Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHERITAGE PRESERVATION CORRESPONDENCE/MINUTES 1988-1989=~ . ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION _; '~ ~'``~ ® ~+ ~~ ~ - ~~ ~: AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 1989 - 3:00 p.m. .PLACE: Warner Hutton House "- 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga "TYPE: Regular Meeting -~ ~~ :" - - ---------------------------------v-_--.~-.~-- I:- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION --~ A. B. C. D. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ II.' OLD BUSINESS /' ' ~ A. Recap of joint meeting with City Council n ".~ B.~ CLG grant application -status report ~~ ,`.-~ C. Upcoming workshops III. NEW ,BUSINESS " o .. A. Commission work program for 1989 -~ ;: t;~o~t B. Receipt of plaques for Casa Tierra and Brandenburg House IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT ~~~ ate-- ~a~ ~ ~9-,_ .~ Roll Call Approval of Minutes of 1/4/89 Posting of Agenda oral and Written Communications • ~B~~~Q~ • • ;, CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 4, 1989 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Koepernik, Voester, Camero Heid, Mitchell, Ansnes n Absent: Landsness , Staff: V. Young B• Approval of minutes of 12/7/88 There was discussion on page 3 of the minutes regarding the Heritage Commission's re residence design for Lomita quest to revie w the new agreement to leave the minutes property, but as written. there was M/S Cameron/Mitchell to approve submitted. Pass unanimously. the minutes of 12/7/88 as C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda at City Hall. was posted D. oral and Written Communications None. II. Old Business A. Discussion items for meeting with City Council Secretary Young distributed a draft memo on background information for two of the discussion items on the joint meeting agenda, publication of the Inventory and heritage ordinance revisions. Commissioner Ansnes suggested some minor wording changes, and there was consensus not to include as an attachment to the agenda the actual draft ordinance for the revision. After discussion, it was decided to change the wording for item #4 on the agenda to "The Year in Review" and to put that item first, with a list of accomplishments and ;, Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 2 activities from 1988. There was also consensus to add a discussion of the Commission's goals for 1989 to item #4. III. New Business A. CLG Grant Application Secretary Young reported that the CLG grant application was due on January 31, 1989. She asked the Commission for authorization to work directly with the chair in completing the application and presenting it to Council for approval. There was agreement to this. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission Chairman Heid commented on DeAnza; Secretary Young stated been registered. Chairman H. making progress on his preview said this could be agendized meeting as a 1989 work item. V. Adjournment the upcoming workshop at that four Commissioners had 'id also noted that he was properties; Secretary Young for discussion at the next • Meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission • Oo 1~D o ~~~~Q~~ r~ u '~ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, January 10, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane TYPE: Committee of the Whole/Joint Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission _ Councilmembers present: Anderson, Clevenger, Peterson, Stutzman. Commissioner s present: Heid, Koepernik, Landsness, Mitchell. Staff present: Peacock, Young City Attorne T , y oppel Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 1. The Year in Review (1988) Commission Chair Heid reviewed the activities and accomplishments of the Commission during 1988 which incl d d , u e the following: a. Completion of the inventory A list of 80 properties was officially adopted in May as the Heritage Resource Inventory. The Commissi i on s continuing its research on the "preview list," an additional 35-50 properties that have the potential to be added to the Inventory. There was considerable discussion on the "next steps" now that the Inventor was ad t d y op e , i.e. the development of financial and regulatory incentives for preservation and the establishment of historic district s. Consensus was reached on the following points: Commission should continue its work on incentives for • preservation, particularly for properties that are designated as landmark s or are in historic districts. Incentives need to be established so there is something to offer property owners in return for designating or forming a district. b. Attendance at State Conference and local workshops Chairman Heid noted this was of special importance to the Commission , to increase their knowledge and to network with others in the preservation field. Planner Young noted there were two upcoming workshops, in January and February. c. Warner Hutton House status City Manager Peacock noted the house was proposed to be moved in the spring or summer. d. Two designations The Casa Tierra adobe on Quito Road and the Brandenburg House on Ravenwood were designated as reso i urces n 1988. The adobe designation is particularly notable because the preservation of the structure was required as part of the subdivision approval; there was consensus that this was a good example of the Heritage Commission, Planning Commission and Cit C il y ounc working together. e. increased praas coverage and public awareness Saratoga News and San Jose Mercury articles were discussed and generally praised. f. certified Local Government program Application to participate in the program ,was approved in December. Thi s would enable City to apply for grants for preservation-related projects. n • 2. Publication of Heritage Resource inventory Planner Young showed examples of other publications; the Saratoga book would be modeled on the Sunnyvale book. The Commission is recommending applying for a CLG grant to pay for the publishing costs, using existing heritage funds and in-kind services. There was consensus from the Council for this approach; the resolution for authorizing the grant application will be on the January 18 Council agenda. 3. Heritage Ordinance revisions City Attorney Toppel and Planner Young reviewed the proposed revisions. Discussion focused on the proposed amendment that would allow the Council to appoint a non-resident to the Commission to fill one of the "professional" positions; there was consensus to require the non-resident to either work in the City or live in the sphere of Influence area. All other revisions were given tentative concurrence; ordinance will be scheduled for Council public hearing at their meeting on February 1. 4. Appreciation to Council for support of preservation activities and Commissioa goals for 1989 The Commission expressed appreciation to the Council for their support of preservation activities and looks forward to successful completion of goals for 1989. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Associate Planner A Networking Event for Santa Clara County Heritage Organizations 9:45 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Friday, February 17, 1989 Trianon Building, De Anza College Hosted by the California History Center d~ Foundation *** SCHEDOLE *** 9:45-10:15: Registration, Coffee, Doughnuts 10:15-10:30: Introductions 10:30-11:30: Nathan Sumner, director, California Historical Society, speaking on changes at CHS and the value of heritage groups networking. 11:30-1:00: Lunch, De Anza Campus Center,(ealad, Cornish hen, wild rice, vegetable, dessert, beverage) 1:00-2:00: Networking I, small group diacuaaion 1.How to improve communication among ourselves. 2.Avoiding major event conflicts. 3.Incresaed heritage visibility in the county • 4.Other ideas. 2:00-3:00: Networking II, whole group diacuaaion 1.Responsea from small groups. 2.Where do we go from here? ' __ "_ ~ PLEASE CLIP AgD flE?Qill iiIZB tEBEIYA?IOM AED PA?MEN? BT FBBBIIABY S. Organization: * Attending.- Names of those attending 1. 2. 3. TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED: f at ;10.00 each ~ ~ ('310 fee includes lunch, registration and directory ~, What one topic could you most like to nee discussed? Mail to: Networking Event, California History Center 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 (limit 3 per organization) The history center will be diatsibuting s recently completed resource directory to each organization as our contribution to the network. • ~(Q7~(~(~j7j~ (~ ~ lJ NJ1S 1~1~~~J~ C~~~~ o~ ~ ° ° ~0~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: January 12, 1989 FROM: Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission SUBJECT: Work Program for 1989-90 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Council is preparing its agenda for the upcoming policy development conference. Attached is a letter requesting input frown the C~mi.ssion regarding this agenda. • Your 1989-90 work program should be viewed in light of the Council's policy development conference because it is from that conference that the next two-year budget is established. I have attached for your convenience your work progra¢n list frown 1987-88; it may help you to focus on what you want to accomplish during the next few years. Please be prepared to discuss this and brainstorm on a work program for 1989-90. I look forward to another year of successful preservation activities: ~/ Valerie Young Associate Planner • ~y z~! 1 • -..3 ~ ~~~ ~~_ ~J ~O ~~ 1;3777FR1'IT~',~LE.\~'E\~~~ , ti,\Il.\'1'O<;.\.(:,\I_IF(>R\1.~4);;(-,(- 14081 867•:34;38 December 22, 1988 Dear Community Leader: COUNCIL ~IE~IBERS: .Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Dawd Moy~es Donald Peterson Francs Srurzman To prepare for deliberations on the City's 1989-90 budget and to focus on essential issues to be addressed in the coming year, the City will be engaging in its annual policy development process over the nezt three months. As a community leader, we are solic- iting your participation in this process. A key element of the process involves building the policy agenda for City Council decision-making. Using whatever process is comfortable for you, please consider those local issues, poli- cies, programs or projects you, or the group you represent, consider important for the City to address is the coming year to improve the services we deliver to the people of Saratoga. Please communicate your desires in writing to our City Manager, Mr. Peacock, no later than February 3, 1989. All findings will be organized into subject areas, and a compre- hensive list will be developed. The list will then be edited using a conference format chaired by the Mayor, and submitted to the City Council as a proposed agenda on February 15, 1989. The . City Council will use this agenda for its annual policy develop- ment conference to decide which issues are to be given top prior- ity for 1989-90. On the evening of March 28, 1989, the City Council will report to the community its intentions for 1989-90 and receive nay comment from the participants as to the City Council's plans. The results of these deliberations will form the basis for preparation of the 1989-90.budget and the work programs for the City Council, the City Comsissions and the pity staff . Let us hear from you! With your help this process allows the City to focus its resources, the talents of its employees and Commissioners, and the talents of the residents of Saratoga in the most productive way. Don't forget the deadline for submit- ting comments is February 3, 1989. For the City Council, Karen Anderson, Mayor IiRP : KA~: jm V / ~0~~ 1377? FRl'IT~',~LE.~~'E\l'E . S,~R,~~T'C)G.~, (..~L1FOR\L~ ~SU7c> 1.3081 86 i 3438 Lecember 1, 1988 To: City Council From: City Manager 3ub~ect: 1989 Policy Development Calendar COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Marina Clevenger David Moyies Donard Peterson Frantrs Stutiman Council has heretofore established the policy development calen- dar for 1988 and 1989. It is requested that the City Council re-confirm the key dates for policy development actions for 1989 as listed below: 1989 January 4 Letter of participation mailed to communit staff, and commissioners Y groups, January 18 CDBG Hearing Annual Review of Investment Policy February 1 Council discusses priorities for 1990-1991 FY's February 6 City Manager completes State of City report " February 9 Mayor holds agenda building conference February 15 Council adopts policy development conference March 3-4 Council holds policy development conference March 28 Council reports proceedings of conference to Community April 28 Budget requests submitted to City Manager May 24 Capital Projects submitted to Planning Commission for review May 26 Proposed budget submitted to Council June 6 Study Session on budget June 7 Public Hearing on budget June 21 Adopt final budget & Gann Limit resolutions Gctober 11 Planning Commission review of five year CIP October 18 Council review and adopticn of five year CIP i Harry R Peacock ~, n o o G~ n ~ ~~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA.95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager DATE: 1/14/87 FROM: Heritage Preservation Commission SUBJECT: Work Priorities for 1987-88 At its January 7, 1987 meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission discussed its 1987-88 work priorities. The following is the list that was unanimously adopted by the Commission and is herewith submitted for your consideration: /1. Finish the heritage resources inventory. Explore the possibility of hiring professional assistance to complete this task. /2. Complete the application for participation in the Certified Local Government Program (information attached). 3. Increase public awareness of preservation activities and heritage resources in Saratoga. /4. Encourage property owners to participate in designated program. /5. Initiate the use of bronze plaques to designate heritage resources. ,/6. Continue monitoring progress on the Warner Hutton house. 7. Develop financial and regulatory incentives for preservation in Saratoga. 8. Administrative business - develop Heritage Commission handbook and bylaws, provide input on planning issues related to preservation (Village Plan, bed and breakfast ordinance, etc.). 1 • ~~~ NATIONAL. CENTER FOR PRESFRVATI®N I.A~' • 1233 20TH STREET, N.W. • SUITE 601 • WwsHlx(3TON, D.G. 20036 • (202) 828-0611 Psaecaaz<r ExscvrivE DIBECTOs TERSH BOASBERO. ESQ. .STEPHEN N. DENNIS. ESQ• PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-46 December 9, 1988 Can a Preservation Commission Become a Toothless Tiger? Occasionally, members of a local historic preservation commission decide for personal or political reasons not to exercise their full authority. Such decisions can set extremely bad precedents for the commission, and may make it difficult for the commission to resume its full powers in the future. A 1957 court decision involving the Vieux Carre Commission in New Orleans shows one danger that can arise from erratic enforcement of a local preservation ordinance. In City of New Orleans v. Lew, 98 S.E.2d 210 (La. 1957), a property owner argued that the Vieux Carre Commission had winked at many violations: with respect to the Vieux Carre ordinances the record conclusively discloses that in recent years there have been innumerable non-conforming alterations of buildings -~ throughout the French Quarter against which the city has sought no injunctive relief; some, in fact, were authorized by officially granted permits. The existence of this widespread condition was freely admitted during the trial by two former members of the Vieux Carre Commission who are architects by profession. The court found that the city had acted improperly in singling out for prosecution one property owner when other owners who had similarly violated the local ordinance had not been prosecuted: In view of tha aforementioned facts and circumstances we are forced to conclude that the present action constitutes an unfair, unjust and illegal discrimination as to these defendants and that the injunctive relief sought against them should not be granted until and unless the regulatory measures under consideration are enforced in like manner as to all other persons similarly situated. But unequal enforcement of a local preservation ordinance is only one problem which can arise. What happens when members of a commission misunderstand the basic powers of the commission? ~fATIOYAL CE~iTER FOR PREf~ERVAT[OY LAW This may now be the situation in Charleston, South Carolina, where increasing development pressures are leading to tension between the city's preservation forces and both the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Architectural Review. Local preservation groups such as the Historic Charleston Foundation feel that buildings of a scale unsuited to the city's Old and Historic District are being approved by both boards. There is growing uncertainty over where arguments against overscaled buildings can most suitably and most effectively be made. The recent trial court decision in the Krawcheck case (see "Update" 1988-45) clearly indicates that such arguments must be made to the Board of Architectural Review. Yet the current vice- chairman of the Hoard of Architectural Review, architect Thompson Penny, is now on record as having stated that he believes a decision by the Board of Adjustment that a building conforms to zoning regulations is binding on the Board of Architectural Review: Although I have concerns envelope is set by zoning developer certain rights. requirements, I feel it is the building meets deaf framework. The BAR recently gave office building and parking deciding vote on the matter. in an editorial: about size, I feel the major standards, and that gives the If it meets zoning our responsibility to make sure .qn requirements within that conceptual approval to a five-story garage because Mr. Penny cast the The Charleston Evening Post noted Some preservationists at the meeting challenged that interpretation of BAR powers. Honest disagreement could be useful in this instance if it helps clarify the authority of the BAR, given its role in maintaining the character of the city's old and historic district. Scale, proportion in relation to setting, is one of the characteristics that makes Charleston the architectural treasure trove it is. Scale provides the harmony of streetscapes in old and historic districts. And size, after all, is a function of .scale. The'HAR, it ought to be remembered, considered size--mass-- when it studied plans for Charleston Place. Size, it ought also be remembered, was considered when the controversial federal courthouse annex plans were under scrutiny. Size is part of the architectural picture. It shouldn't be left out of considerations of what's suitable in Charleston's old and historic neighborhoods. Though some local historic preservation ordinances might preclude a preservation commission from considering the scale of proposed new buildings, Charleston's does not: ~i.1Ti0~1.~-LCEYTER FOR PRE~3ERVATIO~! L.~-W In passing upon an application for new construction. in an old and historic district, the board of architectural review shall consider, among other things, the general-design, the character and appropriateness of design, scale of buildings, arrangements, texture, materials and color of the structure in question, and the relation of such elements to similar features of structures in the immediate surroundings. The board of architectural review shall not make requirements except for the purpose of preventing developments which are not in harmony with the prevailing character of Charleston, or which are obviously incongruous with this character. Quite arguably, an overscaled building would be "obviously incongruous"' with the "'prevailing character of Charleston" and could be denied a permit by the BAR for this reason alone. The Charleston BAR~s power is quite different from the power of the Nantucket Historic District Commission, whose power to review the scale of buildings is specifically circumscribed: The Historic District Commission shall not consider detailed designs, relative size of buildings in plan, interior arrangement or building features not subject to public view. The commission shall not make any recommendations or requirements except for the purpose of preventing • developments obviously incongruous to the historic aspects of the surroundings and the Historic Nantucket District. This provision of the Nantucket historic preservation ordinance was construed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1977 in Gumley v. Board of Selectmen of -.Nantucket, 358 N.E.2d 1011 (Mass. 1977): The question whether the commission may properly consider the length of buildings has been fully argued. It. is likely to arise again, and we think the answer is clear. Under § 9(c) the commission is not to consider "relative size of buildings in plan,"' but length of buildings is part of "'general design" and "'arrangement,"' which, under §9(b), are to be taken into account, together with "the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings and structures in the immediate surroundings and the position of such building or structure in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings and structures." The Charleston situation and the New Orleans and Nantucket court decisions point up the importance to local preservation groups and commissions of a clear understanding of the powers a preservation commission may--and should--exercise. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates"' series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update."') NATIONAL CENTER FOR I'RE SE RVATION LAW 1233 20TH ST$EET. N.W. • SUITE 601 • WASHINdTON. D.Ci. 20039 • (202) 828-9911 Paaazna~r Eaaavr:va D2aECTOa Tassa Bo~saaso. Eso. Sraresax N. Dexxts, Eso. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-47 December 28, 1988 New York Court Upholds Denial of Design Approval for Two Houses on Single Lot Within Historic District Local historic districts are under increasing attack from developers wishing to insert new residences by chopping off side lots or rear lots from large turn-of-the-century lots in older suburban neighborhoods. In many instances, this would require subdivision or resubdivision approval, and at least one court has upheld denial of resubdivision permission because of a negative recommendation from the local preservation commission (see "Update" 1988-8). • But in some unusual circumstances, existing subdivision plats show that original purchasers often bought more than one original small lot in order to assemble a larger parcel. These old lots may still exist on zoning maps, though they are now sometimes substandard lots under modern zoning requirements. Can they be built on as of right? A recent New York State trial court decision may offer a suggestion of where preservation law could be going on this issue. In Gualtieri v. City of Rome (No. 87-3838, Oneida County Supreme Court, decided July 6, 1988), a court upheld the denial of "proposed development plans" which had called for (1) the subdivision along a north/south direction of a parcel originally subdivided along an east/west direction and (2) the construction on each new lot of a residence in a neighborhood characterized by large older lots. The Rome Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission denied on September 11, 1987 a request "to construct two new residential structures at 1100 and 1102 N. George Street 'based on the Secretary of tha Interior's Guidelines concerning Historic Preservation.'" The commission "felt that the relationship of the proposed building and the existing historic structures would be detrimental to the historic integrity of the neighborhood." The court noted that the developer had appeared three times before the Rome preservation commission, each time with a slightly more detailed version of the same 'basic scheme: ~1ATIO~I.~L CE~iTER FOR PRE$ERV!-TION LAW At each meeting, the petitioner presented his development plans. The court notes that the detail of the plans presented • increased at each meeting and there were technical changes. However, the overall concept remained: Petitioner sought to divide the property into two parcels, build a single family residence on each of the two parcels, sell one parcel and live on the other. The court notes that the final proposal contained two parcels, each of which conformed to the zoning requirements of the City of Rome. The court did not discuss explicitly whether a "merger" of two older lots had occurred, but seems to have assumed this to have been the case: On April 4, 1987, petitioner, a local contractor, purchased real property in the City o! Rome known as 1100 and 1102 North George Street. The deed by which petitioner received title contains a description of one parcel, namely a corner lot encompassing 120 feet facing North George Street and 200 feet frontage on Locust Street. In the early 1900's this one parcel apparently was two individual parcels. With the advent of residential zoning in the 1960'x, the minimum lot requirements made these two parcels substandard and non- conforming. These two substandard parcels now compose the property known as 1100 and 1102 North George Street. The court summarized the City of Rome's arguments in favor of its challenged decision: • Petitioner's proposal was rejected because it did not meet the City of Rome's guidelines concerning historic preservation, as well as those guidelines established by the United States Secretary of the Interior. The decision of the respondent Commission did not rest on their objection to petitioner dividing the properties into two separate building lots and the construction of a residence on each. Rather, respondent Commission's decision was based on the fact that . the proposal was not compatible with the existing historic structures within the neighborhood and would be detrimental to the historic integrity of the neighborhood. The trial court found that the decisions of both the Common Council of the City of Rome and the Roma preservation commission had been proper: [W]e do not find that the Common Council acted arbitrarily in affirming the Commission's decision, nor do we find that the underlying decision of the Commission was in excess of the authority granted to it. The New York trial court stated that its power to reverse the decision of an administrative agency is limited by well-understood legal principles: , :NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRE6ERVATIOY LAW • It is not the role of this court to substitute its own judgment for that of any administrative agency unless it is demonstrated that the agency's decision was: 1) made in violation of lawful procedure; 2) "arbitrary and capricious" or an abuse of discretion; or 3) the decision was unsupported by substantial evidence. It is the task of this court to determine from the whole record whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and whether there is a rational basis for the board's decision. The court stated clearly that in New York State (as perhaps in other jurisdictions) historic preservation commissions have purposes other than, and in addition to, zoning (see "Updates" 1987-21 and 1988-45): [Required approval by the local preservation commission] does not take the place of zoning approval but rather, it is in addition to the requirements of compliance with the zoning regulations. Indeed, the purpose of the Commission is not a zoning purpose to protect the public health, safety and welfare generally. . A developer first submits his plans to and has a discussion with the planning administrator and the city planning staff, before he is invited to discuss his tentative plans with the • Commission, if applicable. It is therefore deemed that the zoning district regulations and permitted zoning uses have bean met before the Commission comes into the picture. The Commission then reviews the application to determine whether the proposed improvement or construction is consistent with the purpose of the Commission. Therefore, the property is subject not only to zoning ordinances but also the additional requirement of this special type of approval because it is located in a preservation district. The court cited the "standard of review" articulated in Zartman v. Reisem, 399 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1977): The decision of the Preservation Board involves judgment and expertise and its determination of what changes may or may not be undertaken in protected districts is to be judged by familiar standards of reasonableness. What might be an appropriate improvement in one preservation district may be wholly inappropriate in another. The governing consideration is not whether the improvement is beautiful, or tasteful, or even whether it promotes noise or quiet, but rather whether it preserves or interferes with the preservation of the character and values of the district in which it is located. The court found that the Rome preservation commission had • acted appropriately to preserve the integrity of a local historic district: ~fATIO~iAL CF.vTER FOR PREf3ERVATION LAW [T]he court notes the major areas of discussion [during the • meetings between petitioner and the commission] dealt with the visual and aesthetic impact of the two proposed structures in relationship to the overall block and historic district; exterior dimensions of the two structures; front yard setbacks; backyard setbacks; location of garages; landscaping; lot sizes; easements; location of driveways and the historic implication of the new construction. The Commission was concerned primarily [with] how construction of two "smaller" houses on two smaller lots would affect the park-like atmosphere of North George Street. This concern for aesthetics is a legitimate concern as long as it be reasonably related to the objective for which it was enacted. . Aesthetics has been held to be a valid basis for the exercise of a municipality's police powers. [The Commission's action] was reasonable [and] was related to [the Commission's objectives] and regulations to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and the historic district. The Commission .acted within its authority and applied appropriate criteria in its consideration. It did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner and its actions were not in violation of lawful procedure. The court also rejected a "taking" argument put forward by the property owner: • [P]etitioner's argument that the actions of the respondents constitute a partial taking of [his] property is rejected. Historic and scenic district regulation, as well as zoning, stem from the police power of the municipality. The exercise of police power must be reasonable and the regulation must relate to the purpose for which it was enacted and not unreasonably deprive an owner of all beneficial use of his property. Petitioner has failed to establish that the respondents' [actions] frustrate his use of property and constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law. [He] has failed to prove that the parcel purchased by him will be rendered unsuitable for any reasonable income production or other private usa, or that a bare residue of its value exists because of respondent's actions. Additionally, there is no requirement that a property owner be guaranteed the best use of his or her property under the law, but only a reasonable use. Petitioner has not met his burden in proving to the court that there .was a "taking" (even a partial one) without due process. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") • NATIONAL. CENTER F®R PRESERVATI®N I.AW 1233 20TH STREET, N.W. • SUITE SOI • WwsHIxdTON, D.G. 20038 • (202) 828-9811 PEEBIDEIR' ExECUTTVB DIE EGTOE TERSH BOASHERO. ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-48 December 28, 1988 Basic Preservation Policies in England English law relating to the protection of historic structures is so extensive that an entire book is now devoted to the subject, R. W. Suddards's 307-page Listed Buildings, The Law and Practice of Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments ~___and Conservation Areas (1988). The book's "Introduction" states: It was not until the latter part of the last century that the desirability of protecting and preserving ancient buildings and structures or. their remains, was generally recognised. William Morris took the first really positive steps in this direction by founding the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, but it was not until 1882 that the first measure of statutory protection was afforded. The Ancient Monument Protection Act of that year marked the start of such protective measures, even though the immediate effects of that Act were only to give the protection of law to 29 such monuments in England and Wales, and 21 in Scotland. others were added later, as the Schedule which the Act provided for was gradually compiled. . . The concept of protecting buildings in more or less daily use for essentially historic or aesthetic reasons is of more recent origin. The 1882 Act, and its successors in 1913 and 1931--and indeed in 1953 and 1979--were mainly concerned with "unoccupied" buildings and structures: henges, castles, bridges, ruins and like structures of essentially antique and historical importance. It was not until 1932 that the desirability of statutory protection for buildings which were, generally, in use, and of architectural or historic interest found currency in law, and even then powers were discretionary rather than mandatory. [I]t has taken some 16 subsequent Acts to bring the art of historic building conservation to its present all-embracing level, in which we • have in excess of 400,000 assorted buildings subject to various measures of statutory protection under the listed buildings legislation. \AT[O~fALCEYTER FOR PR F.~3ERVAT[O~I LAW . The most recent concept in heritage conservation takes the process started in 1882 to what may reasonably be assumed to be a logical conclusion: the recognition of the aesthetic and historic value of whole areas of buildings and the spaces which they enclose or which provide their setting. From 1963 it has been accepted within listed building law that buildings could be listed because of their "group value," rather than on the basis of solely individual architectural or historic merit. . [T]his practice remained unchallenged in the courts until 1964 when the Earl of Iveagh questioned the legal validity of group listing, and the Court of Appeal ultimately held that such listing was valid, even though expressing doubt as to whether the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 provisions were adequate for their purpose. Whereas the scheduling of monuments and the listing of buildings is a function which may only be exercised by the Secretary of State, the designation of conservation areas is essentially a local authority function, with the secretary of State having solely reserve powers, and only requiring to be notified of designation. Two interesting facts emerge from this brief summary of English historic preservation law: (1) America's first historic preservation ordinance (1931) was one year earlier than the first recognition in English preservation law that even single occupied buildings should be given protections; and (2) American preservation law has been far quicker than English preservation law to recognize the usefulness of the historic district in order to protect a cluster of buildings whose value as a group can often exceed their value as individual buildings. Because so much English preservation law has developed from national Acts rather than from local regulations, the growth in English preservation law has been rapid and extensive. (By contrast, the difficulty in studying the administration of hundreds of individual American historic preservation ordinances may have impeded a thorough treatment of the protections now available to historic buildings in this country. England's Department of the Environment issued on March 25, 1987 circular 8/87, "Historic Buildings and conservation Areas-- Policy and Procedures." This document was sent to all county and local district councils in England (as well as to London borough councils) because it states procedures to be followed by these governmental bodies in implementing both the Town and Country Planning Regulations of 1987 and the earlier Town and Country Planning Act of 1971. Several of the introductory paragraphs state basic preservation philosophies which will not sound foreign to American ears: ~IATIO~iALCEYTER FOR PRECiERVATIOY LAW Previous circulars have stressed the need to preserve our . architectural heritage in different ways, but the main message is clear; if we do not take steps to protect and preserve buildings of value, either in their own right or because of the contribution they make to a pleasant townscape or village scene, they may well be lost, and once lost, they cannot be replaced. It should, however, be remembered that as the Secretary of State has pointed out, our heritage is the product of many centuries of evolution and it will continue to evolve. Few buildings exist now in the form in which they were originally conceived. Conservation allows for change as well as preservation. There are many cases where it is right to "conserve as found". But there are circumstances too where our architectural heritage has to be able to accommodate not only changes of use but also new building nearby. It is better that old buildings are not set apart but are woven into the fabric of the living and working community. This can be done provided that the new buildings are well-designed and follow fundamental architectural principles of scale and the proper arrangement of materials and spaces and show respect for their neighbours. Conservation means breathing new life into buildings, sometimes by restoration, sometimes by sensitive development, sometimes by adaptation to a new use and always, by good management. Taking decisions on matters concerning listed buildings and conservation areas involves balancing many factors and the guidance given in this circular will, it is hoped, help • authorities to form sensible judgments on questions which arise in their areas. Historic buildings and conservation areas are vitally important to the environmental quality of life in this country. Buildings of architectural and historic merit should receive very special attention. Local authorities stand in the vanguard of those protecting historic buildings and areas and the Secretary of State hopes they will make diligent use of all the powers available to them. Public opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour o! conserving and enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene, and authorities should take account of this when framing their policies affecting historic buildings and conservation areas. Local amenity societies, for instance, may act not only as catalysts for local opinion, but may also possess, or have access to, expert advice and information on conservation matters which may be of use to the authority. The national amenity societies and Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England are also willing to advise It is extremely important that public support for conservation policies should be retained. As more buildings are listed and conservation areas designated, more people are likely to become involved with listed building control. Their experience of this control will doubtless colour their view of conservation. When consent is sought for works, a decision should be given as quickly as possible. Authorities should discuss any problems with the applicants and attempt to achieve mutually acceptable solutions. Decisions VATIOVAL CEVTER FOR PRE'.3ERVATIO~f LAW must be seen to have taken all relevant considerations into account and to be well balanced; they must be both sensitive and practical. In the areas of Urban Development Corporations and in Enterprise Zones and Simplified Planning Zones, normal listed building control applies, but in these areas and any others where economic regeneration is vital or if it is a question of finding a new use for an individual building, the aim should be to demonstrate that conservation can be successfully incorporated into the revitalisation proposals and not be regarded as an obstacle to their implementation. It is imperative that conservation work should not be regarded as a completely separate facet of local authority activities. Whenever authorities are preparing proposals which have an impact on the environment, they should be mindful of the desirability of preserving listed buildings and enhancing their setting and the appearance of conservation areas and make their plans accordingly. Sometimes, skilful planning can avoid the need for demolition altogether. Old buildings can be incorporated into new schemes and sensitive design can blend the new with the old. On other occasions, by combining powers available in different statutes a scheme can be evolved that will be much more attractive and acceptable than one resulting from the use of these powers separately. There may be occasions when it might be right not to proceed with proposals that would harm a building or scene that is worthy of retention. It is the Department of Transport's policy that proper weight should be given to the importance of preserving historic towns when considering the priority of road improvements and new roads. A key paragraph states that the Commission on Historic Buildings and Monuments ("English Heritage") "may submit evidence to public inquiries into planning or listed buildings consent (or conservation area consent) applications or appeals, highway schemes or development plans." This power should help assure uniformity of decisions even when they are made at the purely local level. Though differences between American preservation law and English preservation law can be radical, the similarity of objectives makes English preservation law of especial interest to Americana concerned with improving the effectiveness of legal protections for significant buildings in this country. The National Center for Preservation Law will have a limited number of copies of the 68-page Circular 8/87 for sale. Copies, which must be ordered from England, will cost $14.00 each (including postage and handling). Please notify the National Center if you are interested in obtaining a copy of Circular 8/87, and we will send an invoice prior to ordering your actual copy. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") NATIONAL. CENTER FOR PItE $E R~AT~®leT LAS 1233 20TH ST$EET, N.W. • SUITE SO1 • WASHINC3TON, D.C. 20039 • (202) 828-9811 Paaelaaxr Exacuriva Dlaacroa TERSH BOASBERO. ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988 Table of Contents 1988-1 When Does "Visible from a Public Way" Involve Navigable waters? 1988-2 National Register Publications Available 1988-3 New Attention Being Paid to Landscape Records and Important Postcard Collections 1988-4 Preservation Commissions: No Strangers to Litigation 1988-5 Treasury Department Questions Public Policy Value of Easement Donation Deductions 1988-6 District of Columbia Court Reverses Grant of Variance for Conversion of Carriage House in Historic District 1988-7 Regulating Portable Signs for Aesthetic Purposes 1988-8 New Hampshire Court Upholds Denial of Resubdivision Permission Based on Negative Recommendation from Preservation Commission 1988-9 Rhode Island Task Force Report Recommends Greater Attention to Historic Landscapes 1988-10 Mobile Deals Successfully with Artificial Siding 1988-11 Episcopal Publication Examines Landmark Designations 1988-12 Preservation Commissions and Artificial Siding 1988-13 Can the "Park-Watcher" Program Work on the Local Level? 1988-14 Columbus City Attorney Releases Memorandum Upholding _ Landmarking of Religious Properties 1988-15 Church Expansion and Historic Districts ' ~iATIO~IALCEVTER FOR PRE~3ERVATI0~1 LAW 1988-16 Tax Assessor Must Consider Prospect of Historic District 1988-17 When May a Preservation Commission Attach Conditions in Granting a Certificate of Appropriateness? 1988-18 English Court Holds that "Demolition" Includes Partial Demolition and Upholds Requirement that Demolished Building be Restored 1988-19 Report Recommends Creation of Hudson River Valley Greenway 1988-20 The British National Trust and the Lake District: Comprehensive Regional Land Management Policies 1988-21 Boston Report Analyzes Mediation Process for Preservation of Important Religious Building 1988-22 Development Project Threatens Major Site in City of London 1988-23 New Handbook on Conservation Easements 1988-24 Connecticut Group Studies Preservation of Architectural Records 1988-25 Adequate Files for a Local Preservation Commission 1988-26 Boston Owner Must Comply With Certificate of Appropriateness 1988-27 English Owner Ordered to Replace New Windows Having Fake Mutins 1988-28 North Carolina Billboard Case Draws on Keystone and Penn Central 1988-29 New York Court Finds No Taking in Demolition by Neglect Situation 1988-30 Two Historic Structures on the Same Site: Which to Preserve? 1988-31 Can Neglect of a Historic Structure Constitute "Nuisance°? 1988-32 Mobile Imposes Demolition Moratorium to Protect Two Streets 1988-33 Tax Court Values Facade Easement Given After Landmark Designation 1988-34 Court Upholds Denial of Certificate for Garage Opening ~1ATIOV.~L CEVTEIt FOIL PHEEiEItV.+-TIOY LAW 1988-35 Massachusetts Court .Affirms Commission on Artificial Siding 1988-36 Countryside Stewardship Report Issued 1988-37 Minnesota Court Upholds Moratorium Pending Designation 1988-38 Supreme Court Decfdes Major First Amendment Case 1988-39 Court Upholds Power of District of Columbia to Designate Interiors 1988-40 Legal Strategies for Protecting Significant Interiors 1988-41 Court Upholds Authority of National Park Service to Consider Interiors When Reviewing Tax Act Projects 1988-42 Ohio Court Holds City Not Liable for Permit Issued by Mistake and Subsequently Withdrawn 1988-43 Cultural Landscape Protection Mechanisms Receive Increasing Attention 1988-44 Preservation Law: The Unfulfilled Challenge 1988-45 South Carolina Court Upholds Challenged Parking Variance 1988-46 Can a Preservation Commission Become a Toothless Tiger? 1988-47 New York Court Upholds Denial of Design Approval for Two Houses on Single Lot Within Historic District 1988-48 Basic Preservation Policies in England • 'i • ~TATI®~TAL C~ NTH ~ ~O~ PEE S~ Il~~A~~~`~ ~.A`~~'' 1233 20TH STREET. N.W. • SUITE SO1 • WA3HIN(3TON, D.Ci. 20039 • (202) 828-9911 Pas•iaaxT TERSH BOASHCRO. ESQ. i EXLCCTIVE D(HEGTOH STEPHEN Vii, DENNIS. ES O. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE X987-1988 Cumulativ Index Alabama 1988-10 Mobile Deals Successfully with Artificial Siding 1988-32 Mobile Imposes Demolition Moratorium to Protect Two Streets Alteration 1987-1 Defining "Partial Demolition" and "Alteration" 1987-41 A Vocabulary for Degrees of Change to Protected structures 1987-46 Slate Roof Rehabilitation Information 1987-47 Two Important Early New Orleans Court Decisions 1987-48 Paint Guidelines for Boston's Beacon Hill District 1988-26 Boston Owner Must Comply With Certificate of Appropriateness 1988-34 Court Upholds Denial of Certificate for Garage Opening 1988-35 Massachusetts Court Affirms Commission on Artificial Siding Archeolow 1987-18 Arizona Archaeology Advisory Commission Issues Report 1987-37 Indiana Court Misapplies First English in Archeology Case ~<~T[OraL CEVTEIt FOIL PIZF~lF.ItVATIOY LAW Arizona 1987-18 Arizona Archaeology Advisory Commission Issues Report Arkansas 1987-39 Arkansas Supreme Court Upholds Local Preservation Ordinance and Denial of Permit for Parking Lot Construction Artificial Siding 1988-10 Mobile Deals Successfully with Artificial Siding 1988-12 Preservation Commissions and Artificial Siding _ i 1988-35 Massachusetts Court Affirms Commission on Artificial Siding California 1987-9 Supreme Court Permits States to Regulate Certain Federally-Owned Properties for Environmental Purposes 1987-17 Pasadena Designates First "Pasadena Historic Treasure" 1987-24 Pleading Error Leads to Major Supreme Court Opinion Holding That Compensation Is. Required for Temporary "Taking" 1987-28 Supreme Court Finds Taking in California Coastal Commission Case Because Imposition of Permit Condition Was Insufficiently Related to Valid Governmental Purpose 1987-30 No11an: To What Extent old Wine in a New Bottle? Churches and Religious Properties 1987-26 Jesuits Challenge Boston's Designation of Church Interior 1987-29 Court Holds Church Unentitled to Use Variance Because of Self-Imposed Hardship 1988-11 Episcopal Publication Examines Landmark Designations 1988-14 Columbus City Attorney Releases Memorandum Upholding Landmarkinq of Religious Properties YATIO~f.~-L CEYTE~i FOA2 Pi2E~E1tVAT[O~f LAW Colorado - 1987-34 Colorado Court Upholds Mountain View Protection Ordinance 1988-15 Church Expansion and Historic Districts 1988-21 Boston Report Analyzes Mediation Process for Preservation of Important Religious Building 1988-38 Supreme Court Decides Major First Amendment Case Computer Data Bases 1987-4 Michigan Funds Project to Develop Computerized Data Base for Recording and Analyzing Historic District Resources i Connecticut 1987-10 1987-15 1987-23 1987-27 Stamford Enacts Preservation Zoning Incentives Dismantling House Not "Destruction" in Connecticut Preservation .ordinances Not in Conformity with State Statutes Statutes Validating Procedural Defects in Designations 1987-31 Connecticut Court Permits Demolition of Historic Structure Despite Language of Environmental Protection Act 1987-35 Demolition Control by Historic Preservation Commissions: The Connecticut and Pennsylvania Viewpoints 1988-1 When Does "Visible from a Public Way" Involve Navigable Waters? 1988-17 When, May a Preservation Commission Attach Conditions in Granting a Certificate of Appropriateness? 1988-24 Connecticut Group Studies Preservation of Architectural Records Demolition 1987-1 Defining "Partial Demolition" and "Alteration" 1987-6 Interior Demolition During Demolition Delay Period \.~TI0~1,1L CE\TEIt FOIR PI2F.~1F.ItV.~-TIO~f LA~V :- 1987-15 Dismantling House Not "Destruction" in Connecticut 1987-31 Connecticut Court Permits Demolition of Historic Structure Despite Language of Environmental Protection Act 1987-35 Demolition Control by Historic Preservation Commissions: The Connecticut and Pennsylvania viewpoints 1988-18 English Court Holds that "Demolition" Includes Partial Demolition and Upholds Requirement that Demolished Building be Restored 1988-22 Development Project Threatens Mayor Site in City of London 1988-32 Mobile Imposes Demolition Moratorium to Protect Two Streets Demolition by Neglect 1988-29 New York Court Finds No Taking in Demolition by Neglect Situation Dispute Resolution 1988-21 Boston Report Analyzes Mediation Process for Preservation of Important Religious Building District of Columbia 1987-13 Penalty Provisions in Historic Preservation Ordinances 1987-14 District of Columbia Designates "Slip-Covered" Building 1987-22 .Interim Protections for Properties Pending Designation 1987-29 Court Holds Church Unentitled to Use Variance Because of Self-Imposed Hardship 1987-45 Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses Held Not Necessary For Designation Hearings in District of Columbia 1988-6 District of Columbia Court Reverses Grant of Variance for Conversion of Carriage House in Historic District 1988-16 Tax Assessor Must Consider Prospect of Historic District \.~TIO\AL CE~iTER FOR PREfiERV.1TIO~i L.1~V 1988-39 Court Upholds Power of District of Columbia to Designate Interiors Easements 1988-5 Treasury Department Questions Public Policy Value of Easement Donation~Deductions 1988-23 New Handbook on Conservation Easements 1988-33 Tax Court Values Facade Easement Given After Landmark Designation 1988-4o Legal Strategies for Protecting Significant Interiors Facade Rehabii~tation Grants 1987-33 Tax Court Rules that Facade Rehabilitation Grant May be Excluded from Taxable Income F1_ 1988-7 • Geo Regulating Portable Signs for Aesthetic Purposes 1987-32 Georgia Court Upholds "Zone of Visual Integrity" Around Property and Affirms Ruling that Violating Billboard Should ba Removed Herds, 1987-29 Court Holds Church Unentitled to Use Variance Because of Self-Imposed Hardship Historic Districts 1988-16 Tax Assessor Must Consider Prospect of Historic District _ rll_ 1987-13 1987-16 1987-43 Penalty Provisions in Historic Preservation Ordinances Chicago Adopts New Landmarks Ordinance Preservation organizations sue city of Chicago Over Improper De-designation Procedures V,~TIO~TAL CENTER FOI2 PREE3ERVATIO~i LAW ,~ 1987-37 Indiana Court Misapplies First English in Archeology Case Interim Protections 1987-22 Interim Protections ~ for Properties Pending Designation 1988-37 Minnesota Court Upholds Moratorium Pending Designation Interiors 1987-6 Interior Demolition During Demolition Delay Period 1988-39 Court Upholds Power of District of Columbia -to Designate Interiors 1988-40 Legal Strategies for Protecting Significant Interiors 1988-41 Court Upholds Authority of National Park Service to Consider Interiors When Reviewing Tax Act Projects Internal Revenue Service 1988-5 Treasury Department Questions Public Policy Value of Easement Donation Deductions International Historic Preservation Issues 1987-41 A Vocabulary for Degrees of Change to Protected Structures 1988-18 English Court Holds that "Demolition" Includes Partial Demolition and Upholds Requirement that Demolished Building be Restored 1988-20 The British National Trust and the Lake District: Comprehensive Regional Land Management Policies 1988-22 Development Project Threatens Major Site in City of London 1988-27 English Owner Ordered .to Replace New Windows Having Fake Mutins • 1988-30 Two Historic Structures on the Same Site: Which to Preserve? 1988-48 Basic Preservation Policies in England i ~ATIO~IAL CENTER FOR PREPtE12V.~TiO~f L.~W Landscape Protection 1988-9 Rhode Island Task Force Report Recommends Greater Attention to Historic Landscapes 1988-19 Report Recommends Creation of Hudson River Valley Greenway 1988-20 The British National Trust and the Lake District: Comprehensive Regional Land Management Policies 1988-36 Countryside Stewardship Report Issued 1988-43 Cultural Landscape Protection Mechanisms Receive Increasing Attention Land Use Reculation 1987-7 Supreme Court Decides Important "Taking" Case 1987-9 Supreme Court Permits States to Regulate Certain Federally-Owned Properties for Environmental Purposes 1987-10 Stamford Enacts Preservation Zoning Incentives 1987-11 Amortization Period in Raleigh Sign Ordinance Upheld 1987-21 A Fresh Look at the Penn Central Decision 1987-22 Interim Protections for Properties Pending Designation 1987-24 Pleading Error Leads to Mayor Supreme Court Opinion Holding That Compensation Is Required for Temporary "Taking" 1987-26 Jesuits Challenge Boston's Designation of Church Interior 1987-28 Supreme Court Finds Taking in California Coastal Commission Casa Because Imposition of Permit Condition Was Insufficiently Related to Valid Governmental Purpose 1987-30 Nollan: To What Extent Old Wine in a New Bottle? 1987-32 Georgia Court Upholds "Zone of Visual Integrity" Around Property and Affirms Ruling that Violating Billboard Should be Removed 1987-34 Colorado Court Upholds Mountain View Protection Ordinance ~,,~TIOYAL CEVTF.It FOI2 PRE~3EItVATIOY LAW Y 1987-36 Zoning Overlay District Able to Control Land Uses in ohio 1987-37 Indiana Court Misapplies First English in Archeology Case 1987-39 Arkansas Supreme Court Upholds Local Preservation Ordinance and Denial -of Permit for Parking Lot Construction 1987-47 Two Important Early New Orleans Court Decisions 1988-1 When Does "Visible from a Public Way" Involve Navigable Waters? 1988-7 Regulating Portable Signs for Aesthetic Purposes 1988-8 New Hampshire Court Upholds Denial of Resubdivision Permission Based on Negative Recommendation from Preservation Commission 1988-11 Episcopal Publication Examines Landmark Designations 1988-14 Columbus City Attorney Releases Memorandum Upholding Landmarkinq of Religious Properties 1988-15 Church Expansion and Historic Districts 1988-16 Tax Assessor Must Consider Prospect of Historic District 1988-18 English Court Holds that "Demolition" Includes Partial Demolition and Upholds Requirement that Demolished Building be Restored 1988-29 New York Court Finds No Taking in Demolition by Neglect Situation 1988-32 .Mobile Imposes Demolition Moratorium to Protect _ -Two Streets 1988-37 Minnesota Court Upholds Moratorium Pending Designation 1988-39 Court Upholds Power of District of Columbia to Designate Interiors 1988-47 New York Court Upholds Denial of Design Approval for Two Houses on Single Lot Within Historic District \,~TIOYALCF.YT£R FOR PRE~ERVATIOY LAW ;- Louisiana • 1987-47 Two Important Early New Orleans Court Decisions 1988-6 District of Columbia Court Reverses Grant of Variance for Conversion of Carriage House in Historic District 1988-33 Tax Court Values Facade Easement Given After Landmark Designation 1988-46 Can a Preservation Commission Become a Toothless Tiger? M~yland 1987-3 Annapolis Historic District Sign Guidelines 1987-12 Maryland Court Upholds Annapolis Commission Decision Denying Approval of Previously- Constructed Trellis 1987-22 Interim Protections for Properties Pending Designation 1987-23 Preservation Ordinances Not in Conformity With State Statutes 1987-42 Federal District Court Holds That National Park Service May Consider New Buildings in Denying Rehabilitation Credit 1987-47 Two Important Early New Orleans Court Decisions Massachusetts 1987-26 Jesuits Challenge Boston's Designation of Church Interior 1987-48 Paint Guidelines for Boston's Beacon Hill District 1988-1 When Does "Visible from a Public Way" Involve Navigable waters? 1988-21 Boston Report Analyzes Mediation Process for Preservation o! Important Religious Building 1988-26 Boston Owner Must Comply with Certificate of Appropriateness 1988-34 Court Upholds Denial of Certificate for Garage Opening t ~I.~TIOY.~-LCEVTEIt FOIL PRESiERY.~TIOY LA~V 1988-35 Massachusetts Court Affirms Commission on Artificial Siding Michigan 1987-4 Michigan Funds Project. to Develop Computerized Data Hasa for Recording and Analyzing Historic District Resources Minnesota 1988-37 Minnesota Court Upholds Moratorium Pending Designation Missouri 1988-31 Can Neglect of a Historic Structure Constitute "Nuisance"? National Park Service 1987-42 Federal District Court Holds That National Park Service May Consider New Buildings in Denying Rehabilitation Credit i 1987-44 Public Owners Unable to Prevent Listing of ' Property in National Register of Historic Places 1988-2 National Register Publications Available 1988-41 Court Upholds Authority of National Park Service to Consider Interiors When Reviewing Tax Act Projects National Parks and Conservation Association 1988-13 Can the "Park-Watcher" Program Work on the Local Level? National Resister Prosram 1988-2 National Register Publications Available 1988-44 Public Owners Unable to Prevent Listing of Property in National Register of Historic Places New Hampshire 1988-8 New Hampshire Court Upholds Denial of Resubdivision Permission Based on Negative Recommendation from Preservation Commission \ATIO~ALCE~TER FOR PRF.~EItVATI0~1 LAW ~- . New Jersey 1987-25 New York 1987-21 1987-23 1988-29 1988-47 North Carolina Court Invalidates Ordinance Not in Conformity With State Statute A Fresh Look at the Penn Central Decision Preservation Ordinances Not in Conformity with State Statutes New York Court Finds No Taking in Demolition by Neglect Situation New York Court Upholds Denial of Design Approval for Two houses on Single Lot Within Historic District 1987-6 Interior Demolition During Demolition Delay Period 1987-11 Amortization Period in Raleigh Sign ordinance Upheld • 1987-44 Public Owners Unable to Prevent Listing of Property in National Register of Historic Places 1988-25 Adequate Filea for a Local Preservation Commission a 1988-28 North Carolina Billboard Case Draws on Keystone and Penn Central Nuisance 1988-31 Can Neglect of a Historic Structure Constitute "Nuisance"? Oh 1987-36 Zoning Overlay District Able to Control Land Uses in Ohio 1988-14 Columbus City Attorney Releases Memorandum Upholding Landmarkinq of Religious Properties 1988-42 Ohio Court Holds City Not Liable for Permit Issued by Mistake and Subsequently Withdrawn Penalty Provisions 1987-13 Penalty Provisions in Historic Preservation Ordinances ~.1TI0\.~-L CE\TEIt FOIL PItF,:~1F.ItV~1TI0~ L.-~V • Pennsylvania 1987-7 Supreme Court Decides Important "Taking" Case 1987-13 Penalty Provisions in Historic Preservation ordinances 1987-19 New Ordinance for West~Whiteland Township 1987-33 Tax Court Rules that Facade Rehabilitation Grant May be Excluded from Taxable Income 1987-35 Demolition Control by Historic Preservation Commissions: The Connecticut and Pennsylvania Viewpoints 1987-38 Pennsylvania Court Holds Preservation Group Not a "Public Charity" Entitled to Tax Exemption 1987-46 Slate Roof Rehabilitation Information Preservation Commissions: Decision Challenges 1987-12 Maryland Court Upholds Annapolis Commission Decision Denying Approval of Previously- . Constructed Trellis 1988-26 Boston Owner Must Comply with Certificate of Appropriateness 1988-34 Court Upholds Denial of Certificate for Garage Opening 1988-35 Massachusetts Court Affirms Commission on Artificial Siding Preservation Commissions• Designations 1987-14 District of Columbia Designates "Slip-Covered Building 1987-17 Pasadena Designates First "Pasadena Historic Treasure" 1987-26 Jesuits Challenge Boston's Designation of Church Interior 1987-27 Statutes Validating Procedural Defects in Designations 1987-43 Preservation Organizations Sue City of Chicago Over Improper De-designation Procedures ~TaTIO~f.~-L CEVTEIt FON PltEfiEltV1-TIOV LAW ~; 1988-3 New Attention Being Paid to Landscape Records and • Important Postcard Collections 1988-11 Episcopal Publication Examines Landmark _ Designations Preservat on Commissions: Gui eli es 1987-3 Annapolis Historic District Sign Guidelines 1987-48 Paint Guidelines for Boston's Beacon Hill District • 1988-10 Mobile Deals Successfully with Artificial Siding 1988-12 Preservation Commissions and Artificial siding preservation comma sions: Lit~rtation 1988-4 Preservation Commissions: No Strangers to Litigation Preservat on Commission Monitor na P o~erties 1988-13 Can the "park-watcher" Program work on the Local Level? Preservation Commissions: Procea~,-ee 1987-43 Preservation Organizations Sue City of Chicago Over Improper De-designation Procedures 1987-45 Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses Held Not Necessary For Designation Hearings in District of Columbia 1988-17 When May a Preservation Commission Attach Conditions in Granting a Certificate of Appropriateness? 1988-25 Adequate Files for a Local Preservation Commission Pre et~vation Incen ices 1987-10 Stamford Enacts Preservation Zoning Incentives 1987-17 Pasadena Designates First "Pasadena Historic Treasure" _ 1987-20 Utah Preservation Ordinance Has Innovative Provisions Preservation aw 1987-40 Building a Preservation Law Capability <~TIOYAL CF.~iTER FOR P1tFEiF.RV.ITIOY L~~~Y 4 1988-44 Preservation Law: The Unfulfilled Challenge Preservation Ordinances 1987-5 San Antonio Adopts New Historic Preservation Ordinance 1987-13 Penalty Provisions in Historic Preservation Ordinances 1987-19 New Ordinance for West Whiteland Township, •Pennsylvania 1987-16 Chicago Adopts New Landmarks Ordinance 1987-20 Utah Preservation Ordinance Has Innovative Provisions 1987-22 Interim Protections for Properties Pending Designation 1987-23 Preservation Ordinances Not in Conformity With State Statutes 1987-25 Court Invalidates Ordinance Not in Conformity With State Statute • 1987-39 Arkansas Supreme Court Upholds Local Preservation Ordinance and Denial of Permit for Parking Lot Construction 1987-47 Two Important Early New Orleans Court Decisions 1988-1 When Does "Visible from a Public Way" Involve Navigable Waters? Ouestionnaire Tabulations 1988-4 Preservation Commissions: No strangers to Litigation 1988-12 Preservation Commissions and Artificial Siding Rehabilitation 1987-42 Federal District Court Holds That National Park Service May Consider New Buildings in Denying Rehabilitation Credit 1987-46 Slate Roof Rehabilitation Information ~. ~ATIO~~-L CE~fTER FOR PNE~3ERVa-TIO~f Law J~ Revolving Funds 1987-2 IRS Issues Revenue Revolving Funds Ruling for Preservation Research Tools 1988-3 New Attention Being Paid to Landscape Records and Important Postcard Collections 1988-24 Connecticut Group Studies Preservation of Architectural Records Rhode Island 1988-9 Rhode Island Task Force Report Recommends Greater Attention to Historic Landscapes Sian Control 1987-3 Annapolis Historic District Sign Guidelines 1987-11 Amortization Period in Raleigh Sign Ordinance Upheld 1987-32 Georgia Court Upholds "Zone of Visual Integrity" Around Property and Affirms Ruling that Violating Billboard Should be Removed 1988-7 Regulating Portable Signs for Aesthetic Purposes 1988-28 North Carolina Billboard Case Draws on Keystone and Penn Central South Carolina 1987-1 1988-45 1988-46 Supreme Court 1987-7 1987-9 • 1987-21 Defining "Partial Demolition" and "Alteration" South Carolina Court Upholds Challenged Parking variance Can a Preservation Commission Become a Toothless Tiger? Supreme Court Decides Important "Taking" Case Supreme Court Permits States to Regulate Certain Federally-Owned Properties for Environmental Purposes A Fresh Look at the Penn Central Decision b .~.~TIO~fALCEYTEIt FOIL PI2E~iF.RYATIO~T I.AW s :i 1987-24 Pleading Error Leads to Major Supreme Court • Opinion Holding That Compensation Is Required for Temporary "Taking" 1987-28 Supreme Court Finds Taking in California Coastal Commission Case Because Imposition of Permit Condition Was Insufficiently Related to Valid Governmental Purpose 1987-30 Nollan: To What Extent Old Wine in a New Bottle? 1988-38 Supreme Court Decides Major First Amendment Case Taxation 1987-2 IRS Issues Revenue Ruling for Preservation Revolving Funds 1987-33 Tax Court Rules that Facade Rehabilitation Grant May be Excluded from Taxable Income 1987-38 Pennsylvania Court Holds Preservation Group Not a "Public Charity" Entitled to Tax Exemption 1987-42 Federal District Court Holds That National Park Service May Consider New Buildings in Denying Rehabilitation Credit 1988-5 Treasury Department Questions Public Policy value of Easement Donation Deductions 1988-16 Tax Assessor Must Consider Prospect of Historic District 1988-33 Tax Court Values Facade Easement Given After Landmark Designation 1988-41 Court Upholds Authority of National Park Service to Consider Interiors When Reviewing Tax Act Projects Texas 1987-5 San Antonio Adopts New Historic Preservation Ordinance 1987-8 1987-13 1987-22 Austin Zones to Protect Views of Texas State Capitol Penalty Provisions- in Historic Preservation Ordinances Interim Protections for Properties Pending Designation f A`~ J ~.+-TIO~iAL CE~fTEIt FOIE PNE~3ERVATIO\ LAW 1988-7 Regulating Portable Signs for Aesthetic Purposes Uta 1987-20 Utah Preservation Ordinance Has Innovative Provisions View Protection 1987-8 Austin Zones to Protect Views of Texas State Capitol 1987-32 Georgia Court Upholds "Zone of Visual Integrity" Around Property and Affirms Ruling that Violating Billboard Should be Removed 1987-34 Colorado Court Upholds Mountain view Protection Ordinance 1988-9 .Rhode Island Task Force Report Recommends Greater Attention to Historic Landscapes 1988-19 Report Recommends Creation of Hudson River Valley Greenway n ~J ti~z~, CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION -- AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 4, 1989 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes of 12/7/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion items for meeting with City Council III. NEW BUSINESS A. CLG grant application (oral report) IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT • ~B~1LU7~['C~~S • z CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 7, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Koepernik, Ansnes, Mitchell, Cameron, Voester, and Landsness Absent: Heid Staff: S. Emslie, V. Young B. Approval of minutes of 11/16/88 M/S Voester/Landsness to approve the minutes of 11/16/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications Commissioner Ansnes reported on some cost estimates for printing the Inventory; costs were very similar to those for the Sunnyvale book. Secretary Young reported that the Boy Scouts were again looking for community service projects; the Commission will keep this mind. II. Old Business A. Heritage Preservation Ordinance Revisions Secretary Young briefed the Commission on the changes that had been made since the last meeting. After a brief discussion and Commission expression of satisfaction with the revisions, there was a M/S Cameron/Voester to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council. • Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 2 Under discussion, it was agreed that the ordinance should be scheduled for Council hearing after the joint meeting of the Commission and the Council on January 10, 1989; this would allow time for discussion before the Council public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. B. Redwood tree at Marsh-Metzger property Planning Director Emslie reported that the developers of the parcel had submitted an application to amend the subdivision project to allow them to remove the redwood tree. It would be heard by the Planning Commission on December 14. He said that there were three options: remove and replace in situ with another redwood, remove and replace with an equivalent value of landscaping on the site and in the Village, preserve the tree in place. He said that the City Horticulturalist report indicated that there a 50~ chance that the tree could survive in place with appropriate treatment. The Commission-expressed support for preservation of the tree, but felt that if it had to come down, mature replacement landscaping should be installed on the west property line to buffer the development from the historic King House. Additional landscaping or funds should be contributed to the Village street tree planting program. C. Approval of CLG application Secretary Young referred to the packet regarding approval of the stated that grant materials would weeks, with a filing deadline Commissioners expressed interest cities that were participating in III. New Business letter' in the agenda CLG application. She be available in a few at the end of January. at the other states and the program. A. Review Subdivision Application for 20600 Lomita Avenue Secretary Young reviewed the project for the Commission. There was general agreement that the house is one of the oldest and most important historic structures in Saratoga, and that the site needs to be treated sensitively. Commissioners Mitchell and Cameron felt that both the - structure and the environmental setting should be preserved. Commissioner Voester felt that a new residence at the rear could be accommodated, but only if it was • sensitively designed. Commissioner Koepernik concurred, and felt the Commission should suggest appropriate design constraints in the case that the project is approved. