiver of fifty percent (50%) of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) fee if a CUP is
required to pennit the use of the propeny.
6. EJtpedited review and processing of City-required site plan and building permit
applications.
Historic Landmark Desi!!'nation
I. Structures listed on the Local Register which have a special character or special
historic or aesthetic interest or importance as pan of the development, heritage or
cultural characteristics of the city. state or nation may Warrant distinctive
recognition as a historic landmark. Thesc special structures qualify as landmarks
wherein they exemplify the panicular architectural style or way of life important to
the city or provide clear significance and community recognition. Criteria for
Landmark designations (Ord. 92-03) will be used to evaluate Landmark request.
Evaluation will be based on an outstanding rating of these criteria.
2. Additionally, a property owner may request assistance with a low-cost alternative to
obtain a chain of title search to document the historic significance of the property.
3. Landmark structures would be identified with an exterior bronze plaque displaying
pertinent information about the landmark.
Hi,storie Si!!n Desi!!'nation
A sign may be designated as historically significant if recommended by the Historic
Preservation Commission and approved by thc Planning Commission if it meets one or
more of the following criteria: .
1. The sign is eltemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it
was constructed, uses historic sign materials and is not significantly altered.
2. The sign is integrated into the architecture of the building, such as the sign pylons
on buildings constructed in the Modeme style:.
Appendix E - Page 5n
1-
~
~
.-
page 4 of 4
3. The sign demonstrates extraordinary aesthetic quality, creativity. or innovation and
findings to that effect are made by the Historic Preservation Commission and the
Planning Commission.
Placement on the historic sign inventory does not preclude the owner from demolishing
or removing the sign. Signs designated as historic signs may be exempted from
limitations on height and location, and the sign area may be exempted from the allowable
total sign area for the site. All parts of the exempted historic sign, including neon tubes.
incandescent lights and shields and sign faces. shall be maintained in a functioning
condition as historically intended for the sign. The wording or image of the historic sign
may be altered only if such altel'3rions do not substantially change the historic style,
scale, height, type of material or dimensions of the historic sign. Historic signs for which
an exception is granted shall be brought into conformance with the above requirements
within 90 days of the date the exception is granted. Failure to maintain the historic sign
in conformance shall constitute grounds for rescinding the sign exception.
PL\W0923-12
Appendix E - Page 6
,-
.
.
.
,.
,
I
.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City
of Escondido at a regular meeting thereof this 28th day of
October, 1992, by the following vote to wit:
AYES
: Councilmembers: CAMERON, FOSTER, HARMON, HOLLINS,
HOLT PFEILER
: Councilmembers: NONE
. Councilmembers: NONE
.
. NOES
. ABSENT
.
.
.
ATTEST:
.
APPROVED:
d:::::z, M~~r of the
City of Escondido, California
~
fity
E BUNCH, City Clerk of the
of Escondido, California
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix E - Page 7
.....
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Incentives ProgralD
My property is located at
My property is 0 a non-Jegister property in the Old Escondido Hiswric District.
o a residential property \iSted on the Locai Register.
o a Landman Property.
o a Register Property proposed for comIDercial or professional use.
I would like to apply for the following incentives: (cheCk applil:able boxes)
NOD' Register Property in Old Escondido Neigbborbood
o Bldg. permit fee waiver
o PIOl Plan fee waiver
.Combined U>tal cannot exceed $300
o Reimbursement of dumPSICt ($300)
o Reimbursement of bldg. or IandscaPC materials ($ ISO)
Staff HPC
Approval Approval Date
- -
- -
- -
- -
Local Register Property
o Bldg. pennit fee waiver"
o PlOl Plan Review fee waivcr"
.Combined U>tal cannot c.ceed $300
o Rcimbursement for dumpster ($300)
o Reimbursement for bldg. or landscape maintenance ($300)
o Reimbursemcnt fot Design Ser<ices ($300)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Landmark Property
o Bldg. permit fee waiver"
o PIOl Plan Rcvicw foe waivcr"
.Combined total cannol exceed $600
o Reimbursement for dumpsler ($300)
o Reimbursement for bldg. or landscape maimenance
materials ($ I (00)
o Reimbursement for Design Svs. ($1500)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Commercial Local Register Property
o 50% waiver of C.U.P. foc
o 100% waiver of building permit and/or Plot Plan fees
o Parking credit or tandem parking
o Trash enclosure waivcr
o Expediled Review
o Backing onw sU'CCt
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Work completed on
Work inspected on by
Amount of rcimbursemcnt
Check. daLe sent w applicant
I property owner of
understand !hall am eligible for these reimbursement incentives only once every five years.