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 12/7/88 . Page 3 After further discussion, the Commission formulated their comments as follows: • The Heritage Commission supports the continued preservation of the historic residence. Demolition of the small cottage at the rear is acceptable because it was built at a later date and does not exhibit the same architectural and historic value as the main house. • However, because the property is historically associated with an early agricultural use, the Heritage Commission believes that preservation of -the natural environment surrounding the residence is equally as important as preserving the house iteself. The creation of a new lot upon which a new house will be built behind the historic residence may significantly impact both the residence and the environmental setting. • The Heritage Commission acknowledges that the application does not involve design review of the potential adjacent dwelling. However, if the subdivision is approved, the Commission recommends that the new residence be sensitively design to not. overwhelm the historic house, i.e. single-story, low- pitched roofline, similar in size to the historic house, and use of wood siding rather than stucco. The Heritage Commission would appreciate the opportunity to review the new residence design. M/S Landsness to forward these comments to the Planning Commission for consideration. Passed unanimously. B. CDBG Project Proposal Solicitation - FY89-90 There was consensus not to forward any projects for consideration this year; after the Warner Hutton House is moved next year, there may be potential projects for funding in the FY90-91 cycle. C. Topics for discussion at joint meeting with the City Council There was consensus on the following discussion topics: ` - completion and publication of Inventory - heritage ordinance revisions - appreciation to Council for support of preservation • activities - increased professionalism of Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 12/7/88 Page 4 Secretary Young will explore the possibility of holding the joint meeting at the Warner Hutton House, and having it be a dinner meeting. ZV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission Commissioner Voester brought up the designation application form; she recommended adding the applicant "statement" section back in. Secretary Young will follow-up. V. Adjournment A. Discuss December 21st meeting Secretary Young suggested having a small open house instead of a regular agenda at the next meeting, since the house will be decorated for the City employees holiday party. There was concurrence from the Commission. Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission • Oo~D ~ ~~~~~~~ • DRAFT LIST OF DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR JOINT MEETING BETWEEN HERITAGE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, 1/10/89 1. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory 2. Heritage Ordinance revisions 3. Appreciation to Council for support of preservation activities 4. Increased professionalism of Commission • C~ ~~~ • EC~fi/l:Q ~ ~ C ~; 1988 PLANNING pEPT. Plan Now to National Preservation Week will be held Sunday, May 14 through Saturday, May 20, 1989. The week marks a time of celebration, advo- cacy and public education about historic preservation. During the week, the National Trust and its 3400 Forum members sponsor neighborhood clean-up days, house tours, workshops, awards programs, seminars, street fairs and block parties. The events demonstrate how historic preserva- tion can benefit individuals, com- munities and the nation. Preservation Week has grown into a national education program focusing on specific preservation- related issues. This year's theme will celebrate historic preservation and places to live. From inner-city rowhouses to rural cottages, from waterfront warehouses to Victorian suburbs, preservationists have transformed older buildings into quality places to live. Preservation projects range from the adaptive use Rural Heritage Initiatives The National Trust focused new attention on rural historic preserva- tion this year with the completion of America's Rural Heritage: A Preservation Challenge, along- range strategic plan for the protec- tion of rural heritage. The strategic planning process involved state historic preservation offices, state and local preservation organizations and conservation and rural develop- ment groups. The plan has three main goals: • increase the capacity of all Trt:st departments and programs to respond to rural issues; • strengthen and support the historic preservation community's ability to protect the countryside; • promote the concepts and ethics of preservation to decisionmakers whose actions determine the fate of America's countryside. The Trust took several steps toward realization of these goals in the past year. Some of the high- lights are: • On October 1, President Reagan signed an Agriculture Appropria- tions bill that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an assess- ~~i November 1988 Volume 2, Number 5 Celebrate Preservation Week 1989 ment of federal rural development policy as it affects historic preserva- tion. The bill includes a $350,000 set aside of funds for a contract with the National Trust to assist with the study. • In October, the Trust released a new publication, Protecting America's Historic Countryside. The 40-page illustrated booklet outlines the importance of our rural heritage and provides information on public policies and rural preser- vation activities. Forum members may obtain a copy by sending aself- addressed mailing label to Preservation Forum. of a school as condominiums in Boston to the rehabilitation of substandard "shotgun" houses in Macon, Ga. Forum members are encouraged to join the National Preservation Week celebration. We will soon be sending you a 1989 National Preser- vation Week kit filled with special event ideas, sample press releases, an op-ed piece for your local news- paper editors and information on ordering the 1989 Preservation Week poster. • The Trust was one of 30 public and private organizations cooperat- ing in four three-day regional work- shops held this fall to develop an agenda concerning the critical needs of rural America and policy options for a national rural policy. "Results of the four workshops will be made available to and discussed with Congress and members of the new Administration," said Ron Knutson, a Texas A&M University economist who served as co-coordinator of the workshops. Funding agencies sponsoring the workshops include the Extension Service/USDA, the Farm Founda- tion, the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Rural Electric Coop- erative Association, the Aspen, Institute and the Economic Devel- opment Administration. For further information, contact Knut- son at the Department of Agricul- tural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. 77843. X409) 845-4445. For assistance with rural heritage activities, Forum members should contact their Trust Regional Office. ti'ational Trust for Historic Preservation Utah Heritage Foundation Cosponsors AIA Analysis Working with state and local preservation advocates and the Utah Chapter of the AIA, Utah Heritage Foundation hosted a' Re- gional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) in Salt Lake City in June. R/UDAT, a public service program of the American Institute of Architects, provides objective, expert assistance to communities with complex urban design prob- lems. The second R/UDAT ever held in Utah brought the team to Salt Lake City to address the devel- opment pressures facing the down- town business district. According to Peter Atherton, professor at the Utah Graduate School of Architec- tune and. Utah Heritage boazd mem- ber, the team facilitated dialogues between. the business and design communities, helping them reach consensus for future direction. After considering several prelimi- nary rea~mmendations from the local preservation contingent, the R/UDA'7C team issued a final report in whicht historic preservation is promoted as a basic, vital tool that any city must use for continued successflal urban development. The team's final recommendations included strengthening the existing landmarks ordinance, especially in the azea of demolition control and restriction, and establishing a compatibility review ordinance that would gc~vern new construction and demolition plans through review in the central business district and other nonhistoric districts. The team's report is currently under review as~ the city master plan is developeci. For a copy of the Salt Lake City report, contact the Mayor's office at (801 ~ 535-7704. For more information on the R/ UDAT program, contact Bruce Kriviskey, AIA/AICP, American Institute Hof Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. (202 626-7300. Newsletter for New York Commissions Landmark Commissions News is a new quarterly publication of the Preservation League of New York State. Designed specifically for the League's program, the New York State Coalition of Local Landmark and Historic District Commissions, the newsletter addresses the com- missions' needs for specific infor- mation concerning their statutory responsibilities to community preservation not often found in general preservation publications. The "trade publication," linking more than 125 commissions across the state, features news of what local commissions are doing; sources of financial support; the latest court cases affecting preserva- tion; and articles by commission members and staff. The newsletter also provides regular updates on pending state legislation that could impact preservation and occasional analyses of technical questions in- volved in design review. This publication is available to Preserva- tion Leag>~te and Coalition members through annual dues; however, commissions outside the state may be added too the mailing list upon request. For more information, contact Kattherine Raub Ridley, editor, Larldmark Commissions News, 166 Water Street, Binghamp- ton, N.Y. ]:3901. (607) 722-4568. South Carolina Museum Opens in Historic Mill The South Carolina State Mu seum, the lazgest and most compre- hensive museum in the state, has found a permanent home. In late October, the museum opened in the historic Columbia Mill on the banks of the Congazee River in Co- lumbia. Donated to the state by the Mount Vernon Mills Corporation in 1981, the ca. 1894 textile mill was the first in the world to be fully powered by electricity. Subse- quently rehabilitated and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the mill now houses mu- seum exhibits on South Carolina's cultural and natural history, sci- ence, technology and art, and offers a broad range of educational pro- grams. The state museum was created in 1973 by the South Cazolina General Assembly through the establishment of a State Mu- seum Commission. Prior to this measure, many significant local materials had been lost to other collections around the country. ' The General Assembly and other concerned citizens recognized the critical need for a collection and interpretation of state culture, history, art and scientific achieve- ments. The Commission has overseen the development of the museum, which until now had no permanent facility nor sufficient space to house the museum's growing collection. For more infor- mation, contact Tut Underwood, Public Information and Marketing, 301 Gervais Street, Columbia, S.C. 29202. (803 737-4921. Forum News/efter(ISSN f 0896-8179) is published six times a year in February, April, May, July, AugJSept. and November by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2fJp36. Members of the National Trust's Preservation Forum receive six issues of Forum Arewslelter, four issues of Preservation Forum, twelve issues of Preservation News and six issues of Historic Preservation as benefits of membership. Annual dues are 575.00. Dualitying individuals may subscribe to Preservation Forum and forum News/elt~rfor 518.00 per year. Second Ctass Postage Paid at Washington, D.C. Postmaster. send address changes to: Preservation forum, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Copyright ®1988 National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Support for the National Trust is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of tfre U.S. Department of the Interior. .J • • - Legal Challenge to Proposed D.C. Demolition In September, the National Trust joined afriend-of-the-court brief filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals challenging the city's decision in February to allow demolition of the Woodwazd Building in the Fifteenth Street Financial Historic District to make way for a new office building, based on the "special merit" exemp tion in the D.C. preserva- tion ordinance. In approving the demoli~ tion, the Mayor's Agent, Diane Herndon, concluded that the new project was one of special merit be- cause the developer offered to provide penthouse residential space, a day care center and an under- ground parking lot. The decision raises two problems of special con- cern to preservationists. First, it confuses the special merit standard with the economic hazd- ship standard by focusing heavily on the economic feasibility of renovating the Woodward Building and con- cluding that renovation was not economically feasible. Under the D.C. ordinance, the special merit standazd and the economic hazdship standard should be completely separate and unrelated exceptions. Second, preservationists believe the decision of the Mayor's Agent has the effect of denigrating the special merit standard by relying on modest amenities to define a project of special merit, when the Mayor's Agent concluded that the azchitec- ture of the new building was not sufficiently "exemplary" to justify the demolition. The brief contends that this interpretation of special merit would allow virtually any new construction project to justify the demolition of historic buildings as long as the developer could point to a few amenities. The result would be a significantly weakened preservation ordinance. The issue is of national signifi- cance to the field of historic preser- vation because the D.C. ordinance is perceived as a model throughout the country as one of the toughest, most effective preservation laws on the books. Although the special merit provision is fairly unusual, it is an important approach. Other or- dinances have analogous provisions concerning the review of post- demolition plans as a prerequisite to demolition approval. The confusion about economic hazdship is also a concern because this is a widely used provision in ordinances nationwide. The other groups participating in the friend-of-the-court brief include: the National Alliance of Preserva- tion Commissions, the National Center for Preservation Law, Preser- vation Action, the D.C. Chapter of the American Institute of Archi- tects, and several local neighbor- hood preservation groups. The D.C. Preservation League, the citywide preservation organization, is pre- vented from participating in the litigation because the organization is bound by a legal agreement entered into at an early stage of the project, giving the League design review and other control over the development project. Courts Reject IRS Challenges Several recent federal court deci sions lend strong support to the arguments of donors of preservation easements. While the IRS does not challenge the deductibility of the easement donations, which are specifically allowed under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Service has frequently chal- lenged the amount the taxpayers claim as the value of the donation. In Granger v. United States; No. 87-2455-0, September 21, 1988 ~U.S. District Court for Kansan, the owners of the Uptown Theatre in Kansas City donated a facade easement to the Historic Kansas City Foundation. The owners claimed a deduction of $400,000; the IRS appraised the value of the easement at $60,000: A federal court jury decided that the owners were entitled to the deduction, based on the difference between the fair market value of the theatre immediately before and after the donation of the restrictions on altering the facade. The tax courts in both Losch v. Commissioner, Tax Court memo 1988-230 (May 23, 1988) and Nicoladis v. Commissioner, Tax Court memo 1988-163 (April, 1988, faulted the IRS for failing to con- sider the future development potential of the property in assign- ing avalue to the easement. The IRS recently notified the donors of a facade easement on the Chicago Theatre to the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois that the Service would not dispute the $11.1 million valuation of the easement deduction. The National Trust's Office of General Counsel is working with the Land Trust Exchange to update the 1984 publication, Appraising Easements: Guidelines for valu- ation of historic preservation and land conservation easements. The new edition will be published in early 1989. wooaward luilding, Washington, D.C. w+xr^t;.q« N E S ~M A K E R S In the newly-created position of managing director, Michael G. Carew has succeeded Richard F. Halverson, former president of . Historic Hudson Valley (HHV). During his three-year tenure, Halverson guided the organiza- tion through a corporate name change (formerly Sleepy Hollow Restorations) and expanded its focus from historic site manage- ment to broader quality of life issues facing the Hudson River Valley. He also oversaw the acqui- sition and restoration of Montgom- ery Place, a 434-acre estate built in 1802-1805 and located in Annan- dale-on-Hudson. Before joining HHV earlier this year as vice president for finance, Carew was senior vice president for the Equitable Life Assurance Company in New York City. Sally Sims, librarian of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Library at the University of Mary- land, and Sam Stokes, former director of the Trust's Mid-Atlantic Regional Office and first director of the Trust's rural program, were married on November 5 in Mitch- ellville, Md. An article, "The California Post Offices of Allison & Allison," by Sims and Susan L. Richards, appeared in the Summer 1988 issue of Prologue, the National Archives' quarterly publication. Stokes ,and Elizabeth Watson, former rural program staff member, have authored a book, Saving America's Countryside, to be published next February by the National Trust and Johns Hopkins University Press. Long active in the conservation and preservation fields, Christopher Duerks~en has moved from the Enterprise Foundation in Columbia, Md. to iDenver to become director of Airport Gateway Development, a major new airport planning author- ity for the city of Denver. One of his principal duties will be ensuring high quality development within the airport site through a flexible system of land use controls. The airport •will be the second largest in the world. The Board of Trustees of the Ameri- can Academy in Rome has selected Adele Chatfield-Taylor as the organization's president. A recipi- ent of the Academy's Rome Prize in 1983 and director of the Design .Arts Program at the National En- dowment for the Arts since the fall of 1984, Chat- field-Taylor has been actively involved in preservation since the 1960s. She was a staff member of the New York City Landmarks Commission from 1973 to 1980, when she became execu- tive director of the New York Land- marks Preservation Foundation, a private organization supporting the commission's work. Chatfield-Taylor has served on the boards of Preservation Action, the National Alliance of Preserva- tion Commissions, ICOMOS and the International Design Confer- ence at .Aspen. In her new position, she will oversee the completion of a major capital campaign in time for the Academy's 100th anniversary in 1994. Mazk Zelonis has been named executive director of the Heritage. Foundation of Rhode Island, a private, chari- table organiza- tion founded in 1956 to receive funds and property for the preser- vation of ~;;; architecture, ""=""~~'~'~ arts, crafts and open spaces in the state. Zelonis will continue to oversee the operation of Blithewold Gardens and Arboretum in Bristol. Diane Cohen, associate director of the New York Landmarks Conser- vancy, and A. Robert Jaeger, senior vice president at the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation f PHPC), will be leading a new national center dedicated to pro- moting the stewardship and preser- vation of religious properties. With an initial grant from the J. M. Kaplan Fund, Cohen and Jaeger wil~ begin operations as codirectors in Philadelphia early next year. PHPC will act as financial agent for the new entity until separate tax- exempt status is obtained. An outgrowth of the Coalition for the Preserva- tion of His- toric Reli- gious Buildings, the organ- ization's objectives include the creation of a clearing- house, the develop- Cohen accepts 1988 Honor ment of Award from Trust local and Chairman Bob Bass regional assistance programs, and outreach to the philanthropic community and the general public to promote the importance of this issue. The Rev. Thomas F. Pike, Rector of Calvary/St. George's Episcopal Church in New York City, will be the organization's first chair. r: Tax Program Aids Delaware Downtown In a unanimous decision, the Newark, Del., city council recently adopted a tax incentive program for the rehabilitation and construction of downtown commercial proper- ties. The program allows an in- crease in the building's assessed value due to improvements or new construction to be exempted on the following scale: for the first year after completion of the project, the increase is exempted 100 percent, with incremental rises of ten percent per year until the full tax rate is reached after ten years. The city provides more generous incentives for the renovation of National Register properties: tax increases attributed to improve- ments are fully exempt for five yeazs; in the sixth year, fifty percent of the increase is paid, with ten percent increments annually there- after until the full rate is reached. According to Roy Lopata, city planning director, "This program, which received strong community support, should further stimulate preservation and development of our already thriving downtown." For further information on the tax incentive program, contact Lopata, Planning Director, City of Newark, P.O. Box 390, Newark, Delawaze 19715-0390. (302) 366- 7000. America's Industrial Heritage Project 1~ National Park Service Study has led to the creation of America's In- dustrial Heritage Project, apublic/ private partnership involving gov- ernment, industry, southwestern Pennsylvania businesses and organi- zations. Initiated by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) in response to the region's severe economic troubles, the project will explore the indus- trial heritage of nine counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. Sup- porters herald the project for creat- ing one of few national historic sites relating to industrial develop- ment. The project's two main objec- tives are to interpret the develop- ment and growth of the region's once thriving industries of iron and steel, coal and transportation and then incorporate these industrial heritage themes into a comprehen- sive regional tourism promotion effort. Four committees will examine aspects of the overall mis- sion, including cultural resources, tourism and mazketing, economic development and transportation. The project will also study the theme of social and labor history. In addition, the committees will work to encourage public participa- tion. Five Pennsylvania Congress- men and Sen. John Heinz's (R- Pa.)efforts proved crucial in au- thorizing the commission. On October 21, Congress passed leg- islation giving the commission responsibility for overseeing and guiding the project. The Park Service will serve as the lead federal agency. Congressional funding totaled $8.2 million for fiscal year 1988 and $11.57 million for the current fiscal yeaz. For more information, contact Randy Cooley, project duector, America's Industrial Heritage, P.O. Box 565, Hollidaysburg, Pa. 16648. Merging Preservation and Tounsm in Richmond In a move that reflects the growing interdependence of preservation and heritage tourism, the Historic Richmond (Va.) Foundation (HRF) and Richmond on the James (ROTJ), both private preservation organiza- tions, merged in September. The latter, created in 1980 to develop heritage tourism programs, will serve the educa- tional functions of the Founda- tion through a new program called Historic Richmond Tours. The union ends eight years of struggle for ROTJ, in terms of both finances and policy. The founders of ROTJ sought to spotlight and im- prove the historical attractions and tourism services that were seen as peripheral by a Chamber of Com- merce interested in luring conven- tions. Initially viewed as a compet- ing force, ROTJ gradually succeeded in having many of its proposals accepted by the city, such as im- proved road signs and taxi service. HRF provided support in the es- tablishment of ROTj but at that time had considered heritage tour- ism to be beyond the purposes of the Foundation. During the inter- vening years, the two groups competed for the same membership and corporate support, a contest won by the well-established HRF yet damaging to both. With recog- nition of a common mission, the union of HRF and ROTJ promises greater financial strength and a more encompassing focus in pre- serving and interpreting the city's rich heritage. For further information about the merger or the new program, contact the Historic Richmond Foundation, 2407 East Grace Street, Richmond, Va. 23223. (804) 643-7407. 0 Alleghaay Portage Railroad Nutionvl Historic Site N E I G B O R H O O D S Boston Neighborhood Brings Back Affordable Housing Rooming houses provide an impor- tant source of affordable housing in many city neighborhoods, espe- cially for the elderly. Boston, for example, has a long tradition of rooming or lodging houses. According to Boston Li- censing Board records, more than 1,800 such buildings offered low- cost housing in 1960. By 1986 how- ever, the number dropped to less than 200. Many have been con- verted into luxury housing. Others suffered fire damage after which the owners either were financially unable or chose not to rehabilitate, leaving the buildings to be sold for new uses or be boarded up. Boston Aging Concerns-Young and Old United, Inc., a nonprofit organization, is tackling the short- age of elderly housing opportunities across the city. The group grew out of an association of 12 churches formed in 1973 to provide social services in the Back Bay area. Boston Aging Concerns quickly expanded into other city neighbor- hoods and ventured into housing development. Its latest success is rehabilitating two lodging houses in the South End Landmazk Historic District as intergenerational shared housing. The buildings are part of an archi- tecturally prominent row of c. 1870s properties facing Blackstone Squaze park. Both contribute to the National Register-listed historic district; one, in fact, was home to Alexander Graham Bell in 1872. The properties were abandoned in the early 1970s and suffered fire damage several years later. Boston Aging Concerns targeted the West Newton Street buildings in 1985 after completing two other lodging house rehabilitation proj- ects. The National Trust's Inner- City Ventures Fund (ICVF) was one of the first sources of project financ- ing. The organization credits that early commitment with providing an impetus to other funders and helping to convince the Boston Re- development Authority to designate Boston Aging Concerns as the project developer. Work began in July 1987. One of the biggest rehabilitation obstacles was retaining the original look of the first floor, which had two commerc:ial spaces and now was to be the buiilding's lobby and an apazt- ment unit. When work was com- pleted less than a yeaz later, neigh- borhood residents generally ex- pressed pleasure that the familiar ground-floor exterior was preserved. Inside, the four-story buildings were joinE:d in order to allow residents to share kitchen facilities and common living and dining azeas. In addition to 31 single rooms, the house contains two studio apartments and one office space for t:he organization's housing staff. Lazge windows throughout allow light to flood both individual rooms and shazed spaces. Residents also especially enjoy viewing the nearby community gazdens from asecond- story deck. A Residence Management Committee now oversees rentals and maintenance of the West Newton Street property. Fifty percent of the new residents are over age 62, and 87 percent have ' incomes below the U.S. Depazt- ment of Housing and Urban Development's low/moderate income guidelines. Priority is given to residents from the South End who have been displaced or at risk of being displaced from the commu- nity. The project is a success as a direct result of Boston Aging Concerns' strong community support and its commitment to quality rehabilitation of housing for the elderly. The $1.9 million project was fi- nanced through a combination of public rental subsidies, alternative financing from the Boston Commu- nity Loan Fund, the Boston Rede- velopment Authority and the Public Facilities Department, and commer- cial financing through the First American Bank. More than $680,000 came from grants and contributions from foundations, corporations and individuals. The $100,000 ICVF award, funded in part through the AT&T Foundation, was half grant and half operating deficit line of credit. For more information, contact Project Coordinator Gabriella Halmi at (617) 628-2411. The Nataional Trust recently ~aa-= _~ hoods, published by the Trust nounced that Conserve Neighbor-`since 1978, will now be handled hoods has been merged with The ; _-~:bry;The Neighborhood Works. Neighborhood Works, a newsletter~'.~A one-year subscription to The which adldresses a broad range of. ~~°$=~Neighborhood Works, including issues, ire:sources and techniques. ;:~"~'~`bimonthly newsletters and special Published by the Chicago-based :,~s'"iissues costs $25. To subscribe, Center for Neighborhood Technol' write Clarice Moore, circulation ogy, the newsletter will now ;._ .-.., ~..,: manager, The Neighborhood include a. department on historic. ,.'"-_::; Works, Center for Neighborhood preservation and neighborhood_ ~:.t~, ~: Technology, 2125 W. North conservation contributed by the:. ~:~ .Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60647. (312) National Trust. Requests for back_ 278-4800. .: issues of Conserve Neighbor- 0 LJ Conferences, Workshops and Training Programs The Vermont Granite Symposium, sponsored by the University of Ver- mont, State Economic Develop- ment Department and Bane Granite Association, will be held November 30-December 3 in Stowe and Barre, Vt. Contact: Vermont Granite Symposium, Vermont Travel and Information Service, Brookfield, Vt. 05036. (802) 276-3120. The Second National Conference of Community Land Trusts will be held December 8-11, 1988 in Stony Point, N.Y. For further informa- tion, contact: Julie Orvis, Institute for Community Economics, 151 Montague City Road, Greenfield, Mass. 01301. (413) 774-7956. Preservation Institute for the Building Crafts will offer work- shops in preservation building skills. Topics range from architec- tural woodworking and repointing brick masonry to painted finishes and slate roof repair. Each program covers the history, theory and practical application of the particu- lar building skill, supplemented with information on the latest pres- ervation technology. Workshops will be held in Vermont and New Hampshire, from January through April, 1989. Contact: Charlotte Barrett, Director, Preservation Institute for the Building Crafts, P.O. Box 1777, Windsor, Vt. 05089. (802) 674-6752. Call for Papers The Association for Gravestone Studies invites the submission of topics for presentations at its an- nual conference to be held June 22- 25, 1989. Papers on all aspects of gravestone art and history are wel- come. One-page abstracts aze due January 15, 1989. Contact: Profes- sor David Waters, Department of English, University of New Hamp- shire, Durham, N.H. 03824. Grants and Loans The National Trust's Preservaa tion Services Fund is ac ` grant applications for its Febrn-~ ary 1,1989 deadline. The PSF'~= program awards matching grants= to Forum members who -are; ;' nonprofit organisations and"` public agencies for building ``rapes studies and other consultanf_~~~r services and for preservation edi% cation programs and confererrces Grants range from $500 to -° ,.~. . $5,000. A major increase in grants is available for 1989 due~to a $250,000 Congressional appio~~' priation to the program. Con-`~~`~ tact: Trust regional offices for ap=- January 1989 is the deadline for ap- plications to the National Endow- ment for the Arts' Summer 1989 Arts Management Fellowship Pro- gram. Fellows spend 13 weeks at the NEA becoming acquainted with the agency's operations and gaining an overview of arts activities around the country. Applicants must have a bachelor's degree and at least three years of experience in the arts or an art-related field. Fellows receive a $4,000 stipend plus round-trip travel. Contact: Arts Management Fellowship Pro- gram, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506. (202) 682-5786. February 15, 1989 is the deadline for submitting applications to the U.S. Capitol Historical Society Fellow- ship. Fellows support research and publication on the history of the art and architecture of the U.S. Capitol and its related buildings. Graduate students and scholazs may apply for periods of one month to one full year for a stipend of $1500 per month. For further information, contact: Dr. Barbara Wolanin, curator, Architect of the Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20515. (202) 225- 2700. National Mazketing of Historic Properties Sellers of historic buildings are invited to submit their properties for inclusion in the 1989 Na- tional Auction of Historic Build- ings. The auction gives individ- ual properties, located through- out the country, the benefit of an umbrella marketing campaign, including full-page advertising in national publications, a detailed catalog and information packets of all properties, similar to fine art and antique auctions, and an intensive publicity campaign. Kennedy-Wilson, Inc., a real estate auction house, and Heri- tage Consulting Group, Inc., are organizing the auction. Inter- ested owners should submit properties by January 31, 1989. Contact: Richazd J. Thomas, Ken- nedy-Wilson, Inc., P.O. Box 6465, Portland, Oreg. 97228. (800) 433- 4669. Publications, Tapes and Videos Guidelines for Restricting Infor- mation on the Location of National Register Properties" is available from the Park Service. For a copy of the bulletin, contact: Reference Desk, National Register of Historic Places, National Pazk Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. (202) 343-9543. Draft copies of a new National Register bulletin, "Traditional Cultural Properties: Guidelines for Evalu- ation" are being circulated for public comments. To obtain a copy of the draft, contact: NPS, (202) 343- 9559. Using Old Farm Buildings, Dexter W. Johnson, North Dakota State University and National Trust for Historic Preservation. This booklet discusses the preservation of farm buildings, including moving, reno- vating and case studies discussing the preservation of different types of farm structures. Free while supply lasts. Contact: National Trust Mountains/Plains Regional Office, 511 16th Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colo. 80202. (303) 623-1504. W O R T H K N O W I N G ,y 48 different cassette tapes of ses- sions from the National Trust's 42nd conference are now available. Individual cassettes are available for $7, 10 cassettes cost $70 and a full set costs $250. For order forms, contact: Convention Tapes Interna- tional, P.O. Box 381992, Miami, Fla. 33238-1992. (305) 757-8666. The Urban Land Institute's Project Reference File provides subscribers with descriptions of successful de- velopment projects. A tool for de- velopers, builders, planners, con- sultants, architects, public officials, research centers and community de- velopment agencies with updates every three months. $65 for ULI members, $80 for nonmembers. Contact: Publications Orders, ULI, 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. (202) 289- 3378. Maintaining Your Old House in Cambridge, Cambridge Historical Commission, 75 pages, $10.95 in- cluding shipping and handling. This guide offers advice for home- owners rehabilitating pre-1930s houses. Although primarily written for Cambridge homeowners, the book is useful for preservationists, architects, carpenters, or anyone with an interest in the technology and conservation of traditional New National 'Dust for Historic Preservation England wood-frame houses. Con- tact: Cambridge Historical Com- mission, 57 Inman Street, Cambr- idge, Mass. 02139. (617) 498-9040. The Philadelphia Historic Preserva- tion Corporation has made available transcripts of all sessions from the April 19;68 Sacred Trusts confer- ence. Cost: 1-4 transcripts, $5 each; 5 or more, $4 each. Contact: Cathy Goulet, :Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, One East Penn Square, Suite 2200, Philadel- phia, Pa. 19107. (215) 568-4210. Open Conversations: Strategies for Professional Development in Museums, a collection of essays, case studies and structured learning activitie;> designed to promote re- flection :Ind discussion on current museum issues. $9.95. Contact: Cazolyn :Blackmon, chairman, De- partment of Education, Field Mu- seum of i[vatural History, Roosevelt Road at bake Shore Drive, Chicago, Ill. 60605. (312) 922-9410, ext. 246. Lighting for Historic Buildings, by Roger W. Moss, 192 pages, $12.95. This guide provides a history of lighting and a catalog of 481 suit- able reproductions available today. Contact: Preservation Press at National Trust headquarters, (202) 673-4057. 7153934 0 SARAT03A Ncr~ITaG= PkFSrr~V.;TIOh l:~?H~~tiSSIUPI 13777 Ft~ITVA~_ =~VtNuc CITY OF SA~ATOGa oa `~5G7~ • S ARAT 00~+ Marblein Manhattan: Italian Culture, Technology and Design is a free 8-page brochure discussing the use of Italian processed stone in• New York published by the Italian Mazble Center. The center serves as an information clearinghouse on marble, granite and travertine. The center has a computerized data bank with information on U.S. and foreign suppliers; its staff will contact U.S. importers and distribu- tors of Italian stone and will help locate particulaz stones. Contact: Italian Marble Center, Italian Trade Commission, 499 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022. (212) 980- 1500. The National Trust's Center for Historic Houses has introduced the Old House Starter Kit. The kit con- tains maintenance hints, informa- tion sources helpful to the home- owner, bibliographies and preserva- tion contacts specific for the pur- chasers' state. Purchasers receive a six-month complimentary member- ship in the National Trust. The kit is available for $10 ($7 for current National Trust members). Contact: • Center for Historic Houses, Na- tional Trust for Historic Preserva- tion, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Second Class Postage Paid at Washington, D.C. (and additional mailing offices) 1785 Massachusetts Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 (202)673-4296 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAw • 1233 2o'rs Srasaz. N.W. • SUITE 301 • Wwsszxorox. D.C. 2oo3e • (202) eta-sett RECEIVED P:a•=aaxr _ f~~C~ ~ "~ 19~') EuacLTtva D~sacroQ TCR3H BOASDESO. ESp. V U STEPHEN v. DEVx~s. Eso. PLANNING DEPT. PRESERVATION LAVV UPDATE 1988-41 November 8, 1988 Court Upholds Authority of National Park Service to Consider Interiors When Reviewing Tax Act Projects In Schneider Partnership v. Department of Interior, 693 F.Supp. 223 (D.N.J. 1988), a second federal court has now upheld the National Park Service's authority to deny under its own implementing regulations certification of a project for a 25$ federal income tax credit under Section 48(g) of the Internal Revenue Code (see "Update' 1987-42). Even more importantly, a federal district court has explicitly recognized the authority of the National Park Service to deny certification because of alterations .to the interior of a • historic structure. The opinion accords with a growing awareness of the importance of historic interiors (see "Updates" 1988-39 and 1988-40). The developer in Schneider had made certain interior changes to the Ocean Grove Post Office Building which in the opinion of reviewing staff with the National Park Service had damaged the historical integrity of the structure. The National Park Service noted in its brief in the case that the structure was built in 1881 as "a post office [and] the headquarters and meeting place of the Ocean Grove Methodist Camp Meeting Association' and that Ocean Grove "is the oldest, largest, and .most successful [Methodist Camp meeting town] functioning in the United States." An initial denial letter noted, as summed up in the government's brief, that the project had destroyed "the two most significant historic features of the building, the second story meeting hall and the building's central staircase, 'features and spaces that are integral in relating the building to the evolution of the camp community.' The plaintiff had challenged the Park Service's authority to consider proposed changes to the interior of the structure in question. The New Jersey state historic preservation office returned plaintiff's Part Two application about February 29, 1984 because it was incomplete !'due to plaintiff's failure to address • proposed rehabilitation for the interior of the building." The ~.~TIOY.~-LCE'YTEIt FOR PNEfiERY,~-TIDI\ L.~W plaintiff submitted a revised application in early April of 1984, but this second application was again returned by the New Jersey state historic preservation office about August 9, 1984 because • the plaintiff had again "'failed to address proposed rehabilitation_of the interior of the building."' A Park Service regional office asked the plaintiff for more infonaation about his proposed rehabilitation work on the building's interior on January 29, 1985, after the New Jersey state historic preservation office had finally submitted to the Park Service a revised Park Two application. Some additional information was supplied by the plaintiff in February 1985, but the regional Park Servic~a office had to request a second time in July 1985 that missing information be supplied. The Park Service denied certification on December 26, 1985 because the project failed to conform to five of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. After a request for reconsideration, th.e Park Service affirmed its initial determination that certification should be denied. The plaintiff then requested a review by the Chief Appeals Officer (CAO) for the National Park Service. The CAO affirmed the Park Service's decision, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior in federal district court in which a number of novel but un:auccessful arguments were made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in ,~zneider alleged that the Park Service's • actions were not authorized by statute. Tha plaintiff claimed that the Secretary had unlawfully exceeded his authority under a pertinent regulation. Though the plaintif!' argued otherwise, the court found that a slight discrepancy between the wording of Section 48(g)(2)(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and 36 C.F.R. §67.2 was inconsequential: Plaintiff finds fault with the Secretary's use of the phrase "and, where applicable, with the district in which the structure is located,!' as opposed to the Code's "'or the district in which t:he property is located." The slight deviation of lanqua~ge does not indicate that defendant's action exceeded the scope of the Code. In implementing the Code provision, the Secretary is directed to determine whether the rehabilitation is consistent with the character of the property or the district, which implies that both must be considered in the process. The regulation also requires that both bea considered. The plaintiff also attempted to argue that Section 48(q)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code "limits the consideration of a certit'ied historic structure to the exterior of the building"': :ATIO~ALCE~TER FOR PREfiERVATIOY LAW [H]owever, does not • structure. structure . The criterion. this Court notes that the language of the statute limit consideration to the exterior of the The statute defines a certified historic as a "'building (and its structural components)"' . statute does not specify the exterior as the sole The statute uses the generic term "'buildinq.~ The court found no merit in the plaintiff's argument that the Park Service had erred in taking more than sixty .days to review the certification request: [F]ailure to complete review during the recommended time frame does not waive or alter any certification requirement. Accordingly, this court finds that defendant's failure to process the application within the. suggested timelines, though inconvenient and burdensome to plaintiff, does not _ rise to such level of prejudicial procedural error so as to warrant certification. The court also found no merit in the argument that the Park Service should have conducted an on-site inspection of the project prior to denying certification: This court notes that plaintiff submitted detailed written reports, numerous photographs, as well as two videotapes depicting the original building and the rehabilitation in progress. The regulations governing the certification procedures authorize site visits, but do not require such • visits prior to any determination. The court held that the burden of proof is on an applicant for certification to establish that otherwise prohibited work will be necessary: Plaintiff finds fault with the [Chief Appeals Officer's] finding that the elevator could have been located elsewhere in the building, having based his decision on the fact that plaintiff offered no evidence that it could not have been relocated. The lack of evidence as to possible relocation is ..quite significant .in reviewing the CAO's determination. As noted in the CAO's determination upon reconsideration, the plaintiff "presented no evidence to demonstrate that alternative locations [for the elevator] within the structure were considered, and I see no evidence that it is technically infeasible to rehabilitate the structure without placing the elevator in its present location." In requesting certification from the Secretary in order to take advantage of tax credits for rehabilitation, the burden is on the applicant to furnish information sufficient to enable the Secretary to make a determination. Though the plaintiff had argued that a federal district court should conduct a trial de novo to review the Secretary of the Interior's decision, the court disagreed: YATIOY.~L CEYTER FOR PRESERVATIU~~i LA~i This court finds that such inquiry is unwarranted, as plaintiff has not proven to this court that defendant's • actions have in any way circumvented the requisite standards and procedures in making its determination that plaintiff's plan for rehabilitation, and subsequent implementation of that plan; did not conform with the historic character of the building and the district in which it is located. Defendant's authority to make certification determinations was granted by Conc~ress, and as such the decisions made in its discretion aria subject to judicial review only to determine whether the Secretary has exceeded statutory authority or has acted arbitrarily. As previously noted, this court j:s of the opinion that the defendant did not exceed statutory authority or act arbitrarily. The defendant, throughout the course of its determination, acted within the bounds spat forth in the statutes and implementing regulations; thus, :summary judgment is appropriate. The plaintiff in S,S;hneider apparently argued that the Park Service should not be able to apply the Secretary's Standards to rehabilitation work wil:hin privately owned buildings. The following statements appear in the court's typed slip opinion (though not as completely in the opinion as published): Finally, plaintiff opposes defendant's motion claiming that the defendant is not authorized to apply the rehabilitation standards to the interior of privately owned buildings. The • thrust of plaintiff's argument is that defendant's requirement that the interior of the building be. rehabilitated would result in a reconstruction of the property rather than a rehabilitation. Once again, plaintiff asserts t~'hat the interior of a building for which certification is sought is beyond the reach of the statute and thus should not be considered by the Secretary. As previously noted, the interior of the building is not excluded by Section 48(q)(3)(A), and was properly considered in the Secretary's determination. Schneider establish~as a number of key points which property owners thinking of chal:lenginq denial of tax act certification must keep in mind. The Secretary's Standards have been upheld a second time. The burden of proof is clearly (and heavily) upon a property owner planning to challenge a denial of certification. The Park Service need not: conduct an on-site inspection unless it chooses to, and may dela}~- its decision on a certification request beyond the sixty-day period specified in applicable regulations. The National Center for Preservation Law will provide copies of the opinion and the government's brief in the case for $7.50. (A subscription to the "F~reservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this 'Update.') . ~TATI~ONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAR' • 1233 20TH STBEE?. N.W, • SvZTE 601 • WASHINGTON. D.C. 20039 • (202) 828-9611 P:a•taaxT Euscvrcva DIRacTOe TERSH BOASBCRG. ESO. STEPHEN Y. DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-42 December 2, 1988 Ohio Court Holds City Not Liable for Permit Zssued by Mistake and Subsequently Withdrawn A recent decision in Hunter v. City of Cleveland (No. 077,990, Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, decided November 10, 1988) may be the first opinion involving the alleged infliction of emotion distress on an individual because a building permit issued by mistake for property located within a local historic district was withdrawn. The Ohio appellate court reversed a trial court decision which had been in favor of the individual and a bankrupt corporation which had obtained the building permits. Plaintiff Thermcraft Homes (solely owned by a couple named Hunter) was in the business of building prefabricated modular homes. In September 1982 (five months after Thermcraft's incorporation), the City of Cleveland issued two building permits to Thermcraft for erection of homes by it on lots in the Shaker Square Historic District not then owned by either Thermcraft or the Hunters. The city moved quickly to rescind these permits when it realized they should not have been issued because the Cleveland Landmarks Commission had not reviewed the project: After learning that these lots were located in the Shaker Square Historic District, the City's Division of Building and Housing voided the building.permits on Qctober 26, 1982, for the following reason: "Issued in Error. Not approved by the Landmarks Commission.: The Cleveland Landmarks Commission then considered the proposed design, rejected it and negotiated with Thermcraft for a more compatible design: [T]he Landmarks Commission concluded that the exterior renderings and style of home. proposed by Thermcraft were inappropriate for the Shaker Square Historic District. . .[T]he Landmarks Commission imposed a waiting period of .six months in order to negotiate with Thermcraft to attempt to find a manner of compliance. After several meetings and review of design changes the Landmarks Commission issued a \AT[OVALCE~iTER FOR PRESiER~'.aTIOY LA w' Certificate of Appropriateness in June, 1983, for site-built° homes. Thermcra:Et did not build these homes and, on December 12, 1984, Thermcraft declared bankruptcy. The Hunters and Thermcraft brought suit against the City of Cleveland in ,7.uly 1984 "for the destruction of their business and the negligent infliction of emotional distress against Mr. Hunter . .~ The trial court awarded damages of $7,500 to the Hunters for business damages, $105,000 to the trustee in bankruptcy for Thermc:raft, and $15,000 to Mr. Hunter "for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress." The city made several arguments on appeal. The appellate court agreed that tree Hunters did not have separate and independent claims against the city, because the city had at all times dealt with Thermc:raft rather than the Hunters: Only the corporation may complain of injury to it unless the wrongful act violates a contractual or other duty owned directly to the shareholder by the wrongdoer. Thus, a plaintiff-shareholder's claim should not be dismissed "if the pleadings state injury to the plaintiff upon an individual claim as distinguished from an injury which indirectly affect:; the shareholders or affects them as a whole."' The alleged injuries suffered by the Hunters in this case were a result of the alleged injuries suffered by Thermcraft and not based on any independent contract the Hunters had with the City or on any duty owed the Hunters individually. :3ince the Hunters' rights are merely derivative, they may only be asserted through the • corporation. The appellate court also held that the trial court should not have considered Mr. Hunter's claim of negligent infliction of serious emotional damage: Again, this claim arises as a result of the alleged injuries suffered by the 'corporation and cannot be maintained individually. Moreover, "[i]ncidental damages such as mental anguish have never been held as collectable by officers o! a bankrupt corporation." Even if such a claim were permitted, as a matter of law Mr. Hunter's injuries, ~g:, irritability, difficulty sleeping, lessened self-esteem, 'were not "serious"' or Mreasonably foreseeable"'. The appellate court also found that Thermcraft had a clear duty to investigate thla city's permit requirements for the lots on which the corporation wished to construct homes: [O]ne who deals with a municipal corporation is charged with notice of all statutory limitations on the power of a municipality's agents. Pursuant to Chapter 161 of the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland, only the Cleveland Landmarks Commisa,ion could grant permission through a ~ATIOYALCE\TER FOR PRE~IER~'.~TIO~! LAW certificate of appropriateness to construct in a landmark district such as the Shaker Square Historic area. Appellees' reliance on permission by any other person or entity within the City, including the Commissioner of the Department of Community Development, Division of Building, was unreasonable. Only the Landmarks Commission had the authority to issue a building permit for construction within the Shaker Square Historic District. Appellees had the duty to investigate and appellees assumed the risk that all requisite steps were taken by the municipality to effectuate appellees' business with the City. Since appellees were not entitled to rely on the building permits issued without the proper authority, appellees are not entitled to damages resulting from such reliance. The court held also that the alleged damages were not "proximate": I"'1 ~J Even if appellees' claims were cognizable, appellees failed to establish as a matter of law that the City's conduct was the proximate cause of their damages and Thermcraft's demise. As real estate developers dealing with the City, appellees had the responsibility to investigate the properties, statutes and ordinances involved with the area to be developed. Had this been done, appellees would have known of _the effect of the landmark district designation on certain of the lots in issue. [P]laintiffs entered into contracts on the lots in question without owning said lots and. before the City issued any permits. Any losses suffered by plaintiffs were not caused by the subsequent erroneous issuance of building permits which were correctly cancelled less than 40 days latter. Finally, the court noted that the Cleveland preservation ordinance requires that designations be recorded, which puts property owners on notice of their obligations to consult the Cleveland Landmarks Commission before taking actions which would affect designated properties: Section 161.04(b)(5) of the City's Codified Ordinances requires the Landmarks Commission to file "'a certified copy of the designation ordinance together with a notice briefly stating the fact of designation and a summary of the effects the designation will have" with the County Recorder of Deeds and the County Assessor. • The Hunter case is particularly important because of its holdings that a property owner is responsible for knowing what city permits must be obtained before work may be undertaken, and that a city may withdraw permits issued in error. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates"' series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") ~'ATIO\T~L CE~'TE~iZ FOlt ~RESEIZVATION La~V 1233 20TH STREET,'.~T.W. • SL'IT]E 501 • A~,~y$~J~TgTON. D.Ci. 20036 • (202) 828-96 P8E9IDE!iT D~C,,v~ J ~~•~~ ExEGL'TIVE DIBEGTOH TERSH HGASBERG. ESp. PLANNING DEPT. ~TEPHEY N. DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-43 December 4, 1988 Cultural Landscape.Protect:ion Mechanisms Receive Increasing Attention Across America, a sense of urgency is growing, fueled by the recognition that familiar landscapes are changing at an unprecedented rate. The environmental movement is gradually broadening its focus to include scenic and cultural landscapes as well as ecologically sensitive areas and the need for pure water and air. The historic preservation movement is similarly broadening its focus to move beyond a concern for the isolated landmark or even the identifiable historic district to a recognition that the settings for historic and cultural resources can be the landscape surrounding a National Historic Landmark village: such as Waterford, Virginia or even the entire Hudson River Valley. The "'lived-in"' landscape is what we must now prevent from declining into an unplanned chaos. The growing alliance between the conservation and historic preservation movements ha,s been heralded by a series of important publications. In Augrust 1986, the Guilford Preservation Alliance issued a Ma~.ter Plan for Preservation and Scenic Conservation for Guilford, Connecticut. The "'Forward"' to the report (prepared by two teams of consultants and funded in part by a grant from the Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts) states: We have long been aware of the importance of Guilford's historic architecture, but what gives our town its special quality is not its architecture alone but our historic structures in context; in a townscape, a rural landscape and a seascape. In its setting Guilford's architecture is enhanced and the perception of the history of 1this New England town becomes a visible, moving experience. In January 1988, thE: Center for Rural Massachusetts published its important report Dea:Linq with Chance in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual fair Conservation and Development. The report answered a felt need so successfully that it went almost immediately out of print and a wa,itinq list was created for groups and individuals hoping for copies of a reprinted edition. The "'Foreword"' to this report notes the rapidity with which land uses are changing in the Connecticut River Valley: \.~T[O~.~LCE\TER FOR PltE~ER~',~TIOY Lahti' Demand for vacant land suitable for housing, employment, and commercial activities has increased in response to an expanding economy. .However, as unplanned growth overtakes the Valley's small towns, fertile farm fields, scenic views, and centuries- old local character are disappearing. Frequently, towns' reactions to those challenges--zoning, subdivision and other bylaws--only add to the consumption of land, and the costs and impacts of development. ' The report, which contains a series of maps showing "conventional" and "creative"' development scenarios for eight typical valley landscapes, calls for new partnerships in the Connecticut River valley to draw on the experiences of other regions in creating tools adequate to the job of protecting threatened resources: Today many of the special. features that ciPf.in.e .th? Valley remain, but their future protection is far from assured. Some progress has been made through public-private partnerships among Valley residents, non-profit conservation groups, the business community, and local, regional, and state governments. These efforts must continue to draw on lessons from other regions where a variety of effective tools have been created. Only through citizen involvement in management of conservation and development can the Valley's character continue to be a great asset. Several weeks later, a report prepared by a group of private citizens in New York advocated the creation of a Hudson River Valley Greenway. Greenwavs in the Hudson River Valley A New Strateav for Preserving an American Treasure (see "Update" 1988-19) outlined a bold approach to regional protection of cultural landscapes which had been suggested by the 1987 ReDOrt of the President's Commission on Americans outdoors. The Greenwavs report recognized the significant economic benefits which can flow from efforts to preserve the cultural landscape of the Hudson River Valley: A formidable challenge now faces local communities in the Hudson River Valley: how to accommodate further economic growth in a way that does not degrade the Valley's physical beauty, that does not, in effect, undermine one oi' the most important reasons for the growth. If the Valley's natural beauty is dissipated, and the Valley becomes nothing more than a distant extension of today's suburbs, a great resource will have been squandered, an economic benefit sacrificed, and a legacy lost. The economic importance of preserving the Valley's natural beauty should be widely acknowledged and integrated into all policies that affect its future. For example, governmental benefits and grants to localities might be conditioned by criteria for protecting larger interests in critical areas. The reward for such farsighted policies will be continued growth in an economy that respects its environment and flourishes because of that respect. \ATIOY.~-LCE\TFR FOR PRE~IER~'.~1CI0\ L.~H' In April 1988, thE! State of Maine enacted sweeping growth management legislation requiring all municipalities. in Maine to begin preparing comprehensive plans and drafting local zoning ordinances, but requiring that the plans and ordinances be submitted to a state Office of Comprehensive Land Use Planning for review and comment before local adoption. These concerns are far from unique to America. In England, Marcus Binney, a former editor of Country Life and a founder of SAVE Britain's Heritage, created a new journal titled simply Landscape to bring to the attention of readers information about a wide range of threatened cultural and natural resources on an-island often thought to have perfected preservation and conservation approaches. Two English law professors have written an excellent general treatment of strategies for protecting rural landscapes, called logically Countryside Law. The book is essential for any American interested in.a.,basic.explanation of -the carious approaches which in combination now work to "'protect"' the English countryside. Where These Publications are Available Master Plan for Preservation and Scenic .Conservation: Guilford Preservation Alliance, c/o Noyes Associates, Inc., Architects, 20 Dunk Rock Road, Guilford, Connecticut 06437 (single copies are $15.00). Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A second printing is now available for $25.00 from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 26 Trowbridge Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. (It was published originally by the Center for Rural Massachusetts, College of Food and Natural Resources, Hills North, University ~of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. 01003. Countryside Stewardship, Report of the 1987 US/UR Exchange (see "Update"' 1988-36) iso still available as Research Bulletin No. 720 for $5.00 from the Center. This report summarizes the reactions of teams of American and English consultants who visited five New England landscape areas in the summer of 1987.) Greenways in the Hudson River Valley: Sleepy Hollow Press, 150 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, N. Y. 10591 (single copies are $5.00). Landscape: This magazine has now been merged with The Country Times and its future is cw~rently uncertain. J. Garner & B. Jones, Countryside Law: The National Center for Preservation Law has a limited number of copies of this paperback book available for $25.00. Copies may be ordered directly from England through: Hammick's Law Bookshop, 191/192 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AH (single copies are 9.95 pounds plus shipping charges:). (A subscription to the "'Preservation Law Updates"' series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at t:he top of this "Update."') • NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION" I.A~~" 1233 20TH STREET, N.w. • SUITE ~Ol • wA3HINdTON, D.Ci. 20039 • (202) 828-8611 PSEHID E:~T EXECtiTIVE DIRECTO@ TERSH E30ASHERG. ESQ. STEPNEY Vii. DEYY[S. ESQ. PRESER`"ATION LAW UPDATE 1988-44 December 4, 1988 Preservation Law: The Unfulfilled Challenge The distinguished preservationist Robert E. Stipe wrote a now- famous column entitled "Preservation Lawyers--Unite!"' for the July 1970 issue of Preservation News, the monthly newspaper of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Though the term "'historic preservation law"' had already been, used by Jacob Morrison as a title for a small book summarizing existing state statutes and a few local preservation ordinances, the Stipe column may have been the first discussion of historic preservation law that drew national attention. Stipe's "Eight Steps" are worth repeating today, because though several of them have been substantially achieved, others are only partially accomplished. • First, someone needs to prepare an annotated bibliography of published materials on the legal aspects of preservation. [The National Trust for Historic Preservation published Historic Preservation Law• An Annotated Bibliogral7hv in 1976. Since 1982, the Trust has included an annual unannotated bibliography of historic preservation law books and articles in the Preservation Law Reporter.] Second, somebody needs to collect and publish on a selective basis some of the legal documents and forms pertaining to private preservation problems. [This need, is beginning to be met. Information about historic preservation ordinance provisions and suggested easement provisions has been published through the Preservation Law Reporter, the Handbook on Historic Preservation Law and the three-volume treatise Historic Preservation Law and Taxation. But model documents for tax structuring of complex preservation rehabilitation projects have still not been published.] Third, we need to commission some specific research and get out a couple of publications dealing with new preservation techniques. U ~:~TIO\.~LC'E\TEIi FON L'ltF.~IEH~'.~TIO\ L.~t~" [This recommendation has been meet often, though some preservation law issues have been explored in print far more completely than others.] Fourth, .somebody should take a look at the beneficial possibilities of amic:us curiae activity in selected preservation court cases. [Of all of the 5~tipe recommendations, this one has been met most fully, largely through the increasing role of the National Trust for Historic Preservation as an amicus curiae party in major cases with national significance.] Fifth, we need someone to keep careful tabs on new court decisions and to get the word out fast, not only to lawyers, but' also to the editors of certain publications on which many lawyers rely, such as; Zoning Direct. [This need is being met through both the Preservation Law Reporter and "'Preservation Law Updates."] Sixth, we need to write up and publish case histories on selected legal problems. [This recommendation has not been met except in rare instances'. One purpose of the developing Preservation Law ' Collection at th.e University of Virginia Law School Library is to make such case histories possible.] • Seventh, we need to generate considerably more activity in the general area of legislative drafting, whether for landmarks legislation, historic districts, easements, tax relief and abatement, archaeological site protection, state Section 106 approaches and so on. [Since 1980, many states have generated new preservation legislation, ofi~en resulting from task force reports or other special studies of gaps in existing state legislation.] Eighth, a few of us professors could use some help in gathering and preparing materials for law school and other graduate courses in historic preservation law. [Unfortunately, each law professor who teaches a preservation la~~r seminar still creates his or her own teaching materials. There is no adequate text for use in a legal seminar, though publications such as the Handbook on Historic Preservation Law are useful as an introduction to basic issues in preservation law.] (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "'Update.') NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LA~V 1233 20TH STREET, N.~, • SUITE 601 • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20039 PEE•IDENT T•ERSH BOASBERG. E50• PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-45 • (202) 828-9911 Exscorrva Dlrsacrors STEPHEN ~l. DENN(S. ESG. December 4, 1988 South Carolina Court Upholds Challenged Parking Variance A trial court judge in Charleston, South Carolina has affirmed in Historic Charleston Foundation v. Krawcheck (No. 88- CP-10-2090, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, decided October 24, 1988) a decision by the city's Board of Adjustment to grant a parking variance to Lat Purser, a developer who plans to construct a large mixed-use project in the city's historic district. As now planned, the project will consist of 30,747 square feet of retail space and 33,800 square feet of office space. The city's Board of Architectural Review had already approved the project, originally planned to be even larger. • Current parking requirements in Charleston would call for 267 spaces in connection with the project approved by the Board of Architectural Review, 154 spaces for the retail portion of the project and 113 spaces for the office portion of the project. But when the project came before the Hoard of Adjustment on the request for a parking variance, the Board of Architectural Review had not yet considered the project, and the project had 'not yet been reduced in size. (The project would originally have required 346 parking spaces.) The Board of Adjustment granted a partial parking variance (from the 154 spaces needed for the retail portion of the project) conditioned on the developer's leasing for ten years 150 parking spaces for the retail component of the project in "'a private parking garage to be built contemporaneously with [the] project." The variance also required that the lease be "tied to the financing and ultimate construction of the parking facility."' The site is located near the city's historic Market Hall, and consists of two parcels which will be merged. A pre-Civil War building on one parcel will be restored, and a former gas station on the other parcel will be demolished for construction of the new structure, which will extend behind the ante-bellum structure. Historic Charleston Foundation had argued that granting of the variance was illegal for several reasons: (1) it violated the criteria• for granting variances- contained in the g city's zoning ordinance; (2) the variance did not comply with • YATIO~TALCE~fTEIt FOR PI2EEiEIdVaTiO\ L.~-w guidelines used in granting other variances; and (3) the variance would permit a development project that would result in harm to • the Old and ~.iistoric District. Historic Charleston asserted in its brief that it had standing to bring the case because: The variance, which relieves I~at Purser from providing 196 [sic] parking spaces ordinarily required by the Zoning Ordinances for the amount of retail and office space L~at Purser plans to develop, will detract from the quality of life in the historic district. The combined effect of the development project and .the variance will be to attract more people into the historic district without providing adequate parking. Inevitably, increased traffic and crowding in this already congesteci area of the City and a further exacerbation- of t:he current parking problem will affect those who presenltly live in the historic district. A resident has an interest in preserving the safety and quality of life in the area surrounding his home. When this interest is affected by a decision of the Board of Adjustment, the :resident has "a personal stake in the controversy" sufficient to confer upon him standing to sue. Historic Charlesta~n argued that the developer was unable 'to prove a legitimate need for a variance which had been improperly granted: The presentation lbefore the Board and the proposed • plans for the bui:ding show that construction will be from lot line to lot line and will totally surround the Madren building, which :is the building to be restored on the property. Clearly, any disadvantage that the property suffers has been created by L,at Purser in its design and plan to "'fill up"' the entire lot with a newly constructed building. Lat Purser pitched its entire case on the fact that the land was so expensive that it would have to build a large b~uildinq in order to make the project financially feasible. In support of I~at Purser's argument for the variance, it used tactics to intimidate the Board by saying ghat if you don't let us build this big building and have tenants such as Brooks Brothers and Mark Cross, then you will be left with T-Shirt companies. Historic Charleston argued that the Board of Adjustment could not grant a variance for a "'self-imposed" hardship: The Board may q~rant a variance only if the following requirements are met: the particular property suffers singular disadvantage because of its size, shape or other physical condition; the owner is unable to make reasonable use of the affected property; the disadvantage does not exist because of conditions created-by-the owner; and the grant will not be contrary to the public interest. e \AT[O\ALCE\TER FOR PRESER~'ATIOY LAN' The court found that "[t]he Board did consider the physical condition of the site in the context of its size, shape, and • location at tan intersection which is very busy with pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and very important to the community, from a use and design standpoint. Testimony established that the site is at an intersection which makes automobile access to it difficult at best, if not outright dangerous, a condition which would be exacerbated by more vehicles trying to utilize the premises for parking." Though the court does not say so explicitly in its opinion, apparently the location of the project site in a historic district was considered less important than the difficulty of adding parking at an atypical intersection: Testimony and site plans concerning various options which would .have provided some on-site. parking were proffered to, and considered by, the Board. Uncontradicted testimony established that on-site parking would have only compromised the integrity and quality of the project, as well as its safety;. moreover, the Board opined that some variance would be required for a meaningful use of the site, regardless of what was to be put there. The court stated in its opinion that dissatisfaction with the planned size of the project should have been expressed to the Board of Architectural Review and was not properly before the Board of Adjustment: • The Petitioner's allegation that the variance will result in a development project too massive for the Old and Historic District is also misplaced. The scale, massing or size of the project, what it is to look like and how it blends with surrounding properties, are matters to be considered by the City's Board of Architectural Review, not its Board of Adjustment. In fact, in its review of the project, the Board of Architectural Review did reduce the size of the project. Before the Hoard of Adjustment was whether or not the variance, as requested, was warranted. The court noted that under South Carolina law it could not reverse a decision by a municipal board "except in cases of an abuse of discretion": [T]he Board of Adjustment acted neither arbitrarily, illegally nor in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by statute. [T]he Board considered all facts before it wrestled with the conflicts, and utilized lawful discretion in arriving at a decision which reasonably and effectively balances real, but competing public interests. (A subscription to the "'Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00•: Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") • 7~ i Main Street News RE~ryEp ~ E ~ 2 8 1988 PANNING DEPT. i» 1 1 I,, ~~ ' r~ Na.kr 41 NoYenh~ Deceeber 198( U Z g a Now ~e Certified local 6ouernment Program Works Patricia L. Pazker A certified local government ~CLG) is the local link in the his- toric preservation program es- tablished by the National His- toric Preservation Act of 1966. The act created a nationwide program of financial and techni- cal assistance to preserve prop- enies important to the historic and cultural life of the nation. Among other provisions, the 1966 ac:t: ^ authorized the Secretary of the Interior to expand and main- tain aNational Register of dis- tricts, ;sites, buildings, struc- tures acid objects of local, state and national significance and to grant funds for states to use in conducting comprehensive statewide historic surveys and preparing statewide plans for historic preservation ^ established the Historic Pres- ervation Fund, which provides matching grants to states for the preservation, acquisition and development of National Regis- ter properties In 1980, the act was amended to strengthen the role of state and local historic preservation programs by requiring the gover- nor of each state to appoint a state historic preservation offi- In Kansas City, fNo., one of 10 CLGs in that state, the Landmarks Commission is developing a plan to protect the area surrounding Country Club Plaza, a privately owned shopping center built by J.C. Nichols in the 1920s. tr 1 U .1' ~~ National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ii - ~ • ~~ i CLGs are roncerned with protecting all icings of property, ranging from iate .?th-century commercial ~uciCings sacs as :yesa in :dOr~alD7ln, i3x. 'a distinctive -eaional rc~itecmre such ~s ;yis P,aiiarate building •rrith Frencn influence n ~atcnez. ;Hiss: ter (SHPO~; specifying the SHPO's duties; and establishing standards for statewide preser- vation programs. The amend- ments also created the Certified Local Government CLG) pro- gram to allow communities to participate duectly in the na- tional historic preservation program. Almost 450 communities across the nation have elected to become CLGs. They include large counties, small and medi- um-sized cities, old cities and modem planned communities. CLGs are concerned with pro- tecting historic properties of all kinds-ethnic neighborhoods, eaazly 20th-century commercial buildings, parks, shipwrecks in a harbor, a group of farms in their coral landscape, a prehistoric In- dian village or the archeological remains of an early traders' fort. ow CL6s Are Linked to the National Program Authority for establish- ing federal regulations and poli- cy guidance for administering the CLG program rests with the Secretary of the Interior who has delegated these responsibilities to the National Park Service. Ev- ery state has developed proce- duresand regulations for admin- istering the CLG program. Since these regulations reflect how the SHPO thinks the program will best work in that state, they tend to vary widely. A CLG in Wyoming most likely will be quite different from one in Rhode Island or Florida. Once certified as a CLG, a community becomes eligible for grants from the Historic Preser- vation Fund. At least 10 percent of the state's annual grant from the fund must be passed on to CLGs. In addition to receiving grants, CLGs become part of a national technical assistance network. They receive publica- u..•...~~ '-l.t;n . i;~c: ~:cnter, i,iauunai ::u~t .~,r Hisu,nc Prc,cnatum tions issued by their state histor- ic preservation office and by the National Park Service and at- tendconferences and workshops designed especially for them by their state historic preservation office. hat CL6s Are Required to Do The National Pres- ervationAct and the itnplementing regu- lations require each CLG to es- tablish ahistoric review com- mission whose members must meet basic requirements of ex- perience and training estab- lished by the National Park Ser- vice. CLGs are also required to maintain a system for identify- ing historic properties, to pro- vide for adequate public partici- pation in their historic preserva- tion activities and to enforce ap- propriate state and local legisla- tion for the designation and pro- tection of historic properties. Some states include addition- al requirements in their CLG procedures, and any CLG or state can include additional .pro- visions in their certification agreement. 'Typically, agreements provide for: ^ regular interaction between the state historic preservation office and the CLG ^ requirements for staff exper- tise and training ^ use of particular survey techniques ^ CLG participation in state historic preservation office tasks such as the nomination of properties to the National Regis- ter of Historic Places The financial and technical assistance available to CLGs can support a wide range of historic preservation activities, which in turn can be important catalysts for downtown revitalization. Various CLGs have used their grants and technical assistance to: ^ conduct surveys of historic buildings and districts in their downtown areas ^ develop comprehensive local historic preservation plans or add historic preservation ele- r- ~~ merits to overall community de- velopment plans ^ establish and enforce local or- dinancesproviding for design re- view and other historic preser- vation controls ^ establish and maintain tech- nical and financial assistance programs for owners of historic property ^ participate in the review of federal projects affecting histor- ic properties within their boundaries ^ educate the business commu- nity and other segments of the public about historic preservation ^ develop programs for the study, interpretation and preser- vation of individual buildings and properties oW Local ~, 6o~ernments Can ~ :apply for Cl6 status .s Procedures for applica- tion may vary somewhat from state to state; thus, a local gov- ernment interested in becoming a CLG should contact the SHPO and obtain the information nec- essary to prepare an application. In essence, application involves the negotiation of a certification agreement with the state histor- ic preservation office. This agreement specifies how the CLG and the state will relate to each other. Nationwide CLG re- quirements, which must be re- flected in certification agree- ments, are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at Title 36, Part 61.5 (36 CFR Sec. 61.5. For further information about the Certified Local Government Program, contact your local state historic preservation of- ficer or the National Park Ser- vice, Interagency Resources Di- vision, P.O. Box 37127, Washing- ton, D.C. 20012-7127. Patricia L. P~ri;er is the CLG Co- ~trdinator in the National Para: service irter~~ency 3esources Jiti~ision, 4Y'ashin~ton. ~.C. Now CLC Programs Vary From State to State Matt Hussmann When Congress established the CLG program in 1980, it created a broad framework for preserva- tion action at the local level and developed a source of funds for local preservation projects. Fur- ther, Congress allowed the states to customize the program, Albia is one of 28 CLGs as well. For example: ^ CLGs vary by size, from Bos- ton or Miami to Bonaparte, wa pop. 489j. ^ Most CLGs are establish by city government, but county governments are also eligible to i be certified. Idaho, for example, '~ has eight countywide CLGs; Io- wa, seven; and in Oregon, three of its seven CLGs are counties. ^ The level of preservation ex- pertise available to the CLG var- ies according to the size of the community and its sensitivity to preservation issues. The CLG program makes allowances for CLGs in Iowa. ;;~ fi ; 7 ~ ~` R~F-~ ' which has the ' °-, ~_~ ~~ ~ " ~ '~~ second largest ; ~ ~ number in the . , , ~`~~" country. Utah has ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~: the most, with 34. ~ ._ rk n' ..... ,.__..... S yr `~ ~I,., ~_~ _ ,. ~ - ...... _ 6~oe ~ ~r~ ~_ _..~ ~ thereby creating a flexible and effective tool that could be tai- lored to meet each state's goals. As administrators of the CLGs, states view their roles in different ways. Some view the CLG program as a way to estab- lish astatewide preservation network. Some emphasize edu- cation and training, and some states see the program as a way for commtuuties to achieve sig- nificant preservation results. Other states are interested in the CLG program as a mechanism by which local governments demonstrate their commitment to preservation as a matter of policy. In each of these cases, the state is using the CLG program to further its preservation objectives. Variety is the most salient characteristic among individual these differences. ^ State requirements vary. For example, some states, such as North Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia, require that CLGs be given design review authority in historic districts; others do not. ^ The CLG grant process varies. Many states-Iowa, Florida, North Carolina and California are a few examples-award grants competitively; some, such as Utah and Louisiana, award grants to all of their CLGs. ^ The number of CLGs in each state varies widely, from Utah, with 34, to Hawaii, which has 1 CLG. There are, of course, s~ common characteristics among CLGs. Any local government can become certified by enact- ing alocal preservation ordi- • • CIGs range in size from the very large such as !liami znd Boston. to tiny hamlets like Bonaparte. Iowa. aoo. X89 !n ~laldosta. Ga.. ?+1ain Street antl the CLG urogram are ;vorxing in ~artner~nip io areserve dowrttcwn s arcr,itecmre antl restore its vitality. ~;r~~nnm'~~ua,ia, '-: ~~~~~~~ ,~~:~ , Hance that establishes a historic preservation commission and sets forth its duties in compli- ance with state regulations. Once certified, the local govern- ment is eligible to receive small matching grants through the SHPO. The availability of CLG grants is an incentive for local governments to become certi- fied. These grants have been used for a variety of projects. ow CLC Grants ire tJse~ x ~ _ One major type of grant is for intensive or recon- • ° naissance surveys of historic resources in the CLG's jurisdiction. These surveys of- ten lead to a district or multiple property nomination to the Na- tional Register of Historic Places. In many states, preservation planning is encouraged through grant activity. Preservation plans have taken the form of in- dividual documents, or they have been written as preserva- tion components of comprehen- sive community plans. Grants have also been awarded to fund reseazch of community histo- ries. In some cases, cities have received grants to update sur- veys; in Florida, for instance, two CLGs, Gainesville and Dade County, have been awazd- ed grants to computerize their survey files. And in Iowa, several counties aze using CLG grants to fund a review of azcheological resources. The need for public education about preservation issues is re- ceiving special emphasis in many states. Several CLG grants have been awazded to produce brochures or walking tours that highlight the significant azchi- tecture in a district. Enid, Okla., has prepared an educational manual for use in the fourth and fifth grades, while Dalton, Caz- rollton and Fitzgerald, Ga., have produced educational videos. Several CLGs have also used grant monies to fund preserva- tion libraries. The members of local historic preservation commissions have an important role in the CLG program, especially when they have design review authority. In California, for example, grant funds are being used to send at least one person from each CLG to statewide workshops. In Vir- ginia aad Florida, CLG grants have been used to prepaze writ- ten design review guidelines for historic districts. Some projects completed with the help of CLG grants are diffi- cult to categorize. In Anadazko, Okla., for instance, a CLG grant was used to restore a 1939 movie of the downtown, which was discovered in a local museum. The film was cleazly a historic resource that required protec- tion. In Valdosta, Ga., CLG grants have been used to re- search the feasibility of a bed and breakfast and other tourism issues. In Utah, CLG funds have been used for a revolving loan ~.. ::.i.....~.. .rrc_: _.:c_-.:;.icr~~nai :.:>c :.. ;ii,n~r:: !`rr>,r:auun fund to encourage revitalization activities, for an incentive grant program and for a neighborhood newsletter. In Franklin, La., or- namental lighting was restored throughout the downtown. The city also developed a downtown promotional campaign that has been used as a model throughout the state. ow iVlain street and the Cl6 grogram € Can a~lorh aogether The Main Street and CLG programs can work togeth- er as paztners. In a community with both, Main Street provides an on-site staff person, access to preservation information and, in some cases, state-sponsored de- sign assistance. The project manager is also usually able to work with the commission to develop grant proposals and to promote historic preservation in the community. The CLG generally has the de- sign review authority in desig- nated local historic districts. This authority can be a real asset in carrying out the design com- ponent of the Main Street four- point approach. Asa preserva- tion planner from Valdosta, Ga., puts it: "The Main Street effort works very well when you are dealing with local individuals who are interested in doing something to benefit Valdosta, but when you have developers who are not sensitive to local concerns, the Main Street ap- proach is not as effective. For that reason, we are really lucky to have some teeth in our at- tempts at downtown revitaliza- tion since the ordinance and the commission are able to back up the plans of the Main Street manager." wl:i[Z'~115a1T1t111I1 la a GZ::Sr:~iil ~~- ~ociste with the Natiurai `I::iu street Center. torment. ~i• szrved 15 .iIa1R J[Il'et protect manaLer in tirinneil. Iowa, arlu muniti~s :ze %_~t::;. Dick Rump, iett, receives an award recognizing ;lain ~fre~! Fort 'Aadicc~ ~usiress recruitment efforts from Governor Terry Branstad. i;ee~uitin a deeded usinesa ~o ~or~ iViadiaon, Iowa Vicki Bird Historically, in Fort Madison, Io wa, all downtown cotnmerci development efforts have bee in response to crises. ']['he mos recent one occurred in 1977 when the J.C. Penney buildin caught fire. This happe;ned dur- ing the time that Peru~~ey's was pulling out of downtowns in small communities across the country. Hence, the store did not reopen. Within the next two years one of two movie theaters in down- town Fort Madison closed (the other one eventually closed, too). The Western Auto and Gambles stores soon followed, leaving ominous gaps in the re- tailing community. In response, the Commercial Development Corporation CDC), a group cre- ated by the city and chaznber of commerce, took steps toy try to halt the domino effect that the J.C. Penney closing seemed to be having on our downtown.. CDC hired a planning and engineering firm to study the situation, sug- gest acourse of action and de- sign aplan. In 1981, the firm pre- sented the Fort Madison River- front Business District Revitali- zation Program. This plan out- lined needed public improve- ments and suggested that the city purchase, redevelop, lease and manage a number of down- town buildings. The CDC assumed the lead in promoting the program-which was similar to the Main Street four-point approach-to the community and ultimately took responsibility for implementing the program. Although CDC was not equipped to handle the day-to-day management of a comprehensive program, it did al have the capability to speazhead n afund-raising effort to acquire t the properties. Therefore, the fo- cus of the revitalization plan g shifted to its physical, rather than organizational, end product. And, so, the CDC successfully promoted the passage of a self- supporting municipal improve- . went district (SSMID). This spe- cial taxing district would be in effect for five years, raising ap- proximately $380,000 to help pay for downtown development projects. The city of Fort Madi- son would administer the SSMID funds and the deeds to the properties acquired with the money would be in the city's name. The CDC acted on behalf of the SSMID by advising the ~ city in the administration of the funds. ain Street Assesses the Market _~ Main Street Fort Madison was organized in April 1986, just as CDC was actively acquiring the downtown proper- ties that would be key to the re- vitalizationplan. With the Main Street program providing down- town management, everything was falling into place for CDC- but the costs of development were escalating beyond the level of funds the SSMID generated, and contacts with prospective tenants had not yet generated any interest in the project. At first, the Main Street project worked with CDC by providing market data it had accumulated about downtown. After Main Street Fort Madison had estab- lishedsome credibility and it be- came evident that the proposed development plan needed redi- rection, Main Street Fort Madi- son and CDC became partners. As CDC prepared and con- ducted alast-ditch effort to raise the additional capital it would need to proceed with its rede~ opment plan, Main Street Madison's economic restructur- ing committee was conducting business and consumer surveys. The information gathered was used to identify potential new or alternative uses for the build- ings purchased with SSMID funds. A preliminary market analy- sis determined that Fort Madi- son was losing around $4.5 mil- lion in sales of general merchan- dise every year. The survey re- sults were used to help us inter- pret what this leakage meant and how downtown should re- act. More than 50 percent of those responding in a telephone survey of area consumers were between the ages of 35 and 64, and 65 percent reported house- hold incomes below $25,000. Nearly 50 percent of the respon- dents said that they come down- town one to two times a week to run errands but, conversely, 56 percent come downtown to sh only once a month or less. result of a downtown shopper survey yielded similar results. This indicated a consumer group that regularly visits down- town but may not be spending their available dollars on goods there. We also used the surveys to de- velop a consumer wish-list based on responses to a question asking what types of businesses they would like to see more of. A look at our existing business mix confirmed what the com- mittee suspected: that while our potential market was largely a lower- to middle-income one, most retail businesses catered to customers in the middle- to up- per-income brackets with goods priced at the middle to high end. After examining all available in- formation, the economic re- structuring committee took a leap of faith and determined that a priority for recruitment and expansion in the general mer chandise category would be low-end variety store that car- ries clothing and basic house- hold goods. The Main Street of- 5 o~'" ~ ,~" ~'~ ~ ~ PE~~ §~ 4 /;WL I! .• ~ i. ~, .+'`~ The new Dollar General store provides much needed general merchandise to fort Madison's shoppers. Main Street Fort Madison's business recruitment package helped clinch the deal with Dollar General. fice disseminated this informa- tion to the CDC, chamber of commerce, city officials and the city council. All these organiza- tions seemed to accept our con- clusions with approval. be Makings of a Desirable Business Soon thereafter, the Co- - hen Development Com- pany asked our chamber of commerce about available re- tail locations in Fort Madison for a client. The call was referred to the Main Street office since we had ab:eady completed a de- tailed building inventory for the downtown. We responded quickly with a business recruit- ment package that included specifications and pictures of lo- cations that fit the developer's general requirements. The pack- age also included a fact sheet with demographics, community information and diagrams show- ing the location of the available buildings and uses of the sur- rounding properties. Cohen Development, which had not yet revealed the name of its client, sent an agent fora pre- liminary site visit after receiv- ing our information. During the visit, the agent discussed his client's needs, the gener- al lease requirements and anticipated building im- provements. The client was Dollar General Stores, aKentucky- baseddiscount retail operation with ap- proximately 1,300 stores nationally. At the end of the site visit Cohen's agent said he would rec- ommend that Dollar General representatives come to For Madison to make a decisio concerning the location. Dollaz General Stores fit th basic description of the type o business Main Street Fort Madi son felt would be desirable; how ever, there were more specifi criteria concerning retailin standards, image of the store an advertising practices that need- ed to be met. We arranged for several representatives to visit neazby Dollar General locations to assess them and look for con- sistency. We also wanted to be assured that the company was fi- nancially stable and had a good possibility of remaining in the community for a-long time. We used the resources of our local utility company to obtain pub- lished information concerning Dollaz General's credit ratings, sales volumes and multiyear fi- nancialstatements. Dollar Gen- eral checked out well against our criteria. easing to Dollar General Dollaz General then di- rected Cohen Develop- ment to pursue a lease with us. The building that they wanted was one that had been purchased by CDC with SSMID revenue. With the assistance of the Main Street design commit- tee chairman, we estimated the costs of the necessary leasehold improvements and did a pro for- maanalysis. It appeazed that the lease would generate a positive cash flow for CDC in the first year. Main Street Fort Madison rec- ommended that CDC lease the building to Dollar General. The process became very complicat- ed atthis point because of the in- volvement of the city and nu- merous organizations and indi- viduals. While all the details concerning who could make the decision to enter into a lease, who would contract for the ren- ovation and how it would be fi- nanced were being sorted out, the Main Street office acted as li- aison between the olevelopment company and the city. It was critical that the necessary az- Var.,m~i '.t,:; ; ~..,~_. _cn!~r. Ivacumai TfL'st n;r Hiscunc Pmsen•anu,^^. rangements be completed with- t in a short period of time and, n without Main Street's persis- tence and coordination, I am e convinced that a lease agree- f ment would not have been accomplished. The building improvements c that Dollar General needed were g simple. The building had been d vacant for approximately five years and had fallen into disre- pair. Anew roof and HVAC sys- tem were needed. Other interior work included the construction of a stockroom wall, putting the restmom in working order, lay- i ing new floor covering and paint- ing the walls and ceiling. Acon- veyor belt had to be installed be- tween the basement and main floor to move stock from the. lower to main level. During the initial building inspection, as- bestos was discovered in the ceiling. Removing the asbestos was the single most expensive item in the renovation. Before Dollar General took oc- ~~ cupancy, the Main Street office helped further by arranging util- ity hookups and telephone in- stallations. When they arrived, ~ Main Street was available to help in any way we could. Eight ~ months after the initial contact, Main Street Fort Madison coor- dinated aribbon-cutting cere- ~i mony for the new 5,500 square foot discount variety store. ~I Because of the role that the Main St*eet organization played in the recruitment of Dollaz Gen- eral and the process that we went through to identify the town's i needs, Main Street Fort Madison received an award from Gover- nor Terry E. Branstad for our ef- forts and accomplishments. Dollar General has been open four months and the local mana- ger reports that the store's sales volume has been considerably more than the corporate offices had planned. It seems that the ~ store is indeed satisfying a con- sumer demand as well as gene~- sting revenue for the self-sup- portingmunicipal improvement ~ district. Vicki Bird is project manage: ;or ~iiain Street tort .'~'Iaaison. - CIS .O O Main Street Project Managers Positions with Virginia's new round of Main Street cities will be available as of ;December 1988. Qualifications: Position re- quires education and/or experi- ence in planning, preservation, business, marketing, economic development, retailing, design or nonprofit adminiistration. Manager will be responsible for coordinating local Malin Street program- Send resume; by Dec. 31, 1988 to: State Coordinator Virginia Main Street Program 205 Nonh Fourth Street Richmond, VA 23219 Executive Director Kankakee Development Corpo- ration Kankakee, Ill.), a~ well-es- tablished, 25-yeaz-old organiza- tion with special service azea funding, is seeking an executive director. Duties will include: Planning and implementation of downtown development proj- ects integrating the Maim Street approach with our organization- al structure; and the dissemina- tion ofinformation about down- town activities and develop- ment initiatives. Qualifications: Experience in a Main Street program would be helpful. Salary commensurate with experience. Send resume and cover letter to: Kankakee Development Corpo- ration 150 North Schuyler Suite 1005 Kankakee, IL 60901 Main Street Project Manager The Jackson Downtown Devel- opment Corporation ~Ja~ckson, Tenn., pop. 50,000) is seeking an executive director for its ~recent- ly designated Main Street pro- gram. Responsibilities include coordinating downtown revital- ization activities and promo- tional events. Qualifications: Applicants should have experience in his- toric preservation, planning, re- tailing, mazketing, community development, economic devel- opment or small business devel- opment. The executive duector should also be enthusiastic and imaginative as well as possess excellent verbal and written communication skills. Stazting salary is $27,000 with benefits. Submit resume, cover letter and three references to: Mr. Ray Tanner c/o Jackson National Bank Jackson, TN 38302 Main Street Project Manager The Hooray for Harriman! Main Street Project (Harriman, Tenn., pop. 8,300 is seeking an execu- tive director for its recently des- ignated Main Street program. Duties include coordinating downtown revitalization activi- ties and promotional events. Qualifications: Applicants should have experience in one or more of the following: historic preservation, planning, retail- ing, mazketing, community de- velopment or small business de- velopment. The executive direc- tor should also be enthusiastic and imaginative as well as pos- sess excelle;ntverbaland written communication skills. Starting salary is $27,000 with benefits. Submit resume and cover letter plus three references to: Mrs. Gina Alexander Route 6, Box 732 Harriman, TN 37748 Downtown Development Director The community of Menasha, Wis., is looking for an individual to encourage economic develop- ment in the downtown azea and help-coordinatedowmown busi- ness activities. Menasha is lo- cated on the northwest comer of Lake Winnebago and has a strong economic base built lazgely azound the paper indus- try. The population of the city is just under 15,000. Qualifications: Applicants should have a degree in urban planning, communications or public administration. Prior ex- perience in urban planning or managing a downtown revitali- zation project could be substi- tutedfor adegree. Acontract for $20,000 a year plus an allowance for benefits and expenses is con- templated. It would be neeessa- ry for the individual to move to the Menasha area athis/her own expense. Send resume and ~r letter to: RECRUITER P.O. Box 489 Menasha, WI 54952 Job announcements should not exceed 200 words. Send job no- tices to: Editor, Main Street News National Main Street Center 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 ~Main~tr~~ Main Street News is publisheu by the National Main Street Network, a membership pro- gram of the National Main Street Center, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1'S= Massachusetts Avenue, N.~V, Washington, D.C. 20036 ,?0' 673-4219. J. Jackson Walter, President, Na- tional Trust for Histo~ Preservation Sally Oldham, Vice President c;f Programs and Services Bill Parrish, Director, Nativnai Main Street Center Kennedy Smith, Program ~'~1an- ager for Communication and Education Linda Glisson, Editor Suzanne Dane, Associate Editor The National Trust is the on-, national, private nonprofit or.s;::- nization chartered by Congress to encourage public participa- tion in the preservation of situ. buildings and objects significant in American history and culture. Support for the Nation- al Trust is provided by member- ship dues, endowment funs.,. contributions and matchin,s grants from federal agencies. in- cluding the U.S. Department ~~f . the Interior, National Park Ser- vice, under provisions of the National Historic Preservat:c:; Act of 1966. The opinions .:1~ pressed in this publication not necessarily reflect the ~: is°.~ or policies of the .nter:c ; Department. C~ .~ L f..1 National Town MeetlnB Offers Texas Main Street Tours Three exciting tours of Texas Main Street towns will take place during the 1989 National Town Meeting on Main Street, scheduled for February 27- Mazch 1, 1989 in Austin. Oa the last day of the conference, Na- tional Town Meeting registrants will have the oppominity to tour Georgetown and Lampasas; Brenham; or San Mazcos. Each tour will highlight a specific as- pect of the Main Street four- pointapproach. Tours leave Aus- tin at 11:45 a.m.; prices range from $2530. The tour to Lampasas and Georgetown will highlight de- sign and azchitecture. The tour will travel first to Lampasas, a Main Street city since 1984. Lampasas features a courthouse squaze with a collection of eazly commercial buildings con- structed of limestone. The tour will then visit Georgetown, a Main Street city from 1982- 1988. In addition to many fine stone and brick buildings, Georgetown has a half dozen metal-front buildings facing its courthouse squaze. Both towns will offer short slide presenta- tions showing what many of their buildings looked like be- fore rehabilitation. Also in- cluded will be walking tours featuring rehabilitated second- story residences, lunch and a reception. The tour will return to Austin at 7:00 p.m. The tour to Brenham will fo- cus on economic restructuring. Although Brenham has rehabili- tated more than 60 buildings since it became a Main' Street town in 1983, its most innova- tive activities have been in eco- nomic development. The Main Street manager position became the director of economic devel- opment and the office has evolved into a Small Business Development Center. While other cities have been out chas- ing smokestacks, Brenham has instituted a policy of taking caze of existing businesses, which in turn has helped the city attract new businesses. Lunch will be included. The tour will arrive back in Austin at 7:00 p.m. Starting in 1984, the San Maz- cos Main Street Project moved along slowly until it began stag- ing first-class promotions and events like "The Sounds and Sights of Christmas" and "Maz- di Gras." Once people rediscov- ered downtown, building reha- bilitations and new businesses followed. Pazticipants .will tour the downtown and see a slide show focusing on the planning and execution of large-scale pro- motions. Lunch will be includ- ed. The tour will return to Aus- tin at 5:00 p.m. Registration for the National Town Meeting on Main Street is $215 ($160 for Network mem- bers. A brochure has been mailed to all Network members. For further information, call the National Main Street Center (202673-4219. Natlonal Trust Publishes Landmark Study of Downtown Re~italiiation Projects The National Tlrust has just pub- lished Revitalizing Downtown 1976-1986, a major study of commercial revitalization proj- ects throughout the nation. Funded by a grant from the Eco- nomic Development Adminis- tration and conducted by the NMSC in association with the Urban Institute, the study ex- amines strategies used by more than 250 communities (pop. 2,500 to 500,000) to revitalize their central business districts. Using both sophisticated sta- tistical techniques and in-depth case studies, the report mea- sures the success of revitaliza- tion strategies on a four-point scale in 17 related categories. It finds one approach, the incre- mentalstrategy, to be successful in economically depressed or stable communities. Both the incremental strategy and a sec- ond approach, the catalyst strat- egy, proved successful in cities experiencing overall economic growth. Revitalizing Downtown 1976-1986 by Richard Wagner and Ted Miller is available from the National Main Street Cen- ter. The 188-page softbound book sells for $30 ($22.50 for Network members. National Main Street Center National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 ~~ 71[~~c34 ~Lt .1TCuN_i~==ITAGc C:iY ~r :f:F._T~G~ 1 ~•~ v v 1 V ~ ;~_ v - ~~ r . r _ •J A service of the National Park ServicE. DISTRIBUTED BY INTERAGENCY RESOURCES DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D. When Preservation Commissions Go To Court A Summary of Favorable Treatment of Challenges to Ordina9lnces and Commission Decisions Stephen N. Dennis Executive Director, National Center for Preservation Law July 1988 A recent study by the National Center for Preservation Law suggests that local preservat' commissions are becoming involved ila litigation much more frequently than had been previous thought. Seventeen percent (39 commissions) of the 222 preservation commissions responding to a National Center questionnaire stated that they had been involved in a court case within the ,r~ previous two years. This indicates that it is important for commissions and their staffs to know how commissions and local preservation ordinances have fared in court over the years. This issue of Local Preservation briefly summarizes and analyzes preservation commissions' participation in litigation. Historical Overvievlr of Preservation Commission Litigation When one looks back over the eva~lution of American law relating to local preservation commissions, several distinct periods can now be seen. The first of these, a period of early development, lasted from the enactment of the nation's first historic preservation ordinance in Charleston in 1931 until about 1955, when the Massachusetts legislature enacted two special bills creating and protecting historic districts on Beacon Hill. in Boston and on the Island of Nantucket. These two legislative bills set the stage for statewide enabling legislation for local preservation commissions in a growing number of states. The second of the periods showed a growth to maturity for local preservation commissions. This period lasted from 1955 until the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Penn Central case in 1978. During this period, many cases involving local preservation ordinances were decided, almost invariably in favor of a challen€;ed ordinance or a disputed commission decision. • The third period, which may still be underway, has been an aftermath to the Penn Central decision and lasted from 1978 until at least the early 1980s. During this period several important local preservation ordinances were strengthened, most notably those for the District of Columbia, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and Chicago. A strong decision on hardship under the District of Columbia ordinance helped make it clear that a loss in value because of landmarking will seldom be compensable. The current period is also one of perfecting commission procedures and challenging the regulation of properties owned by charitable (particularly religious) institutions. Cases involving these issues are characterized by: (1) careful attention to the demands of particular preservation ordinances (the search for procedural irregularity); and (2) a persistent questioning of whether non-profit organizations owning historic properties- should be subject to rules different from those applicable to owners of residential or commercial properties. Cases in the second category grow out of arguments by churches that religious properties should not be subject to larrdr~;rark designation ar~d c:or~se;quent regulation. No designation of property owned by a religious institution has yet been invalidated except on procedural grounds. The great majority of court decisions have upheld the basic power of communities to use the police power to designate and regulate both historic districts and individual landmarks. When commissions have lost in court, it has usually been because of a procedural flaw in a designation or a decision, not because of a court's determination that the commission could not have achieved its goal had it acted properly under a valid local preservation ordinance. Questions Addressed by the Courts • Since 1941, nearly 100 court decisions involving local preservation commissions have been reported as published decisions that can be researched in a large law library. In a summary such as this, it is impossible to include every such case. Those discussed have been selected to illustrate principles and directions in legal thinking with which commissions should be acquainted. Does designation of private property as "historic" and subsequent governmental regulation affecting the property constitute a "taking" of that property for which the governmental unit must ,pay? Some courts have suggested that in exceptional situations the impact of the designation of property as historic could be so economically severe as to amount to a "taking." (The term "taking" derives from a provision in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation.") Courts have yet to identify such situations, or to provide firm guidance to preservation commissions on such potential "hardship" situations. Under the Supreme Court's Penn Central decision and a District of Columbia decision discussed below, however, the judicial test for "hardship" would be quite difficult for most property owners to meet. Several state courts have defined "hardship" narrowly, holding, for instance, that an owner who is not willing to offer property for sale at its fair market value cannot establish a "hardship." The United States Supreme Court upheld in Penn Central Transportation v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), the designation of Grand Central Terminal in New York City and the subsequent • denial to the terminal's railroad owner of a permit sought for the demolition of portions of the structure for erection of a high-rise office building on the site. The Supreme Court stated: ., a- On this record, we conclude ghat the application of New York City's Landmarks Law not effected a "taking" of appellants' property. The restrictions imposed are substantia y related to the promotion of the general welfare and not only permit reasonable beneficial use of the landmark site but also afford appellants opportunities further to enhance not only the Terminal site proper but also other properties. This decision is cited frequently in historic preservation situations for the principle that an owner who can obtain a "reasonablE; return" or a "reasonable beneficial use" from his property does not have a valid "taking" argument. The Supreme Court included in ttie Penn Central decision useful language recognizing the permissible goals that American cities seek to implement through the enactment of local preservation ordinances: Over the past 50 years, all 5~0 States and over 500 municipalities have enacted laws to encourage or require the preservation of buildings and areas with historic or aesthetic importance. These nationHride legislative efforts have been precipitated by two concerns. The first is reca~gnition that, in recent years, large numbers of historic structures, landmarks, and ar~sas have been destroyed without adequate consideration of either the values represented therein or the possibility of preserving the destroyed properties for use in economically productive ways. The second is a widely shared belief that structures with special historic, cultural, or architectural significance enhance the quality of life for all. Not only do these buildings and their workmanship represent the lessons of the past and embody precious features of our heritage, they serve as examples of quality for today. (H)istoric: conservation is but one aspect of the much larger problem, basically an environmental one, of enhancing-or perhaps developing for the first tirr~ the quality of life for people." tVlore recent U. S. Supreme Court opinions involving the "taking" question have focused on the procedural issues of: (1) when an owner may make a "taking" argument ("ripeness" and "exhaustion of administrative remedies" cases); and (2) whether a property owner who can demonstrate a "temporary taking" is constitutionally entitled to seek money damages as a remedy for the taking. These cases have not changed the substantive standard for when there is a "taking," though, and thus pose no legal threat to local historic preservation programs. A highly publicized Supreme Court opinion of June 1987 on the "temporary taking" issue did not hold that there had in fact been a "taking" -in the fact situation before the court. Firs± English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 107 S.Ct.. 2378 (1987). First English did not change the Penn Central standard for when a "taking" has occurred but does stand for the principle that money damages as cornpensation would be constitutionally required in the unlikely event that a temporary regulatory "'taking" were found. Unfortunately, the implications of the case have been widely overstated t>y attorneys representing development interests. The case has been remanded to the California courts for a determination of whether any "taking" had in fact occurred. Another 198? Supreme Court decision, Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 107 S.Ct. 1232 (1987), is important because it reiterated the Penn Central principle that when an owner makes a "taking" claim, a. reviewing court must look at the owner's total interest in the property involved and should ignore the impact of a challenged regulation on individual components of the property: • 4 • Many zoning ordinances place limits on the property owner's right to make profitable use of some segments of his property.. ... When the coal that must remain beneath the ground is viewed in the context of any reasonable unit of petitioner's coal mining operations and -financialfiacked expectations, it is plain that the petitioners have not come close to satisfying their burden of proving that they have been denied the economically viable use of that property. It is important to bear in mind that in a few states it might be possible for an action which would not be a "taking" under the federal constitutional standard of Penn Central to be a "taking" under the tougher standard of a particular state constitution. This possibility points up the importance to preservation commissions of keeping an eye on land use decisions in their own States. Ls it constitutional to use the police power to reuealatc private property for an "aesthetic" purpose such as historic preservation? The most important decision on this issue is certainly that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Company v New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), in which the court noted that: (T)his Court has recognized, in a number land-use restrictions or controls to enhance and desirable aesthetic features of a city . . of settings, that States and cities may enact the quality of life by preserving the character See also A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E. 2d 444 (N. C. 1979): (We) find no difficulty in holding that the police power encompasses the right to control the exterior appearance of private property when the object of such control is the preservation of the State's legacy of historically significant structures. A Connecticut court stated in Fi~arsky v. Historic District Commission, 368 A. 2d 163 (Conn. 1976): In a number of recent cases, it has been held that the preservation of a historical area or landmark as it was in the past falls within the meaning of general welfare and, consequently, the police power.... We cannot deny that the preservation of an area or cluster of buildings with exceptional historical and architectural significance ma s the public welfare. • y erve May a local preservation commission regulate both historic and non-historic structures within a local historic district? In City of New Orleans v. Per~ament, 5 So. 2d 129 (La. 1941), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that the Vieux Carre ordinance had a perrnissible purpose: The purpose of the ordinance is not only to preserve the old buildings themselves, but to preserve the antiquity of the whole french and Spanish quarter, the tout ensemble, so to speak, by defending this relic against iconoclasm or vandalism. Preventing or prohibiting eyesores in such a lACality is within the police power and within the scope of this municipal ordinance. 5 - Pergament has been cited often by courts in other jurisdictions. • In Faulkner v. Town of Chestertov~ 428 A.2d 879 (Md. 1981) the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that: - (T)he whole concept of historic zoning "would be about as futile as shoveling smoke" if .. . because a building being demolished had no architectural or historical significance a historic district commission vvas powerless to prevent its demolition and the construction in its stead of a modernistic drive-in restaurant immediately adjacent to the State House in Annapolis. May a community deny altogether demolition permission when an owner wishes to demolish a building? Courts in several states have now upheld total denials of demolition permission for designated properties. In Maher v. City of Ne:w Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1975), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated: An ordinance forbidding the demolition of certain structures if it serves a permissible goal in an otherwise reasonable fashion, does not seem on its face constitutionally .distinguishable from ordinances regulating other aspects of land ownership, sucf~ as building height, set back or limitations on use. We conclude that the provision requiring a permit before demolition and the fact that in some cases permits may not be obtained does not alone make out a casE: of talcing. • For similar results, see also Mayor and Aldermen of City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 316 A.2d 807 (Md. 1974); Fi arsk v. Norwich Historic District Commission 368 A.2d 163 (Conn. 1976); First Presbyterian urc v. ity ounce o ity o or , .2d 257 (Penn. 1976); Lafa ette Park Ba test Church v. Board of Adjustment of City of St. Louis (No. 782-3445, St. Louis City ir. Ct., May 3, 1979 . In the Fi arsk case from Connecticut, the court stated: Whether the denial of the plaintiffs' application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish their building has rendered the Norwich ordinance, as applied to them, confiscatory, must be determined in the light of their particular circumstances as they have been shown to exist.... In regulating the use of land under the police- power, the maximum possible enrichment of a particular landowner is not a controlling purpose. May a preservation commission reviE:w all exterior alterations to a structure or must it confine its jurisdiction to those exterior facades visible from public streets? Commissions do not all have the same power on this issue. An early New Orleans decision, City of New Orleans v. Impastato, 3 So. 2d 559 (La. 1941), established the principle that in New Orleans the Vieux Carre Commission may regulate all changes to the exterior facades of buildings within its jurisdiction: The word "exterior" as used in the Constitution cannot be limited to include only the front portion of the building as contended for by defendant's counsel Such a strained interpretation of the language employed in the constitutional amendment would merely serve to defeat the .obvious intention of the people ... by rendering it impossible for the Commission to preserve the architectural design of the sides, rear and roof of any building in the Vieux Carre section." Unless a commission is precluded by local ordinance or state enabling legislation from reviewing all changes to the exterior of a structure, the commission may assume that its jurisdiction is total rather than partial ~. Are religious properties immune from designation and regulation? Religious institution: often argue that the constitutior:ally-mandated separation between church and state precludes the designation and regulation of properties owned by such institutions. However, these arguments have not been successful in the courts. See, in particular, Societ for Ethical Culture in the City of New York v. Spatt, 415 N.E.2d 922 (N. Y. 1980): The Society also contends that the existence of the designation interferes with the free excercise of its religious activities; however, rather than argue its desire to modify the structure to accomodate these religious activities, the Society has suggested that it is improper to restrict its ability to develop the property to permit rental to non-religious tenants....Although the Society is concededly entitled to First Amendment protection as a religious organization, this does not entitle it to immunity from reasonable government • regulation when it acts in purely secular matters..» In a recent interim ruling in Rectors Wardens and Members of Vestr of St. Bartholomew's Church v. Cit of New York , No. 86 Civ. 2848 JES , .S. istrict ourt or outhern District o New York, transcript o~~July 10, 1987 conference with District Judge John E. Sprizzo), a federal judge stated: Under no stretch of the imagination is it clear to the Court that St. Bart's is entitled to the relief which they are seeking here, which is the right to demolish the building and construct a skyscraper, even assuming arguendo that this is a taking- and I have found that it is not a taking as a matter of law. It doesn't follow that you would have the right to demolish the building and construct a skyscraper, because I think at that point, if it were a taking, the state would be entitled to condemn it for its own purposes if the state thought that the preservation of the landmark was significant enough a state interest to warrant that action. They would then have to pay you for the property. But it wouldn't follow that you would have the right, which I think seems to be at least the assumption in your papers, to demolish the building and develop it into a skyscraper. I think the city would then have the choice of paying you what it is worth or designating it, in effect. Are minimum maintenance provisions which require owners to take steps to prevent gradual deterioration of their buildings permissible in local preservation ordinances? In Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1975), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that: !' 7 (O}nce it has been determinecl that the purpose of the Vieux Carre legislation is a pro one, upkeep of the buildings appears reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the goals of the ordinance... The fact that an owner may incidentally be required to make outrof-pocket expenditures in order to remain in compliance with an ordinance does not per se render that ordinance a taking. In the interest of safety,. it would seem that an ordinance might reasonably require buildings to have fire sprinklers or to provide emergency facilities for exits and light. In pursuit of health, provisions for plumbing or sewage disposal might be demanded. Compliance could well require owners to spend money. Yet, if the purpose be legitimate and the means reasonable consistent with the objective, the ordinance can withstand a frontal attack of invalidity. Does a local preservation commission have the authority to regulate property owned by a county or state? In Mayor and Aldermen of City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 316 A.2d 80? (Md. 1974), a Maryland court held that a local historic preservation commission had jurisdiction over a county-owned structure and could refuse to issue a demolition permit: (T)o accomplish the primary purposes of historic area zoning, it is necessary that the exterior of the building having historic or architectural value be preserved against destruction or substantial impairment by every one, whether a private citizen or a governmental body. The power of a local preservation commission to regulate county-owned property may vary fro state to state. A still more difficult question is whether a local historic preservation commission may regulate state-owned property. The answer to this question is far less certain, though courts in both Washington and New Mexico have suggested that it is not an impossible power for a local commission to have. State of Washir~ton v. City of Seattle, 615 P.2d 461 (jllash. 1980); Cit of Santa Fe v. Armijo, 634 P.2d 685 (N.fvi. 1981). May a vacant lot be included within a: local historic district? See A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E.2d 444 (N. C. 1979), for a case upholding inclusion of a vacant lot on the edge of a historic district. How can a commission respond to an owner who makes a "hardship° argument? A District of Columbia court stated in 900 G Street Associates v. De artment of Housin and Community Development, 430 A.2d 1387 1981 I~ U G 8 • The basic question presented in this case is: at what juncture does the diminishment in value allegedly resulting from the governmental restriction on the use of property . constitute an "unreasonable economic hardship" to the owner, which is here synonymous with an unconstitutional "taking"? ... (I)f there is a reasonable alternative economic use for the property after the imposition of the restriction on that property, there is no taking, and hence no unreasonable economic hardship to the owners, no matter how diminished the property may be in cash value and no matter if "higher" or "more beneficial" uses of the property have Seen proscribed What about the owner who ignores or is unaware of the preservation commission? ~ Not infrequently, an owner will attempt to argue that he was unaware that his property was located in a historic district or will simply ignore the terms of a certificate of appropriateness. Cases in both -Vlaryland 'and 'Qassachusetts indicate that courts will take an extremely unsympathetic attitude toward such violations of a local .historic preservation program. In Faulkner v. Town of Chestertown 428 A.2d 879 (Md. 1981), a property owner applied for a permit to install vinyl siding and obtained a permit which specified "no trim to be covered." The owner proceeded to cover four second-story windows on the front of his building. The court upheld a lower court order that tl~e siding should be removed from the windows: In plain language what the ordinance and the Act are saying is that if one proposes to do anything to a building within a historic district which will involve changes to the exterior appearance of the structure visible from a street or alley in the district, then one must obtain a permit. That is so plain we see no reason why people of ordinary intelligence would be unable to comprehend the meaning of the Act~and the ordinance. In a more recent 'Massachusetts trial court opinion, Chase F. Parker, Trustee v. Beacon Hill Architectural Commission (No. 80370, Suffolk County Sup error Court, decided June 21, 1988), a court oun tat: (T)he facade of 31 Grimmer Street stands in violation of the Beacon Hill Act, with respect to included features which are not specified in the approved plans, and with respect to features specified in the approved plans which have been omitted from the facade. The court ordered an owner who had added an extra floor to his building after permission to do so had been repeatedly denied by the Beacon Hill preservation commission to correct all outstanding violations ...and further orders that all construction involving the facade of 31 Brimmer Street be done in accordance with the Commission's decision.... Will a Decision From Another State Convince a Court in Our State? It is important to remember that historic preservation litigation has not occurred in all states, and that in some states the preservation cases which have been decided have not involved local preservation ordinances. For this reason, a commission in a state with no court decisions in cases involving commissions should not assume that decisions from other states are automatically applicable. C~ 9 - Despite this caveat, the strong body of established precedents makes it unlikely that any co would find local historic preservation ordinances entirely impermissible in a particular sta~ though an ordinance not in confor:rnity with state enabling legislation would be subject to challenge. - Some Practical Suggestions Because the number of court decisions involving local preservation commissions is continuing to grow, a preservation commission should work with staff in the city attorney's office to create a local file of court decisions involving the powers of preservation commissions. Such a file can be helpful to commission members. and may save city legal staff valuable time should a challenge to the commission's power ever be made in court. The chairman of a local preservation commission should try to become generally familiar with the principles argued and decided in these cases, and may want to bring this information to the attention of the local municipal attorney who works with the preservation commission. Some commissions distribute to commission members notebooks with pertinent materials such as copies of the local preservation ordinance, the state enabling legislation under which it was adopted and even copies of cow~t decisions in the state involving local preservation commissions. This information can clo much to reassure preservation commission members that their goals are valid so long as their actions are correct. New commission members, in particular, need to develop quickly a basic understanding of the broad issues which have been argued and decided in these cases. Some Responsible Preservation Commissions Never Go to Court It is important to note that most of the law involving local preservation commissions has been made in a handful of major cities such as New York, New Orleans and Boston. Curiously, and perhaps significantly, Charleston's Board of Architectural Review (BAR), the county's oldest preservation commission, has never made a decision that was appealed into court and resulted in a "reported" appellate court decision. Occasionally a decision has been appealed from this commission into a local trial court, but there is still no appellate court opinion in South Carolina involving a local preservation commission. This situation may be a tribute to tlhe ability of the Charleston BAR to resolve controversial issues in a responsible manner or simply a recognition by local property owners that even when they remain personally unsatisfied by a decision of the BAR, community support for the BAR is strong. a 10 Where to Look for Help If Your Commission TS Challenged In Court A number of national preservation organizations are actively monitoring court cases involving historic preservation issues. The Office of General Counsel at the National Trust for Historic Preservation maintains extensive litigation files of cases which have involved local preservation commissions. The Trust's regional and field offices are often able to put commission representatives in touch with other commissions which have dealt successfully with a particular problem. The Trust's Preservation Law Reporter (1982-present) contains a variety of case summaries, articles, and new development reports that are useful for local commissions seeking guidance in the legal area. For further information, contact: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 (~02) 673-4000 'The National Center for Preservation Law issues a series of frequent newsletters called the Preservation Law Update" which summarize court decisions involving local preservation commissions and announce significant new publications in the area of preservation law. The National Center is working with the University of Virginia Law School Library on the creation of a comprehensive national Preservation Law Collection which will include copies of hundreds of local preservation ordinances and court papers which have been filed in cases involving local preservation commissions. National Center for Preservation Law 1233 Twentieth Street, N. W. Suite #501 iashington, D. C. 20036 (202) 828-9611 The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions distributes information on the work of preservation commissions. The Alliance Review newsletter is available by subscription. For further information, contact: The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions School of Environmental Design 609 Caldwell Hall University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 i ;~~. 