Daw Appendix E - Page 8
Signalurc
I - .-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX F
MILLS ACT CONTRACT
I
I
I
,-
I.
II.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-
..
a
I
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION (MIL.L.S ACT)
APPL.ICATION AND AGREEMENT
An Historic Property Preservation Agreement provides tax relief for Dwners of qualified
historic properties who agree to provide regular maintenance and make improvements
to the structure and the site. In exchange for continued restoratiDn of the property, the
property owner is eligible for reduced property taxes per California Government Code
Section 50280. This commitment by the property owner to maintain the City's histDric
resources will be a benefit to the community.
Prior to submittal of an Historic Property Preservation Application and Agreement, a
pre-application meeting with a member of the Planning staff will be necessary to
answer any questions and to ensure that the minimum submittal requirements are met.
Appointments for a pre-application meeting can be scheduled by contacting the
Planning Department at 741.4671.
Submittal reauirements:
1. Completed and signed application form.
2. Copy of Grant Deed.
3. Copy of preliminary title report, including complete legal description (within last 6
months).
4. Documentation of monthly maintenance CDStS (includes landscaping, trash,
exterior painting, etc.).
5. Documentation Df monthly rental amount or amount the property can reasonably
be expected to yield.
6. Interest rate of existing loan.
7. Slides of exterior of property.
Procedure:
Once a complete application is submitted, the Planning staff will review the information
for completeness. The Planner will schedule an appointment for an on-site inspection
an~ review of the proposed improvements. The request will then be forwarded to the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for recommendation to the City Council. The
City CDuncil shall consider the request and vote to either approve or disapprove said
request.
Once a request is approved and a contract is signed by the applicant and the City, it will
be forwarded to the CDunty Recorder's office for recordation. The recorded copy will
be returned to the City for submission to the County Tax Assessor's office for
implementation.
PI\P1110-02
Appendix F - Page 1
-
...
.11IIIIIIII
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Planning Division
201 North Broadway
Escondldo, cA 92025-2798
(619) 741-4671
FOR INTERNAl USE ONLY
Cu. "0.;
__IIIocf;
9rDjIctPtIn.'
hi.
:Rec'IJiHo.:
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION
(MILLS ACT) APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT
D -.pot.
'.(~elllatiet)
Dc..."",.
.f.~)
APPLICANT/OWNER
OWNER (if more than one)
Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Signature:
Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Signature:
SITE INFORMATION
LANDMARKlLOCAL REGISTER INFORMATION
Property Address:
Historic Designation:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
o Local 0 State 0 National
Historic Name:
Date of Designation:
Local Register Listing: 0 Yes 0 No
Date of Listing:
POTENTIAL STRUCTURElPROPERTY IMPROVEMENT TIMELINE:
Please list the improvements which are intended to lake place over the next 10 years, List them in order of owner's
priority,
YEAR
IMPROVEMENT
EX\323 (Rev. t2l92)
Appendix F - Page 2
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
..
-
Page I of7
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of
. 1992. by and between the CITY OF ESCONDIDO. a municipal
corporation (hereinafter referred to as the .CiIY.) and
(hereinafter referred to as the .Owner")
WITNESSETH,
A
Recilals.
(i) California Government Code Seclions 50280. el seq aulhorize cities to
enler into contracts v.ith Ihe owners of qualified hislorical propeny to provide for the use.
maintenance and restoration of such historicai property so to retain its characteristics as a
propeny of hislorical significance;
(ii) Owner possess fee tille In and to thaI cenain real propeny. 10gether
with associated structures and improvements thereon. commonly known as the
.<Usessor Parcel No. . and
generally located at the street address
Escondido. California, (hereinafter such propeny shall be referred to as the .Historic
Propeny"). A legal description of the Historic Propeny is attached hereto. marked as
Exhibit" A" and is incorporated herein by this reference;
(iii) On . the City Council of the City of
Escondido adopled its Resolution No_ thereby declaring and designating the
Historic Propeny pursuant to the terms and provisions of Chapler 224 of the City of
Escondido Municipal Code. and.