11 For Further Information: * Historic Preservation Law and Taxation. Boasberg, Coughlin, ~ Miller, Matthew Bender, 1980. * A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law, The Conservation Foundation and National ~ Center or Preservation Law, 1983. * Federal Historic Pr Historic Preservatic address. vation Case Law: A Special Report. Advisory Council on 1985. Available from the Advisory Council at the above I~ ~: _~ CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 7, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes of 11/16/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. OLD BUSINESS A. Heritage Preservation Ordinance Revisions B. Redwood tree at Marsh-Metzger property C. Approval of CLG application III. NEW BUSINESS A. Review subdivision application for 20600 Lomita Avenue (Hannah McCarty House - on Heritage Resource Inventory) B. CDBG Project Proposal Solicitation - FY89-90 C. Topics for discussion at joint meeting with City Council (to be held on January 10, 1989) IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT A. Discuss December 21st meeting. n~ ~B~~~Q~ • • CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 16, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Heid, Landsness, Voester, Koepernik, Ansnes Absent: Mitchell, Cameron Staff: S. Emslie, V. Young The new Planning Director, Steve Emslie, was introduced and welcomed. B. Approval of minutes of 11/2/88 Commissioner Voester recommended that the amount for publishing the Sunnyvale book be changed from $15,000 to $16,400, to reflect the actual amount spent on the project. M/S Landsness/Koepernik to approve the minutes of 11/2/88 as amended. Passed unanimously. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was properly posted at City Hall on 11/10/88. D. Oral and Written Communications Secretary Young reported that the volunteer who had agreed to do the Warner Hutton House sign decided not to do the project after all. Commissioner Landsness volunteered to do the painting instead. Chairman Heid stated that the large redwood tree at the Marsh-Metzger property was in danger of being removed. He asked Planning Director Emslie for a status report. Mr. Emslie reported that work at the site had been stopped and that the City Horticulturist, Barrie Coate, had analyzed the situation The tree is required to remain as part of the project conditions, but the developers have the option of applying for an amendment to those conditions to remove • the tree. Emslie stated that the Heritage Commission would have an opportunity to review and comment on the Heritage Preservation Minutes - 11/16/88 • application if it is filed. II. New Business A. Review and comment on proposed amendment to Heritage Preservation Ordinance. Secretary Young briefed the Commission on the proposed amendments, noting that the majority of them were for wording clarification purposes. She stated that there is a proposed change to the membership section, to allow the Council to appoint a non-resident as a non-voting member. Chairman Heid expressed concern that this would reduce the voting membership to six persons. There was consensus to recommend that the non-resident be a voting member, and that the person have familiarity with Saratoga through work in the community. Commissioner Ansnes suggested a word change on Page 5, Section 10; instead of "...grounds for termination" she suggested "...reasons for termination." There was significant discussion on Section 5 (page 2) dealing with the criteria for designation. The Commission agreed that there needed to be a distinction between criteria for Inventory properties and criteria for designated properties. The Inventory properties would need to meet one or more of the criteria, and designated properties need to meet two or more and maintain their structural and architectural integrity (no major exterior modifications). This would be consistent with how the Inventory properties were selected, and require extra considerations for designated properties. Secretary Young will draft the proposed revisions and bring the Ordinance back to the Commission at the next meeting to review before forwarding to the City Council. III. Old Business A. Publication of Inventory Secretary Young reported that many other advance planning projects required her attention and she would not be able to work on the Inventory publication project, other than assisting with and monitoring its progress. There was consensus among the Commission to pursue the avenue discussed at the last meeting, i.e. request a budget allotment from the Council and pursue a matching grant through the CLG program. Some Commissioners also expressed that there might be resources in the community for financial support. Heritage Preservation Minutes - 11/16/88 IV. Items Initiated ~ the Commission None V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission ODD o ~~~~Q~~ ~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation Commission Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission Heritage Ordinance Revisions The City Attorney has prepared revisions to the draft ordinance per the Commission's direction at the last meeting. The revisions are underlined on the attached ordinance and discussed briefly below: Page 1 - Section 3 DATE: December 1, 1988 This section allows a non-resident to be a voting member of the Commission, but requires that the person • either work in or have substantial familiarity with the City. Page 2 - Sections 4 and 5 Section 4: adds a reference to the selection criteria for Inventory properties to Section 13-10.050 (a) of the Ordinance. This paragraph relates to the power of the Commission to conduct and update the Inventory. Section 5 amends the criteria for designated properties to require that they meet at least two of the selection criteria and maintain their architectural and structural integrity. Page 5 - Section 10 This section includes the wording change from "grounds" to "reasons." The Heritage Commission should review the draft ordinance, suggest additional changes if necessary, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. a(~~,c, . Valerie Yo Secretary Commi ion LJ ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (h) of Section 13-05.020 in Article 13-05 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(h) Heritage resource means any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, and those properties listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory." SECTION 2: Paragraph (i) of Section 13-05.020 in Article 13-05 of the City Code is renumbered to Paragraph (j) and a new (i) is added to said Section, to read as follows: "(i) Heritage Resource Inventory means the City's official inventory of • heritage resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Heritage Commission. A property may be listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory without being designated pursuant to this Chapter as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district." SECTION 3: Section 13-10.010 in Article 13-10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: X13-10.010 Creation; qualification of members There is hereby established a Heritage Preservation Commission consisting of seven unpaid members who shall be residents of the City and appointed by the City Council, with the following qualifications: (a) One member who shall have been a candidate nominated by the Saratoga Historical Foundation; (b) Two members who, by reason of training and experience, are knowledgeable in the field of construction and structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed architect, engineer, contractor or urban planner, one of whom is not re uired to be a resident of the Cit but if anon-resident is a ointe such erson shall either be emp oyed within the City or ave su s antral familiarit wit e City, as determined~6y e i y ounce ; (c) Four members appointed at large having demonstrable interest in • preservation of the heritage resources within the City." Rev. 11/22/88 -1- SECTION 4:. Paragraph (a) of Section 13-10.050 in Article 13-10 of the City • Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Heritage Resource Inventory. To qualify for inclusion in the Herit_a~e Resource Inventory. a property must satisfy any one or more of the criteria listed in Section 13-15.010 of this Cha ter. The Inventory shall be publicized an perio ically updated, and a copy ereo shall be kept on file in the Planning Department." SECTION 5: Section 13-15.010 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "~ 13-15.010 Criteria The Heritage Commission may recommend to the City Council designation of a proposal as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district if it satisfies any two or more of the criteria listed below and also retains a substantial degree of a itectural and structural ante ~~ with respect to the original desi~n,~ determin~-ec~]"i'y`~ie ~Ieri age Commission. (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or achitect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value." SECTION 6: Paragraph (a) of Section 13-15.020 in Article 13-13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: C~ Rev. 11/22/88 -2- (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or "~ 13-15.020 Applications • (a) Applications for designation as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district may be submitted to the Heritage Commission by any of the following: (1) The owner or owners of a building, improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land, requesting designation of their property as a historic landmark; (2) The owners of at least sixty percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail, or portion thereof, requesting designation as a heritage lane; (3) The owners of at least sixty percent of the area of all recorded lots within a specific geographic section of the City, requesting designation of the entire section as a historic district." SECTION 7: Section 13-15.040 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "~ 13-15.040 Objections to proposals (a) In the event designation of a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district is proposed by the City Council or Planning Commission or considered by the Heritage Commission upon its own initiative, and in the- futher event the Heritage Commission, as a result of its study of the proposal, determines that the proposal should be recommended to the City Council for designation, the Heritage Commission shall mail written notice of its intended recommendation to each person whose name appears on the latest available tax roll of the County as owning the property, or any portion thereof, which is the subject of the proposed designation. Such written notice shall contain a complete description of the proposed designation and shall advise the property owners that written objections to the proposal may be filed with the Heritage Commission within forty-five days from the date of the notice. (b) If objections are filed by the owner of any property proposed to be designated as a historic landmark, or by the owners of at least forty-one percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a proposed heritage lane, or by the owners of at least forty-one percent of the area of all recorded lots within a proposed historic district, the Heritage Commission shall discontinue any further consideration of the proposal. Such proposal may not again be considered for designation for at least twelve months after the date of mailing the notice to the property owners unless, prior to the expiration of such twelve-month period: (1) The owner or owners of a proposed historic landmark withdraw their objection; or (2) A sufficient number of owners of recorded lots abutting a proposed heritage lane or recorded lots within a proposed historic district withdraw their objections so as to reduce the total percentage of • objectors to less than forty-one percent; or Rev. 11/22/88 -3- (3) In the case of a proposed heritage lane or histori^ district, the Heritage Commission decides to modify the proposal by reducing the size or boundaries thereof so as to reduce the total percentage of objectors to less than forty-one percent." SECTION 8: Section 13-15.060 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "513-15.060 Historic landmark (a) The report and recommendations of the Heritage Commission on a proposed historic landmark, together with the information and documentation pertaining thereto, shall be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the report at its next available regular meeting and determine whether or not to accept the Heritage Commission's recommendations. The City Council shall by ordinance either approve the proposed designation, in whole or in part or as modified, or shall by motion disapprove the proposal in its entirety. (b) Until final action has been taken by the City Council on the proposed designation as a historic landmark, no building, alteration, grading, demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work to be performed upon or within the property which is the subject of the proposed designation, unless approved by the Heritage Commission or the City Council. This restriction shall become effective as of the time the application for designation is filed, or upon the expiration of time for filing objections in response to the notice given pursuant to Subsection 13- 15.040(a) of this Article, as the case may be. • (c) In the event a designating ordinance is adopted by the City Council, such ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this Chapter and such further restrictions or controls as may be specified in the designating ordinance. (d) Adoption of a designating ordinance shall be based upon a finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the City, the County, the State or the nation, and satisfies one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 13-15.010." SECTION 9: Section 13-15.090 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "513-15.090 Notice of designation (a) Following adoption by the City Council of an ordinance designating a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, the Commission staff shall send notice of the designation, together with a copy of the ordinance, to the owner or owners of the designated historic landmark, or the owners of all property abutting a designated heritage lane, or the owners of all property within a designated historic district. The notice shall inform such owners that the designated property will be added to the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory and may be eligible for certain Rev. 11/22/88 -4- privileges and benefits under local, state or federal law. The notice shall include a • statement of the regulations and restrictions upon the designated property. The Commission staff shall also send notice of the designation to: (1) The Heritage Commission; (2) The Planning Commission; (3) Any agency or department of the City requesting such notice or affected by the designation; (4) The Saratoga Historical Foundation; (5) The Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission; (6) The California State Historic Preservation Officer; and (7) The Saratoga News. (b) Notice of the designation and the complete legal description of the designated property shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder for the County." SECTION 10: Paragraph (a) of Section 13-15.100 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) The owner or owners of a designated historic landmark, or the owners of . not less than sixty percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a designated heritage lane, or the owners of not less than sixty percent of the area of all recorded lots within a designated historic district, may apply to the Heritage Commission for termination of the designation. The application shall contain a detailed description of all facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant as~ C reasons for termination." ~~~ SECTION 11: Section 13-20.010 in Article 13-20 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "513-20.010 Permit required It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change any exterior architectural feature or natural feature of a designated historic landmark or to construct, alter, demolish; remove or relocate any building, improvement or other structure upon any property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district, or to place, erect, alter or relocate any sign upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, without first obtaining a written permit to do so in the manner provided in this Article." SECTION 12: Section 13-20.070 in Article 13-20 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: • Rev. 11/22/88 -5- "513-20.070 Criteria • The Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, shall authorize issuance of a permit, or a conditional permit, if and only if, it is determined that: (a) The proposed work is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Chapter; or (b) The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of the designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district; or (c) In the case of construction of a new building, structure or other improvement upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, the exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of the existing landmark, lane or district." SECTION 13: Section 13-20.080 in Aricle 13-20 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "513-20.080 Hardship Notwithstanding Section 13-20.070, the Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, may approve an application for a permit to conduct any proposed work upon or within a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district, if the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that a disapproval of the application will work immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar • to the person seeking to carry out the proposed work or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, building, structure, topography or other feature involved. If a hardship is found to' exist under this Section, the Heritage Commission or the Planning Commission or City Council shall make a written finding to that effect, and shall specify the facts and reasons relied upon in making such finding." SECTION 14: Section 13-25.010 in Article 13-25 of the City Code is amended to ~- retie} as follows: "513-25.010 Fees (a) No fee shall be charged for the filing, processing or public noticing of any appl~ation for designation or any application for termination of a designation. (b) The City Council shall by resolution adopt a schedule of fees to be charged for the filing and processing of applications for any permit required under Section 13-20.010, and appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to Section 13-20.060." • ftev. 11/22/88 -6- SECTION 15: Section 13-25.020 in Article 13-25 of the City Code is amended to • read as follows: "513-25.020 Ordinary maintenance and repair Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, painting, landscaping or repair of any exterior feature in or upon any designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district that does not involve a change in design, material or the external appearance thereof, nor does this Chapter prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district which has been certified by the City building inspector, or fire chief, or other code enforcement officer as being in unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Building Code." SECTION 16: Paragraph (b) of Section 13-25.040 in Article 13-25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) The Planning Director shall have the duty and authority to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, and any other laws, rules or regulations of the City which govern or relate to the issuance of permits for work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district, by any or all of the following means: (1) Serving notice upon the owner or occupant requiring the correction or removal of any violation of this Chapter; (2) Issuance of citations for violation of any provision of this Chapter; (3) Authorizing and instructing the City Attorney to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against any person who violates this ~' Chapter, including actions for injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin such violation; (4) Request enforcement assistance from the County Sheriff s Department and the City Community Service Officers." SECTION 17: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 18: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. • Rev. 11/22/88 -7- The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 11/22/88 MAYOR -8- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 • SACRAMENTO 94296-0001 .(916) 445-8006 November 21, 1988" Ms. Valerie Young, Associate Planner Secretary to Heritage Commission City of Saratoga 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95010 Dear Valerie: Congratulations to the City of Saratoga on becoming a participant in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program in California. The National Park Service has reviewed your application and has approved it for certification. In respect to the conditions outlined in my letter of July 19, the Office of Historic Preservation has been reassured that the City of Saratoga will file the appointment process outlined in your August 8 letter to fill the two vacancies which will occur in April of 1989. In addition, we will review the City's commitment to renew its ordinance in light of the completion of your inventory and other Heritage Commission activities. It is heartening. that the City Council has directed the commission to review the ordinance and to recommend appropriate changes. It is our understanding that this process began in September of 1988. As you are aware, the Office of Historic Preservation is required under the certification procedures to review each city's participation in the CLG program on an annual basis. Your 1989 review will include an assessment of the appointment of vacancies and the amendments to the ordinance. The grant cycle for the distribution of the ten percent CLG pass-through will begin December 1. Applications will be available at that time and must be returned to the Office of Historic Preservation by January 3. In addition, there will be a required workshop for all Certified Local Governments in Sacramento either the last week of February or the first week of March. Further information regarding the workshop will be distributed soon. Enclosed to assist you in beginning your Certified Local Government activities is a copy of the Survey Workbook, inventory forms, and coding sheets, the National Register Bulletin on Survey, the National Register nominations, and the Secretary of the Int~~~tandards for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Any resea c ~ tha is surveyed or nominated to the National - Ms. Valerie Young Page 2 November 21, 1988 Register must be in compliance with these documents. Resources which are surveyed or nominated with federal funds that do not meet the requirements in these publications will not be reimbursed. Again, I want to compliment you on the job that has been done and on achieving the new Certified Local Government status. I have also enclosed a list of the other Certified Local Governments in California. As you know, the position of Certified Local Government Coordinator in the Office of Historic Preservation has been vacant for some time. We hope that this position will be filled in January or February and that the new coordinator can be introduced to all of you at the workshop. tiJe look forward to working with you in the City of Saratoga to preserve the natural resources in your community. Sincerely, ~~~~v Ms. Marion Mitchell-Wilson, Supervisor Survey and Local Assistance Division Office of Historic Preservation 0-6045H Enclosures _, ... • CITY OF SARATOGA CLC APPLICATION ATTACHMENT #9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 couar ~~PCn s~~r~ er uweeru sto. tta ~ecv. e.va~ a a.m 8/86 Participant: II Recitals: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Parks and Recreation on'Act of 1966 Certified Local Government Program CERTIFICATION AGREEMENT 1) The Participant agrees to execute and administer a program for the identification and protection of historic architectural and archeological ~ resources throughout its jurisdiction according to the terms contained in the State of California's "Procedures for Certified Local Government Historic Preservation Program" ("Procedures"), incorporated herein as Exhibit A, as '~ approved by the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, according to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980 (16 USC 470= Public Laws 89-665 and 96-515). 2) This agreement shall begin on the date it is signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and shall remain in effect unless the Participant (requests decertification as a Certified Local Government or is decertified by the SHPO, pursuant to the Procedures: 3) The Participant shall meet the provisions of the Threshold Level of Participation delineated in the Procedures: enforce appropriate state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties; establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission ("Review Commission") by local law; maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties; provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program, including the pcocess of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places _("National Register"); and satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it by the state. -1- • ~: .~ • 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2? i COURT PAPCR t7wTt OI G~~IOwwlw STO. 117 ~wtv. o•7i~ ~ ~7M 4) The SHPO shall submit all reconuaendations for nominations to the National Register for properties in the Particiaan Is js~;}sdiotion to the Participant foil) review and comment by the Review Commission. The Participant agrees to ensure that the professional technical expertise related to the subject of each recommendation for nomination is either available on the Review Commission or isl! obtained pursuant to the Procedures. 5) The Participant shall enforce its historic preservation ordinance, a copy of which is incorporated herein as Exhibit B= the Participant shall obtain the prior approval of the SHPO for any amendments to said ordinance. 6) The Participant and SHPO shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the execution and administration of the terms of the Procedures. 7) The SHPO shall inform the Participant of procedures for applying for grant funds for which the Participant is eligible as a Certified Local Government. STATE OF,,,,..C//ALIFORNIA By mil(, tsz.~,c.~ , Stat. His ric Preservation Officer >ate / /- / 7 - ~' PARTICIPAN By ~ ` Atil~iorized Representative' Title /N~ ~/OQ , G/7r 0 F S~~/~TOG# Hate /2'/6-~'~ 8/86 u -z- ~J United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WESTERN REGION 430 GOLDEN CATE AVENUE, BOX 36063 tx REFtY ne~tlt ro: SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 '-~36 (WR-RRP) October 6, 1988 ~L~~yE:~ OC i 14 ~;,~ ~`.'~ Ms. Kathryn Gualtieri State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, California 94296-0001 Re: Certification of City of Saratoga, California, to participate in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program Dear Ms. Gualtieri: Thank you for forwarding to us the requisite documentation on the certification of the above local government. We have reviewed • this material and find no need to take exception to your certification action. For your information, we are enclosing the most current list of CLGs in our region. We very much appreciate your hard work in the program. Sincerely, ~~ ~07°»~ David W. Look, AIA Chief, Preservation Assistance Branch Division of National Register Programs Attachment cc: WASO-PS(Attn.Parker) • . a' -- --=% United States Department of the Interior N ~ ,~ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • ~ WESTERN REGION ~' 430 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, BOX 36063 rx x=pLY EEpPR TO: SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 LIST OF CBRTIFIBD LOCAL GOVSRNhBNTS (CLGS) IN YBSTBRN RBGION (As of 10/06/88) ARIZONA: Florence No exception 09/12/85 Globe No exception 08/25/86 Jerome No exception 01/17/86 Kingman No exception 09/29/86 Phoenix No exception 04/28/88 Prescott No exception 01/03/86 Willcox No exception 09/24/85 • Williams No exception 09/11/86 Yuma No exception 02/11/86 CALIFORNIA: Alameda No exception 12/19/86 Carlsbad No exception 02/12/88 t Glendale No exception 02/12/88 ~+ Napa No exception 02/12/88 3 Oakland No exception 12/19/86 Pasadena No exception 09/30/86 San Diego No exception 09/30/86 Santa Clara No exception 11/14/86 Santa Cruz County No exception 11/14/86 • Saratoga No exception 10/06/881~i HAWAII: .Kauai County No exception 03/04/8? IDAHO: ' American Falls No exception 05/12/87 Boise City No exception 08/25/86 Caldwell No exception 03/03/87 Cambridge No exception 06/03/87 Elmore County No exception 03/08/88 Gem County No exception 06/30/87 Hagerman No exception 03/31/87 Idaho City No exception 06/19/87 Idaho Falls No exception 06/30/87 Jerome No exception 03/03/87 Kootenai County No exception 09/26/85 Latah County No exception 05/12/87 Lava Hot Springs No exception 06/30/87 Meridian No exception 03/03/87 Nampa No exception 03/08/88 Owyhee County No exception 03/31/87 Parma No exception 03/03/87 Placerville No exception 05/12/87 Pocatello No exception 08/02/85 Power County ~ No exception 05/12/87 Priest River No exception 11/13/87 Rathdrum No exception 11/05/85 Stanley No exception 11/13/87 Twin Falls County No exception 03/03/87 Valley County No exception 09/11/87 Washington County No exception 06/19/87 Weiser No exception 06/19/87 RBVA DA Carson City No exception 04/28/87 Lyon County No exception 10/09/86 Storey County No exception 07/03/86 OREGON: Clackamas County No exception 07/22/87 Deschutes County No exception 09/30/86 Douglas County No exception 07/03/86 Jacksonville No exception 09/11/86 Oregon City No exception 02/21/86 Roseburg No exception 01/16/87 Salem No exception 02/21/86 YASHINGTOR: Bothell No exception 12/16/87 Centralia No exception 01/23/87 Chehalis No exception 01/23/87 Clark County No exception 04/30/86 Everett No exception 12/16/87 King County No exception 01/20/88 Lacey No exception 12/19/86 Longview No exception 01/20/88 Olympia No exception 02/27/86 Pierce County No exception 04/28/86 Seattle No exception 06/03/87 Spokane No exception 02/04/86 Spokane County No exception 02/12/86 Steilacoom No exception 04/03/86 Tacoma No exception 10/16/87 Thurston County No exception 04/10/86 Vancouver No exception 12/19/86 Yelm No exception 01/20/88 • ~C~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ 0~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: December 1, 1988 FROM: Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission SUBJECT: Subdivision application for 20600 Lomita Avenue --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Planning Department has received an application for a 2-lot subdivision at 20600 Lomita Avenue. The property is the site of the Hannah P~cCarty House, one of the oldest historic structures in Saratoga. The application proposes to create a new lot behind the house, with access off a 20-ft. wide driveway easement along the northwest property line. The application also involves a variance request for the lots to be less than the required width; the lots are proposed to be 105 feet and 107 feet wide, where 110 feet is the minimum required. The only demolition associated with the application is the small residential structure behind the main house. None of the mature trees are to be removed. This application will be heard by the Planning Commission at its December 14 meeting. It is recommended that the Heri- tage Commission discuss the application and formulate its comments, which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. A large map of the subdivision proposal will be available at the HPC meeting. v~~ Valerie Young Secretary to the Commission • ~~~ ~L1~Jr rJ~J ~~ N 4L_ 55' 00" N 193 49 __ ___ ~_ ~ t~ ~"~ 560- --~~T ~i-o ~~~ ?a. ~ 4d• OAK ~ \~ o ~SS7s_,~_ to ,, Fop ~ ,~ s ~ ~ ~ z~ a ~~ ~ y 6•~ m ~ c~ ~ _\ ~ ,- ~~ ~~ . ~_ ' ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~°~~ ; "~~~,~~ _ss T2' eTUMV PARCEL 8 ~ b ~ ~ 20,01/ , SQ FT OAK ~~r \ r r MULTI TRUIIC •~~~~ ~ r ~ ~r ,I ~\yk1~ ~ 1' r r ~ sso~ __ 24 :~~ N 4fo• 55' 00"~~220.A0 I ~~ - ' \ / I• ~~ - ~ ~ r, I ~ o: \ r i EX. HOUSE b ~ ~ ' ~ - TD BE IP~MQVf1~ EIIGALT~f. W 4t1 c°nc' ~ ~• ~ PARCEL -A'~~~ . ; xAb r alw ~ M' OAK a ~ r 9• ~ o I ~ ~ acl~A c la„ . ~ ~ OA K ~ EY• NOUhE i• TREE a ~~s I. ~o .o ~ .. ~o ~ b' TR4~t i ~ ~~ ~ 6 v r k EX.6ARA6E d• TREE Z II> ~~i ~s~~ EX~ kDUhE c ~I ~ >~ li ~ ~ i ~ 60"OAIC ~ ' ~~r ' I S 410' S5' 00' E 22Q~22 ,. I e i o ~ ~ ~ 20 I 12• ~ ~ ~ G o IIM r i l ~' ~ ~ N 0 tREE ~ ~ i ~~ ~/ 1 •~~ I~~ ~ TEL IOL>~ 60• y"Jy'' ~ 1 " ~ y+'~ TE I ~ U DAIL y~/ ~ Qq a 11 O ~` N~1~ b5~~ ~ 6 NV v M ~ T/ae~ ~'~LLEi GD „ski _ ..~~ • 6, - S2 ` e '~ J, ~~7 ~~ .. ~~~~ ~~~~ 13777 FR1'IT~'.-~LE,-~~'E\~'E . S.~R.-~~[-OG,~-C.~LIF(~RN1.~950~0 _ ~~ 14081867.3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson November 14 , 1988 Marrna Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson To: Department Heads and Commission Chairs Francis Stutzman From: Administrative Assistant Subject: CDBG Project Proposal Solicitation It is time to request your assistance in the identification and development of projects or activities to be funded with CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) monies for FY 1989/90. Saratoga's share of the discretionary CDBG funds for 89/90 will be approximately ;144,000. The deadline for project proposals is January 6, 1989. A Public Hearing is scheduled to be held by the City Council on January 18 at which time determination will be made and proposals submitted to the County for approval by the Board of Supervisors. Attached for your information and use are: 1) Introduction to the Housing and Community Development Act and funding examples of eligible HCDA activities and past HCDA-funded City projects. Z) A CDBG Project Proposal Submittal Form Cover Page. It is not necessary that you complete an entire form at this time. Submission of the Cover Page and a project development timetable will be enough for preliminary consideration. Please feel free to call me if you require any additional infor- mation regarding this process. ~`_~ ~~ ~i-sC.~y a Carolyn King 6.cdbg.ltr Attachments (2) cc: City Council REGE~v~~ ov1~19d~ N NN`NG DEQ~ QL~ DEVELOPMENT OF CITY PLANS FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS INTRODUCTION: The City of Saratoga, six other "nonentitlement" cities (population under 50,000) within Santa Clara County, and the County itself receive federal Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for eligible projects and activities. By regulation, nonentitlement cities receive funds by virtue of a Cooperation Agreement with the Urban County of Santa Clara (the locally responsible grant recipient). The total annual HCDA allocation to the County is expected to be approximately ;2.4 million for 1989-90. Of the ;2.4 million, ;768,000 will go to the competitive pool where funds are prioritized for projects/activities that contribute to. increasing the supply of affordable housing in the County. Each of the seven nonentitlement cities and the County will receive approximately ;144,000 for direct allocation for any HCDA eligible activity. The remainder (approximately ;480,000) will be used for administrative costs. A maximum of 158 of the total grant of ;2.4 million (;360,000) may be used for public service activities. The primary objective of the HCDA is the ..."development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunity principally for persons of low and moderate income." The overall objective of the Act can be achieved through a program where the projected use of funds has been developed to give maximum feasible priority to activities which will carry out one of the three broad national objectives of: 1. Benefit low and moderate income families (i.e., family of 4, ;32,400 annual income). 2. Aid the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. 3. Create activities designed to meet other needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available. Most previously funded City of Saratoga HCDA activity has been directed to benefit those of low or moderate income. 1 ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES: • Following is an illustrative listing of eligible HCDA activities. The listing is not intended to be complete, and each activity proposed for funding must be individually scrutinized for eligiblity. Hasic Eligible Activities a) Acquisition of Real Property for a variety of purposes b) Public facilities and improvements c) Public Services d) Clearance activities e) Interim assistance to alleviate harmful conditions f) Removal of architectural barriers Rehabilitation and Preservation a) Rehabilitation of public residential structures b) Rehabilitation of private property c) Temporary relocation assistance d) Code enforcement e) Historic preservation f) Public housing modernization Economic Development a) Acquisition • b) Public facilities and improvements c) Commercial and industrial facilities d) Community economic development or neighborhood revitali- zation activities Planning and Urban Environmental Desicm a) Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan b) Development of a policy-planning-management capacity c) Comprehensive planning activities • 2 Past and Present HCDA Funded City Activity The City has received Block Grant funding since 1975. following is a list of City HCDA activity. The • • 1. Housing Rehabilitation 2. E1 Quito Park Development 3. Clearance and Demolition 4. Village Beautification and Historical Preservation 5. Senior Citizen Needs Assessment 6. Social Needs Assessment 7. Senior Citizen Housing - Landbanking 8. Senior Citizen Housinq - Acquisition 9. Removal of Architectural Barriers 10. Housing Element to General Plan 11. Paul Avenue Reconstruction 12. Quito Area Storm Drainage Systems 13. Street Reconstruction 14. Saratoga Senior Center - Needs Assessment and Construction 15. Senior Center Programs - Public Service 16. Government Buildings Access 17. Saratoga High School Access 18. Senior Center Office Development 19. Village Library Accessibility 20. 4th Street Reconstruction 21. Elva Avenue Reconstruction 22. Senior Center Addition 23. Live Oak Adult Day Care Services - Public Service 24. Transit Assist 25. Adults for Independent Living 26. Long Term Care Ombudsman - Public Service Through the 88/89 FY, the City of Saratoga will have received approximately ;3,460,000 in Block Grant funds. 3 • ~~~ SURVIVING DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES • PRESERVATION SEMINAR Seminar Faculty Host: James Williams, PhD, Executive Director of Foundation, DeAnza College, Cupertino. He inventories in Morgan Hill and Gilroy and the Sunnyvale inventory. the California History Center and has done historic resource recently completed the publication of Coordinator: Mardi Gualtieri Bennett, Principal, Marben Associates, Preservation Consul- tants. She has been Planning Commissioner, Councilwoman and Mayor of Los Gatos; chairman of the Santa Clara County Historic Heritage Commission; wrote the Landmark Ordinance for Saratoga; and conducted an historic inventory for Danville. Joe Hall, Assistant Executive Director, City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Director. He is Secretary of the State Historical Building Code Board; holds an M.A. in Planning from Rutgers University, an M.A. in Public Administration, from San Diego State University, and is responsible for the City of Santa Cruz Preservation Plan. Vincent Marsh, Planner, City and County of San Francisco. He is Acting Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Board, and a board member of Cali- fornia Preservation Foundation. He has an M.R.P. in City Planning from Cornell University, has done urban design work in Boston and environmental studies in the Bay Area. Kent Seavey, Preservation and Rehabilitation Specialist, Pacific Grove. He is a former Monterey County Historic Coordinator, was director of the San Juan Bautista historic inventory, and recently produced the Sunnyvale historic resources inventory publication, IMAGES. As a consultant, Kent specializes in adaptive re-use and preservation maintenance. Valerie Young, Associate Planner, City of Saratoga. She is staff to the Heritage Preservation Commission and recently assisted the commissioners to complete the entire Historic Inventory for the City. Ms. Young has also staffed the preservation commissions for the cities of Santa Cruz and Prescott, Arizona. Special Features: * Legislative Planning Tools: Historic Preservation Element, Landmark Ordinance, Zoning, Facade Easement, Historic Building Code, Certified Local Government Program * Challenges: Council/Community support, Enforcement and monitoring of Historic District restrictions, Creative incentive trade-offs, Getting in on the Grants • SURVIVING DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES PRESERVATION SEMINAR California History Center - DeAnza College - 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd.- Cupertino Friday, January 27, 1989 8:30 Registration (coffee/doughnuts) 9:00 Welcome, Introductions - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jim Williams 9:20 Preservation Element, Landmark Ordinance, Designation Process -Valerie Young 10:05 Break 10:15 Protective Legislation (San Francisco) - - - - - - - -Vincent Marsh 11:00 Protective Legislation (Santa Cruz), Historic Building Code - Joe Hall 11:45 Cross campus for lunch 12:00 Gourmet Lunch 1:00 Cross campus from lunch 1:15 Getting Community Support - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mardi Bennett (Community Workshop, Press Relations, Historical Societies) 2:00 Finding the Right Contractors and the Right Stuff - - - - - Kent Seavey 2:45 Making It Happen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All Faculty 3:15 Questions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All Faculty 4:00 Adjourn # # # # Registration information TIME; January 27, 1989 * 8:30-4:00 LOCATION: California History Center DeAnza College .21250 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, California (Flint Center Entrance) REGISTRATION FEE: $55.00 (includes special lunch) Payable to: California History Center Deadline: January 25, 1989 (or sooner if participant limit of 60 is reached prior to deadline) EARLY BIRD REGISTRATIONS: Registration of $45.00 accepted if received NO LATER THAN January 20, 1989 REFUND POLICY: 100$ of fees, minus $5.00 processing charge, if withdrawal notice is received NO LATER THAN January 23, 1989 SURVIVING DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES PRESERVATION SEMINAR For County and Municipal Planners NAME Registration Deadline: January 25, 1989 ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PHONE TITLE Registration fee: $55 ($45 prior to 1/20/89) For more information call (408) 996-4712 Make checks payable to: Calif. History Center Mail to: Helen Kikoshima, Registrar California History Ctr. 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino, CA 94014 s RATIONALE In the ongoing struggle to preserve our heritage resources there are always new • obstacles to overcome. The latest threat to the preservation of historic districts is the development pressure that is being exerted by the shortage of affordable housing. Historic districts, supposedly protected from incompatible change, are being violated as cities discover that current restrictions are not working. The stage is set for some innovative new safeguards. Who are the players? * The Property Owner who wants to know how property values will be affected. * The Realtor who wants rehab guidelines so he/she can properly advise a client. * The Developer who needs to know the potential floor area ratio to lot size. * The Contractor who has to have s ecial a ~~ P xpertise to handle an historic rehab". * The Planner who must have fair and logical guidelines to administer. • • ~~ V~ U U U ~~ ~J~ U • FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, X989 9 :45 A. M.-3 :00 P. M. THE CALIFORNIA HISTORY CENTER AND FOUNDATION, LOCATED ON THE DE ANZA COLLEGE CAMPUS IN CUPERTINO, IS PLANNING A NETWORKING EVENT AND GET TOGETHER FOR LOCAL HISTORICAL ORGANIZATIONS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. YOUR GROUP WILL BE RECEIVING AN INVITATION IN EARLY JANUARY FOR THIS EVENT, WHICH WE HOPE IS THE FIRST OF MANY SUCH GATHERINGS. * * * TENTATIVE SCHEDULE 9:45 -10:15: REGISTRATION, COFFEE, DOUGHNUTS ~y~~~~,fii 10:15 10:30: INTRODUCTIONS „ Ll ~F4 10:30 -11:30: NATHAN SUMNER, NEW DIRECTOR, CALIFO~R~y~ ?j,~~, HISTORICAL SOCIETY (CONFIRMED) ~~~ 11:30 -1:00: NO-HOST LUNCH, DE ANZA CAMPUS CENTER F,o~, 1:00 -3:00: NETWORKING (FORMAT TO BE DETERMINED) PLAN ON ATTENDING AND LETS GET STARTED ON A NETWORK TO SUPPORT HISTORY IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. DON'T FORGET -FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17 AND WATCH FOR YOUR INVITATION IN JANUARY CALIFORNIA HISTORY CENTER, 21250 STEVENS CREEK BLVD., CUPERTINO, CA (408) 996-4712. ~- NATIONr~~. ~E~TTER F®R ~RESERVA~'~®~T L~~~' 1233 20TI3 STREET.'_v".W, • SUITE SO1 • wASHI~T(3TON. D.Ci. 20039 • . (202) 828-6911 RECEIVED PEElID EIlT EXECL'TTVE DIE ECTDE TERSH BOASHEROr ESp. (VOV ~ 1988 STEPHE?i \. UE~VI5. E50~ PLANNING DEPT PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-37 ~ September 15, 1988 Minnesota Court Upholds Moratorium Pending Designation A problem which is frequently encountered by local historic preservation commissions and supporting preservation organizations is how to cope with a threat to a property not yet designated. In many larger cities, the process of identifying properties eligible for designation and documenting their significance prior to designation can be extremely time-consuming. Though these cities are likely to expect staffs for preservation commissions to keep an eye on all properties within a commission's potential jurisdiction which could be eligible for designation, not every eligible property can be documented and designated at once. Problems arise when properties clearly eligible for designation are suddenly threatened by owners unaware of their historic significance or unwilling to wait for city staff to proceed with designation. Though a growing number of local historic preservation ordinances do provide for interim protections pending final designation (see "Update" 1987-22), many ordinances do not contain such. an explicit provision. May a city delay action on a requested building permit or demolition permit in order to give a preservation commission time to develop the case for designation and take action to designate and thus protect a property whose owner wishes to alter or demolish it? A recent Minnesota trial court decision support on this point. Hiltunen v. City of Min, 1017, Hennepin County District Court, decided upheld an informal moratorium on the issuance permit. The owners in Hiltunen wanted to demc apartment buildings, and the trial court upheld in issuing demolition permits: provides strong neapolis (No. 88- August 1, 1988) of a demolition >lish two 24-unit the city's delay The only remaining issue before the Court in this case is whether or not the City can deny a demolition permit on heritage preservation grounds prior to the actual historic designation of the property. The Court finds that the • ~:-TIO\.~I. CF.\TE1t FOIL PR£~i1s12~'.~TiO~i L.1~~' City's action was not arbitrary or based on unlawful grounds. The Court agrees with respondent that Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. 1976), stands for the • proposition that a municipality can validly enact a. moratorium ordinance (but is not required to formally enact one) to preserve the status quo of a particular area while a zoning study is being conducted. The City acted reasonably when it delayed the decision on whether or not to issue petitioner. a demolition permit. The City has the express and inherent authority through its Heritage Preservation Commission to deny a demolition penait until the required studies are completed. ' The court's decision in Hit= is quite brief, but the issues argued before the court are made clearer by two briefs submitted by the City of Minneapolis. The first of these was submitted on January 29, 1988, and the second was submitted on February 12, 1988. The court did not specifically adopt either brief, but referred to the city's arguments in its opinion. Because these two Hiltunen briefs address an issue which has not arisen in a previous case, they could be particularly useful to other historic preservation commissions which find themselves faced by the same problem. The National Center will provide a set of papers from the Hiltunen case including the court's opinion, the city's two briefs and a brief for the property owner for $5.00, which will include postage and handling. Minnesota is a "Dillon Rule" state, in which the powers of ~, municipalities are strictly construed; the general rule is that cities in a Dillon Rule state may not. exercise a power not expressly permitted by state enabling legislation. Nonetheless, the City of Minneapolis argued that language in Merriam v. Moodv's Executors, 25 Iowa 163 (1868), would support the city's exercise of "those [powers] necessarily implied or necessarily incident to the powers expressly granted": It should thus be clear that the City in invoking its police power with respect to zoning has the express power to create such ordinances and such implied power as is necessary to effectuate the goals of providing for the public health, safety and welfare. It is further well settled that historic preservation is a proper area for exercise of the police power. The city argued that it should be allowed to "declare an informal moratorium" during which a careful study of the merits of threatened buildings could be carried out: It is undisputed by the Petitioners that the City has the authority to designate buildings for historic preservation pursuant to Chapter 34. That Ordinance on its face requires the Heritage Preservation Commission to prepare studies • which catalog buildings or districts to be considered for PATIO\.-L('E\Tf:R FOR I'REtiER~'.-TIO~ L.-~-' heritage preservation, which recommendations are ultimately forwarded to the Minneapolis City Council for action. It would be totally inconsistent for the City to on the one • hand require that these studies go forward with respect to the structures which are the subject of this lawsuit and then completely undermine the requirements of this Ordinance by allowing the subject properties to be demolished while the administrative processes are in progress. In effect what the City has done is to declare an informal moratorium with respect to the Petitioner's property until the administrative processes have been completed. The city argued that the Almcruist case would not require it to enact a formal moratorium to accomplish the desired goal of giving time for a thoughtful assessment of the historic significance of threatened properties: [Almauist] and cases subsequently cited thereunder in no way recruires a municipality to resort to a moratorium in every case to prevent some development from going forward while a particular issue is being studied. To do so would be ludicrous and would require a municipality tb pass perhaps hundreds of motarorium ordinances a year, every time it considered a zoning change or a text amendment to a zoning code which could conceivably affect any rights a particular property owner would have thereunder. In its Reply Memorandum, the city addressed again the property owners's efforts to argue that Almcuist should be read more strictly: Almquist clearly stands for the proposition that a municipality can validly enact a moratorium ordinance to preserve the status quo of a partciular area while a zoning study is being conducted. There is absolutely no requirement under Almauist or [any other case of which defendants are aware that] a direct moratorium ordinance [be] enacted, before a municipality can exercise its normal legislative and administraive authority either express or implied; Almcuist merely sanctioned a process not otherwise allowed by statute at that time. It is clear from Almouist that our court recognizes that the administarative and legislative processes of a municipality take time, and that indeed it is proper and appropriate for a municipality to reasonably defer or delay action on a particular request while the overall effect of such action in a given zoning area is studied. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National S Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") 1233 20TH STREET. TT.W. • SUITE f501 • wASHIY(}TUN. D.Ci. 20036 • (Qpg~ ggg.ggll PHEBIDHPlT EXECi:TrvE nIHECTOH TERSH BOASBERQ. ESQ. ~ STEPHEN Vii, UEYNIS, E5V• PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-40 October 27, 1988 Legal strategies for Protecting Significant Interiors A recent questionnaire from the National Center for Preservation Law to local historic preservation commissions has revealed that legal protections for significant interior spaces are increasing. The questionnaire was sent to 465 local commissions, and 139 commissions returned the questionnaire form. The questionnaire asked commissions about local interior landmark designations and about interior preservation easements. At least twenty-two preservation commissions (15~ of those responding) believe they now have the authority to regulate significant interiors (Pasadena, Cal.; Santa Clara, Cal.; Boulder, Colo.; Coral Gables; Miami; Orlando; Dalton; Chicago; • Indianapolis; Amara Colonies, Iowa; Boston; Rochester, N.Y.; Asheville, N.C.; Greenville, N.C.; Wilson, N.C.; Portland, Ore.; Philadelphia; El Paso; Forth Worth; Roanoke, Va.; Pierce County, Wash.; and Seattle). (Because some commissions known to have this power have not responded to the questionnaire, the .actual number of commissions with the power is somewhat greater. No responses were received from Detroit and New York, for instance.) In some states, ambiguous legislation has been interpreted by commissions as giving them power to regulate interiors. Only. eleven of these twenty-two commissions have designated or are regulating interiors. (Pasadena, Coral Gables, Miami, Indianapolis, Boston, Rochester, Asheville, Wilson, Philadelphia, Portland and Seattle). Seattle reported that it has designated 35 interiors. Other cities, though, seem to be regulating fewer interiors (Pasadena (1), Miami (3), Indianapolis (3), Rochester (1), Asheville (20), Wilson (1) and Portland (2). In Philadelphia, the official interpretation of the city~s preservation ordinance has always been that a landmark designation protects the entire building, so that a separate landmark designation of a significant interior space is not required. The Chicago commission, though, can only protect interior spaces in structures which have already been designated as landmarks. In many cities, separate interior landmark designations seem the rule. \ATIO~IALC'E~TER FOR I'RFKEItVATIO~f LAW Seventeen local preservation commissions responded that they can "designate interior landmarks located in buildings to which the public does not have ordinary access" (Pasadena, Cal.; Santa Clara, Cal.; .Boulder, Colo.; Orlando, Fla.; Chicago; Indianapolis; Amana Colonies, Iowa; Boston; Rochester, N.y,; Asheville, N.C.; Greenville, N.C.; Wilson, N.C.; Portland, Ore.; El Paso; Ft. Worth; Pierce Co., Wash.; and Seattle). only four commissions indicated that they have designated residential interiors (Pasadena, Cal; Indianapolis; Asheville, N.C.; and Seattle). In Boston, Asheville, N.C., and Seattle, religious interiors have been designated. Miami noted that it is in the process of designating a religious interior. (Seattle has now designated nine religious interiors.) Commissions in twenty-one states believe that state enabling legislation for local preservation commissions would need to be amended to permit the designation of interior landmarks (Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.) Some cities, of course, have independent home rule or charter authority. • Many commissions (57$ or 79 of those res o "copies of model interior landmark deli p nding) would like gnation forms. Thirteen commissions stated that interiors in their communities have already been protected through interior easements. The number of interior spaces so protected varies widely from community to community. (Prescott, Arizona (?); Guilford, Conn. (1); Ft. Wayne (2); Baltimore (23); Salisbury, Md. (4-8); Hoston (24?); Rochester, N.Y.; Raleigh (9); Wilson, N.C. (1); Philadelphia (i); Bristol, R.I. (4); Charleston (5); and Loudoun County, Virginia (?)). Responding commissions are not aware of any interior preservation easements which are held by national organizations, though five statewide preservation organizations and six local preservation organizations are thought by commissions to hold such easements. Overall, the questionnaire responses suggest that commissions are increasingly interested in approaches to the protection of significant interior spaces and that commissions need more information about approaches now being used across the country. • (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") ~.. CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 16, 1988 - 3:OO p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call- Introduction of Planning Director, Stephen Emslie B. Approval of Minutes of 11/2/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and comment on proposed amendment to Heritage Preservation Ordinance III. OLD BUSINESS • A. Publication of Inventory IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT • • ~1B~CU~CC~~ C ~_ CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 2, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Koepernik, Ansnes, Voester, Landsness, Mitchell, Cameron, Heid Absent: None Staff: V. Young B. Approval of minutes M/S Landsness/Voester to approve the minutes of 9/21/88, 10/5/88 and 10/19/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was properly posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications All commissioners noted they had received invitations to the Casa Tierra Open House, to be held on Sunday, November 20. V. Young reported that she received verbal confirmation that the CLG application had been approved. Grant application materials would be coming soon. She also reported that two title companies, Santa Clara Land Title and Stewart Title, were now working on title searches for historic properties. Chairman Heid reported that Sara Holmes Boutelle would be speaking at the next Historical Foundation meeting on November 21st. II. Old Business A. Follow-up letter to Inventory property owners. Commissioner Voester expressed that she felt the time was right to follow-up with a letter to Inventory property owners to encourage them to designate their properties as heritage resources. .~ Heritage Commission Minutes 11/2/88 • Commissioner Cameron felt that the Commission needed to be selective about who the letter went to and how it was worded. Chairman Heid agreed, stating that he didn't want people to feel pushed or forced into participating. Commissioner Landsness suggested waiting until the Inventory book was ready to be published, using that as a public relations tool to encourage people to designate. It was agreed 'that the issue could wait until after the holidays; in the interim, Commissioners would review the Inventory list to determine who should receive a follow-up letter. B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory Secretary Young printing the Su $15,000. There allotment in next grant through the was $5,600 in the presented information on the cost of nnyvale Ima es book, which was about was discussion on requesting a budget years' budget, then pursuing a matching CLG program. Young reported-that there Commission's Heritage Fund account. There was discussion on who should write and organize the book. Commissioner Mitchell suggested hiring a professional to write and photograph, primarily for quality and consistency in the book. Chairman Heid suggested exploring having Secretary Young do the work, with Willys Peck writing the introduction and history section. Young stated that although she wouldn't mind doing the project, it would be time-consuming and the City Manager would have to authorize the shift in her workload; she will explore the idea with him. Commissioners Ansnes and Landsness will assist in obtaining estimates for printing the book. III. Items Initiated ~ The Commission Commissioner Landsness reported on the progress of the Village Design Task Force. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Valerie Young Secretary to Commission ~1C~~ o ~~B~Q~~ C~ f ~ ~oc~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887-3438 MEMOR~INDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: 11/16/88 FROM: Valerie Young, Secretary to the Commission SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HERITAGE ORDINANCE ------------------------------------------------------ Attached for your review and comment is a draft ordinance amending various sections of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, which appears as Chapter 13 of the City Code, also attached. The ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney, following input from myself as your Secretary. The revisions are needed primarily in response to the adoption of the Inventory, the City's participation in the CLG program, and general input from the Commission. Following is a brief description of the proposed amendments in the ordinance. Section 1 - This section amends the definition of heritage resource to specifically state that landmarks, lanes, districts and Inventory properties are all resources. Section 2 - This section adds a definition of Heritage Resource Inventory. Section 3 - This section amends the membership qualifications of the Commission to require two members to be knowledgeable in the field of construction or architecture; it allows the City Council to appoint a non-resident to fill this position,, with the non-resident as an advisory rather than voting member. Section 4 - This section amends the Commission's duty relating to the Inventory, to reflect the official name of the Inventory. Sections 5~ 6~ 7L g~ 11, 1~ 1~ 15L and 16 - Much of the confusion in the existing ordinance relates to the use of the term "heritage resource" generically throughout its entire text. These amendment sections of the proposed ordinance all relate to the clarification of that term i and incorporate the specific categories of landmark, lane and district where appropriate. 1 • Section 8 - This section adds a "stay of demolition" clause for properties being processed for landmark designation. A stay of demolition is already provided for lane and district applications in Section 13-15.070(e). Section l0 - Minor change in wording relating to applications for termination of designation. Section 14 - This section codifies the "no fee" policy for designation applications. ACTION BY COMMISSION The Heritage Commission should review the draft ordinance, suggest additional changes if necessary, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. The Council will conduct a public hearing and ultimately adopt the ordinance. Valerie Youn Secretary to he Commission Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance • 2) Existing Chapter 13 of City Code 2 ORDINANCE NO. 71. ~Vlde~rliKe~ - iN~~~a~P.:S add ~~ia~Aal ov' tre v i se~2 i aH~ ua e , /~ - 11n~~ Ga~'es ~a efiovti AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AN~ENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: • SECTION 1: Paragraph (h) of Section 13-05.020 in Article 13-OS of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(h) Heritage resource means any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district, and those properties listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory." SECTION 2: Paragraph (i) of Section 13-05.020 in Article 13-05 of the City Code is renumbered to Paragraph (j) and a new (i) is added to said Section, to read as follows: "(i) Heritage Resource Invent .age resources, as adopted and am tape Commission. A property ma' gut being designated pursuant to or historic district." means the Cit 's official inventor of d rnm time to time by resolution of the on SECTION 3: Section 13-10.010 in Article 13-10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: ~ 13-10.010 Creation; qualification of members There is hereby established a Heritage Preservation Commission consisting of seven unpaid members who shall be residents of the City and appointed by the City Council, with the following qualifications: (a) One member who shall have been a candidate nominated by the Saratoga Historical Foundation; (b) Two members who, by reason of training and experience, are knowledgeable in the field of construction and structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed architect, engineer, contractor or urban planner, one of whom is not required to be a resident of the City, but if anon-resident is appointed, such person shall serve as an advisory rather than a voting member: (c) Four members appointed at large having demonstrable interest in preservation of the heritage resources within the City." -1- SECTION 4: Paragraph (a) of Section 13-10.050 in Article 13-10 of the City • Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) Conduct, or cause to bE: conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Heritage Resource Inventory. The Inventory shall be publicized and_ periodically updated, and a copy thereof shall be kept on file in the Planning Department." SECTION 5: Section 13-15.010 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S 13-15.010 Criteria The Heritage Commission may recommend to the City Council designation of a proposal as a historic landmark, t-erita~e lane or historic district if it satisfies any one or more of t e ollowing criteria: (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with peg°sons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method • of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or achitect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by p,~st events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value." SECTION 6: Paragraph (a) of Section 13-15.020 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S 13-15.020 Applications (a) Applications for designation as a historic landmark, heritage lane or • historic district may be submitted to the Heritage Commission by any of the following: -2- • (1) The owner or owners of a building, improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land, requesting designation of their property as. a historic landmark; (2) The owners of at least sixty percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail, or portion thereof, requesting designation as a heritage lane; (3) The owners of at least sixty percent of the area of all recorded lots within a specific geographic section of the City, requesting designation of the entire section as a historic district." SECTION 7: Section 13-15.040 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "§ 13-15.040 Objections to proposals (s) In the event designation of a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic 'strict is proposed by the City Council or Planning Commission or considered by the Heritage Commission upon its own initiative, and in the futher event the Heritage Commission, as a result of its study of the proposal, determines that the proposal should be recommended to the City Council for designation,^the Heritage Commission shall mail written notice of its intended recommendation to each person whose name appears on the latest available tax roll of the County as owning the property, or any portion thereof, which is the subject of the proposed designation. Such written notice shall contain a complete description of the proposed designation and shall advise the property owners that written objections to the pc•oposal may be filed with the Heritage Commission within forty-five days from the date of the notice. (b) If objections are filed by the owner of any property proposed to be designated as a historic landmark, or by the owners of at least forty-one percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a proposed heritage lane, or by the owners of at least forty-one percent of the area of all recorded lots within a proposed historic district, the Heritage Commission shall discontinue any further consideration of the proposal. Such proposal may not again be considered for designatiot~for at least twelve months after the date of mailing the notice to the property owners unless, prior to the expiration of such twelve-month period: (1) The owner or owners of a proposed historic landmark withdraw their objection; or (2) A sufficient number of owners of recorded lots abutting a proposed heritage lane or recorded lots within a proposed historic district withdraw their objections so as to reduce the total percentage of objectors to less than forty-one percent; or (3) In the case of a proposed heritage lane or historic district, the Heritage Commission decides to modify the proposal by reducing the size or boundaries thereof so as to reduce the total percentage of objectors to less than forty-one percent." -3- SECTION 8: Section 13-15.060 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to • read as follows: "513-15.060 historic landmark (a) The report and recommendations of the Heritage Commission on a proposed historic landmark, together with the information and documentation pertaining thereto, shall be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the report at its next available regular meeting and determine whether or not to accept the Heritage Commission's recommendations. The City Council shall by ordinance either approve the proposed designation, in whole or in part or as modified, or shall by motion disapF~rove the proposal in its entirety. (b) Until final action has been taken by the City Council on the proposed designation as a historic landmark no buildin alteration adin demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work to be per ormed upon or wit in t e property which is the subject of the proposed designation, unless approve y t e Heritage Commission or the Cif Council. This restriction shall become effective as o the time tt-' a appZicatio~or <9esignation is sled, or upon the expiration o time or i info ~_ec ions in res onse o e no ice given pursuan o u sec ion - 15.040ta) of this Artic e. as the case may be. In the event a designating ordinance is adopted by the City Council, such ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this Chapter and such further restrictions or controls as may be specified in the designating ordinance. ~ Adoption of a designating ordinance shall be based upon a finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the City, thE: County, the State or the nation, and satisfies one or more of the criteria set forth iri Section 13-15.010." SECTION 9: Section 13-15.09iD in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "513-15.090 Notice of designation (a) Following adoption by the City Council of an ordinance designating a historic landmark herita a lane or historic district, the Commission staff shall send notice o the designation, together with a copy of the ordinance, to the owner or owners of the designated historic landmark, or the owners of all property abutting a designated heritage lane, or the owners of all property within a designated historic district. The notice shall inform such owners that the designated property will be added to the Saratoga eritage F~.esource lnvent_ and may oe eiigi~ie for certain privileges and benefi under local, state or federal law. The notice shall include a statement of the regulations and restrictions upon the designated property. The Commission staff shall also send notice of the designation to: (1) The Heritage Commission; • (2) The Planning Commission; -4- (3) Any agency or department of the City requesting such notice or affected by the designation; (4) The Saratoga Historical Foundation; (5) The Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission; (6) The California State Historic Preservation Officer; and (7) The Saratoga News. (b) Notice of the designation^and the complete legal description of the designated property shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder for the County." SECTION 10: Paragraph (a) of Section 13-15.100 in Article 13-15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) The owner or owners of a designated historic landmark, or the owners of not less than sixty percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a designated heritage lane, or the owners of not less than sixty percent of the area of all recorded lots within a designated historic district, may apply to the Heritage Commission for termination of the designation.