(iv) City and Owner. for their mutual benefit. now desire to enter inlo Ihis
Agreement both 10 protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of the
Historic Propeny and to qualify the Historic Propeny for an -assessment of valuation
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3. of Part 2. of Division I. of the California Revenue
. and Taxation Code_ .
B_
Aifeement.
NOW. TIfEREFORE, City and Owner, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and conditions set fonh herein, do hereby agree as follows:
I. Effective. Date and Term of Ai'"eement. This Agreement shall be
. effective arid coml'nenee on June,lO._1992. and shalJ remain in effect for a term oflen (10) _ _
years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the effective date, such initial term
will automatically be extended as pro\ided in paragraph 2. below
Appendix F - Page 3
1-
....
a
...
Page 2 of7
2 Renewal Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of Ihis
Agreement (hereinafter referred 10 as the "renewal dale"). a year shall aUlomalically be
added to the initial term of this Agreement unless nOlice of nonrenewal is mailed as pro-
\;ded herein If either Owner or City desires in any year not to renew this Agreemenl.
OWl1er or City shall serve written notice of non renewal of Ihe Agreement on Ihe other
pany in advance of the annual renewal dale of the Agreemenl Unless such nOlice is
served by Owner 10 Cily at Jeasl ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date. or
served by City to Owner al least sixty (60) days prior to Ihe annual renewal date. one (1)
year shall aUlomalically be added to the term of the Agreemenl as provided herein Upon
receipt by Owner of a nOlice of non renewal from City. Owner may make a written protest
of the notice City may. at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreemenl.
"';thdraw its notice to Owner of non renewal If eilher City or Owner serves notice to the
other of nonrenewal in any year. the Agreemenl shall remain in effect for the balance of
the term Ihen remaining. either from its original execution or from the lasl renewal of the
Agreement. whichever may apply.
3 Standards for Historical Property During the lenn of this Agree-
ment. Ihe Historic Property shall be subjecl 10 the follo",;ng conditions. requirements and
restrictions
a Owner shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of histor-
ical significance of Ihe Historic Property. Attached hereto. marked as
Exhibit "8." and incorporated herein by this reference. is a list of those
minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use and preservation
of the Historic Property. which shaH apply to such property throughout the
lenn of this Agreement
b Owner shaH. where necessary, restore and rehabilitate the
property according to the rules and regulations of the Office of the Historic
Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Attached
hereto. marked as Exhibit "C," and incorporated herein by this reference. is
a list Qf those conditions pertaining to the restoratiQn 1)r rehabilitation of .
. . .' ..
the Historic P.roperty. .
", \' "',",
C Owner shall allow reasonable periodic exanunations,by' prior
appointment, of the interior and eX1erior of the Historic Property by repre-
sentatives of the County Assessor, State Depanment of Parks and Recre-
ation, Stale Board of Equalization and City. as may be necessary to
determine Owner's compliance with the tenns and provisions of this
Agreement
.. 4. . Provision. of Infonnation of Compliance. Owner bereby agrees to
fiimisl1 City whn any and all information request~ bY the City which may be 'n~s5''Yor
ad\;sable to delennine compliance with the tenns and provisions of this Agreement
Appendix F - Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
....
Page 3 of7
~ Cancellation City. following a duly noliced public hearing as set
fonh in California Government Code Sections 50280. el seq . may cancel this Agreement
if it determines that Owner breached any of the condilions of this Agreement or has
allowed the propeny to deteriorate 10 the point that il no longer meets the standards for a
qualified historic propeny. City may also cancel this Agreement if il determines that the
Owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in Ihe manner specified in sub-
paragraph 3(b) of this Agreement. In Ihe event of cancellalion. Owner may be subject 10
payment of those cancellation fees set fonh in California Governmenl Code Seclion
~0280. et seq
6 Enforcement of Aj;reement. In lieu of and/or in addition to any
provisions to cancel the Agreemenl as referenced herein. City may specifically enforce. or
enjoin the breach of. the terms of Ihis Agreement. In the event of a default under Ihe
provisions of Ihis Agreement by Owner, Cily shall give written nOlice to O"'l1er by regis-
tered or cenified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement. and if such a
\;Olalion is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City within Ihiny (30) days
Ihereafter. or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure Ihe
breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days
(pro\;ded thaI acts to cure Ihe breach or default must be commenced "';thin thiny (30)
days and must thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by Owner). Ihen Cily may.
without fun her notice, declare a default under the terms of Ihis Agreemenl and may bring
any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Owner gro",;ng out of the
terms of this Agreement. apply to any coun, state or federal for injunctive relief against
any violation by Owner or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate
City does nol waive any claim of default by Owner if Cily does not
enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not
olherwise provided for in this Agreement or in Cily's regulations governing historic
properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this
Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be
deemed to be a waiver of any olher subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder.
7. Bindini Effect of Aj;reement.. The.Owner hereby subjects the His-
toric Property described in Exhibit" A". hereto 10 the covenants. ~eservations and restric-
. tiOhS as set forth in this Agreement. City and Owner hereby dedaretheir . specific intent
that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set fonh herein shall be deemed
covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's suc-
cessors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Propeny. Each and every conlract,
deed or other instrument hereinafter executed. covering or conveying the Historic Prop-
erty. or any ponion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered
and accepled subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions expressed in this
Agreement. regardless of whether such covenants: reservations and restrictions are set
fonh in such contract., deed or other :instrumen( . ".. .,. .
City and OVo11er hereby declare their understanding and intent that the
burden of the covenants. reservations and restrictions set fonh herein touch and concern
Appendix F - Page 5
-
-
...
.1
Page 4 of7
the land in that Owner's legal interest in the Historic Property is rendered less valuable
thereby City and Owner hereby further declare their understanding and intent that Ihe
benefit of such covenants. reservations and reslriclions 10uch and concern Ihe land by
enhancing and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Historic
Property for the benefil of City. the public and Owner
8. Notice Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agree-
ment shall be provided al the address of Ihe respective parties as specified below or al any
other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.
To City
City of Escondido
Attention Director of Planning and Building
201 North Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
To Owner
Escondido. CA
9. General Pro\~sions
...
a None of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement
shaH be deemed to crute a partnership between the parties hereto and any
of their heirs, successors or assigns, nor shaH such terms, provisions or
conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any
joint enterprise
b Owner agrees to and shall hold City and its elected officials,
officers, agenls and employees harmless from liability for damage or claims
for damage for personal injuries, including duth. and claims for property
damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of
Owner or those of his contractor, subcontraclor, agent, employee or other
person acting on his behalf which relate 10 Ihe use, operation and
maintenance of the Historic Property. Owner hereby agrees to and shall
. defend the City and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees with
. respect to any an4 aJl ~ctions (or~amages ,~used bY.9r aih,ged t.o have
been caused by, reason of Owner's activities in conneclion With the Historic
Property. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims
for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the
operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not the
City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other
documents for the Historic Property.
c. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations and
restrictionHolnained in Uji~ ~greement:shall ~ 'binding Uporl>and shall
inure to the benefil of the parties herein; their 'heirs, successors. Jegal rep-
resentatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the
Ap~endix F - Page 6
.....
..
.
; "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.' .. ..
I
I
1-
.-
-
Page 5 of7
Historic Propeny. whether by operation of law or in any manner whatso-
ever
d In Ihe evenl legal proceedings are brought by any pany or par-
ties to enforce or restrain a violation of any covenanlS. reservations or
restrictions contained herein. or to determine the rights and duties of any
pany hereunder. the prevailing pany in such proceeding may recover all
reasonable al1orney's fees to be fixed by the coun. in addilion to coun
costs and other relief ordered by the coun.
e In Ihe event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are
held to be unenforceable or invalid by any ~oun of competenl jurisdiction.
or by subsequent preemptive legislation. the validity and enforceabilily of
the remaining provisions. or ponions thereof. shall nOI be effected thereby
f This Agreement shall be conslrued and governed in accordance
"ith the laws of the Slale of California.
10 Recordalion. No laler than twenty (20) days after the panies execute
and enter into this Agreement. City shall cause this Agreement 10 be recorded in the office
of the County Recorder of the County of San Diego
II. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended. in whole or in pan.
only by a written and recorded instrument executed by the panies hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Agreement
on the day and year first wrinen above.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Approved
Dated
By:
. Jerry C Harmon. Mayor of Escondido
Al1est: .
. .
Dated:
By:
Jeanne Bunch. City Clerk at the City of
Escondido. California
Dated
OWNER
By:
". ."
. .
.. .
...
.'
Dned
By:
'..
Appendix F - Page 7
,..
....