^The application shall contain a detailed description of all facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant as grounds for termination." SECTION 11: Section 13-20.010 in Aticle 13-20 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "~13-20.010 Permit required It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change any exterior architectural feature or natural feature of a designated ist 'c landmark or to construct, alter, demolish, remove or relocate any building, improvement or other structure upon any property located within a designated^ heritage lane or historic district, or to place, erect, alter or relocate any sign upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, without first obtaining a written permit to do so in the manner provided in this Article." SECTION 12: Section 13-20.070 in Article 13-20 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "~ 13-20.070 Criteria The Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, shall authorize issuance of a permit, or a conditional permit, if and only if, it is determined that: (a) The proposed work is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this • Chapter; or (b)~ The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of the -5- designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district; or (c) In the case of construction of a new building, structure or other improvement upon or within a designated historic landmark,~heritage lane or historic district, the exterio* r o~such improvement- s w~i 1 not adv~e~rsely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of the existin~landmark, lane or district." SECTION 13: Section 13-20.08iD in Aricle 13-20 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "~13-20.080 Hardship Notwithstanding Section 13-20.070, the Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, may approve an application for a permit to conduct any proposed work upon or within a designated historic landmark or property located within a convincing evidence demonstrating that a disapproval of the application • will work immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry gout the proposed work or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, building, structure, topography or other feature involved. If a hardship is found to exist under this Section, the Heritage Commission or the Planning Commission or City Council shall make a written finding to that effect, and shall specify the facts and reasons relied upon in making such finding." SECTION 14: Section 13-25.O1i0 in Article 13-25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "$13-25.010 Fees No fee shall be charged for the or or Dublic no tion. (b The City Council shall by resolution adopt a schedule of fees to be charged for the filing and processing of application for any permit required under Section 13-20.010, and appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to Section 13-20.060." SECTION 15: Section 13-25.020 in Article 13-25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S 13-25.020 Ordinary maintenance and repair L.J Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, painting, landscaping or repair of any exterior feature in or upon any designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane. or historic district that does not involve a change in design, material or the external appearance thereof, nor does this Chapter prevent the construction, reconstruction, • alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any desi ated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or is oric istrict w is as -6- been certified by the City building inspector, or fire chief, or other code enforcement officer as being in unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Building Code." SECTION 16: Paragraph (b) of Section 13-25.040 in Article 13-25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) The Planning Director shall have the duty and authority to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, and any other laws, rules or regulations of the City which govern or relate to the issuance of permits for work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district, by any or all of the following means: (1) Serving notice upon the owner or occupant~equiring the correction or removal of any violation of this Chapter; (2) Issuance of citations for violation of any provision of this Chapter; (3) Authorizing and instructing the City Attorney to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against any person who violates this Chapter, including actions for injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin such violation; (4) Request enforcement assistance from the County Sheriff's Department and the City Community Service Officers." SECTION 17: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 18: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1988, by the following vote: ~~ -7- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR ~~ -S- •~ CHAPTER 13 HERITAGE PRESERVATION INDE% ~C ~~ Article 13-05 GENERAL PROVLSIONS 13-05.010 Purpose 13-05.020 Definitions 13-10 HERITAG 13-10.010 13-10.020 13-10.030 13-10.040 13-10.050 E PRESERVATION COMMISSION Creation; qualification of members Ter m Vacancy and removal Organization Powers and duties 13-15 DESIGNATION OF A HERITAGE RESOIIRCE 13-15.010 Criteria 13-15.020 Applications 13-15.030 Study of proposal 13-15.040 Objections to proposals 13-15.050 Recommendation by Heritage Commission 13-15.060 Historic landmark 13-15.070 Heritage lane or historic district 13-15.080 Notice of public hearings 13-15.090 Notice of designation 13-15.100 Termination of designation 13-20 PEItMI'1'3 13-2 0.010 13-20.020 13-20.030 13-20.040 13-20.050 13-20.060 13-2 0.070 13-20.080 Permit required Applications Supporting data Heritage Commission action Issuance of permit Appeal Criteria Hardship 13-25 MLSCELLANEOUS PROVLSIONS 13-25.010 Fees 13-25.020 Ordinary maintenance and repair 13-25.030 Duty to keep in good repair 13-25.040 Enforcement Page 13-1 Heritage Preservation ~~ THfIS PAGE RESERVED 1F08 FUTUSB US8 Next page is 13-3 Page 13-2 Heritage Preservation 513-05.010 • ~ ~ ARTICLE 13-05 GENERAL PRdVISIONS Sections: 13-05.010 Purpose 13-05.020 Definitions • * s 513-OS.O10 Purpose It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the recognition, preservation, enhancement and use of heritage resources within the City is required in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people. The purpose of this Chapter is to: (a) Safeguard the heritage of the City by providing for the protection of irreplaceable heritage resources representing significant elements of its history; (b) Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging and regulating the compatibility of architectural styles within historic areas which reflect established architectural traditions; (c) Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the . City's past, and foster civic and neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of the City's heritage resources; (d) Stabilize and improve property values within the City and increase the economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants derived from the preservation, rehabilitation, and use of heritage resources; (e) Integrate the conservation of heritage resources into the public and private development process and identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of such resources and alternative land uses. S13-05.020 Definition ~~ For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Alteration means any exterior change or modification of a designated historical landmark or any property within a designated heritage lane or historic district including, but not limited to, exterior changes to or. modifications of structure, architectural details or. visual characteristics, grading, surface paving, the addition of new structures, removal or alteration of natural features, disturbance of archeological sites or areas, and the placement or removal of any exterior objects such as signs, plaques, light fixtures, walls, fences, steps or gates affecting the exterior visual qualities of the property, but does not include painting, landscaping and ordinary maintenance. Page 13-3 ~ieritage Preservation §13-05.020 (b) Designated heritage lane means a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail designated as a heritage resource pursuant to this Chapter. ' (c) Designated historic district means a distinct section of the City, specifically defined in terms of geographic boundaries, designated as a heritage resource pursuant to this Chapter. (d) Designated historic landmark means a building, improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land under single or common ownership, designated as a heritage resource pursuant to this Chapter. (e) Exterior architechual feature means the architectural elements embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of an improvement, including but not limited to, the kind and texture of building materials and the type and style of windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement. , (f) Heritage Commission means the historical preservation commission established pursuant to this Chapter and Commissioner means a member of the Heritage Commission. (g) Commission staff means the Planning Director and his authorized representatives. (h) Heritage resource nneans any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as having special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic significance, interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the City, the County, the State or the nation. (i) Improvement means any building, structure, parking facility, fence, gate, wall, work of art or other appurtenance or addition thereto constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment. Page 13-4 Heritage Preservation ~C ARTICLE 13-10 X13-10.010 BERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sections: 13-10.010 13-10.020 13-10.030 13-10.040 13-10.050 Creation; qualification of members Term Vacancy and removal Organization Powers and duties * s 513-10.010 Creation; qualification of members There is hereby established a Heritage Preservation Commission consisting of seven unpaid members who shall be residents of the City and appointed by the City Council, with the following qualifications: (e) One member who shall have been a candidate nominated by the Saratoga Historical Foundation; (b) One member who, by reason of training and experience, is knowledgeable in the field of construction and structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed /' architect, engineer, contractor or urban planner; ~` (c) Five members appointed at large having demonstrable interest in preservation of the heritage resources within the City. 513-10.020 Term The original appointment of Commissioners shall be as follows: one for two years; two for three years; and four for four years. Thereafter, appointments shall be made fora four-year term. No Commissioner shall serve more than two consecutive terms. S 13-10.030 Vacancy and removal (a) In the event of a vacancy occurring during the term of a Commissioner, the City Council shall make an interim appointment to fill the unexpired term of such Commissioner, and where such Commissioner is required to have special qualifications, such vacancy shall be filled by interim appointment, in the manner herein prescribed, with a person having such qualifications. (b) A Commissioner who ceases to be a resident of the City shall automatically be removed and shall be so notified by the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman shall then request the City Council to fill the vacancy. Any Commissioner may be removed at any time upon the vote of at least three Councilmembers. Page 13-5 Heritage Preservation 513-10.040 S 13-10.040 Organization (a) The Commission shall elect annually, on or before January 31st, one of its members to serve in the of1.'ice of Chairman, and may elect such other officers from among its members as it: deems necessary or desirable. Should amid-year vacancy in any office occur, the: Commisson shall elect a replacement officer at the next regular or noticed special meeting to serve until the next annual election of officers. (b) The Planning Director shall act as Secretary for the Heritage Commission, shall be the custodian of its records, shall conduct official correspondence and shall generally supervise the clerical and technical work performed at the request or on behalf of the Heritage Commission. (c) The Heritage Commission shall meet quarterly, or more frequently upon call of the Chairman or Commission staff, as necessary. All meetings shall be open to the public and a public record shall be kept of all Commission proceedings and actions. A majority of Commissioners shall constitute a quorum, with the Chairman having a vote. The Heritage Commission shall prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of its business, thereafter having the powers and authority to perform the duties hereinafter enumerated. S 13-10.050 Powers and dukes The Heritage Commission shall be advisory only to the City Council, the Planning Commission and the agencies and departments of the City, and shall establish liaison and work in conjunction with such authorities to implement the purposes of this Chapter. The ly[eritage Commission shall have the following powers and duties: (a) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing an official inventory of heritage- resources„ The inventory shall be publicized and periodically updated, and a copy thereof shall be kept on file.in the Planning Department. (b) Recommend to the City Council specific proposals for designation as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. (c) Recommend to the appropriate City agencies or departments projects and action programs for the recognition, conservation, enhancement and use of the City's heritage resources, including standards to be followed with respect to any applications for permits to con:ctruct, change, alter, remodel, remove or otherwise affect such resources. (d) Review and comment upon existing or proposed ordinances, plans or policies of the City as they relal:e to heritage resources. (e) Review and comment upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications '~ Page 13-6 Heritage Preservation X13-10.050 ~~ for tentative ma p approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource. The Commision's comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments. (f) Investigate and report to the City Council on the availability of federal , state, county, local or private funding sources or programs for the rehabilitation and preservation of heritage resources. (g) Cooperate with county, state and federal governments and with private organizations in the pursuit of the objectives of heritage conservation. (h) Upon the request of a property owner or occupant and at the discretion of the Heritage Commission, render advice and guidance on the conservation, rehabilitation, alteration, decoration, landscaping or maintenance of any heritage resource; such voluntary advice and guidance shall not impose any regulation or control over any property. (i) Participate in, promote and conduct public information and educational programs pertaining to heritage resources. (j) Perform such other functions as may be delegated to it by resolution or motion of the City Council. ~~ Page 13-? Heritage Preservation K THfI3 PAGE BESERVBD , IPOS FUTUSE USE Next page is 13-9 Page 13-8 Heritage Preservation §13-15.010 •~ ~ ARTICLE 13-15 DESIGNATION OF A BERITAGE RESOURCE Sections: 13-15.010 13-15.020 13-15.030 13-15.040 13-15.050 13-15.060 13-15.070 13-15.080 13-15.090 13-15.100 Criteria Applications Study of proposal Objections to proposals Recommendation by Heritage Commission Historic landmark Heritage lane or historic district Notice of public hearings Notice of designation Termination of designation s s s S13-15.010 Criteria The Heritage Commission may recommend to the City Council designation of a proposal as a heritage resource if it satisfies any one or more of the following criteria: C (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or achitect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents-a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. ~. • Page 13-9 Heritage Preservation X13-15.020 S 13-15.020 App~licatioas (a) Applications for designation as a heritage resource may be submitted to the Heritage Commission by any of the following: (1) The owner or owners of a building, improvement, structure, natural feature, site air area of land, requesting designation of their property as a historic landmark; (2) The owners of at least sixty percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail, or portion thereof, requesting designation as a heritage lane; (3) The owners of at least sixty percent of the area of all recorded lots within a specific geographic section of the City, requesting designation of the entire section as a historic district. (b) The City Council or the Planning Commission may also, by resolution or motion, refer a proposed designation to the Heritage Commission for its recommendation and the Heritage Commission may consider a proposed designation upon its own initiative. 513-15.030 Study of proposaal The Heritage Commission shall conduct a study of the proposed designation, based upon such information or documentation as it may require from the applicant, the Commission staff, or from other available sources. Public hearings shall not be required, but the Commission imay,. in its discretion, receive written or verbal comments from any persons hawing an interest in the proposal or any information relevant thereto. S13-15.040 Objections to penposals (e) In the event designation of a heritage resource is proposed by the City Council or Planning commission or considered by the Heritage Commission upon its own initiative, and in the futher event the Heritage Commission, as a result of its study of the proposal, determines that the proposal should be recommended to the City Council for designation as a heritage resource, the Heritage Commission shall mail written notice of its intended recommendation to each person whose name appears on the latest available t,ax roll of the County as owning the property, or any portion thereof, which is the subject of the proposed designation. Such written notice shall contain a complete description of the proposed designation and shall advise the property owners that ~Nritten objections to the proposal may be filed with the Heritage Commission within forty-five days from the date of the notice. (b) If objections are filed by the owner of any property proposed to be designated as a historic landmark, or by the owners of at least fortyrone percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a proposed heritage lane, or by the owners of at least forty-one percent of the area of all recorded lots within aproposed -' historic district, the Herita;e Commission shall discontinue any further [~ consideration of the proposal. Such proposal may not again be considered for Page 13-10 Heritage Preservation X13-15.050 designation as a heritage resource for at least twelve months after t he date of mailing the notice to the property owners unless, prior to the expiration of such twelve-month period: (1) The owner or owners of a proposed historic landmark withdraw their objection; or (2) A sufficient number of owners of recorded lots abutting a proposed heritage lane or recorded lots within a proposed historic district withdraw their objections so as to reduce the total percentage of objectors to less than forty-one percent; or (3) In the case of a proposed heritage lane or historic district, the Heritage Commission decides to modify the proposal by reducing the size or boundaries thereof so as to reduce the total percentage of objectors to less than forty-one percent. S13-15.050 Recommendation by Heritage Commission Provided the Heritage Commission is not required to discontinue consideration of a proposal by reason of objections raised pursuant to Section 13-15.040, the Heritage Commission shall render a written report within a reasonable time accompanied by all of the information and documentation reviewed by the Heritage C Commission. The report shall either recommend the designation as originally proposed, recommend a modified designation or recommend that the proposed designation be rejected. The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the Heritage Commission's decision and the information and documentation relied upon in support thereof. A copy of the report shall be sent to the property owner or owners. S13-15.060 Historic landmark (a) The report and recommendations of the Heritage Commission on a proposed historic landmark, together with the information and documentation pertaining thereto, shall be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the report at its next available regular meeting and determine whether or not to accept the Heritage Commission's recommendations. The City Council shall by ordinance either approve the proposed designation, in whole or in part or as modified, or shall by motion disapprove the proposal in its entirety. (b) In the event a designating ordinance is adopted by the City Council, such ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this Chapter and such further restrictions oti controls as may be specified in the designating ordinance. (c) Adoption of a designating ordinance shall be based upon a finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the . heritage or history of the City, the County, the State or the nation, and satisfies one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 13-15.010. Page 13-11 F.feritage Preservation 513-15.070 S13-fl5.070 Heritage lar-e of historic district (a) Beport to Planning (:ommission The report and recommendations of the Heritage Commission on a proposed heritage lane or historic district, together with the information and documentation pertaining thereto, shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission. (b) Public hearing; notice. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed designation within sixty days after receipt of the Heritage Commission's report. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner provided in Section 13-15.080. (c) Actioa4 of Planning Commission The Planning Commission shall either recommend approval of the designation as originally proposed, or approval of the designation as modified by the Heritage Commission or the Planning Commission or both, or recommend that the proposed designation be rejected. If the Planning Commission recommends approval or modified approval of the designation, it shall instruct the Commission staff to prepare and shall approve a proposed form of ordinance for adoption by the City Council designating the heritage lane or historic district and establishing a zoning overlay for such lane or district. The proposed ordinance may include such regulations or controls over the designated property as the Planning Commission deems reasonably necessary for the conservation, enhancement and preservation thereof. (d) Traagmittal of docwnents to City Council The recommendations of the Planning Commission, together with the report and recommendations of the Heritage Commission and the information and documentation pertaining thereto, and the proposed ordinance, if any, shall be transmitted to the City Council and considered at its next available regular meeting. (e) Actions of City G~uncil.. If the City Council determines that the proposed heritage lane or historic district should be considered for designation as a heritage resource, it shall adoptt a resolution initiating final designation proceedings. Such resolution shall schedule ,a public hearing on the proposed designation to be conducted within sixty days. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner provided in Section 13-15.080. The resolution may further provide that during the pendency of the final designation proceedings, no building, alteration, grading, demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work to be performed upon or within the property which is the subject of the proposed designation, or may be issued only upon specified conditions or under specified ~ circumstances. (f) Adoption or disappr~vaL At the conclusion of the public hearing, but in no event later than sixty days from the date set in the resolution for the initial public hearing, the City Council shall either adopt an ordinance designating the heritage lane or historic district, in whole or in part, or as modified, or shall by motion disapprove the proposal in its entirety. (g) Effective date. In the event a designating ordinance is adopted by the City Council, such ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption thereof and the designated pra~perty shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this Chapter and such further regulations or controls as may be specified in the designating ordinance. Page 13-12 Heritage Preservation §13-15.080 • ~ (h) Fin ' and criteria for a tion of ordinance. A ~~ dop doption of a designating ordinance shall be based upon a finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the City, the County, the State or the nation, and satisfies. one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 13-15.010. S13-15.080 Notice of public hearings (a) Notice of the time, place and purpose of public hearings conducted by the City Council and the Planning Commission pursuant to this Chapter shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing such notice as follows: (1) In the case of a proposed heritage lane, notice shall be sent to all persons whose names appear on the latest available tax roll of the County as owning any property abutting the proposed heritage lane. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (2) In the case of a proposed historic district, notice shall be mailed to all persons shown on the latest available tax roll of the County as owning any property within the boundaries of the proposed district. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (b) Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner whose name and address is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with a proposed designation. The City Council or Planning Commission may, but shall not be obligated, to give such other notices as they deem approprite or desirable. S13-15.090 Notice of designation (a) Following adoption by the City Council of an ordinance designating a heritage resource, the. Commission staff shall send notice of the designation, together with a copy of the ordinance, to the owner or owners of the designated historic landmark, or the owners of all property abutting a designated heritage lane, or the owners of all property within a designated historic district. The notice shall inform such owners that the designated property will be added to the Saratoga Inventory of Designated Heritage Resources and may be eligible for certain privileges and benefits under local, state or federal law. The notice shall include a statement of the regulations and restrictions upon the designated property. The Commission staff shall also send notice of the designation to: C (1) The Heritage Commission; . (2) The Planning Commission; Page 13-13 Heritage Preservation 513-15.100 (3) Any agency or department of the City requesting such notice or affected by they designation; (4) The Saratoga Historical Foundation; (5) The Santa Clar,g County Historical Heritage Commission; (6) The California State Historic Preservation Officer; and (7) The Saratoga News. (b) Notice of the designation as a heritage resource and the complete legal description of the designated property shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder for the County. S13-15.100 Termination of designation (a) The owner or owners of a designated historic landmark, or the owners of not less than sixty percent of the frontage of all recorded lots abutting a designated heritage lane, or the owners of not less than sixty percent of the area of all recorded lots within a designated historic district, may apply to the Heritage Commission for termination a~f the designation as a heritage resource. The application shall set forth in detail the grounds for termination and shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the administrative cost of handling the termination proceedings. (b) The same procedures, notices and hearings shall apply to the termination proceedings ss set forth in Section 13-15.030 and Sections 13-15.050 through 13-15.080 of this Article. (c) A designation may be terminated only upon a finding by the City Council that as a result of change in circumstances, the designation is no longer consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Chapter and no longer satisfies any of the criteria set forth in Section 13-15.010. (d) Upon termination of a designation, notices shall be sent to the same persons, commissions and agencies as set forth in Section 13-15.090, and a notice of termination shall also be records:d in the office of the Recorder for the County. Page 13-14 •~ ~~ ^,. Heritage Preservation ARTICLE 13-20 PER mITS Sections: 13-20.010 13-20.020 13-20.030 13-20.040 13-20.050 13-20.060 13-20.070 13-20.080 S 13-20.010 Permit required Applications Supporting data Heritage Commission action Issuance of permit Appeal Criteria Hardship Permit required § 13-20.010 It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change any exterior architectural feature or natural feature of a designated heritage resource, or to construct, alter, demolish, remove or relocate any building, improvement or other structure within a designated landmark area, heritage lane or historic district, or to place, erect, alter or relocate any sign upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, without first obtaining a written permit to do so in the manner provided in this Article. S 13-20.020 Applications Applications for permits, on forms prescribed by the Heritage Commission, shall be submitted to the Planning Director, who shall forward the application to the Heritage Commission for review and comment. The application shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the administrative cost of handling the permit request. S 13-20.030 Supporting data The application shall include the following data: ~, (a) Documentation establishing ownership of the designated property by the applicant for the permit;- (b) A clear statement of the proposed work; • .. (c) A site plan showing all existing buildings, structures, trees over twelve inches in diameter, property lines, easements and the proposed work; (d) Plans showing the exterior .elevations, materials and grading of the proposed work; Page 13-15 Heritage Preservation §13-20.040 (e) Where the application is for demolition, a detailed statement of the necessity for demolition together with photographs of the structure to be demolished; (f) Such other information or documents as may be requested by the Heritage Commission. S13-20.040 Heritage Comcriission action The Heritage Commiss'.ion shall complete its review and issue a recommendation to the Planning Director within thirty days after receipt of the application, filing fee and all supporting data. Unless legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or publication requirements for action on the application, but all decisions shall be made at re€;ular or noticed special meetings of the Heritage Commission. The Heritage Commission's recommendation shall be in writing and shall state the reasons relied upon in support thereof. Upon receipt of the Heritage Commission's recommendations, the Planning Director shall forward a copy thereof to the applicant. S13-20.050 Lssuance of permit If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance of the permit requested in the application, or issuance of such permit subject to conditions, the Planning Director shall proceed to issue the permit in accordance with the recommendation after the expiration of ten day:; from the date the recommendation is delivered to the Planning Director, provided that no appeal has been filed during such time and provided further, that no other ;approval under this Code is required for issuance of such permit. In the event this Heritage Commission recommends denial of the application, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant that the requested permit will not be granted. S 13°20.060 Appeal (a) Any recommendations issued by the Heritage Commission with respect to the granting or denial of a permit may be appealed by the applicant or any interested person to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall be taken by filing with the Secretary of the Planning Commission a written notice thereof within ten days from the date the Heritage Commission delivers its recommendation to the Planning Director. The notice of appeal shall be signed by the appellant and shall set forth all of the grounds for the appeal, together with a filing fee to cover the administrative cost of handling the appeal Upon receipt of the notice of appeal and filing fee, the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall set the appeal for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall conduct a hee~ring de novo on the appeal and may adopt, reject or modify the recommendations of the Heritage Commission. (b) The decision of the ;Planning Commission may be further appealed to the City Council by either the applicant or any interested person, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2-05.030 of this Code. Page 13-16 ~~ Heritage Preservation 513-20.070 S 13-20.070 Criteria The Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, shall authorize issuance of a permit, or a conditional permit, if and only if, it is determined that: (a) The proposed work is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Chapter; or (b) In the case of any property located within a designated landmark area, heritage lane or historic district, the proposed work does not adversely affect the character of such area, lane or district; or (c) In the case of construction of a new building, structure or other improvement upon a designated landmark area, heritage lane or historic district, the exterior of such improvements will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of existing buildings, structures and improvements located within the designated area, lane or district. S 13-20.080 Hardship Notwithstanding Section 13-20.070, the Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Heritage Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, may approve an application for a permit to conduct any proposed work upon or within a designated heritage resource, if the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that a disapproval of the application will work immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the proposed work or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, building, structure, topography or other feature involved. If a hardship is found to exist under this Section, the Heritage Commission or the Planning Commission or City Council shall make a written finding to that effect, and shall specify the facts and reasons relied upon in making such finding. ~~ Page 13-17 Heritage Preservation K TARS PAGE BESBRVED FOB FIITUBE USE Next page is 13-19 Page 13-18 Heritage Preservation ~~ ARTICLE 13-25 Sections: 13-25.010 13-25.020 13-25.030 13-25.040 S 13-25.010 MISCELLANEOIIS P80YISIONS Fees Ordinary maintenance and repair Duty to keep in good repair Enforcement s s s Fees S 13-25.010 The City Council shall by resolution adopt a schedule of fees to be charged for the filing and processing of applications for designation as a heritage lane or historic district, applications for termination of designation, applications for any permit required under Section 13-20.010, and appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to Section 13-20.060. S 13-25.020 Ordinary maintenance and repair Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, painting, landscaping or repair of any exterior feature in or upon any designated heritage resource that does not involve a change in design, material or the external appearance thereof, nor does this Chapter prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any such heritage resource which has been certified by the City building inspector, or fire chief, or other code enforcement officer as being in unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California Historical Building Code. S 13-25.030 Duty to keep in good repair The owner, occupant, or the person in actual charge of a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated heritage lane or historic district shall keep and maintain in good condition and repair all exterior portions thereof, all interior portions thereof when subject to special regulation or control as specified in the designating ordinance or permit, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necesary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature or natural feature. S 13-25.040 Enforcement (a) The violation of any provision contained in this Chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. (b) The Planning Director shall have the duty and authority to enforce the • provisions of this Chapter, and any other laws, rules or regulations of the City which Page 13-19 Eleritage Preservation X13-25.040 govern or relate to the issuance of permits for work to be performed upon or within a heritage resource, by any or a.ll of the following means: (1) Serving notice upon the owner or occupant of a heritage resource requiring the correction or removal of any violation of this Chapter; (2) Issuance of citations for violation of any provision of this Chapter; (3) Authorizing and instructing the City Attorney to initiate appropriate le€;al proceedings against any person who violates this Chapter, including actions for injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin such violation; (4) Request enforcement assistance from the County Sheriffls Department and the City Community Service Officers. ~I Page 13-20 Oo~D o ~~~~Q~~ ., '~I,ts is ~ ~!'Y ~ ~-~ ~~~/ ~ S~~Ny v~4t.E cor•~Tt~LT. AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made at Sunnyvale, California, as of June 16, 1987 by and between the CITY OF SUNNYVALE ("CITY"), AND CALIFORNIA HISTORY CENTER ("CONSULTANT"), ANI INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to render certain professional services in connection with. updating a Cultural Resources Inventory for Sunnyvale; NOW, THEREFORE, CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in Exhibit "A". Consultant shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified, and in conformity with the descriptions of tasks and procedures set forth therein. 2. Compensation. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B". The payment specified in Exhibit "B" shall bye the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this agreement, Consultant shalt submit all billings for said services to the Director o1` Community Development. Compensation for work described herein shall not exceed the sum of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety .Dollars ($ 16,390). J -z- 3. Facilities and Equipment. F_xcept as otherwise stated herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this agreement. 4. General Provisions. The General Provisions of this agreement are set forth in Exhibit "C" which is attached and is hereby incorporated by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their officers duly authorized. APPROVED AS TO FORM By ~ , <J~-C%w~-- City Attorney ATTEST: CITY CLERK By:~~~ ~ Deputy City Clerk (SEAL) r~ ~J CALIFORNIA HISTORY CENTER (3y. L,, •~ CITY OF SUNNYVALE By: c City Man ger EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK Project Description The project involves the overall coordination of publishing a Cultural Resources Inventory for the City of Sunnyvale. Maj<x components will include: a history of the City, a pictorial survey of selected structures within Sunnyvale's distinctive neighborhoods, offered with a historical perspective and a presentation of listed landmarks and nostalgia items. The Consultant shall designate Mr. James C. Williams as Project Manager. The Consultant will be hired to prepare an updated Cultural Resources Inventory identified in a June 1987 Request for Proposal. The Consultant is expected to work closely with other team members, the City si~aff, and the Heritage Preservption Commission. Tasks to be Performed by the Consultant The consultant shall undertake the following tasks: Research: The Commission will provide the consultant with ample historical data previously gathered. If the consultant recommends that additional research is needed to produce a quality document, the City shall decide whether and how to proceed. Writin /Editin The consultant shall re-write or edit the marked up versions of articles reference "Project Description:) which appear in the 1979 Cultural Resources Inventory, as submitted by the Commission. Throughout the inventory, the text shall be concise, consistent in style and shall favor an historical perspective. Mapping: The consultant shall represent locations of the inventory structures and landmarks on a city map, to bye trimmed to show individual neighborhoods, where appropriate. ~ Photography: The consultant shall provide for the re-taking of photographs of all current structures and landmarks as noted in "Project Description". Preparation for Printing: The layout design, preparation of graphics, selection of printing material and related tasks will be the responsibility of the consultant. Selection and Supervision of Contract Professionals: The consultant shall act as sole contractor, and shall be responsible for hiring and overseeing other contract staff whose services will be utilized: writers/researchers, photographer, graphics artist, etc. Meetings: The consultant shall attend periodic meetings with City staff or the Commission throughout the development of the project to keep staff apprised of the progress and to gather input. ~ i EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 SCOPE OF WORK The required consultant work products and their contents are as follows: I. Preliminary Submittal Consultant shall provide a draft of each article: introductory sections, history of Sunnyvale and Landmarks history. Consultant shall also submit a "paste up" sample of one each: inventory structure, landmark, and nostalgia item, showing full treatment as they are proposed to appear. In addition, samples of suggested paper, binding treatment and ink color shall be provided. Staff and the Heritage Preservation Commission shall review and comment on the submittals. II. Draft Consultant shall provide a draft of the complete document for review by staff and Heritage Preservation Commission. This draft should reflect any comments and suggestions made in step I. The mock-up will show all text, photographs and graphics, and in their correct placement. III. Press Check Consultant shall provide representatives from the City staff and/or Heritage Preservation Commission with an opportunity to review the final "paste-up" prior • to printing, and to view first runs at the start of printing. IV. Cultural Resources Inventory -Printed Document Consultant shall present to the City 1,000 printed copies of the Cultural Resources Inventory, having incorporated any changes requested by the Heritage Preservation Commission during the review processes in steps I, II and III. Project Schedule The estimated timeframe for completing the scope of work is as follows: June 19, 1987 Closing date for submitting proposals (by 4:00 p.m.) July 6-7, 1987 Interviews (in A.M.) August I I, (987 Negotiate and sign contract August 12, 1987 Consultant begins work September 15, 1987 Consultant presents preliminary submittal November 13, 1987 Consultant submits draft December I , 1987 Consultant presents City with camera ready on qi na l copy EXHIBIT "B" COIIAPENSATION SCHEDULE Compensation for the services described in Exhibit "A" shall be provided according to the table below. In the event that services cannot be completed within that limit, the Consultant shall provide advance written notice so that the contract may be renegotiated. Installment 4~1, in the amount of $4,000 on approval of preliminary submittal (September 18) Installment ~~2, in the amount of $9,090 on approval of final submission (December 18) •i EXHIBIT "C" GENERAL PROVISIONS • I. Independent Contractor. At all times during the ~ term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of CITY. CITY shall have the right to control CONSULTANT only insofar as the results of CONSULTANT'S services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, CITY shall not have the right to control the means by which CONSULTANT accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 2. Licenses; Permits; etc. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that CONSULTANT has all licenses, permits qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice CONSULTANT'S profession. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that CONSULTANT shall, at his sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice his profession. 3. Time. CONSULTANT shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of CONSULTANT'S obligations pursuant to this Agreement. 4. Insurance - Workers' Compensation During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall fully comply with the terms of the law of California concerning workers' compensation. Said compliance shall include, but not be limited to, maintaining in full force and effect one or more policies of insurance insuring against any liability CONSULTANT may have for workers' compensation. • S. CONSULTANT - No Agent. Except as CITY may specify in writing, CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of CITY in any ' capacity whatsoever as an agent. CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement, to bind CITY to any obligation whatsoever. 6. Assignment Prohibited. No party, to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 7. Personnel. CONSULTANT shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that CITY in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the removal of any person or persons assigned by CONSULTANT to perform services pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall remove any such persons immediately upon receiving notice from CITY of the desire of CITY for the removal of such person or persons.. 8. Standard of Performance. CONSULTANT shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged in the geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices his profession. All products of whatsoever nature which CONSULTANT delivers to CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be prepared in a substantial, first class, and workmanlike manner, and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in CONSULTANT'S profession. CITY shall he the sole judge as to whether the product of the CONSULTANT is sotisfactory. 9. Termination Unrelated to CONSULTANT'S Performance. The CITY reserves the nght to terminate this ,Agreement at any time upon written notification to . CONSULTANT.. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to the compensation earned by it prior to the date of termination, computed pro rata up to and including that date; CONSULTANT shall be entitled to no further compensation as of the date of termination. 10. Termination for Unsatisfactory Performance. The CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notification to the CONSULTANT, in the event that the City becomes dissatisfied at any time with the CONSULTANT'S performance under this Agreement. The CITY shall be the sole judge as to whether 'the performance of the CONSULTANT is satisfactory. Compensation shall be commensurate with the value of the work performed by the CONSULTANT. I I. Products of Consulting. A,II work products of the CONSULTANT are the property of the CITY and shall be provided to the CITY before the end of performance under this Agreement. 12. Hold Harmless. CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify CITY against and hold it harmless from all liability or damages on account of injury to persons or damage to property resulting fromi or arising out of the performance by CONSULTANT of this Agreement. 13. Attorney's Fees. In the event that litigation arises from interpretation or breach of this Agreement, the successful party in such litigation shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees., 14. fr~s~aace. CONSULTANT' warrants that - it shall maintain general I ia_bi I ity insurance ~n corr~p~ebe, n~v~e form for premises/operations covering--broad form property damage and personah-i~} and havin~~imits-of"500,000 bodily injury and property damage combined. All suc ittsw-a olicies shall name the CITY as an additional insured,~aF~i-stSaTl be modifiable only o 0 days advance written QTY. The CONSULTANT shall provide a cerfifitate~af irrsvrance to the CITY. RE(~UEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PREPARE AN UPDATED CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY INVITATION TO SUBMIT PROPOSAL The project involves the overall coordination of publishing a Cultural Resources (nventory for the City of Sunnyvale. Major components will include: a history of the city, a pictorial survey of selected structures within Sunnyvale's distinctive neighborhoods, offered with a historical perspective and a presentation of listed landmarks and nostalgia items. CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIVING PROPOSALS Proposals must be received by the City by Friday, June 19, 1987. PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1985, the City Council allocated $15,000 in the City budget for the purpose of updating the Cultural Resource Inventory. The current inventory was produced under the direction of the Heritage Preservation Commission in September 1979, with only two and one half months slotted to complete this ambitious task. Research was conducted in two phases. First, a "windshield" survey of Sunnyvale streets ted to the identification of potential architecturally significant sites. This mapping provided the focus for a more intensive examination and evaluation. In the second phase, research volunteers sought to document those historically significant resources which may have been overlooked in the street survey or have since been destroyed. This step relied heavily on citizen input to fill in the history "gaps." Finally, the data collected in these two phases was compiled. Sites were evaluated against specific criteria for inclusion in the publication. Since its production in 1979, the Cultural Resources Inventory has proven to be an effective and useful- tool in helping to preserve Sunnyvale's historical structures and providing a reference document for the community. However, due to the heavy time restraints on this project, the resulting document lacks the "polished" form it merits. DESCRIPTION During its study session on April 23, 1986, the Heritage Preservation Commission outlined the scope of work for updating and re-publishing the Cultural Resources Inventory. The Commission first identified their anticipated "customer" base for the inventory: the City (city business, visitors to the city, Heritage Preservation Commission, the general public, historical societies, and schools, libraries and teachers). fn reviewing several other examples of heritage publications, commission members most favored the survey by the City of Mountain View. Many aspects of the Sunnyvale update will be modeled after it. C Page 2 The scope of the work was further defined and resulted in the following determinations: • o number of copies: 1,000 --- dependent on printing costs o Binding: Solid binding (perfect) o Cover: Soft-sided, but durable. Graphics will probably feature a sketch of the "Murphy House'; sketches are already available from which to choose. ,Inside cover to feature other historical photos. o Overall dimensions of the book shall be 7 inches by 9 inches. o The inventory will be' up to 200 pages in length; each page to be numbered. o The Acknowledgement should be condensed into I-2 pages and include a brief history on the original publication, and an acknowledgement for this new edition. (Similar format to the Mountain View book). Include Heritage Commission members since 1979. o Introductory sections shall each be I-2 pages in length and shall consist of, * Purpose of the Inventory * Benefits of Conservation * Heritage Preservation Commission * Local Policies and Regulations The Commission wi I I provide amarked-up copy of current versions, to be • re-written/edited. o Table of Contents and Credits should be of similar format to the Mountain View edition. o History of Sunnyvale shall be up to S pages long, and will include photos. The Commission wil!I provide photos and history text, to be edited (and supplemented) as ne<;essary. o Inventory: The 80 structures and 10 trees (approximately) shall be featured in their respective neighborhoods (eight designated areas in all). Each neighborhood section will begin with a brief description (historical perspective, unique characteristics) of the area. Neighborhood maps will indicate locations of the featured stru<:tures. City maps are available, and text describing each neighborhood in the current inventory provides basic information. All photos of existing structures must be re-taken and will be represented in "duotone". In addition, up to 2096 of the structures should show a detail feature, also in black and white photos. The inventory dates should include the historical name if available, the address, circa date of construction, and the name of the architect if significant and if known. The text will be similar in content and format Page 3 • to the Mountain View publication, but with less emphasis on architectural detail (greater emphasis ~ history). If not a private residence, current use may be of interest, possibly as well as the name of a major company occupying a structure. The current owner of a private home should not be referenced. Also, if a structure has been moved, its original location may be of interest. o Landmarks shall make up a separate chapter in the book. Up to two pages of history shall be written, based on the current lengthier version. A map of the city will show the location of each of the eight landmarks. Each landmark should have an average of one page devoted, consisting of a "duotone" photograph and historical significance and background. o Nostalgia items, which number about six, will comprise a separate chapter, which is expected to be up to four pages long. Photographs are available, although need to be re-taken of one or two water towers. Inventory data will be provided by volunteers and edited by the consultant. o Demolished structures from the original inventory shall all be listed, by address. o Bibliography to be included. o A glossary is considered highly desirable. • TASKS TO BE PERFORMED The consultant shall undertake the following tasks: Research: The Commission will provide the consultant with ample historical data previously gathered. If the consultant recommends that additional research is needed to produce a quality document, the City shall decide whether and how to proceed. Writin /Editin The consultant shall re-write or edit the marked up versions of articles reference "Project Description") which appear in the 1979 Cultural Resources Inventory, as submitted by the Commission. Throughout the inventory, the text shall be concise, consistent in style and shall favor an historical perspective. Ma in The consultant shall represent locations of the inventory structures and landmarks on a city map, to be trimmed to show individual neighborhoods, where appropriate. Photography: The consultant shall provide for the re-taking of photographs of all current structures and landmarks as noted in "Project Description". Preparation for Printin : The layout design, preparation of graphics, selection of printing material and related tasks will be the responsibility of the consultant. Page 4 Selection and Supervision of Contract Professionals: The consultant shall act as sole • contractor, and shall be responsible for hiring and overseeing other contract staff whose services will be utilized: writer:>/researchers, photographer, graphics artist, etc. Meetings: The consultant shall attend periodic meetings with City staff or the Commission throughout the deveGopment of the project 'to keep staff apprised of the progress and to gather input. SCOPE OF WORK The required consultant work products and their contents are as follows: I. Preliminary Submittal Consultant shall provide a draft of each article: introductory sections, history of Sunnyvale and landmarks history. Consultant shall also submit a "paste up" sample of one each: inventory structure, landmark, and nostalgia item, showing full treatment as they are proposed to appear. In addition, samples of suggested paper, binding treatment and ink color shall be provided. Staff and the Heritage Preservation Commission shall review and comment on the submittals. II. Draft Consultant shall provide a draft of the complete document for review by staff and Heritage Preservation Commission. This draft should reflect any comments and suggestions made in sitep I. The mock-up will show all text, photographs and graphics, and in their correct placement. • III. Press Check Consultant shall provide representatives from the City staff and/or Heritage Preservation Commission with an opportunity to review the final "paste-up" prior to printing, and to view first runs at the start of printing. IV. Cultural Resources Inventory -printed document Consultant shall present to the City 1,000 printed copies of the Cultural Resources Inventory, having incorporated any changes requested by the Heritage Preservation Commission during the review processes in steps I, II and III. INFORMA'CION AND MATERIAL PROVIDED BY THE CITY TO THE SELECTED CONSULTANIT o Historical photographs o Aritst's sketch for cover graphics o City map, (,000 scale negative film o Copy of 1979 Cultural Resources Inventory o Copy of Mountain View publication, Now and Then o Draft versions of text, as indicated in "Project Description". o Addresses and data on each inventory structure, landmark, and nostalgia item to be included. Page 5 PROJECT FEES AND SCHEDULE A maximum of $15,000 is budgeted for this project. The City is soliciting competitive bids from qualified persons. Each proposal shall include a total estimated cost and a breakdown of that cost. $3,300. should be allowed for printing and binding costs (City printshop estimate). The tentative project schedule is as follows: June 19, 1987 Closing date for submitting proposals (by 4:00 p.m.) July 6-7, 1987 Interviews (in A.M.) July 13-14, 1987 Negotiate and sign contract July I S, 1987 Consultant begins work August 14, 1987 Consultant presents preliminary submittal October 16, 1987 Consultant submits draft *Nov. 18, 1987 Consultant presents the City with printed copies of the Inventory *dependant on printer's schedule SUBMITTAL REG~UIREMENTS FOR EACH PROPOSAL I. A brief statement of the general background, capabilites and financial stability of the consultant. 2. A statement of direct relevant experience with similar projects. 3. Indications of the consultant's understanding of the project, and a proposed work program. 4. The name of the person proposed as project leader, together with that person's experience and position within the organization. 5. The names and brief resumes of professionals who will be assigned to the project. Also indicate the time commitment of each person. 6. The estimated fee, the estimated number of hours and a proposed timetable for completing the work. 7. Six copies of the proposal (elaborate brochures and covers are not desired). • Page 6 CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS Selection of the consultant will be based upon the experience and qualifications of each team member assigned to the project. The consultant must also be able to start work on July 15, 1987 and to complete the scope of work in a timely manner. City staff and Commission representatives will review the proposals. The most qualified consultants will be interviewed. A contract will then be negotiated for approval by the selected consultant and the City Manager. CONTACT PERSON Carolyn Lehr, Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department. Telephone (408) 730-7444. •I ~~~ Mail1 Street News MainStreet <~ <NW LL ;- f.; Gas Stations Can Mahe Premium Rehabs Edgar Boles As I toted my 36-shooter camera through downtown Silver City, N.M., boyhood home of Billy the Kid, two sullen characters caught my eye. One had a vacant look while something stirred in the other, darkly. Might have to deal with them someday, I reck- oned. Iwas new in town and wore apaper-and-plastic badge. Sworn to protect downtowns from further neglect and mis- treatme~at, I was a greenhorn Main Street architect, wonder- ing if I vas equal to the task. Three years later, both those chazacters wear friendlier ex- pressions. Their days as auto- motive watering holes aze past, but they show the adaptability of a common building type-the gas station-whose presence is well known in most down- towns. Whether serving gas- oline or other purposes, old gas stations can be useful and attractive. Number 40 October 1988 In Lynchburg, Va., this gas station was rehabilitated to become the downtown visitors center. known as Bateau Landing. 1~ J National Trust for Historic Preservation fll • downtowns, buildings wero often demolished to make room for gas stations. ounger Than the 20th Century About 1905, buildings - constructed just for sell- ing gasoline began com- peting with other types of retail stores that had installed gas pumps out front to supplement sales. During the 1920s, safety and' traffic hazards inherent in pumping highly flammable fuel curbside resulted in its legal restriction. Drive-in gas stations safely centered on cleared lots soon became the norm. r~s a result, many buildings were demolished to make room for gas stations, especially in downtowns fully built before cars became plentiful. Stations consisting of a small office and a few pumps surrounded by ser- vice driveways replaced sub- stantial lot-covering buildings, which often had been several stories tall. Architectural and human density eroded. This ero- sion, coupled with curb cuts allowing cazs to cross side- walks-previously safe havens for pedestrians, hit downtowns hazd. Gas station proliferation in newly developing downtowns and commercial strips was less devastating but strongly influ- enced the character of rhos areas. As gas stations intruded o downtowns nationwide, statio design developed nations trends, regional variations, an one-of-a-kind versions. Here, de sign refers to the imagery an symbolism evoked by a station' azchitecture and graphics. 1 "Fill 'er Up. " An Architectur History of America's Gas Sta lions, architect Daniel Vieyra describes four themes of station imagery through the decades: ~~Fnntncti.~ ~~...:,.~.. L__._ __ pealed to the motorist's desire for adventure or novelty, Re- spectablestations tohis sense of dignity, Domestic stations to his need for familiarity and Func- tional stations to his sense of efficiency." [See Vieyra's book and Chester Liebs' Main Street to Miracle Mile for well-illus- trated histories of gas station design.