. I
Page 6 on
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COL~TY OF SAN DIEGO )
On this day of . 1992. before me, Ihe
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State. personally appeared Jerry Harmon,
known 10 me to be the Mayor of the City of Escondido, a municipal corporation. and
Jeanne Bunch. known to me to be the Cily Clerk of the City of Escondido. a municipal
corporal ion. and said persons are known 10 me to be the persons who execule the within
instrument on behalf of the Cily of Escondido and acknowledged to me thaI the City of
Escondido executed the same,
WlTNESS my hand and official seal
Notary Public in and for said State
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUJ\TY OF SAN DIEGO )
On this _ day of , 1992, before me, the
undersigned. a Notary Public in and for said Slate, personally appeared
, known to me to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
executed the same
WITNESS my hand and official seal
,NolaryPublic in and for said State
,,' '-.'
.-. -'.
..,
"'..
< .- . ".~
,,'
- "
,
, ,
"
'". ....
...."
". 0" .
. '
...... . ....
.' ,-.'.-
Appendix F - Page 8
PLIP0403-16
EX'HIBIT A
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11'."
~
II
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
"
"
. . . "..
. .' '.,
.." ...
" .
.. ,
.- -.
, .
, ,
PlIP0403- J 6
Appendix F - Page 9
-
-
Figure 1.1: Sample Mills Act property tax calculat:on, provided by the City of
Rancho Cucampnga
HILLS ACT TAX ADJUSTMENT
1he following is ~ simple example showing the possible tax benefits to the
historical property owner of ~n owner-occupied single-fa~ily dwelling.
Let.s assume that the current assessed value for a house is SIOO,OOO and
that a fair rent or income is S600 per month (prescribed in Sec.'439.2 of
the State Revenue and 1ax Code). ' ,.
First. determine annual income. )600 per ~onth minus approximately · SIOO
:per month for maintenance, repairs. 1nsur~nce""...ater. and gardener gives a
net income of SSOO per month. Hultiply by 12 months to get 2n ~nnual
income of S6,OOO. (0 assumption for discussion purpose only).
Second, determine capitalization rate as follows:
Determine home loan mortgage rate. Federal Home Loan Ban~
on conventional mortgage as of September I. 1989, it was
(J0.501;).
1he historical. property risk component of 4~ (as prescribed
in Sec. ~39.2 of the State Revenue and 1ax Code). 1he 4~
ris~ component applies to owner-occupied single-family
dwellings. A 2~ ris~ component applies to all other
properties (Le. comercial, 'rental)_ .
1he 1ax rate (Post-prop. 13) of .01 times the assessment ratio
of 1001; (1::;).
Assume a remaining life of 20 years, Re~iprocal of this is 1/20
of S~.
Add these together: IO.Sa; + 4,007. + 1.007. + 5,Oa7. - 20.S0~ C.pitalization
rate_
Tn,re, the ncw assessed value is determined by dividing the annual income
(S6,OOO) by the capitalization rate (20.501.) to arrive at the new assessed'
value of S29,268. . .
1lli... determine
value S29,268.
the amount of taxes to be pa id 'by"iak ing I~ of 'the
Compare with current property tax rate:
as'sessed .
Current property tax: I::; of original assessed valuation of
SIOO,OOO is (SIOO.OOO · I: - SI,OOO).
Hills Act property tax: I::; of new assessed value of S29,268 is
S292 (S29.268 0 I~ - S293)
'Savings of S707 in annual 'property taxes.
Appendix F - Page 10
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
il.
il.
1
1
I
1
1
-
!~em Ye~ r
, 2
? . 2
3. 3
4 3
c 4
.'
5. 5
7. 6
8. 7
o. 8
::J. 0
!! . HI
12. 10
,
(6
A
POTENTIAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS
"Mills Act" Agreement
Attac~ed is a list of renovation projects t"e applicant plans to
complete Dver t~e '0 year term of the contract.
7ask
Remove carpeting. sand floors downstairs
Paint exterior Of the house and barn
Replace roof of house
Renovate the bathroom downstairs
Construct new septic tank
Strip paint from interior woodwork and remove
the wood stove in the dining room
Ins ta" a new furna neel air eond i t i oner
Renovate driveways
Landscape grounds
Remodel KitChen
Renovate .and enlarge the bathroom upstairs
Renovate the_barn .inter~c';. ,.
!"e appI ieant has indicated these are the IIIc1jor projects, planned for
t~e house and property, necessary to make a good restoration.
Appendix F - Page 11
EXHIBIT 'C.