[ Fantastic stations, whose hey- day spanned the twenties and into the thirties, take a "look at me" approach to attracting cus- tomers.. Independent dealers built many of these stations, making personal, often eccen- tric, architectural statements. A few such "roadside attraction" Nanonal Main Strert Cenrer, tiauunal Trust fur Htstonc Presrrvauon e stations mimicking icebergs, tepees, windmills and aircraft n remain, but seldom downtown. n One corporate version is the 1 Shell Oil trademazk, enlarged to d contain a small station office. Exuberant Art Deco stations d and ones based on exotic archi- s lecture, such as oriental styles, n also fit the Fantastic theme. al Before 1920, promoters and azchitects of the Respectable styles began trying to dignify the gas station, a building type which, to them, blighted Ameri- can streets. Inspired by the City Beautiful movement, these peo- ple sought to replace small, non- descriptstations, their signs and paraphernalia with neoclassical and Beaux Arts minimonument gas stations. Made of masonry, these buildings went up slowly and cost plenty to build. Soon, companies such as Union Metal, which also made streetlights, were mass-produc- ing prefabricated metal stations with classical detailing. Re- spectable stations include American colonial period exam- ples, either English or Spanish in origin, other revival styles, Art Deco and contemporary exam- ? pies. Now, as in the past, some ~ station designers reflect the i styles of nearby prominent buildings by borrowing motifs, thereby legitimizing their sta- lions by association. Domestic stations designed to look like houses began to prolif- Ir erate in the early 1920s, their popularity a product of the fa- miliaz, friendly image inherent in a home. Many residential styles have been adopted by station designers, beginning with the cottage style built ex- tensively by Pure Oil and other companies. Bungalow-style front porches aze echoed in the many gable or hip roofs extending as canopies over gas station driveways. Ex- amples of domestic stations range from regional styles like lighthouses and Pueblo Revival "mud huts," to modem styles, such as Shell Oil's ranch house design with broad, shallow- pitchedgables ofexposed timber and steel covering the pump islands and building. In the mid-1930s, when streamlined cazs were first avail- able to Americans, Functional stations began to appear. Influ- enced by the International Style and Streamline Modere, de- signers developed sleek new sta- tions with enameled-steel skins and plenty of glass. More than attempts to look modem, these stations allowed a dealer to dis- play automotive products in large office windows, clean the building easily and service cars in spacious, well-lighted bays. One of this type, Texaco's white box with green stripes and red stars, became America's best- known gas station. The Func- tional theme flourished into the 1950s. by Preserve Them? Debates rage over the importance and preservation worth- iness of gas stations and other mass-market commercial build- ings. Arecent search shows 23 gas stations listed singly in the National Register of Historic Places. An undetermined addi- tionalnumber contribute to Na- tional Register districts or carry state or local designation. As with any structure, decisions about a gas station's future should be preceded by checking into any historic designations it may have, or for which it is eligible, and related incentives for rehabilitation. Academic anal legal issues aside, our downtowns contain many gas stations, too many of them vacant or ill-used, that are not producing enough income to be maintained or rehabilitated. In communities where private rehabilitation dollars are scazce, property owners and Main Streeters must ask which is better, a vacant station; a vacant, former-station site awaiting enough capital for a new build- ing; or a rehabilitated gas station housing a business that pays rent and/or taxes? When a station occupies a prime site in a downtown where rents justify new construction, it is probably a goner. Protection by a strong local landrnark ordi- nance, however, or aim owner's attachment to the building might prevent demolition. Often, losing a nonsignificant station to a more intensive, pe- destrian-oriented use may bene- fit adowntown. In Lynchburg, Va., however, a 1940s station was rehabbed to the advantage of an entire town. Transformed into a new visitors center, thE; rehabili- tation reclaims for pedestrians a site and sidewalk long shared with cars. New construction projects and gas station adapta- tions may yield tangible bene- fits, too, such as increased in- come for owners and f:enants. daptive Use Stations may be adapted to many valuable down- townuses. Adapting and rehabilitating them suc- cessfully requires financial fea- sibility and a good physical fit between the new use and old building. Other caz-related uses are common, usually inexpen- sive, adaptations. New uses that house people and mainly serve pedestrians are more complex and costly. The more compli- cated aproject, the more impor- tant is an analysis of projected costs and income. The NMSC's technical guideline on Rehabili- tation and Pro Forma Analysis describes the process and in- cludes aworksheet. A gas station's size, layout and expandability or divisibility help determine what uses may fit. Some stations are little more than an office with pumps in front. These buildings can house small service or office uses, or even you-pump-it gasoline sales. Where, as in a Commerce, Ga., station, there was available space under the canopy, the Main Street project found an office. This type of expansion substantially changes the build- ing's proportions, yet may be necessary to keep the building in use and, therefore, in exis- tence. Painting the addition the light trim color allowed the orig- inal building to "read" around and over it. Larger gas stations with en- closed service bays offer the possibility of spacious retail, of- fice or restaurant space. Service rooms with high ceilings may allow construction of a C~ A clever rehabilitation made tnis vacant Conoco station n S+iver Citv. H.M.. into the last Ditch r,~re s W I LJ A vacant station in Commerce, Ga., was transformed into the Main Street project office. J To prevent the owner of this unused station in Lancaster, S.C.. Irom demolishing it, the Main Street project proposed a reuse rehabilitation plan. The homey style of this ex-gas station is conducive to the business of its new occupani. Lancaster, S.C., station may be needed. The building's owner planned to demolish it and build a new convenience store with gas pumps out front. Lancaster Main Street Project Manager Paul Paskoff and South Cazolina Main Street Architect Ruth Todd Odom offered him an alter- native. By adding to the station a structure of similaz shape, pro- portion and materials, the owner could meet his functional ville, Tenn. The building's ro- mantic, domestic image befits a broker of residential property. This building's original chaz- acter-set by its steeply pitched gable roofs, tall chimneys, pro- jecting bay window and round- topped, cross-buck door-re- mains, though compromised by modification. The four-posted porch at left, added since gas- pumping ceased here, shelters entries to offices in what were PURE STATION ADDITION I ,?. ~ ~.~' . I~ ~~ f;l - I; mezzanine for added floor space and, just maybe, a bit of spatial drama. The Last Ditch Cafe in Silver City, N.M., has no mezzanine, but its service room was sepazate from the office when Julie Good purchased it. The service room is brick with steel factory-sash windows and a metal roof. The office is pre- fabricated~ntirely metal and glass except for a concrete foun- dation and the brick base of the canopy post. To make a functional cafe, Good, with help from her father and brother, joined the two buildings by removing one ga- rage window and enlazging its opening, then building acon- nectingpassage to the old office: They reused the removed win- dow in the passageway; the ser- vice room became a dining room. Food is ordered in the office and prepazed in its shed- roofed addition. iE a proposed adaptive use requires much more space than the existing station contains, an addition like one designed for a and spatial needs while playing on the distinctive image embod- ied in the old station. In this plan, the station and its addition would house the convenience store. Gas pumping would occur at an island to the side of the building. A good fit goes beyond func- tion and measurable criteria. The image of a business can be reinforced by its building's style, as in the English cottage-style station now occupied by Town and Country Realty in Greene- service bays. The bay door frames and transoms remain, and are combined with infill wall and new, nine-light, cross- buck doors. An unfortunate misfit, the sign at left bears no kinship to the circular, oil com- pany sign it replaced, nor to the building. The sign's shallow- pitched roof and horizontal em- phasis seem suburban-ranch- house-based, an image at odds with the English cottage station. The $3,600 rehabilitation of Cecilia's Flower Shop facade in Z a F 4 Nanonal Main Street Center, tiauonal True for Huconc Pre~enannr. .~ ~. ``~~~ Cdr Flom' Sl~o Silver City, N.M., included restuccoing, painting and adding signs. A more advanced project might redefine the original ser- vice bay door openings by re- cessing the infill wall and win- dows, thus making the openings more prominent. Ideally, the in- fill would resemble the pattern of the original doors and include windows for displaying merchandise. ethnical Matters The feasibility of any adaptive use project de- pends directly on reha- bilitation costs, and so it is with gas stations. Rehab costs depend, in tum, on a building's condition and suitability to the proposed use, including compli- ancewith building code require- ments. Gas station rehabbers face a standard list of building systems to consider upgrading and some that aze specific togas stations. In many station adaptations, new or improved heating and cooling systems, insulation and electrical and lighting systems are essential, as are floor, wall and ceiling finishes. Rehabbers must often remove grease racks, pits and floors sloped to drain. Station restrooms, typically small and accessible only from outdoors, challenge designers' skills and owners' budgets, espe- ciallywhen larger, handicapped- accessible facilities must be provided. Where underground fuel stor- age tanks remain, out-of-sight 1 ~:,; should not mean out-of-mind. Groundwater pollution from leaking, abandoned tanks is a critical public health :issue. When gasoline sales end. at a station, tanks should be re- moved or purged and fillet( with clean sand (check state, local and federal regulations. From preservation standards to technical matters, gas station rehabilitation pazallels that of other buildings. While some sta- tions azen't worth preserving, many have architectural char- acter and business potential. Is your downtown running on three cylinders? Need an inex- pensive location for a fledgling florist or a more visible spot for an established business? Enrich your retail and architectural mixture with a rehabilitated gas station, or two. Maybe one of them could sell gasoline. Ed Boles, a registered archi- tect, is codirector of MainStreer tiew !Viexico. .~ - ~'~-„ , r j _ti _ ..w: ~i' .:+~ ,. - IL fi0rl;i :f 3 j3S StaIIOn~ it'NCfY?] fOr I,eCIIIa S Flower Shop ;n Silver City, N.M. The owner's fondness fora Mobil Pegasus sign lying behind the building prompted this rehabilitation into an auto repair shop. s s • • • Main Street Project Manager Our Town Frederiksted, Inc., in Frederiksted, St. Croix, U.S. Vir- gin Islands; is accepting applica- lions for the position of project manager. The project manager will be responsible for coordi- nating downtown revitalization activities through the Main Street program. Qualifications: Applicants should have education and/or professional experience in one or more of the following azeas: historic preservation, planning, economic development, retail- ing, mazketing, design, volun- teer management, nonprofit management and/or small busi- ness development. The project manager must be entrepreneuri- al, energetic, imaginative, well- organized and capable of func- tioning effectively in an inde- pendentenvironment. Excellent verbal and written skills aze essential. The salary range is $25,000 tq $28,000, depending on experience. Submit resume, letter of interest and three refer- ences by Nov 5, 1988 to: Our Town Frederiksted, Inc. P.O. Box 427 Frederiksted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00841 Director of Economic Development 1'he city of North Miami Beach, Fla., (pop. 36,000 is looking for a director of economic develop- ment. This newly created posi- tion requires extensive knowl- edge of the principles and practices of urban economic planning and redevelopment. Qualifications: Applicants must have knowledge of citywide re- vitalization and redevelopment programs; ability to work with the public, business communi- ty, city administration and city government; knowledge of state/county redevelopment funding and private-sector fi- nancing; ability to formulate short- and long-term plan and establish goals encompassing commercial, residential, educa- tional and religious compo- nents. Requires a bachelor's de- gree and/or master's degree in urban planning or related field. Salary range is $35,000- $50,000, plus excellent benefit package. Although position offi- cially closes on Oct. 15, 1988, applications will be accepted thereafter. Submit resume to: City Manager City of Nonh Miami Beach 17011 N.E. 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Community Development Project Manager The Emporia Community De- velopment Board is accepting applications for the position of community development proj- ectmanager. The project manag- er will be responsible for coordi- nating downtown revitalization activities in Emporia, Va. Qualifications: Applicants should have education and/or professional experience in one or more of the following azeas: economic development, retail marketing, design, planning, volunteer management, non- profit management, small busi- ness development and/or histor- ic preservation. The project manager must be entrepreneuri- al, energetic, imaginative, well- organized and capable of func- tioning effectively in an inde- pendentenvironment. Excellent verbal and written communica- tion skills are essential. The base salary is negotiable within the stated range of $19,000- $27,000, with additional bene- fits depending on experience. Submit resume, letter of interest and three references by Nov 15, 1988 to: Emporia Community Development, Inc. . VEC Job Service P.O. Box 391 Emporia, VA 23847 Main Street Project Manager The Main Street project in Pon- tiac, Ill., is seeking an individual to assist in initiating a new, independent Main Street pro- gram, fully associated with the National Main Street Center. Pontiac is a beautiful court- house-squaze community ap- proximately 100 miles south- west of Chicago. Its citizens are actively committed to investing in the downtown and wish to expand their efforts through the Main Street program. Candi- dates must have appropriate ed- ucation and experience and strong communication skills. Send resume and references to: Robert M. Kazis City Administrator City of Pontiac 321 N. Main Street Pontiac, IL 61764 (815) 844-3396 Main Street Manager Altoona, a central Pennsylvania community located in the~heart of the Allegheny Mountains is seeking a motivated, experi- enced and dedicated individual to direct a new Main Street program. Altoona (pop. 55,000) has a rich raikoad heritage as well as a diversified industrial base. Qualifications: Applicants must have a college degree and three to five years experience in a Main Street program or related experience (e.g., commercial leasing, promotion, etc.. The project manager will be required to develop and implement strat- egies for economic restructur- ing, commercial leasing, busi- ness retention, promotion and expanding market opportuni- ties. The manager must have excellent communications skills and be sensitive to historic preservation issues. Salary is $28,000, based on experience. Send resumes by Nov 1, 1988 to: Robert B. Couch Altoona-Blair County Chamber of Commerce 1212 12th Avenue Altoona, PA 16601 Job announcements should be limited to 150-200 words. Send job notices to: Editor Main Street News National Main Street Center 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 tianonal Mam Street Center, tiauonal Trust for Historic Prescrauun N~ Z Guidelines far Guidelines Practically every Main Street town in America has developed design guidelines for appropriate building rehabilitation.l3ut how many of these guidelines are geared specifically for the towns they address? The California Main Street Program feazed the answer was not many, and thus developed the publication, Developing Downtown Design Guidelines. The 52-page handboolK leads community planners through the step-by-step process of creat- ing clear criteria for improving and maintaining a dow;ntown's visual historic and architectural quality. Author Janice PreF;liasco, California's Main Street azchi- tect, says there was a need for information on how goal guide- lines aze put together. So many towns tend to copy guidelines established for another town- one that is perhaps hundreds of miles away and that differs in everything from natural setting and size to street layout:, devel- opment patterns and building styles-and the visual results in the downtown aze often jarring. To avoid these design pitfalls, order Developing Downtown design Guidelines frc-m the California Main Street Program, 1121 L Street, Suite 600, Sacra- mento, CA 95814. The hand- book sells for $6.50. Planting Seeds for tl~e Future The main source of funding for Greater Gallatin (Tenn. ~ Inc., is through membership. This yeaz, the theme of the membership drive is "Grow with G,allatin." Posters asking businesses and citizens to "plant the ;seed for the future" aze being displayed throughout the city. Greater Gallatin Seed Co. supplied the public with free seed packets to emphasize the theme. Greater Gallatin, Irtc., has sponsored many downtown im- provement projects including new streetlights, a mazket study and building rehabilitations. To maintain an office and full-time rt~R GALS ~~' ~ 1988 ~ "y?r ~ ~„_ SEED CO. ~' --~- ~=~ :,;~,_, ^•®•^ ~~ .~~e _~ Compliments of_ Green Seed Company staff, the organization relies on money raised during its mem- bership drive. In the past, financial institu- tions, industries and businesses contributed in one of three cate- gories: sponsor, $1,000 and up; patron, $500-$999; and busi- ness partner, $100-$499. This yeaz a new individual member- ship category is being offered for $25. Members receive the quaz- terly newsletter and an invita- tion to an annual event spon- sored by the organization.-S.D. Seven Out of Ten People Surveyed... Surveys help Main Street proj- ects stay abreast of local trends. But getting people to respond is not always easy. In Pazkersburg, W.Va., the Main Street project, in conjunction with Parkersburg Business Associates and the chamber of commerce, devised an incentive plan to get down- townemployees to answer their survey. Main Street Pazkersburg cir- culated sprinted survey asking downtown employees about the amount of time they spend downtown at work and for lei- sure activities, the sort of activi- ties they do downtown and the businesses they regularly pa- tronize. Respondents were also asked to rate downtown on such things as attractiveness, clean- liness, traffic patterns, safety and quality of goods and ser- vices. As a way of thanking employees for filling out the survey, some downtown mer- chants offered discount coupons on the last page of the survey But there was an even bet reason for helping the mer- chants by filling out the survey: All respondents became eligible for a free dinner for two and overnight accommodations at a restored downtown hotel sim- ply by completing an entry form at the end of the survey.-S.D. ~MainStreet Limn Jtr~et .~`etti; i; ruhli,ne~.t by the National ~ta,n ~trzct Network, a memhrr~h,n ~ rr'- gram of the Nan~_mai ~la:n Street Center. tiar.una! T~:~t tc ~r Historic Preservation, .-~~. 'Massachusetts A~rnue, N.'.V. Washington, D.C. '01136 ,?u?' 673--219. (. Jackson Walter, President, Na- tional Trust for Historic Preservation Sally Oldham, Vice Pres~den~ Programs and Sen ices Bill Parrish, Director, National :Main Street Center Kennedy Smith, Program ~lan- ager for Cummunicati•:,n and Education Linda Glisson, Editor Suzanne Dane, Associate Editor The National Trust is the only national, private nonprofit urKa- ni~ation chartered by ConKress to encourage public participa- tion in the preservatiim of sites, buildings and obiects significant in American history and culture. Support for the Nation- al Trust is provided b~• member- ship .cues, end~,wment fu^;is contributions and match,nk grants from federal agencies, In- cluding the U.S. Department ui the Interior, NaCUin11 !'ask `er- vicc, under pruvlsu~ns tit the National Histnnc Pre~en~arun Act of 1966. The ~~pinn~m .z~ pressed In this pu`+i«atn:n ;:, nut necc<anl~ r"I~~: ~...- . -~ or pullc,c~ ~~! ._ ... Department. O • v .~ C v New Director for fhe iYMSC The National Trust for Historic -Preservation is pleased to an- nounce the appointment of Bill Parrish as Director of the Na- tional Main Street Center. Paz- rish is replacing Scott Gerloff who will become Director of Corporate Mazketing for the Na- tional Trust. Bill Parrish has been with the NMSC since 1983. Most re- cently, he served as Field Ser- vices Manager with responsibil- ity for all field service activities in the 30 states and nearly 500 communities affiliated with of- ficial Main Street programs na- tionwide. Before coming to the Center, Parrish worked as Main _. Street project manager for the city of Rome, Ga. Certified local 6o~ernment WorMshops The National Main Street Cen- ter and the National Pazk Ser- vice ~NPS) aze sponsoring four laboratory workshops for certi- fied local governments (CLGs) between January and Apri11989. T'he workshops aze designed to help state historic preservation offices improve their ability to work with local preservation programs and CLGs. Each laboratory workshop will consist of an in-depth analy- sis of two local preservation programs to identify tools and techniques that might be used as models for other programs. The workshops will also make spe- cific recommendations for im- proving local programs. The findings of all four workshops will be summarized in a report prepazed for the Pazk Service. NMSC staff aze developing and conducting the workshops, open only to state historic pres- ervation office staff members. The workshop locations, as well as the attendees, were chosen by the NMSC and the NPS in Sep- tember. States and cities hosting the workshops aze: Kentucky (Bazdstown and Louisville; Mis- sissippi Meridian and Vicks- burg; Texas (Abilene and En- nis~; and Utah American Fork and Ogden City. ~LG. state coordinators from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, North Cazolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wis- consin and Wyoming have been invited to attend. Downtown Management Institute The National Main Street Cen- ter and the National Trust an- nounce the establishment of the Certification Institute in Profes- sionalDowntown Management. A professional-level training program, the Institute offers in- tensive training in downtown management and professional certification by the NMSC. Downtown revitalization pro- fessionals seeking certification must successfully complete four segments-one each in econom- ic restructuring, promotion, or- ganization and design. Each seg- ment will last two-and-a-half days and two sessions will be offered each year. The first ses- sion of the Institute, featuring economic restructuring, will be held March 1~, 1989, immedi- atelyfollowing the 1989 Nation- al Town Meeting on Main Street in Austin, Tex. The Certification Institute is designed for downtown re- vitalization professionals in communities with populations of less than 50,000. It is sug- gested that participants have at least one year of downtown management experience. Each session of the Certifica- tion Institute is limited to 50 participants. The registration fee for the first session is $495. Registration is by application to the NMSC. Applications will be reviewed by a panel of NMSC staff and state Main Street pro- gram coordinators. For the Mazch 1989 session, applica- tions must be postmazked no later than January 2, 1989. Ap- plicants will be notified of the selection committee's decisions no later than rebruary 6, 1989. A request for application form is being mailed to all Network members, along with informa- tion about the 1989 National Town Meeting on Main Street. National Main Street Center National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 112:3934 6 • HERl CC~MIS,Si~h SA ~~ C FUITVAIE AV~~UE 13ESEaFASARATCGA CA g50iC S pR pT DG A ~L- .?~Nt Nil" .,,.-~, ~,:~_ _ -__- __ ;~ -,, OCT18'88 ~~- ' l7 Ci• v• CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION Volume 13, No. 4 October - 1388 11 MILLION DOLLARS RETURNS TO OHP Some Background - It is fair to say the Department of Parks and Recreation was faced with some real problems when Proposition 70 passed in June. The administrative cost of 11 million dollars for preservation grants run through this State Office of Historic Preservation was limited to 1.5 percent and past history showed the cost of handling the 1984 Bond Act grants had been much higher. Preservation grants involve more administrative time because project selection requires more care and restoration standards are far more ri51orous and necessitate ongoing project review after grants are awarded. DPR and OHP had been working with Assemblymen Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Bill Jones (R-Visalia) to create a bond act much like the 1984 version, with adequate administrative money included to permit OHP to do all the work necessary to maintain high restoration standards for 20 million dollars in historic preservation grants. When the initiative -- "thee Cali- fornia Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Conservation Act"-- became Proposition 70, it seemed obvious both bond acts would look repetitive, would be competitive and both might fail. We could see the Jones-Costa Bond Act on the 1990 ballot, but it was shelved this year and DPR was stuck with an adminis- trative costs ceiling problem. A Successful Outcome -Director Henry Agonia (as reported in our last newsletter) decided that DPR would handle the money as part of the full 166 million directed to DIPR by Prop. 70... and OHP's Marion Mitchell-Wilson would move to DPR to help with the program. Some intense lobbying -- led by CPF and some strong pressure from legislators -- led by John Garamandi -- convinced Director Agonia to reverse his earlier decision. We feel Mr. Agonia listened well, reconsidered based upon new information, and decided that the c2~se we argued made some sense ... and we have thanked him for this willingness to listen and reconsider. The Office of Historic Preservation (with Marion remaining as Grants Administrator) will be handling the 11 million ciollars. Kathryn Gualtieri, SHPO, will remain to provide the IE~adership developed during these past four years in order to maintain the continuity required as OHP struggles to handle more work with less funding. Two Challenges -CPF has great sympathy for OHI' and we would very much like to work with this administration 1:o create an adequate funding level for the State Office ... and ~nre will continue to pursue that goal; perhaps timing wilt be better now as the need becomes more evident. We are also pleased that OHP has 11 million dollars to distribute (see companion story) but we have been advised that ongoing project revieuv will be curtailed. What this means to you is that you will haves to be more vigilant in your community to make sure grants .awarded for historic preservation produce good preservation projects with work done according to the "Secretary's Standan~s". Local preservationists will be asked to help OHP maintain the integrity of the program, and this, perhaps, is as it should be. LA JOLLA SESSIONS TO BE RESET FOR L.A.. OHP's "Small Town" Conference, set for !~ Jolla in Septem- ber, was postponed to avoid a conflict with the Americ;a's Cup Races; SHPO Kathryn Gualtieri has now informed us a November rescheduling has not worked out, either. F'or the first time this year CPF had joined in sponsoring the State Office Conference -- formerly called Rural Conferences 'fin held in Chico and Hanford. Because this autumn's conference had an important function -- with a particular focus, targetting a special audience -- we hope to work with OHP to ensure that the program at the Annual State Preservation Conference makes an extra effort to deal with this need in April, in Los Angeles. We will provide details in our next newsletter. See a e 2 for information about the Pro osition 70 Grant criteria and a lication rocedures distributed b OHP WESTERN CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS HELD IN NEVADA Representatives of nine western states met on September 23-24 in Carson City, Nevada, as part of a regularly scheduled board meeting of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Of particular interest to those in attendance was the issue of vernacular architecture in the West and the announcement of a future conference on the subject to be held in Reno in Septem- ber 1989. Blanton Owen, coordinator of the Nevada Folklife Program, Nevada State Council on the Arts, also presented two rural surveys of Lander and Lincoln Counties, as examples of his state's work with tangible folklife resources. In addition, he stressed the recording of intangible resources (songs, stories, poems, legends and oral histories), in order to fully capture the West's folklife and folklore. Robert Spude, of the National Park Service, Rocky Moun~ Region, gave a report on historic mining resources in the West and announced that the, Park Service was working to produce its first National Register Bulletin on mining issues. A Historic Mining Workshop open to historians, archeologists, architects, engineers and resource managers has been scheduled for ~ January 23-27, 1989, at Death Valley National Monument, with I a focus on the documentation, preservation, interpretation and I protection of these historic mining sites in the West. For more information, contact Dr. Spude in his Denver office at (303) 969-2875. Of special interest to the Western State representatives were the presentations of National Park Service members de Teel Patterson Tiller and Stephanie Rodeffer regarding compre- hensive planning as it related to the review by the Park Service of each state's preservation program. Working with individual state needs and priorites, Tiller and Rodeffer stresssed the importance of integrating planning into all state program areas, through the identification and development of historic contexts. These contexts would then allow the states to define their particular goals. Annual selections of surveys, nominations to I, the National Register and Certified Local Government grant awards would then become an integral part of the development of a successful planning effort (with the "context" questions obviously becoming important to local preservationists because of the effect on'grants criteria and National Register ~ priorities). I By the close of the session, Western State staffs agreed tl~ future joint meetings would be beneficial to all in attenda as a means to further communication and cooperation. It is also clear that new Federal program directions will soon have more impact on OHP and its ability to assist local government, commissions, and private preservation groups. OHPZANNOUNCES GRANT CRITERIA (The rules and application procedures for the 1988 California History and Archeology Grant Program were released last month; the following article is an edited version of the OHP announcement) The California Wildlife, Coastal and Parkland Conservation Act • of 1988 authorizes eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) for competitive grants to public agencies and nonprofit organiza- tions for the preservation of historical and archeological resources in California. . The Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, will distribute the grant fund in only °ne cycle. Allocations of funds will be authorized on July 1, 1989. The minimum grant award is expected to be $50,000, with no set maximum amount. Application deadline: All applications must be postmarked by December 1, 1988. A~olicants eligible to participate are units of local governments, districts, and nonprofit organizations such as: cities, counties, and cities/counties, regional park or open-space districts, districts authorized by statute to operate and manage parks or recreational areas or facilities; nonprofit organization means a 501(c)3 organization which has among its primary purposes the conservation and preservation of wetlands or of lands predominantly in their natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition. The a~olicant must either own the property or have some operational control of the property; construction of new structures, including reconstruction of previously existing structures, will not be funded. Eligible properties will be those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California State Historical Landmarks, or State Points of Historical Interest. Properties potentially eligible for listing on the National Register may also qualify for the program. •The history and archeology grant program is competitive. The selection criteria include assessment of the property's significance and integrity, degree of project urgency and resource protection, applicant's administrative pertormance, and the impact on major, current preservation concerns. For copies of the application form, National Register Criteria, Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects, Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, or for further information, contact: Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001. NEWS FROM THE VIRGINIA WAR FRONT Preservation Action's Nellie Longsworth reports that the Senate voted 50-25 to preserve the Manassas Battlefield environment. A massive shopping center development adjacent to the battlefield would have seriously compromised the integrity of this National Civil War shrine in northern Virginia. The Senate passage is equivalent to a "legislative taking" and produces an immediate stop-work order on the site; a fair con- demnation price would be determined by the Judiciary Depart- ment. The Senate has chosen to attach this action to the 1988 Tax "Technical Corrections Act" and is, as Senator Byrd commen- ~ed, the only "non-germane" item (we had hoped, earlier, that the technical corrections would deal with the "passive loss rule" problem playing havoc with the use of historic preservation tax credits, certainly more germane but now a dead issue for this Congress). Nellie adds that the President was certain to veto an independent Manassas Bill but is unlikely to veto a techni- cal corrections bill with the Manassas item attached. Senate action (October 11) sends the Act back to the House for Conference Committee resolution of minor differences. ~ ' ' ..r- -'.' V, . i.- X ~ - -~~. ~(' During debate on the battlefield bill, comments often pointed to the large number of nationally important sites which could face very similar threats ... and, it is clear, there just isn't enough money to buy them all. Nellie suggests next year's major question will be, how do we come up with a generic answer to an all-too-common threat facing far too many historic sites? We expect several bills will propose greater funding for preser- vation "acquisition and development"; should we propose 180- day moratoriums or demolition delay provisions for National Register properties in addition to the much more limited National Landmark categories? Could such proposals pass? What the Manassas Battlefield crisis did make evident was the massive scope of the problem, and the national, grassroots interest in the issue; Congress heard from a great many of us. Nellie feels there will be serious efforts to deal with the problem in the next Congress. THE 1988 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE RECORD A few local preservation projects were the primary benefici- aries of two years of activity as the State Legislature adjourned its 1987-88 session on September 1. Efforts to expand or initiate statewide programs died in committee or on the Gover- nor's desk, with two notable exceptions: AB 4462 (Harris) was one of two legislative attempts to expand coverage of the Main Street program. The bill, which has been signed by Governor Deukmejian, repeals the 50,000 popula- tion ceiling for eligibility and substitutes economic hardship criteria. The change is expected to extend program benefits to urban areas including Oakland, which is represented by the bill's author. A companion bill AB 4627 (Bader) that would have required the Department of Commerce to carry out an urban pilot project for historic preservation died in Assembly Committee on Economic Development. Assemblymember Sam Farr's (D-Santa Cruz) ACR 127 asks the Director of Commerce to convene an interagency task force on tourism to assist the Department and its Office of Tourism in developing a tourism marketing plan and to help identify and solve problems in delivering visitor services. According to Department of Parks and Recreation Director Henry R. Agonia, the development of a joint program involving tourism and historic preservation can help to promote tourism. Other attempts to bolster preservation efforts at the State level were less successful. AB 1995 and AB 2742, both introduced by Assemblymember Sunny Mojonnier, would have directed the California Arts Council to develop guidelines for conducting an inventory of State-owned art and artifacts. Both bills died in committee. AB 3233 (Killea), which was vetoed by the Gover- nor, would have authorized establishment of Local Historical Records Commissions. (story continues on page 7) 2 ~~ CALIFORNIA 1`` PRESERVATION F UNDATION NEWS NOTES FROM OUR BUILDING CODES CONFERENCE Is it difficult to do work on historic buildings ?Yes, sometimes! 200 people in four cities heard varied solutions to consistent problems with earthquake risk and retrofit requirements. CPF President Milford Wayne Donaldson, also serving as President of the State Historical Building Code Board, pointed out that the now-mandated Historic Building Code is often icfnored and new seismic requirements complicate the matter grEratly. Many building officials are unaware of the code and, as Architect (and father of the Historic Building Code) Ray Girvi51ian added, fewer know it covers buildings to bridges, landscape elements to statues, and is law for cities, ;~ districts and universities. Part of the problem, Board Secretary Clarence Cullimore admitted, is that Board decisions on specific alternatives to strict UBC compliance now available are little known because a lack of funding has made publication impossible. Architects John Henderson and Bruce Judd explained success can come when architects -and preservationists - si!I down with developers and building officials at project initiation to explain options the Historic Building Code opens up, and how these relate to the "Secretary's Standards"; both pointed out the need for ongoing dialogue as a project develops. Others like Kathryn Lambert, who handled design for Cable Car Clothiers' use of the Hibernia Bank in San Francisco, noted that compromise--- including partial use of buildings--- is often forced by standard code and seismic requirements. Planner Joe Hall and Land- scape Architect Deborah Denne' showed how landscape features could be preserved---while meeting handicapped and other requirements--- but lack of imagination and/or unfamiliar- ity with the Historic Building Code provision for these features often impedes preservation solutions unnecessarily. Tom Tobin, Director of the Seismic Safety Commission, explained new State Seismic Guidelines at all four sessions and stressed the impact these would have on the thousands of unreinforced masonry buildings (UMBs) in California. He used the Coalinga quake, and others, to demonstrate the effect of quakes on buildings. David Prower explained why Sian Fran- cisco was reluctant to move toward seismic strengthening of UMBs. The costs are great and would seriously affect the availabilty of affordable housing in both Chinatown aind the Tenderloin, a political and policy decision no one wants to make. David Tabor, Santa Barbara Planner, and San Diego's Ron Buckley added that many downtown core buildings have already been rehabbed for tax credits and going back: in to do seismic retrofit, now, would have crippling economic impact on both tenants and owners, on the area's economy if businesses closed, and on the availabilty of tax credits if any"historic fabric" was to be removed. Los Angeles and San Francisco ;are now attempting to map all buildings potentially "historic" ~>~ "seis- mically unsafe" so all future work will avoid this conflict, and other cities are moving to involve Landmarks Commission staff in review of development plans for,or seismic work on historic properties to protect against unwitting damage of this sort. Many speakers said government assistance for seismic retrofit was a great need, either through funds or credits, and Joe Hall said Santa Cruz was looking into bond financing for thris work. Others pointed out that fee waivers, loans, design assistance and other incentives could be packaged to help owners do seismic work and do it without destroying the building"s historic features. City officials responsible for administration of these often conflicting codes reiterated the importance ---the complex Mission Inn project serving as his example--Bruce Jucid placed on communicating early and often with all parties involved. It became clear, too, that engineers like Loring Wyllie3~f San Francisco and John Kariotis of South Pasadena had insights into the construction and safety of many UMBs which appear- ed to have big problems but were, in reality, only in need of minor work; many engineers and building officials are overly conservative because of liability fears ~p,~ a lack of fam' ty with older construction methods. Expertise and experier~ith historic buildings is highly desirable but not often available in i too many instances...and, without published material outlining sensitive alternatives, we may expect to continue seeing many harsh and unnecessary treatments of our historic resources. Fire safety in historic buildings was another subject brought to ~ the conference by fire marshalls from Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Barbara, adding more complexity to the seismic retrofit complexities. Do you worry only about exiting a fire safely or ask for more costly work which preserves the historic structure? These conferences brought many interwoven problems to light, ~' made it very clear that there are no simple answers and that policy conflicts exist. But some solutions were shared and the gatherings proved that a great need exists for much more interchange amongst all those who make decisions about the treatment of historic resources. CPF is pleased with the result of this program and recognizes how much more needs to be done to encourage the sharing of information about "codes" and historic resources. A BELATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND TI~OANK YOU We have discovered that the craftsman lantern/oak tree motif appearing on the CPF T-shirt is based on a catalogue cover- design of the Duarte firm Arroyo Craftsman, and was adapted for this one-time only CPF printing. CPF wishes to acknow- ledge the source; we are grateful to Bob Tatosian of Arro~ Craftsman for allowing us to use some of his work, and w thank him for his understanding in this matter. Arroyo Craftsman specializes in fine architectural and land- scape lighting inspired by the Arts and Crafts Movement. Located at 2080 Central!Avenue, Building B Duarte, CA 91010 (818/359-3298), Arroyo Craftsman offers consulting, design and custom fabrication. CPF members know the quality work done by Arroyo Craftsman and we recommend the firm to those of you seeking fine period lighting fixtures in the Arts and Crafts style. A copy of the catalogue of work done by Arroyo Craftsman is available, free, by contacting the firm at the address listed above. CPF's Easement Workbook is still available. In 1987 the Foun- dation presented two workshops on historic preservation ease- ments, featuring nationally-known expert Thomas Coughlin. As part of his seminar information, Tom prepared a workbook for those who attended. The 152 pages of material in the work- book cover I.R.S. regulations, "private letter rulings", state and federal statutes, model easement contract provisions, and the workbook opens with Coughlin's basic background and inter- pretation of the do's and don'ts in the world of easements; the workbook is, literally, everything you need to know about the subject. You can get your copy of the Easement Workbook---and a very few remain---for the reasonable price of $30.00 ($25 for the book and $5 for tax, postage and handling). Please ma e checks payable to: California Preservation Foundatii~ This Newsletter was produced by John Merritt with the assistance of Dick Price. Contributors included: Wayne Donaldson, Diane Seeger-Wilkinson, Lisbeth Hennin ,Nellie Lon sworth and Kath n Gualtieri. 3 • SMALL CITY CHALLENGES BIG UNIVERSITY Chico's "Third Street Six" is a group of six large wood-frame houses built between 1869 and 1914, on the south edge of the campus of California State University, Chico (CSUC). Campus officials are on record as planning to demolish the homes for more parking. CSUC already has almost a dozen parking lots of varying sizes (all surtace level), city parking lots border the campus, and there is street parking throughout the neighborhoods sun'oun- ding the campus. Chico Heritage Association President, Elizabeth Stewart, feels "ripping out the six historic houses on Third Street would create a gaping hole in the fabric of a unique neighborhood." The "fabric" referred to by Stewart is the pending nomination of a 20-block area south of the campus as a district on the National Register of Historic Places. Apparently the citizens of Chico agree. A previous City Council went on record as opposing the destruction of the buildings, and a 1983 ballot measure carried 3,706 to 1,575 (70%) in ~vor of preserving the structures on site. Stewart, John Gallardo, and Giovanna Jackson, other past presidents of Chico Heritage Association, have been researching the homes and structures in the potential district, and have had a member of the State Office of Historic Preser- vation, Marlyn Lortie, visit Chico as part of the nomination process. Lortie stated that the six houses on Third Street are integral to the unity of the district. The root of the problem stems from the attitude of Robin Wilson, since 1981 the President of CSUC. Not a Chico native, nor seemingly even an appreciator of Chico's architectural beauty, Wilson is on record stating that the structures are "cheaply built, bad old houses." He has also stated, "I think we're only kidding ourselves to say those houses are worth anything. Tearing them down would be the most feasible thing to do." Ironically, Wilson resides in a recognized historic home, the only building in Chico designed by Julia Morgan. The houses, which Wilson terms "bad, old," are in reality a visual buffer between busy Second Street and a visually offensive 1960's planning mis- take, the two-story, windowless telephone company building. Gallardo, in a letter to the Mayor of Chico last year, expressed disappointment "...that the University remains intransigent in its determination to destroy this historic block. To destroy these structures in order to gain 94 parking spaces now seems extremely shortsighted, especially since the University plans to build a multistory lot west of campus within the next few ears...." Anew parking study released this past summer ~icates that only 65 parking spaces will be gained. 4 The "Third Street Six" in Chico (line drawing by Paul Browr) Much of the controversy stems from the University's 1983 Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which was challenged by Chico Heritage and the City. The University's resultant Draft EIR (1986) was so biased that it contained comments such as "...anyone with enough money to move the buildings may be too wise to do so," called two of the six buildings "complete wrecks," and stated "General John Bidwell (the local "George Washington") is not known to have slept in any of the houses." Gallardo points out that the Draft EIR omitted "...discussion of public infrastructures, economics, traffic, parking and air quality." The Draft EIR also suggested offering the houses to the Chico Fire Department for "controlled burnings for fire suppression exercise." While some of the more offensive phrases have since been removed for the proposed Final EIR dated 1987, the gist -- there was "...no evidence to support noteworthy architectural, cultural or historical reasons to preserve the houses " ...remained the same. CHA and the community vehemently disagreed with this position. Sarah E. Newton, Professor of American Studies at CSUC, wrote in a letter that "...the Chancellors office fails to recognize that history must be defined on a local level. (The Third Street) block provides the only pristine, intact, turn-of-the- century streetscape extant in Chico." It is not as if there is no interest in what to do with the buildings should they be spared. The University could use them for classrooms, offices, housing for students or visiting professors, etc. Private citizens have offered land swaps (exchanging land elsewhere for university parking) and have offered to buy and rehabilitate the structures. One person, in fact, has proposed purchasing them and turning them into sorority and fraternity houses. The University purchased the houses in 1969-70 and used them as their "Language Houses," where students could study foreign languages and could live there, cooking food and decorating in the style of the countries being studied. After Wilson's arrival, the decision was made to close the Language Houses, and today the once-handsome structures stand vacant and derelicf, and deliberate negligence by the University will soon begin to take its toll. However, the latest structural engi- neers report and termite inspection stated that the structures were "...in surprisingly good condition." So much for the University's contention that they are "wrecks." This article was submitted by members of Chico Heritage. As we go to press, the University has still failed to file a Final EIR. Chico Heritage is working to mobilize neighborhood groups, business interests and civic officials to combat the proliferation of surtace parking lots, the immediate threat on Third Street, but a blight problem throughout the community. OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES In developments related to the Chico story on page 4, officials of the many California cities hosting campuses, led by Berkeley Mayor Loni Hancock, have formed a loose coalition intending to deal with the problems of universities insensitive to local planning goals. Berkeley voters will see a local ballot measure in November -- the "Public Agency Accounts~bility Ordinance"; Measure N would support city official efforts to force all governmental agencies, including schools, to (1) comply with zoning regulations and procedures and (.?) help bear the financial burden required when public agency building necessitates additional public services. The (ballot measure is advisory only, but it does indicate some cities -- like Chico and Berkeley -- are ready to challenge some previously unbridled forces of change in the community, which, ins the case of universities, have major impact on land use and on the cost of city services. In an important case, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review (on October 11) a San Francisco "developmE~nt fee" linked to the transit needs imposed by new development, a case appealed from a California Supreme Court decision (1987) which found the law constitutional. Many cities have imposed special fees to handle growlh- related problems since passage of Prop. 13 limited municipal revenues, and funds built on these fees have often beriefitted preservation projects and organizations. The Supreme Court action -- or refusal to reconsider -- seems to indicate that fees carefully and clearly set in proportion to the impact lever) of new development will continue to offer cities a reasonable funding source for growth management. BERKELEY The City of Berkeley and the University have reached a~n agreement which has UC Berkeley contributing $130,000 for planning costs and traffic studies; another component hias the University reimbursing the City for the loss of property t,ax when new off-campus student housing is constructed. Most cif the 'planning' money will pay for City staff costs involved in analy- zing UC's Long-Range Development Plan. Considered to be precedent-setting, this agreement acknow- ledges some costs which local government bears wheni colleges are located within city limits. Berkeley and Mayor Loni Hancock have worked hard to get Cal to recognize its irnpact and obligations; we know other state campuses (see Chico story) have been much less willing to cooperate. SAN FRANCISCO The Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage has worked with the Mayor's Office of Housing to ensure early consideration of preservation issues in the development of housing projects. The agreement resulted from Heritage's decision to forego anticipated legal action against demolition of the Colombo Building on Columbus Avenue. Heritage sees this as an important breakthrough. MOH will , now look at impacts on architectural resources of both federally and locally assisted housing proposals, triggering a consulta- tion process when significant buildings will be affected. Heritage feels the process will save some historic buildings in San Francisco and defuse charges that preservation and new housing are opposing interests. NEXT NEWSLETTER DEADLINE - - -DEC. 31, '1988 your contributions to this newsletter are encouraged TRUST PSF GRANTS ~ 5 A small grant awarded at the right time can go a long way to forge preservation partnerships and ultimately to save build- ings. Since 1969, the National Trust for Historic Preserv s Preservation Services Fund (PSF) has provided matchin~ grants, typically ranging from $1,000 to $2,500, to nonprofit organizations and public agencies to initiate preservation projects. PSF funds may be used for professional consultant services, preservation education programs and conferences. Early PSF grants often serve as the impetus to unite civic officials, business leaders and private donors to create new solutions for neglected historic properties. For example, the Randall County Historical Commission in Canyon, Texas, received a PSF grant last year to help save their local landmark, the 1908-09 Randall County Courthouse. The organization requested the National Trust's assistance when officials voiced plans to demolish the county's oldest building with continued public access. The Society was deter- mined to prove to the commissioners that rehabilitation of the courthouse was both a civic obligation and economically feasible. The National Trust awarded the Commission $1,250 in match- ing PSF funds for a study to estimate the costs of carefully preserving the structure. When the study's results were pre- sented to the board in January, a majority voted to allocate $8,000 to repair falling brickwork, the first step in the building's rehabilitation. The Alameda Main Street hopes that aPSF-assisted feasibility study will clearly define reuse options for its historic Art Deco theatre, resulting in private development of this key downtown building. Alameda Main Street heads a list of recent PSFs awarded in California. Other recent grants in California in~r: SANTA CLARA ARTS AND HISTORICAL CONSORTIUM - $1,000 to hire an architectural firm to prepare a museum facilities plan for the city-owned Harris-Lass house and farm complex. CITY OF LONG BEACH - $1,500 to produce a video on techniques for seismic retrofitting of historic buildings and . resources in the state. PARDEE HOME FOUNDATION, OAKLAND - $1,300 to develop an historic landscape plan, for the Pardee Home Museum. BLUE LAKE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - $400 for professional guidance of a 12-month volunteer historic resources survey. CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION -Two grants in the past year have enabled CPF to develop and sponsor easement workshops in northern and southern California and to receive fundraising assistance as part of a grant to all Western Region statewide preservation organizations. CHINATOWN NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT RESOURCE CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO - $1,000 to produce a bilingual brochure for property owners on the benefits of local historic district designation. PSF applications are accepted at the Western Regional Office of the National Trust on February 1, June 1, and October 1. Western Regional Office staff encourage potential applicant call and discuss proposed projects prior to the grant deadlines. For application forms and further information, contact Lisbeth Henning, Program Associate, Western Regional Office, One Sutter St., Suite 707, San Francisco, CA 94104; 415/956-0610. CAL,IF•ORNIA CITIES (more) F;IVERSIDE The Carley Group, developers of the Mission Inn, will host a private opening of the Inn on December 7 as scheduled (and required by terms of federally-assisted financing). Knox Mellon, Director of the Mission Inn Foundation (the private .support group), informs us that the Foundation is planning a second "Opening" of the Inn during January... and the public which has been following this complex restoration project for several years now, will finally have a chance to see the results. LOS ANGELES NEA has awarded a $40,000 grant to Project Restore, a nonprofit organization leading the restoration effort for the historic public areas of the Los Angeles City Hall, to be carried out by the architectural firm of Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Assoc- iates, architects for the restoration of the Los Angeles Central Library. The Master Plan for City Hall emphasizes the preservation of the building's architectural ornamentation including marble and plaster work, cast bronze doors, light fixtures and deco- rative stenciling. Erected in 1927, Los Angeles City Hall has represented the focal point of civic life for decades and was the tallest building in the city until the 1950s. Clad in California granite and glazed terra cotta with file roofs, City Hall was once considered to be one of the most significant architectural exam- ples of the neo-classical style in the state. In recent years, however, the building has suffered from neglect. In addition to the $40,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, Project Restore has raised more than $1 million towards the renovation effort with funds from the Community Redevelopment Agency, State of California, City of Los Angeles and the private sector. SAN DIEGO Sometimes you get the feeling people don't know when to stop. San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter is one of the country's best examples of historic district planning. But realization of everyone's wishes for a vital economy and healthy social environment have been slow in coming. Some feel design regulations are too rigid, particularly height restrictions. An "Infill Design Study" was commissioned to develop some alternative height regulations, but one alternative went far beyond infill guidelines for new construction to discuss height bonus "opportunities" for historic structures. The alternative (pictured here) entirely misses the point of historic districts. Historic Buildings must retain their design integrity; two possible levels of new construction above the original (here it's called primary) cornice is absurd ... like adding "~'°""°"°' t.. a new set of shoulders , and another head to a AR1ICY~AT[D TOE person. We hope the t ttTtN°tD Nt~°NT City of San Diego keeps .°. its head and rejects an idea like this one which seems to be bom of ~IIIYAl1Y COIINIC[ panic when investments aren't being returned as , ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~• ~°~ -• t t11NC N[I°NT fast as some might wish.'. ~•;i ••.,~„ i Drawin from the His- ~ ;;~_~`' ( g ,.~L:' •• ALTERNATIVE S ~nc Gaslamp Guarter t• ~.:::~'~~°.'°~ .• ~'Infill Design Study" pre- i ~; pared by: City Design for CCDC and the City of San Diego, August, 1988) 6 PUBLICATIONS California Architecture: The Historic American Building Survey Catalogue, Edited by Sally B. Woodbridge with Forewords by Kathryn Gualtieri and James Rawls, and Introductory Essays by S. Allan Chambers and Sally B. Woodbridge. Chronicle Books, (772-7240) Publishers. ($29.95 hardbound, or $16.95 paperback.) After a decade of research and preparation, the California Catalogue for the Historic American Buildings Survey's archive, located in the Library of.Congress, will be published by Chronicle Books, San Francisco. The catalogue is an invaluable record of preservation in California, which was initiated in the mid-1930s by the photographing and recording with measured drawings and historical data of the missions and adobe buildings from the Hispanic colonial periods. At the same time, photographers recorded the mining towns of the Mother Lode region. The operation of the NABS agency, which was part of the Parks and Recreation Service in the Department of the Interior, was suspended during World War II, and resumed in a limited way after the war. A second major campign of recording was launched during the Mission 66 program of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Since then, funding for the survey has come as the result of locally-initiated projects which have made matching grants to pay for teams of architects, photographers, and historians, usually students, to carry out the work defined by the local sponsors. The HAGS teams have given valuable field experience to many students who have continued to work in the preservation fields and in the professions of architecture and teaching. In California some 1000 properties, ranging from gravestones to forts to industrial complexes, buildings of all types, and even to districts and towns, have been documented. These docu- ments are available to the public on order from the HAGS archive in the Library of Congress. The catalogue presents the most continuous record of the state's architectural heritage. The introductory essays by S. Allen Chambers, long the chief Architectural Historian at the HAGS office in Washington, D.C., on the history of the HAGS operation in California, and the essay on the history of California's architecture by-Sally B. Woodbridge introduce the catalogue section where detailed information is given on each property. The book is generously illustrated with photographs and line drawings from the HABS archive. Other Publications (more on page 7) The Conservation Foundation is promoting a new program and a quarterly Successful Communities. The first issue stresses growth management and includes an overview article on no- growth or slow-growth initiatives in California, linking this movement's national importance with previous California innovations such as Proposition 13 and the Coastal Initiative. For further information on the "Successful Communities" Program, contact: The Conservation Foundation, 1250 Twenty- Fourth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037 (202/293-4800). (California Legislative Report---continued) Bills of interest to local preservation supporters, especially those requiring good intentions rather than hard cash, met with somewhat greater success. Following are the winners and losers. WINNERS AB 2740 (Roos) Declares the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel swimming pool to be of unique artistic significance arnd its underwater David Hockney mural an important cultural landmark that should be preserved. AJR 32 (Brown, W.) Memorializes the President and Congress to support and enact legislation establishing a national maritime museum in San Francisco. SB 1671 (Doolittle) Appropriates $10,000 from the General Fund for DPR to develop a management strategy and public access program for historic segments of the Donner Party Trail. SB 2130 (Mello) $110,000 appropriation from the State, Urban and Coastal Park fund for rehabilitation at Monterey State Historic Park. SCR 22 (Robbins) Requests OHP to assist the Back Alley Theatre to find funding to renovate the old Van Nuys post office building as a theater facility. LOSERS SB 581 (Morgan) Appropriate $500,000 from the Parkllands Fund for construction at the Stanford House State Historic Park. SB 1171 (Alquist) Appropriate an unspecified amount 1`rom the Parklands fund to the Department of Parks and Recreation for a grant to the City of Santa Clara for purchase of the landmark Harris-Lass House. --- Vivian Kahn, for the CPF Legislative Committee EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES The Clty of Long Beach is looking fora "Neighborhood and Historic Preservation Officer",anew position created in the City Manager's Office to make City policy on preservation more proactive. Resumes should be submitted to James Hainkla, City Manager (333 West Ocean Blvd., 13th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802) by October 31. The City of Riverside will be seeking a person with similar preservation and community development experience .as "Historic Preservation Project Manager" working in the Redevelopment Agency. This position has not been aclvertised as yet, but for information contact Maggie Gulatti, Riverside Redevelopment Director at (714) 782-5884. other publications Clem Labine, creator of The Old House Journal, has moved on to another venture: Traditional Building: Historical Products for Today's Professional is full of sources for materials, products and services for the industry which has sprung up to dual with America's love affair with old houso restoration. Traditional Building has features on individuals, skills and on products. The focus of Volume I is door and window hardware sources -- and West Coast suppliers are well covered. If Clem Labine doesn't know about it, it probably can't bra found. For a copy write: Traditional Building, 199 Berkeley Place, Brooklyn, NY 11217. •,; The National Trust is making an "Old-House StarterJFtit" available... maintenance hints, bibliography and other information owners might want to know. The Kit is available from the Center for Historic Houses, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC, 20036. The charge is $8.00 plus $2.00 for postage and handling. A reduced price of $5.00 plus $2.00 postage i~ available for purchasers who are already National Trust members. TWO NEW PRESERVATION BRIEFS Preservation Briefs 17.• Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. Lee H. Nelson, FAIA. Guidance to help property owners and architects identify those features of historic buildings that give the building its visual character so that their preservation can be maximized in rehabilitation. Preservation Briefs t 8: Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character-Defining Elements. H. Ward Jandl. Assists building owners in identifying significant interior spaces, features, and finishes so they may be preserved in rehabilitation work. The guidance applies to all building types and styles, from 18th century churches to 20th century office buildings. For further information on TPS publications, write: Technical Preservation Services, Preservation Assistance Division, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 ALSO AVAILABLE Keeping it Clean: Removing Dirt, Paint, Stains, and Graffiti from Historic Exterior Masonry. Anne.E. Grimmer. Newest of TPS' technical reports, covers virtually every aspect of a cleaning project -- identifying building materials to be cleaned and that might be affected by cleaning; scheduling cleaning ar~.i other work; what to ask for in the cleaning "specs;" and wha kind of test cleaning procedures to use. Preservation Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings. Explains in laymen's terms Federal tax incentives available to owners who rehabilitate commercial historic structures. Includes an outline of the certification process and program regulations. CALENDAR Of a series of seven lectures entitled "Building the City" by well- known historian and writer Gray Brechin, presented by San Francisco Heritage, three have been presented before this issue of the Newsletter. Those yet to be given are: October 27 - "Suburban Utopias: Marin, Berkeley, Hillsborough" November 3 - "Phoenix Reborn: Reform Years" November 10 - "Boom, Bust, and Gathering Storm: Interwar" November 17 - "The Growing Dilemmas of Growth: Postwar" Each lecture is held on Thursday nights at U.C. Laurel Heights (old Fireman's Fund building). Call Heritage 441-3000 for more information and reservations. November 4 - State Historical Resources Commission meets in San Francisco's War Memorial Building, Van Ness; for more information contact OH (916) 445-8006 7 ~r w ,` CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION ,, Board of Trustees David Cameron (Santa Monica) i 213/452-0914 B ll Delvac (Los Angeles) 213/664-5737 Linda Dishman (San Francisco) 415/255-2386 Wayne Donaldson (San Diego) 619/239-7888 Russell Fey (Fresno) 209/294-4240 Bruce Judd (Hercules) 415/421-1680 Vivian Kahn (Oakland) 415/644-6570 John Kenaston (San Francisco) 415/392-3702 Sharon Marovich (Sonora) 209/532-6937 Vincent Marsh (San Francisco) 415/558-6342 Christy McAvoy (Hollywood) 213/851-8854 GeeGee Platt (San Francisco) 415/922-3579 Mark Rabb (Canoga Park) 818/885-3575 Pamela Seager (Long Beach) 213/431-3541 Rob Selway (Santa Ana) 714/834-4741 David Shelton (Santa Barbara) 805/962-1715 Steve Spitler (Redlands) 714/782.2111 Bill Sugaya (San Francisco) 415/421-1680 Warren Williams (Sacramento) 916/925-5550 Trish Zinn (San Francisco) 415/752-6074 John Merritt (Berkeley) 415/763-0972 Executive Director The California Preservation Foundation exists to help youl improve preservation awareness and activity in your town If you think we can help, don't hesitate to call your nearest Board member or call 415/763-0972. California Preservation Foundation 1615 Broadway, Suite 705 Oakland, California 94612 IT'S REAL FUNDAMENTAL - WE NEED EACH OTHER For the past thirteen years California Preservation Foundation has grown with the help of people all over California. With no federal funding and only limited revenues from programs, we rely upon you for your support. You the members and local preservationists help us identify issues and suggest how best we may help your local community. Our board members come from local programs near you -- sometimes your own. Now, won't you HELP US CONTINUE AS WE WORK TO IMPROVE THE CLIMATE FOR PRESERVATION IN CALIFORNIA. JOIN -- RENEW -- NOW Send this coupon with your tax-deductible contribution to the California Preservation Foundation, 1615 Broadway, Suites 705 -709, Oakland, CA 94612 Your contribution will help support workshops, research, publications, legislative efforts, conferences and direct local assistance. Name(s): City: --- Zip: Home Phone: Work Phone: MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES: Individual or Organization MEMBER - - - $35.00 Student or Senior (over 60) MEMBER - - $35.00 Individual or Organization PATRON - - - $75.00 Individual or Organization SPONSOR - - $150.00 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID BERKELEY, CALIF. PERMIT NO. 308 Valerie Young 13495 Sousa Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 THE CATHEDRAL BUILDING •• OUR NEW OAKLAND ADDRESS ~t ;: ~~ PREVIEW LIST FOR POSSiaLc' ADDITiO?~ TO T!iS ,WVENTDRI' tlva~tru.c. Nu~mtarOvn~- 15880 Glen Una Dr. Haek van Holland County??? 20313 Saratoga-Las uu^atos 24280 Saratoga-Los Gatos Seven Oaks 20570 Marian Road 503-23-03 13939 Quito Rd. 13089 Ouito Raao 14199 5aratc+ga Ave 397-26-45 19220 Saratoga-Las Gatos corner c+f Citrus 514-Ob-5O 20445 Williams Ave 397-28-37 20636 Marion Rd. Renn Haase 14466 Oak Place ~ 397-22-09 146x3 Eig Fasin Way 503-25-12 14523 Eig Eosin Way 503-24-27 14524 Oak Street 14701 Oak Street 517-8-I8 22650 Saratoga Ave 386-14-023 13100 Saratoga Ave. 391-13-009 '14855 Farwell Ave. 14024 Saratoga Ave 13855 Saratoga Ave ~ 392-09-100 20x91 Park Place 14739 Oak Street West VaIiey College Carlson or Cowan Haase 14525 Fruitvale Ave 14901 rruitvale Ave 14700 Farwell Ave Pendleton 14911 Farwell Ave Farwell House Madrane Hill rock work 21459 Saratoea Hills Rd Jerd Sullivan House 20951 Saratoga Hills Rd Nelson Gardens 503-43-042 21120 Wardeii Rd bee/Worster House 21171 Congress Springs R The Lodge Vickery Ave. Toyon Lodge ~'0?5G .a Palema De bk~,un.4dtn.~d 20315 ~;erriman Rve 18500 Marshall Lane tat Quito) 20315 Orchard Rd. 20251 Saratoga Los Gatc+s Ra.J. Rosetta Quito at Pollard 20724 Prospect ;4934 Mantalvo Road/Hill A Mrs. Scott ;3150 Saratoga Ave P. Massc+n Wir+ery Austin Way Erick Roadway Ei, Eosin Way Ccmgress Springs Hotel Rock Wali 19134 Prospect Ave west of Woodside 19150 Prospect Rve across from Jahnser, Ave 14751 Gluito Road Stanfield Haase 13850 Saratoga Ave !'sy35 Saratoga Ave 13335 Saratoga Rve i~065 5aratoa rve Florence Curmingham • =0471 c0:,61 Walnut Rve >%alnut Ave 244x'1 tralnut Ave c405i Walnut Rve 14080 Aita Vista 20345 Williar~s Rve east of 24445 Williams Halts Wilsans Abrunizis 5t a~nper Schibler Dorcich Tharscn - 5ainazzi Rockwaods Kellogg? protiva Anderson );urtsburgh Hainich old? Teresi • Passantina .. Oden Robinson was Winslows c 5asa's ~ Wright Cohen ~'" Jahn Di Manto (site) 1/ Eray Hat very old? Calif State Parks Found. English Nei dl / /De-k4a++~?anu* Charles Mc Lean tTyrell] cerhaas too many changes?) Greenleaf Eng115h TuCor? farr.:heuse 2 story bungalow pink, next to Hale Estate ?Mosaic deaiction '1 stc+ry bungalow it grey i story bungalow check with Warren H. _ 2 story duplex, cream 1 story stucco , +.an and brawn grey shingle brawn ar,d white 2 story barn red bur+galc+w, 2 stc+ry, river rc+ek tow, 1 story tan huneaiow,lg parch i ~ % - CC .t >~ ~^/~ (~ `' (~ • ,LQ't~V WA11la[:':S AVe ~;l~51 IJi 11 i ams Ave_ 2n45i1 Wi 11 iarrs Ave c~445 Williams Ave ' cCE46A Wi i 1 i arras Ave E~iiliarns and Walnut -~as 5aratoga's 1st subdivision ~?uiit in 130b cC}3G1 Hii1 Ave upAer Hill Ave ~C%4ii Hili Ave uprer Hiii Rve t~ivoir) 51Cb~ Saratoga Hills Road Blanche Walto*~ (r?b7-37B3 bhecK out Lutheria, La Aaloma, orchard r : ~'f 13tri: 1'R~ i ~i~ grey, i story yellow grey, 1 story 2 story, sm darrner, yellow see r.Rao at museum hrcwn shingle, ~ story I story shingle, old? turn of century ,, •i ~' CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 2, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes of 9/21/88, 10/5/88, 10/19/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. OLD BUSINESS A. Follow-up letter to Inventory property owners B. Publication of Inventory III. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION IV. ADJOURNMENT ***Note: We have not had a quorum for the last two meetings. Chairman Heid would like to remind you all to please notify the Secretary if you won't be able to attend the meeting. Thanks. • ~1~~1~~CC~~ CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 21, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Heid, Cameron, Landsness, Ansnes, Mitchell Absent: Voester, Koepernik Staff: V. Young, L. Welge Public: Mrs. Colyar, John DiManto, Bill Heiss B. Approval of minutes of 9/7/88 M/S Mitchell/Landsness to approve the minutes of 9/7/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously, Cameron abstaining. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications Secretary Young noted that she had been asked by current planning staff to convey to the Commission that the Administrative Draft of the EIR for the subdivision of the Oddfellows property (San Marcos Heights) had been submitted. They wanted input from the Commission on the old farm structures on the property, which are in a state of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished. There was concensus to agendize this for the next meeting, with each Commissioner making an effort to visit the property before then. V. Young also distributed the proclama Brolly's farm to be issued by the Council and information on the State Historic workshop this Friday. She also handed out memo from the Heritage Commission to Commission on the Paul Masson the mosaic. suggested some minor wording changes. lion for Arch this evening, Building Code a copy of the the Planning The Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 2 II. New Business A. Application for Heritage Resource Designation - 18390 Ravenwood Drive (Brandenburg House) V. Young made a brief staff report. Mrs. Colyar, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions, noting that the application form was complete in and of itself. She briefly described the ownership history of the house and the rehabilitation work she and-her husband had done. Chairman Heid referred to the findings that must be made, and noted that the house met the selection criteria for inclusion on the Heritage Resource Inventory. Commissioner Ansnes expressed her appreciation to the Colyars for their participation in the designation program. M/S Landsness/Cameron to accept the application and recommend to the City Council approval of the designation because the property meets criteria (a) and (c) of Section 13-15.010 of the City Code for designation of a heritage resource. Motion passed unanimously. V. Young told Mrs. Colyar the application now would be forwarded to the City Council for approval;, she would notify Mrs. Colyar of that date. B. Review planning application for subdivision in the vicinity of Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads. V. Young gave a brief staff report, noting that the Heritage Commission was being requested for input on this project because it involved the rock work which was on the Inventory preview list. John DiManto, owner, and Bill Heiss, project engineer, described the project in detail, emphasizing that the goal was to preserve as much of the rock work as possible. The road will follow its present alignment, with some modifications for fire protection purposes. They noted that the walls were built between 1924-1932 with rock from Knight's Ferry in the Sierra foothills. The Commission expressed appreciation at the opportunity to review the project and commended Mr. DiManto for his commitment to preserving the special-ambiance of the site. They felt that Lot #2 was the most sensitive in terms of the building site location. Mr. DiManto noted that the • fountain area and the foot bridge would be preserved. He further stated that all repair work and new rock construction would be done by special craftsman to match Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 3 the new with the existing. He showed a record of survey of the property, a title report back to 1924, and an early promotional sales brochure dating from the 1920's-30's. There was Commission consensus to direct the Secretary to prepare a memo to the Planning Commission supporting the preservation of the rock work, suggesting that it be incorporated into the project as much as possible, that some provision be made for ongoing maintenance of the rock work, and that the residences proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3 be sensitively designed to incorporate the rock work into the site plan and house design. C. Discuss revised application form for Heritage Resource Designation. V. Young briefly reviewed the form, noting that it was done in conjunction with the request from Commissioner Voester to send follow-up letters to Heritage Resource Inventory properties. Commissioners approved of the new form, and agreed to hold over discussion on this item until Commissioner Voester returned from vacation. III. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House -.sign Commissioner Mitchell noted that volunteer coordinator Carrie Deane found people to make the sign, and that it should be installed by mid-October. B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory There was general discussion on the type of publication to use and the associated costs. Commissioner Ansnes offered to do -more research on this, and V. Young will bring samples to the next meeting. Commissioner Landsness noted her lack of time to do the photographs; there was consensus to pursue using a volunteeer in this capacity. Commissioner Mitchell will follow up. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission Commissioners Heid and Mitchell initiated discussion on the role and purpose of the Heritage Commission, especially in light of completion of the Inventory. There was a general feeling that the public perception of preservation was improving because of the good response to the Inventory. There was also consensus that now the Commission needed to work on incentives to offer owners of historic properties. i. '~ _ Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 4 V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission iii CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 5, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Mitchell, Cameron, Koepernik Absent: Voester, Heid, Ansnes, Landsness Staff: V. Young B.e Approval of minutes of 9/21/88 Due to a lack of a quorum, approval of the minutes was postponed until the next meeting. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications V. Young noted that she had received a phone call .from the owner of the San Tomas Grammar School Building regarding being listed on the Inventory. II. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House Commissioner Mitchell reported that the original piece of plywood found for the sign was too small. Commissioner Koepernik offered to procure the plywood (3 x 6') and prime it. V. Young will coordinate with the volunteer. V. Young stated that Caltrans had notified her that the house move would take place in the Spring of 1989. B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory V. Young shared samples of other Inventory publications. Among the Commissioners present, there was a consensus that there should be two publications, one just for the • Inventory forms themselves, the other as a book that could be sold. Commissioners favored the Sunnyvale book which had been recently published. • Heritage Preservation Minutes 10/5/88 Page 2 V. Young noted that a volunteer was interested in helping with the photographs. She would be meeting with him and would report back to the Commission at the next meeting. III. New Business A. Discussion of planning application for Oddfellows subdivision This item was continued to the next meeting. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission None. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Valerie Young Secretary to Commission HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION • MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 19, 1988 PLACE: Warner Hutton House TIME: 3:00 p.m. I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Present: Voester, Koepernik, Heid Absent: Cameron, Mitchell, Ansnes, Landsness Staff: V. Young B. Approval of Minutes of 9/21/88 and 10/5/88 Due to a lack of quorum, approval of the minutes was postponed until the next meeting. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted • at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications Chairman Heid reported on the recent meeting between the City Council and Commission chairs. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of planning application for Oddfellows subdivision. V. Young showed an aerial photo of the property, noting that all the farm buildings were proposed to be demolished but the cemetery would remain. There was consensus among the members present that none of the buildings were worth preserving, but that the applicant should be encouraged to photograph and document them for Hertiage Commission files. B. Warner Hutton House Sign V. Young noted that Commission Koepernik had prepared the board and the volunteer was now in the process of painting the sign. C. Publication of Inventory No discussion. 1 r D. Follow-up letter to Inventory Property Owners No discussion. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Offer from Santa Clara Land Title to do title searches V. Young briefed the Commission on this item. There was consensus among the members present to send the agency a list of properties consisting of most of those on the preview list that members are currently working on, and some from the adopted Inventory. Young will follow-up on this. IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION None V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Valerie Young Associate Planner 2 • ~~~ CALIFORNIA Office of . ~~ ~ }~ v~f -~ N E W S L E T T E R VOL. III, NO. 3 FALL 1988 • California's Carnegie Libraries The Office of Historic Preservation has launched a special project designed to identify, register, and protect Calif- ornia's remaining Carnegie Library buildings, which are among the state's most interesting and architecturally valu- able structures. The Office has con- tracted with Sonoma State University Foundation to survey the structures and prepare National Register nominations for them. The libraries will be nominated as a group under the multiple property format, and a number of libraries will be nominated as individual properties. It is hoped that this project will help to bring about the favorable recognition the libraries deserve. If your community has a Carnegie Library you would like to see listed in the National Register of Historic Places, please send a brief description and photo to the office, together with your name, address and phone number so that researcher Lucy Kortum may contact you for further information. Lucy is presently pursuing her master's degree in history with Professor Dennis Harris of SSU. The subject of her thesis is the history of California's libraries. At the end pf the nineteenth century, California joined the movement to establish separate library buildings to house community book collections. By then, libraries had come to be viewed as a panacea for such social problems as drunkenness and prostitution. Women's clubs and groups like the YMCA were instrumental in promoting libraries for the benefit of the community. After the turn of the century, Andrew Carnegie emerged as the major bene- factor ofpublic libraries in America and abroad Carnegie devoted the years following his retirement at age 66 to philanthropy, which included library grants to local communities. As a state, California was formate to receive the second largest number of libraries in the United States under the Carnegie program. In 1899, San Diego received the first California grant, fol- lowed by Oakland and Alameda the same year. In all, 142 Carnegie libraries were built in 122 different California communities. Prior to the Carnegie era, book collections were commonly housed in odd corners of buildings constructed for other purposes. The Carnegie libraries were often the first and the only libraries in town for many years, and among the forest buildings in their communities. In the mid-twentieth century, ever- growing book collections required ex- panded and updated facilities, beyond the capability of the Carnegie libraries, which were beginning to seem out- model. By 1967, 37 had been de- _: ., ~.; molished and others were threatened. `~ "' ~. Some survived through adaptive re-use; many became museums. A number have received OHP state bond act funds for rehabilitation, fitting them for a new life as non-library buildings. If others are to be saved, it is unportant to identify them and to raise public awareness of their significance through National Register ti , -~ listing. The Carnegie Library project is a major effort at preservation planning for the OHP. Spending federal and state dollars in the most effective way requires `" a fuller understanding of the historic ~.'_ contexts of our remaining architectural resources. Armed with this knowledge, the OHP will be better prepared to channel local, state, and federal funding ~- where it can best preserve our most A ~ [~,y valuable historic properties. !] Healdsburg Cmnegit Lbrmy 2 From The State Historic Preservation Officer The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) faces new challenges in provid- ing assistance to local historic preser- vation grants projects. ITEM: Since the discovery earlier this year of an estimated state income shortfall of $800 million, Governor George Deukmejian has reduced California's operating budget by $472 million, and required all agencies and departments to absorb these cuts in their proposed budgets. The Department of Parks and Recreation, OHP's parent department, reduced its $79 million operating budget by 2%, or approxi- mately $1,600,000 for fiscal year 1988-89. This means that divisions and offices, as well as field units of the State Park System, will also have less money and fewer positions. The Office of Historic Preservation is no exception. ITEM: The voters of Califonia ap- proved the passage of an $11 million Norbert Watery Builds New Future As Era Draws To A Close The last of three loaned architects is leaving the Office of Historic Preserva- tion and ending an era. Norbert Watery is, it seems, the last loaned architect. Every year for the past three years the State Parks' Development Division has loaned to the OHP one of its architects. Each architect provided emergency as- sistance on special projects, such as the 1984 Bond Act program, tax certifica- tion review, and the Public Resources state historic preservation grants pro- gram in June (Proposition 70). With a bare-bones budget of 1'fZ% to cover administrative costs, and no additional positions, changes in OHP services for the program are required. ITEM: The 1984 Bond Act pmgram for historic preservation development grants to local governments did not receive enough administrative funds or staff for anything more than minimal review. OHP must still operate this program until it terminates in 1992. The Director of Parks and Recreation, with my concurrence, has had to make adjustments in the administration of both programs. One adjustment is to require that local grants recipients take responsibility for architectural services, to be funded out of the grants themselves. Additionally, OHP staff review. of all grants has been condensed into a more time-efficient process, while still en- Code Section 5024 projects. The 5024 projects allow for OHP review of state owned historic structures. Development Division's architects in return gained hands-on preservation experience and an education in the organizational as- pects of historic preservation. Norbert's return to the Development Division in August heralded the end of an innovative era which began with architect Dave Bailey in 1986. The spirit of mutual assistance continued with the loan of architect Tom Winter through 1987, and finally ended with Norbert. In addition to keeping up with a staggering preservation work load, Norbert redesigned the entire OHP office interior into a more efficient and aesthetically pleasing workplace. He acquired a complete set of nearly new interior office partitions from the State Architect to complete the job. Although he still works with the Department of Parks and Recreation, Norbert will be very much missed. ^ Calendar surfing that all conditions and criteria of the grants are met. In this way, OHP can contribute its share to the Department's 2% cost reduction without eliminating necessary overview for the grants programs. To assist in the smooth administration of these important programs, I have agreed to the Director's request to stay on at OHP as State Historic Preservation Officer. I look forward to continuing in the field of historic preservation, working with my staff here at OHP, and most especially, continuing to develop pro- grams to benefit the preservation needs of California. ^ -Kathryn Gualtieri For a description of the new Proposi- tion 70 program, please see the ac- companying article on page 3. October 19-23, 1988 -Cincinnati, Ohio: "Preservation: The People's Choice." 42nd National Preservation Conference. Sponsored by the National Trust For Historic Preservation. September 23-26,1988 -Carson City, Nevada: National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Board of Directors Meeting and Western SHPO Meeting. October 21-23, 1988 -Santa Ana: "Diversity of History: Its Promotion and Marketing." Annual Meeting. Spon- sored by the California Committee for the Promotion of History. November 4, 1988 -San Francisco: State Historical Resources Commission Quarterly Meeting. November 8-10, 1988 - La Jolla: "Preservation Connects People Down Town." Third Annual Small Town Preservation Conference. Sponsored by the City of San Diego and OHP. December 7-9, 1988 -Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Interiors Conference and Exposition for Historic Buildings. Sponsored by the National Park Service, the American Society of Interior Designers, and the General Services Administration. February 2-4,1989 -San Luis Obispo: The Aesthetics of the Rural Renais- sance. Sponsored by California Poly- technic State University. Norbert Watery 3 • • FEDERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND: Upward Trend Continues For Fiscal 1989 The Spring 1988 issue of the OHP Newsletter reported that Congress has appropriated $22 million for the 1988/89 federal Historic Preservation Fund. That was good news. The news for fiscal 1989/90 may be even brighter. Last June the Senate Interior Appro- priations Subcommittee and the House Appropriations Committee authorized $24,750,000 for Historic Preservation Fund grants in fiscal 1989. If this appropriation is sustained throughout the remainder of the federal budget process, that would mean a 12.5% increase over last year's appropriation. Coupled with the fact that a recently revised appropriation formula includes state size and population as factors for distributing these funds to the states, California's 1989 Historic Preservation Fund grant may reach $759,000 -the highest level in five years. The federal funds will continue to support important preservation pro- grams and services such as the National Register of Historic Places, certification of preservation programs and activities administered by local governments, review compliance of federal and federally assisted projects, certification of historic property rehabilitation for investment tax credit purposes, technical assistance and preservation planning. The availability of future funds for subgrantee projects in California will depend on the actual amount of the federal grant and OHP's fiscal circum- stances at the time it is awarded. ^ $1111/IILLION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION On June 7, California voters approved $11 million to preserve archeological sites and historic structures. The California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Coservation Act of 1988, Proposition 70, authorizes competitive grants for worthy historic properties. No less than $1 million must be used for preserving archeological sites. State Parks Director Henry Agonia gave the Office of Historic Preservation the responsibility for administrating Proposition 70 monies and expressed his desire to keep administration costs low and efficiency high while giving maximum protection to cultural re- sources. The $11 million will be awarded in a single round statewide competition. The minimum single grant is expected to be $50,000 and all funds will be appro- priated onJuly 1,1989. The deadline for applying is December 1, 1988. Local governments, districts, and non-profit organizations are eligible to apply. The grants will be given to acquire, develop, rehabilitate, or restore historical prop- erties and azcheological sites. Forfurther infomrnation,contact Proposi- tion 70 Grants Coordinator Marion Mitchell-Wilson at: OHP, Planning and vocal Assistance Division, Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296- 0001. ^ NABS/HAER Update FoLrom Pores Hacae Annnal Mam Street The Office of Historic Preservation and Valley, and the ship BALCLUTHA in the Conference Iil Sacramento the California Department of Pazks and San Francisco Bay. Recreation participated again this summer Supervising the teams were student The California Main Street Program's With the National Pazk Service in the architects Christian Overby at Wilder recording of several important historic Ranch, Kurt Klimt at Will Rogers, John talization was held on June 29 30,R1988 HisOriceS Amenacan Buildingstt Survey Ja kson at the BALCLUTHA. Followbng in Sacramento. (HAWS)/Historic American Engineering work at the four sites, a group of the The conference, co-sponsored by the Record (HAER) program, five projects students relocated to the Folsom Power CA. Dept. of Commerce and the League were initiated this past June. Teams made House in Sacramento County, where in of California Cities, was attended by up of 18 student azchitects from through- September they began the first phase of a 220 people representing both public and out the United States, along with one two-yeaz program to record this National private interest. The conference partici- azchitectural student from Scotland, docu- Historic Landmazk. pants attended sessions on the organiza- mented with measured drawings Wilder Watch for news of future HAWS/HAER lion, design, promotion, and economic Ranch State Pazk in Santa Cruz County, recording projects in 1989 and 1990 as our Will Rogers State Historic Park in Los five-year cooperative effort with the See MAIN STREET' page 4 Angeles County, Scotty's Castle in Death National Pazk Service continues. ~ 4 Commission Update The State Historical Resources Com- mission held its August 5 meeting in Santa Ana at which procedures for the California Register of Historical Re- sourceswere adopted. After final written approval by the Commission, the criteria and procedures will be transmitted to Parks and Recreation Duector, Henry Agonia, for forwazding to the state Legislature. The Commission approved ten indi- vidual National Register applications, three Landmark applications, four plaque requests and seven Points of Historical Interest. The following properties have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places: Port Costa School, Contra Costa County, 5-25-88 Cole's Five Cypress Farm, Stockton vicinity, San Joaquin County, 5-25-88 U.S. Post Main Office -San Mateo (LT.S. Post Offices in California 1900- 1941 TR), San Mateo County, 4-18-88 (Federal Submission) Don Francisco Galindo House, Concord, Contra Costa County, 5-20-88 Esslinger Building, San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, 5-16-88 San Diego Civic Center, San Diego County, 5-16-88 Woman's Club of Lodi, San Joaquin County, 5-20-88 Walter B. Wood House, Modesto, Stanislaus County, 5-20-88 ALMA (Scow Schoner), San Francisco County, NHL, 6-7-88 Honey Run Covered Bridge, Chico Vicinity, Butte County, 6-23-88 Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant, Richmond, Contra Costa County, 6-23-88 Machell -Seaman House, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, 6-23-88 Carnegie Public Library Building, Colton, San Bernardino County, 6-23-88 Pacific Coast,Railway Company Grain Warehouse, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, 6-23-88 Gilroy Free Library, Santa Clara County, 6-23-88 Free Public Library of Petaluma, Sonoma County, 6-23-88 Earth Figures of California-Arizona Colorado River Basin TR: Winter- haven Anthropomorthand Bowknot, L-9, Imperial County, 10-25-85 Site D-4, San Bernazdino County, 10-25-85 Site E-21, San Bernardino County, 10-25-85 Anza Borrego-Palo Verde Site, S-2, San Diego County 10-25-85 Anza Borrego-Sin Nombre, S-4, San Diego County, 10-25-85 Anza Borrego-Split Mountain Site, S- 3, San Diego County, 10-25-85 Stonehead, L-7, Imperial County, 5-1-87 Winterhaven Anthropomorth, L-8, Imperial County, 5-1-87 The following property has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places: Site D-6 (Earth Figures ofCalifornia- Arizona Colorado River Basin TR), San Bernardino County, 10-25-85 Main Street... . Continued from page 3 issues relevant to the revitalization of downtowns in California. The morning program included informal breakfast roundtable discus- sions on historic preservation issues, business retention strategies, public relations, and business improvement districts. The afternoon luncheon speaker was Mr. Gregory Schmid of the Institute for the Future in. Menlo Pazk who spoke on the current and future economic trends facing California cities. In addition, Main Street project managers spoke on lessons learned from their local programs. ^ CALIFORNIA Office of HISTORIC PRESERVATION N E W S L E T T E R P.O. BOX 942896, SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001 EDITORIAL CObII~IITTEE: Cynthia NowsG Editor Donaw C4mau Nicholas Did Cioppo ~K Iro~wa CON1'RIBUTOR& Kathryn Guoltiai Steade Craigo Sandral7der F.yglme /tog~awa Hans Kreutrbag Maryln Lorpt Janice Preglia9co The OXP NL~IVSLE77FJt it pobliched jomm~eto yem !f yor an rot cwmrh nzrivir~ du NEWSI~77FRand M~wld tike ro be added eo on risR Plm.e ,eid Iv yon mm~r ar,d mmm nr Nh1VS1~77FJt ie fra m the rnntiaio~a of Cdjfo^m Said arty yreoone or ronunewtr m dk C.a6forniv smn oJfiae of Nisrorrc Preyesvadort P.O. Boi 91I89Q ~+~0. CA 91296.0001; (916) 1.s.sooa ,~ ~> - . '~ ~ ... ~ MR Harry L. Peaoocic 727 City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ~ 950/U Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION :j.`°'~~~. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ~ ~., . `ib. POST OFFICE BOX 942896 " SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9496-0001 19161 445.8006 TO ALL THOSE INTERESTED IN THE ANNUAL SMALL TOWN CONFERENCE IN LA JOLLA Due to contractual difficulties with the City of San Diego, the La Jolla Small Town Conference has been cancelled. We hope those of you who were planning to join us will consider coming to the California Preservation Foundation's annual statewide preservation conference April 20-23 in Las Angeles, • where many of the same topics relevant to small towns will be covered. Conference materials will be forwarded to you. The La Jolla Conference coordinator, Tong Ciani, joins the Office of Historic Preservation in expressing our regrets for ang inconvenience this cancellation might have caused gou. We look forward to seeing you in the Spring. .~! CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 19, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes of 9/21/88 and 10/5/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of planning application for Oddfellows subdivision B. Warner Hutton House Sign C. Publication of Inventory D. Follow-up letter to Inventory property owners III. NEW BUSINESS A. Offer from Santa Clara Land Title to do title searches IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT • ~lB~l~~CC~~ CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 21, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Heid, Cameron, Landsness, Ansnes, Mitchell Absent: Voester, Koepernik Staff: V. Young, L. Welge Public: Mrs. Colyar, John DiManto, Bill Heiss B. Approval of minutes of 9/7/88 M/S Mitchell/Landsness to approve the minutes of 9/7/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously, Cameron abstaining. C. Posting of Agenda • Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications Secretary Young noted that she had been asked by current planning staff to convey to the Commission that the Administrative Draft of the EIR for the subdivision of the Oddfellows property (San Marcos Heights) had been submitted. They wanted input from the Commission on the old farm structures on the property, which are in a state of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished. There was concensus to agendize this for the next meeting, with each Commissioner making an effort to visit the property before then. V. Young also distributed the proclama~ Brolly's farm to be issued by the Council and information on the State Historic workshop this Friday. She also handed out memo from the Heritage Commission to Commission on the Paul Masson the mosaic. suggested some minor wording changes. lion for Arch this evening, Building Code a copy of the the Planning The Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 2 II. New Business A. Application for Heritage Resource Designation - 18390 Ravenwood Drive (Brandenburg House) V. Young made a brief staff report. Mrs. Colyar, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions, noting that the application form was complete in and of itself. She briefly described the ownership history of the house and the rehabilitation work she and her husband had done. Chairman Heid referred to the findings that must be made, and noted that the house met the selection criteria for inclusion on the Heritage Resource Inventory. Commissioner Ansnes expressed her appreciation to the Colyars for their participation in the designation program. M/S Landsness/Cameron to accept the application and recommend to the City Council approval of the designation because the property meets criteria (a) and (c) of Section 13-15.010 of the City Code for designation of a heritage resource. Motion passed unanimously. V. Young told Mrs. Colyar the application now would be forwarded to the City Council for approval; she would notify Mrs. Colyar of that date. B. Review planning application for subdivision in the vicinity of Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads. V. Young gave a brief staff report, noting that the Heritage Commission was being requested for input on this project because it involved the rock work which was on the Inventory preview list. John DiManto, owner, and Bill Heiss, project engineer, described the project in detail, emphasizing that the goal was to preserve as much of the rock work as possible. The road will follow its present alignment, with some modifications for fire protection purposes. They noted that the walls were built between 1924-1932 with rock from Knight's Ferry in the Sierra foothills. The Commission expressed appreciation at the opportunity to review the project and commended Mr. DiManto for his commitment to preserving the special. ambiance of the site. They felt that Lot #2 was the most sensitive in terms of the building site location. Mr. DiManto noted that the • fountain area and the foot bridge would be preserved. He further stated that all repair work and new rock construction would be done by special craftsman to match Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 • Page 3 the new with the existing. He showed a record of survey of the property, a title report back to 1924, and an early promotional sales brochure dating from the 1920's-30's. There was Commission consensus to direct the Secretary to prepare a memo to the Planning Commission supporting the preservation of the rock work, suggesting that it be incorporated into the project as much as possible, that some provision be made for ongoing maintenance of the rock work, and that the residences proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3 be sensitively designed to incorporate the rock work into the site plan and house design. C. Discuss revised application form for Heritage Resource Designation. V. Young briefly reviewed the form, noting that it was done in conjunction with the request from Commissioner Voester to send follow-up letters to Heritage Resource Inventory properties. Commissioners approved of the new form, and agreed to hold over discussion on this item until Commissioner Voester returned from vacation. III. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House - sign Commissioner Mitchell noted that volunteer coordinator Carrie Deane found people to make the sign, and that it should be installed by mid-October. B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory There was general discussion on the type of publication to use and the associated costs. Commissioner Ansnes offered to do more research on this, and V. Young will bring samples to the next meeting. Commissioner Landsness noted her lack of time to do the' photographs; there was consensus to pursue using a volunteeer in this capacity. Commissioner Mitchell will follow up. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission Commissioners Heid and Mitchell initiated discussion on the role and purpose of the Heritage Commission, especially in light of completion of the Inventory. There was a general feeling that the public perception of preservation was improving because of the good response to the Inventory. There was also consensus that now the Commission needed to work on incentives to offer owners of historic properties. L~ Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 • Page 4 V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 5, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Mitchell, Cameron, Koepernik Absent: Voester, Heid, Ansnes, Landsness Staff: V. Young B. Approval of minutes of 9/21/88 Due to a lack of a quorum, approval of the minutes was postponed until the next meeting. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications V. Young noted that she had received a phone call from the owner of the San Tomas Grammar School Building regarding being listed on the Inventory. II. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House Commissioner Mitchell reported that the original piece of plywood found for the sign was too small. Commissioner Koepernik offered to procure the plywood (3 x 6') and prime it. V. Young will coordinate with the volunteer. V. Young stated that Caltrans had notified her that the house move would take place in the Spring of 1989. B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory V. Young shared samples of other Inventory publications. Among the Commissioners present, there was a consensus that there should be two publications, one just for the Inventory forms themselves, the other as a book that could be sold. Commissioners favored the Sunnyvale book which had been recently published. Heritage Preservation Minutes 10/5/88 Page 2 V. Young noted that a volunteer was interested in helping with the photographs. She would be meeting with him and would report back to the Commission at the next meeting. III. New Business A. Discussion of planning application for Oddfellows subdivision This item was continued to the next meeting. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission None. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission • AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS/SANTA CLARA VALLEY CHAPTER October 11, 1988 it4tIVESr 1CT 1;' i9~h warren He i d °LANNING DEP- Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Heid: I am writing to you as a representative of the Historical Preservation Committee of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter, the American Institute of Architects. The committee has recently decided to contact local boards and commissions dealing with historical preservation to offer advice and service in assisting their efforts. Our chapter has a long standing policy of supporting historical • preservation. We have many architect members who serve voluntarily on such boards and commissions or who act as advisors thereto. This is extremely important for cities working with the State under the Certified Local Government program. We believe that informed preservation is enhanced by the expertise architects can bring to bear on the subject. As citizens interested in bettering our communities, we desire to be more involved. If we can assist you in your efforts by lending our support, encouraging architect-volunteers in your community to apply for membership on your commission, or to deal with policy or legislation affecting the field, please call upon us. Sincerely, Marvin Bamburg, AIA Chairman, Historical Preservation Committee • 1333 LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY SUITE 205, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95051 408/249-1515 • ~~~ n u • ~9iA'~IOtiTAI. CE~'TER FOR ~'RF~FItVA'~IO~" ~A~i' 12:33 20TH STREET, v.W. • S~;ITE SOI • WASHIITGTON, D.C. 20039 • (202) 828-9611 PR69[D6vT 1;ECE~~E EXEGCT[VE D[R CCTOH TERSH BUA5BERG ESa ~ 19aa 1TEPHEN \. UF_NY[>, E50. OCT N PLANNING DEPT PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-39 September 26, 1988 Court Upholds Power of District of Columbia to Designate Interiors In Weinberg v. Barry, 634 F.Supp. 86 (D.D.C. 1986), a federal district court ruled that designation by the District of Columbia of the interior of a building as a landmark would not be a facial violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution even if public access to the interior were not a requirement for the designation. Two reported decisions now relate to efforts by the District of Columbia to designate and protect the Warner Building, which contains both a theater and offices. In the earlier decision, . Weinberg v. Barry, 604 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1985), the court had ruled that the original exterior designation of the building should be set aside because the pending designation had not been made within 90 days of receipt of an application for an exterior alteration, as required by the D.C. preservation ordinance. The section of the D.C. ordinance in question states: [T]he Review Board will determine within 90 days of receipt of [the permit] application whether to list such property [as a historic landmark], and any property not so listed will not be considered an historic landmark . The court declined to rule in the first Weinberg opinion on the power of the District of Columbia to designate a building's interior, as no designation had yet occurred and no application for an interior alteration had been filed by the building's owner to trigger the 90-day period leading to a designation decision. The building's owners were tenacious in making an unusual argument, that the District of Columbia's failure to designate the Warner Building within the required 90-day time period meant that the District could never in the future designate the same structure. (By the time of the second Weinberg decision, the exterior of the Warner Building had been designated again.) The court in the second Weinberg decision declined to read this provi"s ion as ~li~r:~hly and' Cd~~I~tsively as~ the building owners had suggested it must be read: \.~TlO\ALCE\TF.1t FOR.t'ItF:tiF:K•"ATIO\ LA~~' • But despite the fact that the 90-day provision may be crucial to preserving the D.C. Act's constitutionality, imposition of the provision in the severe form advocated by plaintiffs is not warranted in this particular case. . As plaintiffs themselves point out, because it was composed of private citizens, the Joint Committee did not behave with the rigor demanded of a government agency. Strong public policy concerns militate in favor of interpreting the potentially severe consequences of the D.C. Act to apply only to a properly constituted D.C. agency. Exonerating the Review Board from the acts of its predecessor in this case will preserve the public interest in proper landmark designation while preserving the Review Board's accountability under the statute as it is interpreted in a proper case. Accordingly, to resolve this particular action it is not necessary to decide definitively between the conflicting interpretations advanced by the parties as to the meaning of the 90-day provision in the D.C. Act. Though the building's owners tried to argue that D.C. had exceeded the 90-day limit in processing the application to designate the Warner Building's interior because an application for an interior change had been filed by a lessee, the court ruled that only an application filed by the owners of the building would have started the 90-day period running: • If the D.C. Act is to be read to impose the severe consequences for a procedural error on the Review Board urged by plaintiffs, then the D.C. Act must be read to require strict adherence to. procedural requirements by building owners also. That is, only a permit filed according to applicable regulations should trigger the 90- day period. Because the lawful owners of the Warner Building did not file the permit application at issue, the Review Hoard was not subject to the 90-day provision and the designation decision as to the interior of the building was not in violation of the D.C. Act. In an important distinction, the court pointed out that the building's owners were not challenging the constitutionality of the D.C. ordinance as ao~lied to their specific property, but only the constitutionality of the ordinance on its face: Plaintiffs have not yet obtained a decision by seeking a variance or inverse condemnation procedures. challenge to the D.C. Act as applied ripe, plaintiffs challenge only the coy D.C. Act on its face. final administrative compensation through Recognizing that a is therefore not yet zstitutionality of the The court had little trouble in finding that the purposes stated 'in ~the~ D: C:` -presBrvation ~rdtnance --are -proper governmental purposes: \,~T1O~.~LCF.~T~.4t P012 P1tF:tiF.12~'.1T(O\ L.~N- The purposes of the D.C. Act are: to accomplish the • protection, enhancement and perpetuation of features of landmarks which represent distinctive elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; to safeguard .the city's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage; to foster civil pride in the accomplishments of the past; to protect and enhance the city's attraction to visitors, thereby supporting and stimulating the economy; and to promote the use of landmarks and historic districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the District of Columbia. . State and local legislatures have broad discretion in deciding what types of land use regulations will serve a public purpose. and plaintiffs do not argue that the purposes articulated in the D.C. Act are unreasonable. The court found that designation of the interior of a building could further these purposes: Plaintiffs' primary argument is that no designation of a building interior can serve a public purpose unless the government requires public access to the building. . Even if plaintiffs' argument that a public purpose can only be served by public viewing of the property were accepted, there are in fact numerous conceivable private uses of the interiors of buildings which are compatible with public viewing of the area. Any private use which depends upon • public patronage, e. g., a hotel or department store, would allow the public to view and enjoy the interior. In fact, here plaintiffs argue that the only economically viable use for their property is as a theater. Thus even in this particular case, the owners' chosen use for their building is one which allows substantial numbers of individuals to enter and view the interior of the privately-owned building. A theater is but one example where, without mandating public invasion of the building or depriving its owners of its only economically viable use, the government can reasonably be expected to satisfy a number of the purposes of a historic preservation statute such as the D.C. Act. Because it appears that there are conceivable situations in which designation of a building interior as a historic landmark would not constitute a taking, the D.C. Act is not unconstitutional on its face. The second Weinberg decision is highly important because it appears to be the first decision by any American court upholding the power of a municipality to regulate a building interior as part of a comprehensive historic preservation program. It should give confidence to those cities already designating interior landmarks. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for -$55.00. -- Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") • ll'TILITAS FlRmffAS UEt1tI5I~5 T H E BULLETIN OF, THE COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER, 1986. VOL. Vlll. NO. I (WHOLE NO. IS) PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY OF 1700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 • Osmund Overby, President • Richar of the Committee • Editor: Catherine W. Bishir, Archives and History, Raleigh, N( Morgan, American and New England Studies Program, Boston University, 226 Bay M PRESERVATION ARCHITECTLRAL HISTORIANS W. Longstreth. Chairman 27611. Assoc. Editor: Keith N. State Rd.. Boston. MA 02215. These guidelines were prepared by the Society of Architectural Historians' Committee on Preservation to address issues brought to the attention of the Committee in recent years. The guidelines were adopted by the Board of Directors of SAH on Apri12, 1986, and have also received the official support of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Vernacular Architecture Forum. Copies may be obtained at no cost from the SAH Office. Guidelines for Architectural Historians Testifying on the Historic Significance of Properties Architectural historians engage in research into, and the dis- semination of knowledge about, the evolution of the art and craft of architecture and its place in the history of civilization. The knowledge which they perpetuate, acquire. and spread is central to understanding human growth, for the buildings of any age reflect not only the visions of their designers and clients, but also the values of their era. Architectural historians have a special responsibility to the past, for their judgments as to the value of its artifacts often figure large in public and private decisions about what to preserve and what to destroy. That which is preserved nurtures the culture whose past it represents. That which is destroyed is lost forever. Thus the architectural historian has an awesome burden when called upon to speak to the value of a building, group of buildings, and other components of the man-made environment. It is essential to the integrity of the discipline that the architectural historian's testimony be based on sound scholarship. be an honest appraisal of all the pertinent circumstances, and be given with due regard for the gravity of its consequences. Architectural historians testifying on the significance of historic properties before a duly constituted review board, commission. council, legislative committee. or court of law should: • make objective and truthful statements and eschew dissemi- nation of untrue. unfair. or exaggerated statements regarding the significance of any property or properties: • assess the significance of the property or properties in question according to applicable local, state, and/or federal criteria: • express their professional opinion only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts. upon expertise in pertinent areas of scholarship, and upon honest conviction: • state specifically the circumstances under which they are presenting testimony. including whether they are taking. or at any time have taken, a fee for work related to the case in question: and • issue no statements on behalf of interested parties unless they indicate on whose behalf those statements are being made, the nature of any compensation related to the case, and any personal interest in the property or properties in question or in property which would be affected by the disposition of the property or properties in question. Credentials. An individual who intends to testify as an expert on matters pertaining to architectural history before a duly constitut- ed review board. commission, council. legislative committee. or court of law must have a demonstrated record of achievement in that discipline. A full set of credentials applicable, directly and indirectly, to the case should be presented in writing for the public record. As credentials, it is appropriate to cite institutions attend- ed,degrees earned, research conducted, scholarly work published. pertinent consulting projects completed or in progress, and past and present employment. Professional affiliations, offices, com- mittees, and similar forms of service related to the discipline may be included, but it must be made explicit that all testtmon~• presented reflects solely that individual's opinion unless he or she has been duly authorized by an organization, agency, or frrm to speak on its behalf. All parties involved in a given case should understand that architectural historians are not certified, registered, or licensed according to a uniform set of standards comparable to those employed in professions such as law, medicine, or architecture. Moreover, it should be understood that no one form of academic program is acknowledged to be the sole means by which an individual can become an architectural historian. Advanced degrees in art and architectural history form the primary bases for entering the discipline; nevertheless, comparable preparation in other fields such as American history, American studies, geogra- phy, archaeology, and folk-life also may provide expertise in assessing aspecu of the built environment in their historic context. Furthermore, architects, landscape architects, and others practic- ing in professional design and planning fields may have expertise in facets of architectural history. Finally, it is possible for a person to acquire such expertise with little or no formal education in the field. From a legal standpoint, expert testimony must be based on specialized knowledge of a particular subject. surpassing that which might be acquired by the average, well-informed layper- son. Therefore, in all the above cases. a demonstrated record of achievement related to the historical subjects in question, rather than training or professional practice per se, should be considered the essential basis for one's qualifications to testify as an expert on matters pertaining to architectural history in a given case. More- over, simply having an interest in old buildings or being involved with efforts to preserve them should not be considered an adequate basis for such testimony. In presenting qualifications, architectural historians should be specific in enumerating their areas of expertise with respect to the case. Working in architectural history, or even in the sphere of North American architecture, does not always render an individ- ual fully qualified to address all pertinent topical areas with authority. For example, a scholar of eighteenth-century North American architecture may not necessarily be well equipped to assess the significance of properties dating from later periods. Moreover: it is doubtt'ul whether someone who knows little or nothing about the architecture of a given locale is in a good position to assess the local significance of a propert} or properties in that place. Research. A foremost responsibility of an architectural historian intending to testify on the significance of a property or properties is to familiarize himself or herself with that work to the fullest extent possible. Under all circumstances. this effort should include onsite study. Interiors also should be examined whenever feasible. and must be scrutinized when all or a portion of them are being considered in the case. Furthermore, the architectural historian intending to testify should gain familiarity with as much additional information as possible concerning the property or properties. Of at least equal importance is knowledge of the context within which the proper- ty's significance may be evaluated. Such contextual frameworks include, but are not necessarily limited to: other work of the period(s), type(s), and designer(s) involved; work employing similar materials, construction techniques, or systems; work commissioned by the same or comparable clients. occupied by the same or comparable clients or occupied by the same or analogous groups; and the physical setting in both its historic and current dimensions. In cases involving one or more properties within a designated historic district. or a precinct that has the potential to become a historic district, the full nature of the contribution of the property or properties to that district should be carefully consid- ered. In some instances. the necessan• research mar• already have been conducted for a case. The architectural historian intending to testify then has the responsibility to examine this material carefully. making sure that it is complete and accurate, prior to preparing his or her scholarly evaluation. In other instances, additional research may be needed, and the architectural historian intending to testify either should undertake this work or wait until it is completed by another responsible party before preparing an assessment. Whenever possible, architectural historians intending to testify should also seek consultation from colleagues known for their research in specialized subject areas pertinent to the case. It should be realized that many such subject areas have received little or no scholarly attention and that the absence of this research should not necessarily preclude responsible efforts to save signifi- cant properties. It further should be recognized that many cases cannot be researched in a definitive manner when such an undertaking would require far more time than can be allocated even under favorable circumstances. Nevertheless, in all cases, an architectural historian intending to testify should exercise his or her best professional judgment in determining whether adequate information is available and determining that no available information is being concealed from consideration. Moreover, the architectural historian offering testimony should be explicit re- garding the degree to which his or her statements are based on his or her own research or on the work of others. Under no circumstances should an architectural historian convey the im- pression that an assessment is his or her own when it has in fact been wholly or substantially prepared by another party. Criteria for Evaluation. Architectural historians intending to testify should be thoroughly familiar with applicable local, state, and federal criteria for evaluation and gain a full understanding of the issues relating to significance that the testimony is,intended to resolve. The criteria for the National Register of Historic Places and for most, if not all, local landmark and historic district ordinances specify that properties may be designated on the basis of local significance as well as by virtue of their significance to a state or the nation. However, the concept of local significance is often ignored or distorted in testimony and thus deserves special consideration here. A given work may not rank among the finest designed by a distinguished architect, for example, but this does not necessarily undermine its significance for the locality in question. Similarly, comparative analysis of examples of a build- ing type in different geographic regions does not necessarily provide insight on the local significance of examples in any one of those regions. Furthermore, local significance should not be interpreted as meaning only the earliest, oldest surviving, best. or most unusual examples unless the applicable criteria for evaluation so state. The objective of national preservation legis/anon and most local ordi- nances is to foster a comprehensive plan for protecting historic properties. Indeed, significance often may be fully understood only after it is studied in relation to the local context. Failure to assess a property's or properties' significance in any of the above ways will undermine the credibility of the testimony and run counter to the intent of the national historic preservation program. Fees. Taking a fee for testimony is legal under most circum- stances and should not. in itself, be construed as diminishing the value of testimony. At the same time, an architectural historian who even unintentionally conveys the impression that his or her testimony is in any way affected by monetary compensation or personal reasons contrary to those of sound scholarship blemishes both preservation efforts and the discipline's integrity. Indeed. the entire basis for scholarship, along with its public reputation, rests on its independence. Therefore, architectural historians should make every reasonable effort to demonstrate that their testimony is motivated solely by honest conviction, understanding of all relevant material, and scholarly expertise. (n every instance. architectural historians testifying should state explicitly whether they are taking a fee for that testimony: whether they are taking, or•at any time have taken, a fee for work related to the case: and the source or sources for same fees. They should further explicitly state all the circumstances under which they are presenting testimony in that case. In contractual agreements which will, or may at some later date, include testimony, that agreement should stipulate that the underlying aim of the architectural historian's work is to amve at an objective evaluation of the significance of the property or properties in question. The contracted fee should be structured according to the nature of the work undertaken for research, analysis, and preparation of findings in a report or other appro- priate form, and not according to the real or potential monetary value of the property or properties in question. Under some circumstances, it may be prudent to perform such work incre- mentally; that is, prepare preliminary findings, and, should the contracting parties so agree, then proceed with an in-depth study. The contractual agreement should specifically preclude the con- tractor's later excerpting portions of the study in a manner that distorts the overall findings of that study. Furthermore, architec- tural historians should never agree-for monetary compensation or otherwise-to prepare a study that merely makes an argument pro or con without weighing all pertinent information and performing a full scholarly assessment. No uniform set of standards should be established for such studies any more than for other forms of scholarly endeavor. Architectural historians should be guided by the same standards that are considered exemplary for other work in their discipline. A study too quickly prepared, lacking careful consideration of all aspects contributing to complete historical analysis, should be viewed as a serious breach of personal and professional integrity. Summary. Architectural historians should regard testimony as a public service and as a constructive means of advocating the retention of significant components of the man-made environ- ment in accordance. with applicable local, state, and federal laws. All work done to prepare for testimony, as well as the testimony itself, also should reflect high scholarly standards and should not suggest personal gain of any sort acquired at the expense of these objectives. - • . cr. e+. p.o. ~ vur >u •Yr~rr. t.wy.r.~ n.pert t», lets Deye n INSIGHT Real estate Local ordinances boost historic preservation sy ~..he. N. Drnnla Anrriun ooarb wriMd 10 y.ra dlrr Chrrlgbn'. mrelrrnt in 1901 of IM nrtiui firN tool hiet«ic praawvnlion ordinance b hat • coos iwvoleirt~ wrh an ordinrrroe. 71ria (net nq ngrre lhnt mmnmmitiae had aa«ciard raWiar, area timidity, in llr ndtaiaiotnti«r o1 their but «dinangr, bN tlr ~ Irolh M that r of 1911 owly Ihrea Aarerian ciliea 1/'hrrlabn, New Orlnrra cad Son Anb nio) hod routed but AiN«ie dietricta iw which ehrrrp b properfiu wen b M reviewed rnd approved by teal horde of archileAOrd review w hiat«ie preonva- lion rvrmmiuicna. Perarae the rintcoortrasehnikrrrQirq ruck •n ordinance •ros in Loeiairnr (when atlorrreye And rdviad Ile city d New Orkrne b writ f« Nr rdopfion of • rperifie cwnNitrtiond prwieion pere.i4 firy tlr geliew a(• foul hiN«icdiatrid before enrclirq • fool preaenofiar ardi- mncel, City d Nrr Qleana u. fwrpaetalq 3 30 2d 659119111. mq rrN Mw aeerrrd likely b spews eev«rl dram Irler eaaea flat it did, rnd a urn how arisen ogees tlw oaorNry. American aoarta hove heew surpridn~ly willin8 b ci4deeiaiar (rear dher jurisdictions rnd b find tMt bnl historic preservation ordinnroa 6lfillad • valid prMie prrgre 7'he fist borrk deslin~ with hiatorie preerrvation taw principle, Jacob H. Mwrrisoni aeminrl "Hiabrie Preeerva- ti.ar 1 aw° (19571, appeared only 30 ytrm wa,,. wed we by the mrdmn Wndeerle of nth/wfye-r~nslierttk they 'Ili.,, I.,iit hr~vj~lnn I.rw,~1i Ir~~~n11~• puhli.hrd by MNUww i9ender, inerediby wlruder. The key rok of the city of New 1 rrlrnns in Ile devebtrwnl of Amerierrr Mnt<nic pnyervNion Irwr srr~~eNrd by the feel /hat Morrien wrote his book herru« d hie involvement in k,nl iawee lher-. Now • book of staidly limited his- 4~riral sitlnificarree. Nthe lime it rear rn eehauslivt review rnd •nNysis of dl evielirrt Nrk te~isbtion rnd but u-di- mnca damned with hiNorie peaervr- linn rbjeetivp The Iwnk andsebfedly did mug h b eonvirwe rvrrrtrned jvd~ee rnd nlurtrnl city Ntwneya lhN Merl Aiat«ie presrrvrlion ordinances wen rrN k~islr live erne. Warr it not f« the esiNerree of this 6mk •nd vsriou• Nudin apnnsored or pub- liwhrd by the Nalional7hral f« Hiatwic 1'reaervsuon, it is poribk lhrl the infer StrpArn N. Ornnis u rrrcrtrur direrYO-o/ the National Crnrrr /or Prnerrrotion tarn eanli.w a..d.d b ra.iaa the U8 8a- prer Coat of Ilr wilidily of brat hia- brk p...rwdon ardinnrrceawants haw hasp ttrleniry in 19?8.Owr and over, alad- ha inbwded b nnrlya nn anliti~nted inane haw boon pabliaMd is liar b M slid span iw • arrwtt of knot aced r d' 4artbliry rrae Ann drlkmpd nn abb• lielred pro8rw. FeltnflgMMloa Until tlr early MlOa, alnY kteWlere trdd b p«mit epeeirre rarenraitia b ewnrt lecrl prerrvntion ordinance n1Mr than b cord brand errrblirrt Afb IaHon npplierNe b ell eommrnilie wilhbr Iles Nola ThN wr Ilre npproneh Irbn in MoaenehrNb in 1966, when le{inlnlion permipiry gentian of hiN«ic diatrieta an llenan Hill and the hinnd of NanteekN wr enneted sad pro~plly nffirarad sad nliRad by tM 9aprenr Jodilid Carrel, Ure tdalel hi~IreN aar1, in /we ennfilly aoaorrd cud raegni• erred apiniar. Thoa~h PAilndelphin hod orrneted ib ari~innl load IitlN ehnllan~ad- land• tnnrba aedinnrrne in 1966, h won any with tlr aeNion d the New Y«k City (~nd- arrtn Prearvntfon Comrniawon in 1968 nerd tlr aedy enanint jrdicinl Irtin~ of Ile annWin~ ordinance f« tM oommi- aion that ardsrn hirbric preaerwlion liliption barn. The erarrwow dreeloparenl presoe kdt by property orrrrra in New York mode them williry b anderlnka the espasra d lili/rtian b protect 11wir srsrarred ri~hl b t~ dNebp nriviN~satdMtlr~llWrraNNw af. pnpoad dsaipr oa err island Ihrl hr And awnpkn sania~ raarletiona nines before 190D. NN arttil /lredssiprotiew of t'ir«d Qa- anl'Ikr«innl itr 1867 did the city epnvm • wnjor ere. howaw, • ae which look nine yeses b wind ila aksw wyy IhrovBh three New Yrrrk sbM oorrla and rinilly the U.9. 9lrpnme Coral, hwn Central 71•anspwbtion (b. u. Nsrr 1bA Crty;136 U.S.l01119781. T1r divided I9?8 apiaion of tM U.B. 8rprwr Coart hr ban read r • vielpp ky pru«valion atbrrrya, fiw it cunlrirr Nrory lan~na~e opholdiry the validity of New York Cily'~ pro~rrm as rdminia- lercd rnd rcaa~nisin~ the rehlnee of mrnieipnl eRurta b preserve ai~nifiaM atrrclera u • mane of probelirt~ lM "gartity of li&." Mlarr tapeetof the use the/ hna fended b M ov«looked may Dome b haw • paat« Nprifieanu. A (iodine by the U.9.3aprems Cart lhrl tlr New York Cily pra~rrm r ndmini- lend we not uncarsUbtiatrl a applied b tM Or.wd C.teal'Ibr.keal fa rr wtt/ Narrdn r a ~wrorNae that • krul pra«- wfkn erdinnrra in ondher abM mi~hl not ewnlydly be foand in violntian of 1hN alrteL oortatilpion--even thoo~h in conformity with tM 9edeenl eorratibtion. At the elate hrval The somber of a1Ne (end ocerionnly kdenp scarf deebiona nanly:in~ lM power of best aarrnitlee b emd I«rd use rgolnliono damned b protect hio- brie teaoorra hr nceeleenled awdty aim tlr loniinno deefeiawa of 11r 1910r rnd tM Meechaatb daeieiorra of tlr f 960e. 71r erliaN aodr deeiaierr bsdd b rphokl bed hialork preaervrtien a-di- nanee « llr nelawa of kaenl hbterie preaervaGon mmwiad«ra ttpirrt band eAne~aa of rmawra0bliorraligr «rdrr bdh the tedanl and • Ante earlMatlon. A. rrld nbova, deeiirr how leadd b haY 1hN uaNtlatloadHy reader Ibe 6drrd conatilatien daeidr tM krar withal rareid«iry poaalbN iavdidiy andr • ebb corlitalion. htaa recent row how 9rnteed Irnviy on proodsral dekda is aoalalaaiwr dsd- aior (inedearala nda6riehMivr record, kraal oedinrura improper r applied br awe rot in confornily with lrlNO ana- blin~ kxislntion, toed hkrbric diNriet ended improperly beerrrso ramsrenity relied on sonin8 preervatiaw cawain- ~l ~i ~~r; r It. Y~,, ~`` Y r{ r ~ • sd 1 .~ }t~ J w rw~. '~~~ ~.4 _. ). aiona, daNBa nvbw «dinnna invalid becrrree of inadepenb abndneda. Pending erase rre uneenlrrlin~ in ennrrirr~ly en vrlratlrr cutrin ele/win of pnpnlia nrq M inherently kaa cob jxt b re~rlrlion. 77roa8h ehalkm~n b the dagnrlion and reprlrtion of chrrch properly hwe occurred in Nn. York City, the epunbneoua enrtiun ufthe Inlerbi/h Commiuion on Iwndmnrkin~ of Reli ~iow Properly in 1980 ha kd b uverd hrialr4w elforb b realrict the power N aoarrnaeitiu in New York 9tNe b deai~- u4rnd rgolnlr ehrrch peop«lin. Important roost user in flee devebp• tn~ line of cone on lhir ieere include BociNY Far 6llliral Crftrn u. S~aN, 1:N N.Y.3.2d 9321191N1-, rnd l;ArrrA u/ tit. f4rf •nd St. Andrtr u. 8arrirA. t96 N.E.2d 163, eat. denied, 107 3.Ct. 67~ 119861. 8rie6 nmicw earir wen Glkd earlier Ihia year in Ileeerr rid INrrdrne d 3t tlaNAobarwk CArrcA u. Ner Ywk CNy 166 CIV 98191JE3-, B.D.N.Y1, • nee b fidwnl diatrila easel Ihnl racer herded far tlr U.8.91rprerrre Cant benwe N the Clwrdri «dently preaed ngwrwnt that tlr hmdtrnrkiry of relyiae properties violnW tlrs PIrN AnrendmerN b the U.3. Conatitation. Amerienn preoervation poaq hope lhrt thin Tree will redl in • precedent as enaaaailrble rs lhrt pro- vided in the arum /4nn l'entnl a«. See Hbtorke, pale 12 . _l.,,i. :.1, kri~r~~ .•,~.~~~• ,.• . ~ ..~ J. u'w~~.l ~~ qtr h C~~ u. ~ 4t ..t M,~«• it ~..,p ~rf p~ . . `( t ,' .1 ...r.t :~ ,.. ~1,e.. ' i ~ 4u J ~µ ,.1 ....t..,t~ «, ~,,,,~ ~ ~l ~ l ..: b. r ~ 1,.. 9w..,, `•I P` \ r ,tl. ~ I" 4 1 d•~ ' ~~ 1.. wJ '. U V ri /"~ ~" ~,. _. '! • • ~ page r2 •wt>w tasryws wr,.uit Mrl~ 9b tNg Cas ere py. / vlltr its Real estate Historic Continued from page l l It is important b remember Iltat until the ar1Y 1970e tlrtee were still rektively few Meal praservwlion eomarissiara em- powered bregulate ebanges to etr tM demolitiar of isolated landmark strut lures o- buildings within ekrigruled hi- !retie dafricfa. 7bdar however, praarva lion eommiuione typically may haw jurisdiction over both historic dialrieta and landmarb. 71re number of aanmiesions has grown from approsima/ely 20 in 1966, b per• hops 100 in 1986, to some 600 in 1676 and more than 1,200 today in eammuoitiea across theeaurrlry.The eaaation in 1960of the Certified I.ocil C,overamemt trragru hp meant Utat slats historic prtrrrva• lion oQiom haw • new bdwd sandals b kqb and montbr kcal historic prwr valion canwipiau in their slates. 86 C.F.R. Sec. 81.316)18/ makes it • rasparsi• bility for slate hielorie pnservatiou aloe ere to'yc)oopente with loealgovsraserrta in developrrraet of kcal hidork prwsrrva- Gon programs sad assist local govera- meMs is becoming certified." 38 C.P.R See. e1.6(cK2) (iii) goes awn further in -nluiring that "91ates shall make awil- ebleorien4rtion mawiaband 4ainirrg b all brcal Commissions" The •tfecl of these tederel re~ulalions is b require stale historic praservatian Offh oea to maintain listings o(kcal peewva• Gore commwirrns in their tdatn. The National Alliarroa of Pressrwtiem Commissions hr been farmed Y • na- tional errgartisatiat to repnsnK Ihs inter et. of local ptbervation aommiaaione, and sGrtewide networks or such oosrnis~ lions haw been created in • number d states. The exislerrce of three "eappoH groupi' for local preservation e:omasir eiorrs veil l lately mean that strong amicw curiae brie6 world be filed if • series of eases ehalkrrging local preservation ardi- narroswere to arise suddenly. At the public level But not all historic preservstion litiga- tion at the stale few) hp involved the power of local preservation eoommis• lions. In California and Nsw Yank, eases involving elate enviroamcnlal quality acts have.trengllKn.d regaireorerMa that pablic agerrdse granting permits for pro jeci. aonsidn nrefullY ~ potential im- pact of projects on historic resources. Compliarros with sued! proredurd requin- mmlador astguaranlsa, hassvsythat a histork rseanes will dtinraWy be pre IseW and prassrwd. Surpri.inglt, the safarsiw use of prat srvatioa aaasnwrMa sad restrictive eavea- arrta has not Isd b igaifkant litigation. Pitam That earn might arise haw led in many stales to rarrsdiw kgWation de• signed to remove tammoa law impedi- merNa b tbs snfortement of such eue• meats sad eovsnanta. See 3. Zick, "Preaervatioa t:Yanarts, The Legisla- tive Framework;' (National 'Rust for HiNork Prmarvstiar, Slats Legisktion P'rojetd Report /6937, !)19M) for • full diaoaaiaa of thrm issues. A kq early tauisimn ease articulated Ib inrporfaoos erf protesting tlrs toot ew- sareilk, sad anon narrtt Narylard sass had added • eabrhl metaphor to tM preasrvatien vacabdary ley stating Nat "tM whole ewrreapt o(hbtorie semis/ 'would be shoe! Y !stile Y shoveling awoke' it ... bsesw a building being dmalislrsd had m arehitscturd m histor feat sigrtiticarres • hidsek diatrid oem- missioa wY porrslsaa to pnvsrl its ds- mdiliaa and Ihs oorrstrrretion in its stead of a arodernisfic driw•ia restaurant im- medLtelY ~~ to tlrs Stale Howe in Mnapdis." FeudAnsr v. !bust a/CAester tarty, X96 A.9d A76, Itild.1961). Cewrta haw upheld eaokraion aa- tharitY b regulate all eattarior ficridrs o/ bwildirtgs in sons hiataie etiahrista. t1q haw alto uphsw mWmrrm ma4NsaYOs eaquirenrsrrta, sad sewn • Istal elswial d a..alitiaa p.r.i.i.a i. asssd jmi.aia 1b. U8. swpsa. Coart hY hew tits! Y krog Y a property owner i• aol pre eluded trove obtaining • nawsabk Y trwn a • raasortabk bsrretledd rss front hie property the owner eaasot marl • valid claim of an urroorrstilutioad "tak- ing" dhie praPertY• Aeon Gntrrl Twat paYa4at Co. u. Near Ibrk (Sty; !36 U.S. 10111978). Ths 9opsras Court has tine! ly dseiekd in First 8rrslisA Bww/e/feat LrdAerrw CAsrrii of t?Irrrdale u. (booty ey Lss Mgsfn (nog e6.1199, ekeidsd .larw 9, 1967) Ilrat ooorparwlion must be paid even whm a temporary "faking" ooeure beoswss of eacssrivedy burdwtsoms hmd use ngulatioa. U.Va. oolketbn America!! historic preservation lent has grown steadily throsgh the carets) aUen• time of • five isAssatial thinkers each ar North Caro14u1s Robert & 8tips or New England i Albert Wdt~. TM National CerrMr [or Praserwtioa lair was eaeated in b?6 b prsdros aompahatdw studies of prsservatioo levee topics and b parlio• pale vigorously in key court eases. The Nations) 7ltwal for HiNork Preset cation began is 1982 publicafian of the highly capful "Preservation Law Re• porter." TM University of Virgisia Law School hr wromrad play b erlkct a compralrwtaiw aafieard aolkriiort of his• torie prerervalion birr maMaiak+. Thw raesat dsvalopmsrrfa slwrr tlts maturing a( as arcs of legal eaooara whldt sees agraeid five praditisraa but Yw prao} fees /o ba of fatssM both b arunkipal altorwys in the awn Iltan 1,900 oommu• nitisa wlUt toast biawrk preprvatiow ordinarross and b auorYya paW b pea tact fltt iaterMfa of private property owners from srnssiw govmamwttal ng• tdatiow. As historic preservation objectives have come to be more widely shared, many stater have seated teak forces to preparo recommended packages of new preservation legislation. Legislation that is recommended by such task forcer end reviewed carefully and thoroughly by appropriate legislative committees starrde a tar better eiranoe of being upheld when ultimately challenged in rnurt than the statutes and local ordinances that were drafted a mere 26 years ego. The broaderred a=taN of public parlicipstion in the development of such legislation guarantees it both aoceptarroe al the pop afar keel and affvmsnce on the judicid level at which difficult social questions must ultimately be decided. Thecoarplicatedrsetwork of federsl end slate preservation statutes and heal ordi- nutoes ears obscure • simple foci Only a local preservation ordinance can ulti- mately prevent the private owner of sn important property from demolishing or sigsiticantiy altering (sod damaging) Uratproperty TM litigation invoving local historic preservation commissions hY thus an importance that would M difficult to overestimate in any asatrsment of hit ~ pnswation litigation in the United 4:~~I~~~K~~ CaN John tNiRon for • Expert Tesdmornr, • Evaluation of Damages • ProWlpatlon ConsuNatbn, • Estlmatbn of Repair. t788111fIM. ^C. on P o. sox ss~ lwo~ona~tt, vA ntt~ ~~~1 ~~-~~s ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ "1 have been an ardent t . ~L I believer in and (dlower of the J ~ . CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 5, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROU' A. B. C. D. II. OLD A. B. III. NEW A. TINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Approval of Minutes of 9/21/88 Posting of Agenda Oral and Written Communications BUSINESS Warner Hutton House Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory BUSINESS Discussion of planning application for Oddfellows subdivision IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT • • C~ • • CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 21, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Heid, Cameron, Landsness, Ansnes, Mitchell Absent: Voester, Koepernik Staff: V. Young, L. Welge Public: Mrs. Colyar, John DiManto, Bill Heiss B. Approval of minutes of 9/7/88 M/S Mitchell/Landsness to approve the minutes of 9/7/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously, Cameron abstaining. • C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications Secretary Young noted that she had been asked by current planning staff to convey to the Commission that the Administrative Draft of the EIR for the subdivision of the Oddfellows property (San Marcos Heights) had been submitted. They wanted input from the Commission on the old farm structures on the property, which are in a state of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished. There was concensus to agendize this for the next meeting, with each Commissioner making an effort to visit the property before then. V. Young also distributed the proclama Brolly's farm to be issued by the Council and information on the State Historic workshop this Friday. She also handed out memo from the Heritage Commission to Commission on the Paul Masson the mosaic. suggested some minor wording changes. lion for Arch this evening, Building Code a copy of the the Planning The Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 • Page 2 II. New Business A. Application for Heritage Resource Designation - 18390 Ravenwood Drive (Brandenburg House) V. Young made a brief staff report. Mrs. Colyar, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions, noting that the application form was complete in and of itself. She briefly described the ownership history of the house and the rehabilitation work she and her husband had done. Chairman Heid referred to the findings that must be made, and noted that the house met the selection criteria for inclusion on the Heritage Resource Inventory. Commissioner Ansnes expressed her appreciation to the Colyars for their participation in the designation program. M/S Landsness/Cameron to accept the application and recommend to the City Council approval of the designation because the property meets criteria (a) and (c) of Section 13-15.010 of the City Code for designation of a heritage resource. Motion passed unanimously. V. Young told Mrs. Colyar the application now would be forwarded to the City Council for approval; she would notify Mrs. Colyar of that date. B. Review planning application for subdivision in the vicinity of Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads. V. Young gave a brief staff report, noting that the Heritage Commission was being requested for input on this project because it involved the rock work which was on the Inventory preview list. John DiManto, owner, and Bill Heiss, project engineer, described the project in detail, emphasizing that the goal was to preserve as much of the rock work as possible. The road will follow its present alignment, with some modifications for fire protection purposes. They noted that the walls were built between 1924-1932 with rock from Knight's Ferry in the Sierra foothills. The Commission expressed appreciation at the opportunity to review the project and commended Mr. DiManto for his commitment to preserving the special-ambiance of the site. They felt that Lot #2 was the most sensitive in terms of the building site location. Mr. DiManto noted that the fountain area and the foot bridge would be preserved. He further stated that all repair work and new rock construction would be done by special craftsman to match • Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 3 the new with the existing. He showed a record of survey of the property, a title report back to 1924, and an early promotional sales brochure dating from the 1920's-30's. There was Commission consensus to direct the Secretary to prepare a memo to the Planning Commission supporting the preservation of the rock work, suggesting that it be incorporated into the project as much as possible, that some provision be made for ongoing maintenance of the rock work, and that the residences proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3 be sensitively designed to incorporate the rock work into the site plan and house design. C. Discuss revised application form for Heritage Resource Designation. V. Young briefly reviewed the form, noting that it was done in conjunction with the request from Commissioner Voester to send follow-up letters to Heritage Resource Inventory properties. Commissioners approved of the new form, and agreed to hold over discussion on this item until Commissioner Voester returned from vacation. :J III. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House - sign Commissioner Mitchell noted that volunteer coordinator Carrie Deane found people to make the sign, and that it should be installed by mid-October. B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory There was general discussion on the type of publication to use and the associated costs. Commissioner Ansnes offered to do more research on this, and V. Young will bring samples to the next meeting. Commissioner Landsness noted her lack of time to do the photographs; there was consensus to pursue using a volunteeer in this capacity. Commissioner Mitchell will follow up. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission Commissioners Heid and Mitchell initiated discussion on the role and purpose of the Heritage Commission, especially in light of completion of the Inventory. There was a general feeling that the public perception of preservation was improving because of the good response to the Inventory. There was also consensus that now the Commission needed to work on incentives to offer owners of historic properties. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 9/21/88 Page 4 V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission C~ • ~Q~ C~ • HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY (#27) IDENTIFICATION 1. Common name: Odd Fellows Home 2. Historic name: Odd Fellows Home 3. Street or rural address: 14500 Fruitvale Avenue City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 County: Santa Clara 4. Parcel number: 397-12-012, 016, 017, 018 5. Present Owner: Grand Lodge of IOOF of Calif. Address: P.O.Box 2669 City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 Ownership is: Public: Private: X 6. Present Use: Convalescent home Original Use: Retirement home DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Mission Revival 7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This building is two stories, features an "H" shaped floorplan, and is clad in stucco, typical of the style. The main entrance is approached by a broad staircase leading to an arched opening flanked by twin bell towers. Above the entrance is a triple window with classical trim and a triangular pediment above. The roof over the entrance is marked by a curved papapet in typical Mission style. The arched windows of the main floor are echoed by stucco trim above. The roof is red tile, in the Mission style. The main building is set in extensive, well-maintained grounds, which also include modern apartment buildings and several outbuildings from an earlier farm. (photograph here) 8. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1912 9. Architect: John McLaren-landscape 10. Builder: Unknown il. Approx. prop. size Frontage: Depth: approx. acreage: 88 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): 1988 13. Condition: Excellent: X Good: Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Infirmary added in 1958 • 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: X Scattered buildings: X Densely built-up: Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: X Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public Works project: Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: Gardener's cottage, cook house and nursery, all built in 1915. Barn - predated main building (before 1912). SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site). This property was originally called Oakwood Farm. It was owned from 1880-1906 by the Dexter family. It was purchased in 1906 by the Odd Fellows for $16,500. The property was originally located on McCall Road, now Fruitvale Avenue. The building was dedicated as a retirement home on May 15, 1912. Its formal gardens were designed by John McLaren, who was a member of the Odd Fellows. The property also contains a barn and other outbuildings, some supposedly from the original farm, which were used by the retirees to run a working farm, helping to make the home self-sufficient. The infirmary was built in 1958, and 78 new rooms were added in 1981. 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: 1 Arts/Leisure: Economic/Industrial: Exploration/Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: Social/Ed.: 2 21. Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates). Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory, 1979; interview with R. Conklin of IOOF, 2/25/81; Letter to Saratoga HPC, 6/25/84. 22. Date form prepared: 4/88 By (name): SHPC Organization: City of Saratoga Address: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 Phone: 867-3438 Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarksl: NORTH ~~ 41 bless Ja11vy Cotleg Q ~s-~e .~ °r 4 R`, C~ ~~~ CJ • NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LA~i' 1233 20TH STBEET, N.W. • SUITE 501 • WASHINGTON, D.G. 20036 • (202) 828-691! Pasuaazrr IEESH BOAlaERO. E50• PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE EuacLrtva Dta$croa STEPHEN Ai. DENNIS. ESQ. 1988-35 August 5, 1988 Massachusetts Court Affirms Commission on Artificial Siding The apparent inability of a trial court judge to distinguish between vinyl clapboards and painted shingles has generated a useful opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Anderson v. Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission, 493 N.E.2d 188 (1986). The case arose when property owners sought to apply vinyl siding to a rear portion of their home and were denied a certificate of appropriateness. Plaintiffs in Anderson were the owners of Newcomb's Tavern in Sandwich, Massachusetts on Cape Cod, a building "retaining many of its original architectural features" and located in "a • most significant part of the historic district." The highly visible nature of this important building may have contributed to the outcome in the case. (See "Update" 1988-27 for a situation in which the highly visible location of a house in England's Lake District led to a decision that PCV replacement windows with fake mutins were unacceptable and must be replaced with appropriately designed wooden window frames.) The court noted that the house retained clapboards on its earlier front portion but had painted shingles on a rear ell approximately one hundred years old. When the Sandwich Historic District .Committee denied plaintiffs a certificate of appropriateness to apply vinyl siding over the shingles on the rear ell, the plaintiffs unfortunately proceeded to apply vinyl siding on the ell of their house anyway. Though the trial court in this case had reversed a decision by a regional historic district commission upholding the local historic district committee's decision, an intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts agreed with the intermediate appellate court that the trial court decision should have been reversed. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts pointed out, the•case gave it an appropriate opportunity to "discuss the roles of the local committee, the regional commission, the District Court, the Appellate Division, and this court." (on ~ATIO~IALCE~ITER FOR PRE(~ERVATIO~I LAS • portions of Cape Cod, the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission hears appeals from local historic district committees.) The court noted that "[t]he regional commission's initial function is not to exercise its independent judgment on the facts, but rather to determine whether the local committee erred in some respect." The court stated that a trial court "judge must affirm the regional commission's decision unless, on the facts found by the judge, the commission should have concluded that the local committee exceeded its authority, exercised poor judgment, or was arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous in its action." The local historic district committee seems to have stated in its denial of the certificate of appropriateness that the plaintiffs' house "is very historic, very visible, and located in the heart of the Sandwich Historic District." The court reformulated in its own words the rationale used by the local historic district committee in denying the certificate of appropriateness: We construe the local committee as saying that (a) the application involved a house of substantial historic significance in an important part of the historic district; (b) the Andersons applied vinyl siding to the rear of the house without the committee's penaission, although they were on notice that the regional commission had issued guidelines pointing to the problem of vinyl siding on old houses; (c) there would be no hardship to the Andersons in denying the application because there were reasonable alternatives to vinyl clapboards; and (d) a detrimental precedent would be set if the owners of this significant property were allowed to change the siding on the ell from shingles to vinyl clapboards. The trial court judge "explicitly or implicitly found the facts on which the local committee relied, but found further that only a trained eye at close range could distinguish vinyl clapboards from wooden clapboards. [This conclusion] did not compare vinyl clapboards with painted shingles. Although we doubt that the act supports the judge's reliance on the untrained eye as the measure of appropriateness, the difference between vinyl clapboards and painted shingles is obvious both to the trained and the untrained eye." (The court was not troubled by indications that the local committee had previously approved vinyl clapboards for three other structures in the historic district.) (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for 555.00. Please send inquiries to the National • Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LA~i' 1233 20TH $TEEET, N.w. • $UITESOI • WABHINOTON, D.Ci. 20039 • (202) 828-9911 PEE•IDEHT ExECVTIVE DIY ECTOY TERSH BO~SEERO, ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS, ESp. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-36 August 19, 1988 Countryside Stewardship Report Issued During the summer of 1987, five teams of American and British land conservation professionals toured case study areas in New England to consider problems being posed by rapid development of the New England countryside. The US/UK Exchange grew out of a cooperative agreement between the American National Park Service and the British Countryside Commission. The five case study areas selected for study were the Quoddy area in northeastern Maine; the Ottauquechee Region in Vermont; New Hampshire's Mount Washington Valley; Hadley, Massachusetts; and the Blackstone Valley in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Countryside Stewardship, a report on the exchange, has now been issued by the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (College of Food and Natural Resources, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Research Bulletin No. 720 ($5.00)). It will be useful to preservation and conservation groups in other parts of the country who are concerned about how to cope with increasing land development pressures. The report's "Executive summary" notes: The rapid and widespread growth of residential and commercial development across the most attractive corners of New England threatens to irrevocably alter the most precious scenic vistas, natural areas, and historic towns and villages in the region. Land speculation, subdivision and development are consuming farmland and destroying the rural character and tradition of many small towns. Second home development trends are inflating real estate values to unprecedented high levels, which are unaffordable to most local residents. Efforts to manage growth and guide development to the most appropriate locations have been frustrated by the inadequacy of existing tools. Seeking a fresh perspective and a way to broaden public awareness of the problems, several conservation organizations and government agencies initiated • the US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange. 1ATIOVALCE~iTER FOR PREl~ER~'ATIO~ LAW The overriding goal of this ongoing exchange program is to promote the sharing of knowledge, expertise, and ideas between land conservation professionals in the United States and the United Kingdom. The report concluded that New England communities "must take charge of their own destiny" but emphasized the usefulness of exchanges of information, experience and different perspectives between professionals from America and Britain: The landscape of New England, like much of the United Kingdom, does not constitute a wilderness area, but rather a lived-in landscape, valued for its numerous natural and cultural attributes. Most of the land in New England is privately owned, and many people depend upon it for their livelihood. Therefore, protection through acquisition has limited applicability. Instead, countryside conservation must be integrated into social and economic development, community growth, and all government policies affecting land use. Effective conservation in any region requires a broad base of public support and the coordination of all levels of government in partnership with non-profits and the business community. Given the many parallels between Great Britain and New England, these regions have much to learn from and share with each other in the field of land conservation. Both countries have established systems of national parks and other protected areas of natural and cultural significance. These systems have been established for conservation purposes, recreation, public enjoyment, and education. Cooperative exchanges allow professionals from these two countries to share knowledge and ideas, improving the efforts of each country to conserve and use wisely its significant natural and cultural resources. Graham Barrow, Director of the Centre for Environmental Interpretation in Manchester, England, made a statement in Vermont's Ottauquechee Region which could have applied equally well to several of the other regions being visited by other teams: What disturbs me about your present system is that you've got little towns trying to resist development pressures which are statewide, national, perhaps international. The clout is too far down the system. You've got to get together with your neighbors and get a much more effective way of tapping into state funds. If you don't do this, I can say now that you will lose the environment of this area to development pressure. The choice is up to you. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National • Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") ti'ATIO:r'AL CE~'TER FOR PRESERV~TIO`' Latiti' 1233 20TH STgEET, V,W, • ScITE SOl • WA3HINOTUN, D.Ci. 20036 • (202) 828-9911 PQESLnevT rERSH BuA~BERG. ESp. E7[aCL'TIVE DLr:LCTOY STEPHEN V. UENN[S. E50• PRESERVATION LAW L'PD~TE 1988-38 August 26, 1988 Supreme Court Decides Major First Amendment Case Whether municipalities may designate properties owned by religious institutions continues to be a debated issue, though court decisions increasingly indicate that nothing in the First Amendment prevents such designations. Courts (and cities) should not view designation as inherently different from other governmental actions which have now been sanctioned by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. So long as designation does not interfere directly with the practice of religious beliefs by individuals by "'coercing"' such individuals into violating their beliefs, no violation of the First Amendment has occurred. • In Lvng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 108 S.Ct. 1319 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a far- reaching opinion that threatens immediately California lands identified by three Indian tribes as crucial to site-specific religious rituals. But the decision should help to eliminate arguments by churches that municipalities lack the power to landmark properties owned by religious institutions without owner consent. Lvna reverses an opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688 (1986), in which the Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part a federal district court opinion holding that a proposed U.S. Forest Service project would violate the First Amendment. The Forest Service project at issue in LYna was designed to link two small California towns by a road constructed through federal lands. Final completion of the road link between the communities would require construction of a E- mile section through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. A 1977 draft environmental impact statement generated comments which led the Forest Service to commission "'a study of American Indian cultural and religious sites in the area." This study concluded that constructing the proposed road on any available route "'would cause serious and irreparable damage to the sacred areas which are an integral and necessary part of the belief systems and lifeway of Northwest California Indian peoples"' and recommended against completion of the road. \.~TIO~,~LCE~TEIt FOR PRF.SER~'.1TIOY LA w' The Forest Service prepared a final environmental impact • statement in 1982, after rejecting the recommendation of the draft environmental impact statement that the road not be completed. The Forest Service "'selected a route that avoided archeological sites and was removed as far as possible from the sites used by contemporary Indians for specific spiritual activities."' The Forest Service also adopted a management plan "'allowing for the harvesting of significant amounts of timber in this area of the forest"' but providing for "'one-half mile protective zones"' around the identified religious sites. After available administrative remedies had been exhausted, several plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction "'forbidding the Government from constructing the Chimney Rock section of the G-O road or putting the timber-harvesting management plan into effect."' Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 565 F.Supp. 586 (N.D.Cal. 1983). This opinion held, in part, that the prohibited actions would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because they "'would seriously damage the salient visual, aural, and environmental qualities of the high country."' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the constitutional ruling of the district court, concluding that the Government "'had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in the completion of the road, and that it could have abandoned the • road without thereby creating 'a religious preserve for a single group in violation of the establishment clause. " In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the Forest Service report . The U.S. Supreme Court noted at the outset of its opinion that "'the courts below did not articulate the bases of their decisions with perfect clarity"' and that the Supreme Court would decide the First Amendment issue in the case only because "'it appears reasonably likely that the First Amendment issue was necessary to the decisions below, (and] we believe that it would be inadvisable to vacate and remand without addressing that issue on the merits." In a five-to-three opinion written by Justice O'Connor (in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Stevens and Scalia joined, with Justices Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun dissenting), the Supreme Court concluded that a governmental action which does not directly coerce an individual to violate his religious beliefs does not trigger a Free Exercise problem under the First Amendment, even though the impact of the governmental action might be to make further religious practices by the individual difficult or even impossible. The Court rested much of its opinion on an analysis of Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), in which the Court had held that valid religious beliefs would not be sufficient to allow parents to prevent the use of a Social Security number for their young daughter: • Y~TIOYALfEYTEIt FOR !'NF~F.I2~'AT[Or Law' • The building of a road or the harvesting of timber on publicly owned land cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the use of a Social Security number in gQy. In both cases, the challenged government action would interfere significantly with private persons' ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their own religious beliefs. In neither case, however, would the affected individuals be coerced by the Government's action into violating their religious beliefs; nor would either governmental action penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens. The court held that in such situations governments need not show the "'compelling"' justification thought necessary by the Ninth Circuit: This does not and cannot imply that incidental effects of government programs, which may make it more difficult to practice certain religions but which have no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, require government to bring forward a compelling justification for its otherwise lawful actions. Whatever may be the exact line between unconstitutional prohibitions on the free exercise of religion and the legitimate conduct by government of its own affairs, the location of the line cannot depend on measuring the effects • of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development. The Court acknowledged that the impact of its decision might be to "'virtually destroy the Indians' ability to practice their religion," but held that such an impact still would not trigger a First Amendment problem: Even if we assume that we should accept the Ninth Circuit's prediction, according to which the G-O road will 'virtually destroy the Indians' ability to practice their religion,"' . . the Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding respondents' legal claims. From a historic preservation context, yy~g suggests that although inclusion of religious properties within local historic districts or separate designation of such properties as landmarks might arguably subject the owners of the properties to additional maintenance responsibilities or preclude the owners from maximizing the real estate potential of the properties, such impacts could not possibly amount to 'coercion" of individual members of a religious group to violate their religious principles. A meritorious wish to increase charitable contributions to the suffering of needy members of a community or to further in other ways an individual church's stated mission would almost • z ~.~T[O\ALCF.~TEit FOR PREFIEK~'AT[O~i LAN' always be insufficient to surmount the Lvna reasoning that a • court should not look at the impact of governmental actions so long as such actions do not directly coerce individual members of a religious group into violations of their religious principles. Some religious institutions have argued in the past that designation of their properties violates the constitutionally required separation of Church and State. Lvnc now means that routine governmental actions should not be examined by courts to determine whether the actions should be prohibited: However much we might wish that it were otherwise, government simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy every citizens religious needs and desires. A broad range of government activities--from social welfare programs to foreign aid to conservation projects--will always be considered essential to the spiritual well-being of some citizens, often on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Others will find the very same activities deeply offensive, and perhaps incompatible with their own search for spiritual fulfillment and with the tenets of their religion. The First Amendment must apply to all citizens alike, and it can give to none of them a veto over public programs that do not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Constitution does not, and courts cannot, offer to reconcile the various competing demands on government, many of them rooted in sincere religious belief, that inevitably arise in so diverse a society as ours. That task, to the extent that it is feasible, is for the legislatures and other institutions. Lvna is thus a highly important opinion from a historic preservation perspective. But it is worth pointing out that Lvna has nothing to do with the "taking"' question which might be argued by a religious institution even when the institution has no First Amendment argument against designation. In New York State, for instance, courts use a judicial test for determining whether the impact of landmark designation on a non-profit charitable institution interferes sufficiently with the ability of the institution to carry out its charitable purpose that the designation would be a "'nakp~l taking" without compensation. In Society for Ethical Culture in Citv of New York v. Spatt, 415 N.E.2d 922 (1980), the New York Court of Appeals stated: [B]ecause charitable organizations are not created for financial return in the same sense as private businesses, for them the standard is refined to permit the landmark designation restriction only so long as it does not physically or financially prevent, or seriously interfere with the carrying out of the charitable purpose . (A subscription to the "'Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.') • Main Street News ~~ Mai ~tt;tivEiO ~~~' 1 :J 1g8b ~L~NNi~VG DtPT ~~ . __._ - t Reinvesting in Downtown: The Nistoric Rehabilitation Taa Cretlit Kennedy Smith Since 1981, the historic rehabili- tation tax credit has generated more than $12 million in tax savings for the owners of approx- imately 12,000 commercial buildings in America. More than 70 percent of all these tax act projects were carried out by peo- ple with annual incomes of less than $100,000-not the "big guys," but individuals with ordi- nary incomes investing in their own communities. With figures like these, there is no doubt that the rehabilita- tion credit has had a major impact on downtown revitaliza- tion. And, in spite of the restric- tionsplaced on real estate devel- opment financing by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 See "The Impact of Tax Reform on Down- towns," Main Street News, No. 20, January 1987, the tax credit will continue to be one of the most effective tools for redevel- oping traditional commercial buildings. The following exam- ples show how the rehab tax credit could produce substantial savings for property owners in Humber 39 September 1988 thcaat ror aereral years, dis beiltlteo in Nalclet, Mlsa., now berses se atlboe :tore ea Ue nrst nur, wiri se aparUeeet epsUirs. >tie atHitlgtal Iacae previtlel by ue apartveet, plu tre rerabtllfana W crwlit the owls ncei~, stare ue wble protect ecaaicaur feasible. C~ downtown or neighborhood business districts. ^ Jane Doe has owned 201 Main Street-a three-story 1885 Vic- torian commercial building- for 42 years. She has operated Jane's Dress Shop on the first floor since the day she bought the building, and she makes an adjusted income of about $40,000. Because Jane has owned the building for so long, it is fully depreciated. She's invested very little in repairs for the past 20 years, so the building needs some major improvements. Now, Jane wants to retire. if she sells the building, she'll have to pay a substantial capital gains tax on the proceeds. Plus, .f cation Application (OMB Form No. 1024-0009. This form can be obtained from the state his- toric preservation office ~SHPO- or the National Park Service ~NPS~, the federal agency that administers the National Regis- ter. After it is reviewed by the SHPO, the form is sent to the National Park Service for final approval. Just certifying a building, however, does not mean that the property owner can get a tax credit for any building improve- ments. The plans must be re- viewed by the SHPO, then sent to the Park Service for certifica- tion before the improvements are begun. In communities with design review boards, the pro- t F "> z z W Y The re~abiliUtlM W credits lade Ibis prsject in IYesl Point, Miss., possible. 8erlals troAt ue tax credit helped tre ewaer tarn s vacant, wa- dews baildio~ IaU ^ attractlre iacae- predacine atracuro, with a sbH ea W first Moor sal n aparhaeat epsbtlrs. she may need to make repairs in order to attract abuyer-repairs that could eat up any profit remaining after the capital gains tax. Rather than incur these expenses, Jane unfortunately has decided to demolish the building and sell the vacant lot to her next-door neighbor for parking. ^ john Jones owns an insurance agency downtown. He's been in business eight yeazs, and the agency is doing well. He rents the ground floor of a two-story 1926 Art Deco building at 416 Market Street for $500 per month, the maximum amount he feels comfortable paying. The property owner is willing to sell the building for $30,000. John would like to buy it, reha- bilitate the vacant second floor for his office and rent the ground floor to a retailer. He estimates that rehabilitation will cost about $50,000. Of the $80,000 needed for the whole project, he can put down 10 percent ($8,000 and wants to finance the balance, $72,000. But the monthly mortgage-at 10 per- cent interest and a 20-year term-would be $694, almost $200 more than he now pays in rent. In both instances, the rehab tax credit could make the differ- ence between a project that works and one that fails. In the first example, Jane could reha- bilitate her building and rent it to new tenants, offsetting the taxes on her rental income with savings through the tax credit, increasing the building's value and delaying the capital gains tax for several years, when she will probably be in a lower tax bracket. in the second case, the tax savings from the rehabilita- tion credit would reduce John's income tax liability and, despite the higher monthly debt service payment, make the project's cash flow work. ow to Use the Credit To be eligible for the rehabilitation tax cred- it, abuilding must be a "certified" historic structure, meaning that it must be: ^ individually listed in the Na- tional Register of Historic Places or ^ located in, and contributing to the character of, a local or state designated historic district that meets National Register criteria To certify a building listed in a historic district, the owner must file Part I of the Historic Certifi- ~annnal Main Jtrcrt ~rncrr. ~la[lUflaE Tru;~ fur Historic Prrsrrvannn posed changes may also have to be reviewed locally. In reviewing a proposed project, NPS and the SHPO use The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabil- itation, 10 standards that de- scribe the desired effects of reha- bilitation activity See boxy. Part II of the certification ap- plication is used to certify the proposed rehabilitation. On the form, briefly-but thoroughly- describe each step of the project and the specific processes that will be used. For instance, it's not enough to simply state that masonry will be repointed; de- scribe the exact mortar mix that will be used, the way in which old mortar will be removed and the profile of the finished mortar joint. Be sure to take plenty of pho- tographs of the building before rehabilitation begins. At a mini- mum, there should be pictures of every exterior and interior • wall, plus photographs of signifi- cant interior and exterior de- tails. In particular, take several ictures of walls or features that will be directly affected by the rehabilitation. The photos at- tached to the certification appli- cation should be black and white and clearly labeled; how- ever, it's a good idea to shoot some color slides or photographs as well, particularly where color of material is important. Also include architectural plans and specifications showing proposed changes. Paint chips to show color may also be included with Part II.of the application. Finally, attach a check for the required filing fee. jFees are based on the project's total cost.) In all cases, the property owner should consult with the SHPO before and during the process of developing rehabilita- tion plans. The SHPO can pro- vide advice on proper rehab techniques and point out cost- effective methods. Also, the SHPO can steer the property owner away from alterations hat might prevent the project ~rom being certified-and, in turn, from qualifying for the rehabilitation tax credit. SHPO staff members will sometimes visit the site during the project to make sure the rehabilitation techniques are, in fact, the ap- propriate ones. When the rehabilitation is completed, the property owner should file Part III, the final section of the rehabilitation cer- tification forms. Part III asks for photographs and descriptions of the completed project. Like the photos and written descriptions submitted with Part II, those prepazed for Part III should be as thorough as possible, highlight- ing the rehabilitated areas of the building. At this point the SHPO and/or NPS staff members may visit the building to make sure Part III adequately illustrates the rehabilitation and that the project was completed correctly. Once the National Pazk Ser- vicehas approved the completed habilitation, it will send the property owner a certificate ver- ifying that the project has been completed and that it is eligible for the tax credit. The property owner needs this certificate to actually get the credit. Although the certificate does not have to be attached to the owner's feder- al income tax return, he or she must be able to produce it if the tax return is audited. And, a high percentage of people who use the credit are, in fact, called in for an audit. ays to lose the Credit Proper rehabilita- tion of traditional commercial build- ings has many benefits. In the first place, it ensures that build- ings will be preserved for future generations in a way that will not distort their original char- _, ~ 0 i z _ _"~ ~ otter. Secondly, thanks to the rehabilitation tax credits, it pro- vides real financial benefits for investors, which in turn boosts reinvestment in the commercial district and contributes to the azea's economic resurgence. Fi- nally, it focuses public attention on the qualities that make the district unique. Occasionally, however, reha- bilitation projects involving downtown or neighborhood buildings are "decertified"- i.e., the NPS and SHPO revoke or deny the building's status as a certified historic structure, which then prohibits use of the rehabilitation tax credits be- cause of inappropriate rehabili- tation work. In traditional com- mercial areas, some of the most ~s~~ =+€~°~;. _ +ar ~ ;-ire .,:; ttflflits~ ~_ -1 ~ .. ' . ~ a'd31~! ~.-~- . z•-~ .'"mac- ,:-: ~ w~.~i: .ra~i„...m.: ° -:~~, ~!!~~ ~~~C~ilii~ -~- ~ _ ~~ , -~,~ ~ ~1y~~ ~:~i(la1' W NE• I ' Z lagreper window IreaUneat eftee 4rios a project laellpihle hr tie relab tan credit. la tris cue, tie oweer enclosed ue wlalews will decorated plpweed palels, tdea Installed a prehbNcated resldenUal alutaienat Crane window. 8andhlastlng can per®anenUY danage bricM by cnttiog away tUe MaPd-Da1ed pretectlre otter sanc~e aed eapoaing Ue :after care to wind, woiatore and eatrente teaperatures. Sandblasting rirOtallY graraeteea loss of rie W credit. i 4 common errors that can lead to decertification include: Window treatment. Changing the design character of windows is a common error in building rehabilitations. Because store- frontdisplay windows are such a prominent feature of traditional commercial buildings, even minor modifications can dra- matically change the overall ap- pearance of the storefront. In general, avoid enclosing store- front windows, dividing them The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal al- teration of the building, structure or site and its en- vironment or to use a proper- ty for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or chazacter of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic ma- terial or distinctive architec- tural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the his- tory and development of a building, structure or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic fea- tures or examples of skilled craftsmanship which chazac- terize abuilding, structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated azchitectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherev- er possible. In the event re- placement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qual- ities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural fea- tures should be based on ac- curate duplications of fea- tures, substantiated by his- torical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on con- jectural designs or the avail- ability of different azchitec- tural elements from other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be under- taken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological re- sources affected by or adja- cent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant his- toric, azchitectural or cul- tural material and such de- sign is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integ- rity of the structure would be unimpaired. \.;r~m.il Al.~:r. ~[nc[ ~.rrtcr ~d[L~Cdt tc:~: ~~„ i~;~c~~rn I'r~•.cr~~au~~n up into smaller panes of glass or converting them to a new win- dow type; for instance, changing fixed windows to double-hung windows. Masonry cleaning. For years, many people have sandblasted buildings to clean off dirt, paint or debris. Unfortunately, sand- blasting cuts away the hard- bakedprotective outer surface of brick, exposing the softer ma- sonry core to moisture, wind and extreme temperatures, which gradually erode the build- ing. Once a building has been sandblasted, there is little that can be done to protect it from deterioration. On the other hand, there are a number of cleaning methods that will not damage masonry -for instance, a low-pressure water wash with a mild detergent and soft-bris- tled brush, steam cleaning or some types of chemical sol- vents. Property owners and con- tractors should be urged to use one of these methods; sandblast- ing abuilding virtually guaran- tees its decertification. Changing entrance or window locations. Moving doors and windows drastically changes the appearance of most traditional commercial buildings. Some common mistakes include the following: opening new doors and windows along the sides of comer buildings; creating out- side entrances to upper-floor spaces that interfere with the original storefront configura- tion; and recessing or protruding door or window openings in ways that conflict with the origi- nal design. Applying false historic themes or styles. The original design of a building reflects an exact moment in time. For that reason, buildings tell the history of their community's develop- ment. Unfortunately, to many people, "historic" often means "Williamsburg" or "Galena" or some other city well known for its restored or recreated historic buildings. As a result, well-in- tentioned builders have fre- quently applied the architec- tural style of these buildings to commercial structures in their own communities, regardless of w~ ~- .,r.»' j' , ~ -- ~__--- _ the original ages or styles of their buildings. Imitating histor- ic building styles or elements misleads the public, giving them a false perception of their com- munity's history. Thus, when an original building element is missing, many SHPOs prefer that its replacement blend in with the building but be clearly identifiable as modem design. ow a Main Street Program Can Nelp There are many ways a Main Street or other commercial revitaliza- tion program can help property owners rehabilitate their build- ings properly and earn an in- come tax credit for their efforts. Providing information. Re- vitalization programs can en- courage appropriate design change by: gathering and shar- information on proper rehab thods; holding workshops to each building contractors how to treat historic commercial buildings; conducting site visits to successful rehab projects in other communities; and teach- ingproperty owners, contractors and tax accountants how the rehab tax credits work. Helping property owners cer- tify their rehab projects. To property owners unfamiliar with the certification process - or with historic preservation in general-having a building cer- tified can be a nightmare. Fre- quently, the revitalization pro- gram'sstaff can act as intermedi- arybetween the property owner, contractor and SHPO to ease the process for all concerned. Monitoring rehab activity. Be- cause local builders and design- ers are often unfamiliar with preservation methods, it's im- portant to monitor construction while it is taking place. IE some techniques or design modifica- tions seem inconsistent with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the downtown or neighborhood manager or a design committee volunteer can usually intervene and correct the procedure before it endangers the project's eligibility. Promoting proper rehabilita- tionand the use of the rehab tax credits. By advocating historic preservation as an economic de- velopment tool, the revitaliza- tion program can help break the cycle of disinvestment and can find ways to make traditional commercial buildings econoini- cally viable again. i;ennedv Smith i~ the ti.~iSC's Program ~tana~er for Commu- nication and Education. Main3treet :Main Street :~,-ew•s is published by the National titain Street Net- work, amembership program of the tiational VIau1 Street Center, National Trust for Histonc Pres- ervation, 17g~ :Massachusetts Av- enue, N.46`., Washington, D.C. ?0036 ~,ZO?I 6?3-~t'_19. 1. Iackson Walter, President, Na- tional Trust for Historic Preserva- tion Sally Oldham, Vice President of Programs and Services Scott Gerloff, Director, Nattonal ~IaLn Street Center Linda Glisson, Editor Suzanne Dane, Associate Editor The National Trust is the only national, private nonprofit orga- ni~ation chartered b}~ Congress to encourage public panictpation in the preservation of sites, build- ings and ubiects significant in American hisa~n~ and culture. Support for the National Trust is provided by membership dues, endowment funds, contributions and matching grants from federal agencies, including the U.S. De- partment ofthe Interior, National Park Service, under pttn~isions of the National Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1966. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Interior Depart- ment. 11~Ipry ~ hlse tisteMwl ilte~t U ~ ~i111p NstnYs its ei~~ CIirlCler MI NNt ~ Nllk a listertel igrotsiM el 1111 couMm's Hsterr. Tlis Ewiss chht ceYer-~ wM11 eet ~eUity hr th qs crept. • f Program Associate The National Main Street Cen- terhas anopening for a program associate. The program associ- ate is responsible for delivering services to states and communi- ties based on the NMSC's ap- proach to downtown revitaliza- tion, generating income for the program, working with high- level contacts and providing di- rection to the management of the NMSC and to external pro- grams dealing with commercial activities. Qualifications: Three years pro- fessional experience in preserva- tion-based downtown revitali- zation; at least one year's experience teaching or training others; excellent communica- tion skills; entrepreneurial out- lookand strong human relations skills; willingness to travel ex- tensively and routinely work evenings and weekends; fund- raising experience desirable. Send resumes to: National Main Street Center 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.20036 Main Street Project Manager The Main Street project in Pu- laski, Tenn., is seeking a manag- er for its four-year-old, highly successful downtown revitaliza- tion program. Pulaski is located in the beautiful rolling hills of south-central Tennessee and is home to Martin College. The project manager is employed by the board of directors of Main Street: Pulaski and is responsi- ble for the daily operation of the program. The project manager works with the chamber of com- merce, the retail merchants as- sociationand the city of Pulaski. Qualifications: Candidates must have appropriate educa- tion, experience, communica- tion skills and a sense of humor. Send resumes to: Main Street: Pulaski 131 North First Street Pulaski, TN 38478 Eaecuti~e Director The Downtown Jamestown De- velopment Corporation ~James- town, N.Y., pop. 36,000) is seek- ing anexecutive director. Duties will include the planning and implementation of downtown development projects, the coor- dination of promotional and sales activities in the central business district, the dissemina- tion of information about down- town activities and develop- ment initiatives and the mainte- nance of all records for the corporation. Qualifications: In addition to displaying an aptitude for retail management, marketing and promotion, historic preserva- tion and the grants-in-aid pro- cess, applicants must also have advanced writing and verbal communications skills and pos- sess experience in the field of community/economic develop- ment. Candidates should have: ~lj three years of progressively responsible experience in the fields of management or com- munity/economic development and a bachelors degree from an accredited university or college in public affairs, public adminis- tration, management, market- ing, business administration, political science, economics, communications or urban plan- ning; or (2~ one year of progres- sively responsible experience in the fields of management or community/economic develop- ment and a masters degree from an accredited university or col- lege, preferably in one of the aforementioned fields. Starting salary range is $22,000 to $26,000 with benefits. Send re- sumes and cover letters to: Downtown Jamestown Devel- opment Corporation Municipal Building~ith Floor Jamestown, NY 14701 ~716j483-7541 \dn~m~l ~t~tn titrrrt l:~ntrr. ~an~m~l Trust tur Ht;t~~ne Prrsen~n~~n Main Street Director Main Street Moultrie Georgia is seeking a director by October 1, 1988. The director is the chief executive officer of this non- profit organization, which will direct the Main Street effort. He or she will report to the board of directors. Qualifications: Candidates must have a strong background in preservation or related field and proven administrative abili- ty. Resource development abili- ty is essential, including fund- raising, marketing and promo- tion. Candidates must possess strong verbal and written com- municationsskills, especially in the areas of public and media relations and writing of publica- tions. Main Street Moultrie Georgia is an Affinnative Ac- tion/Equal Opportunity Em- ployer. Send resume and salary requirements by September 15, 1988 to: Search Committee Main Street Moultrie Georgia P.O. Box 487 Moultrie, GA 31776 Main Street Project Director The Main Street Project in Hen- dersonville, N.C., is seeking a director for its two-year-old, highly successful downtown re- vitalization program. The pro- gram has awell-established vol- unteer network and strong community support. Henderson County, set in the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains, is the fastest growing county in western North Carolina and offers a su- perb quality of life. Send resume and salary requirements to: Bob Ross First Citizens Bank P.O. Box 749 Hendersonville, NC 28793 • y C~ V C/~ When Spurgeon's department store in Grinnell, Iowa, opened in 1909, its gold-leaf sign proudly proclaimed that it was a purveyor of dry goods and wom- en's wear. The store offered fine products to the community for decades, but its facade suffered an indignity in the 1950s when an oversized wooden signboard and metal letters were installed in an effort to modernize. By 1987, however, these alterations were looking shabby and the Main Street project stepped in, suggesting that the owners reha- bilitate the building's facade. The plan was to remove the signboard and design a new sign to fit in the space over the uncovered transom windows and to take the second-story windows out of hiding by re- moving old, broken shutters. But, when workers removed the plywood sign, a forgotten trea- sure was uncovered: the original signboard and most of the gilt letters were still in place. Main Street staff and the store manager convinced the owners to restore the sign rather than replace it, although at greater expense. A local sign maker was hired to replace the signboard and fashion the missing letters, covering them in gold leaf. The shutters were also removed from upper-floor windows and broken panes were replaced. A look at old photographs revealed that the original store- front had been protected by a green and white awning. With the sign restored, the project coordinators urged the owners to complete the restoration by installing a new awning. This facade rehabilitation cost approximately $12,000. Much of the cost about $5,500) was incurred by using gold leaf to restore the sign. The awning was another $2,100. The re- mainder of the expense was for miscellaneous materials, such as replacement window panes and bricks, and labor. Footnote: Deciding that Spurgeon's newly revealed sec- ond-story windows were too stark, a Main Street volunteer obtained cast-off sheets and bed- spreads from the local hospital and made curtains for the building. Showcase is a new column on building improvements and fa- cade rehabs. We would like to share information on successful projects. Please submit pictures and rehab data to: Main Street News, NMSC, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. C.~ .~ L f..1 NMSC Esports Main Street Approach to Venezuela Early in July, two National Trust staff members-Elizabeth Jack- son, anNMSC senior program associate, and C. Richazd Bierce, AIA, director of technical ser- vices-spent 10 days introduc- ing the Main Street approach to Venezuela. Jackson and Bierce conducted a series of seminars and site visits to explain the NMSC's commercial revitalization pro- cess to architects, planners, gov- ernment officials and represen- tatives of neighborhood and community organizations inter- ested in historic preservation. The trip was initiated by the Cultural Affairs Office of the U.S. Embassy in Cazacas and was fundea by a wide range of public and private sponsors, in- cluding the United States Infor- mation Agency (USIA, the Na- tional Trust and the College of Venezuelan Architects. More than 450 people at- tended the formal presentations held in Caracas and Maracaibo. The presentations consisted of a mixture of lectures and videos on the Main Street process, slides and a dialogue with paz- ticipants throughout the events. The National Trust team also made site visits to five histor- ically and azchitecturally signif- icant areas in Caracas and to two areas in Maracaibo. Despite the lack of wide- spread public support or com- prehensive government pro- grams for historic preservation, Venezuelan state and local gov- ernments have started a number of initiatives. These efforts in- clude survey and planning for urban azeas and restoration of individual monuments. Overall, the trip revealed an emerging awazeness of Venezuela's rich architectural heritage-from pre-Columbian to mid-20th cen- tury-and the need to move quickly and decisively to save it. Cincinnati Nosts 42nd National Preservation Conference Cincinnati, hailed by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow as the "Queen City of the West," will host the National Trust's annual preservation conference, Octo- ber 19-23, 1988. The conference and accompanying trade show, Rehabitat, will highlight Cin- cinnati's bicentennial and its rich diversity of neighborhood and community preservation. Preservation: The People's Choice, the theme of the confer- ence, ties preservation's growing popularity together with its eco- nomic benefits to our cities, towns and rural areas. Work- shops and tours will demon- stratethat preservation works as an integral part of community life in Cincinnati. Major topics to be covered include affordable housing and neighborhood development, heritage education, heritage tourism, industrial heritage, preservation's role in managing urban and rural growth, real estate development, rural con- servation, the politics of preser- vation and urban heritage. The conference will also high- light the NMSC's 10th anniver- sary of achievements. Main Street activities will include: Doctor Downtown, a booth to display Main Street products; focus groups to discuss Main Street's future programmatic di- rection; two discussion groups that will focus on different types of commercial areas-down- towns and neighborhood busi- ness districts; and Anatomy of a Commercial Street, a laboratory field trip to examine, from a visual point of view, assets and liabilities of Cincinnati's neigh- borhood commercial areas. The conference will be based at the Cincinnati Convention Center and the recently rehabili- tated Omni Netherlands Plaza Hotel, known for its Art Deco splendor. Registration informa- tion can be obtained by calling X202) 673-4100. National Main Street Center ~ ~ - ~ - National Trust for Historic Preservation !?' ~ V ~'~ ' 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. is <<P i c ag 2~.~ _,: a, = - Washington, D.C. 20036 '', __ - : « 7I253~i34 SA`tAT~1~ o HcFiT~,'~c ~R~S-~~r'ATIC'~ C~u~ISSI^~; i 3771 ~ tJITVa~~ ~ J~h,"J ITV Gr ~:.~ aTC,,A SAr4T~~~,i CA 95G'J z tt, t,,, I,l,tf ,,, t,,,tlt,„t, i„I ~~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: 9/28/88 FROM: Heritage Preservation Commission SUBJECT: Tile Mosaic at Paul Masson Winery on Saratoga Avenue When the Heritage Commission adopted the Heritage Resource Inventory in June, they also established a "preview list", a list of potential resource properties that need additional research and documentation before being recommended for inclusion on the Inventory. The the mosaic located on the circular pedestrian ramp at the front of the Paul Masson winery is on this preview list. The Heritage Commission has had the opportunity to discuss the mosaic on two occasions. The first was provided by Planning staff when the EIR was in the initial preparation stage, and the second was more recent, after a site visit of the mosaic by Commissioner Bruce Mitchell and Planner Young (see HPC minutes of 5/4/88 and 9/7/88, attached). The file mosaic depicts the history of wine- making and was created for the winery in 1959 by muralisfi: Jose Moya Del Pino. It is approximately 1.50 feet in length and wraps around the outer wall~of the circular ramp in front of the main entrance structure. The Draft EIR for the T,es Maisons .Provencal project at t~~e winery site recommends a mitigation measure for the mosaic; the measure states that portions of the mosaic could be incorporated ~.nto the new project if possible; at a minimum, a photo documentatic:~n of the mural should be made. The Heritage Commission concurs w~.th this mitigation measur®, acknowledging that pres®l~vation of thQ entire ~moeaie is not feasibly baaaur~e or the n~sturn oS' itr~ ooi~e~truotion. The Commission recommends that the photo and historic documentation of the' mosaic be submitted to the Commissions secretary for inclusion in the Inventory file for this property. U~~.. Valerie Youn . Associate P1 ner Attachment: HPC minutes, 5/4/88 and 9/7/88 VY/dsc 1 C.~l[~I 0(,~8P8[0~fl w 1P~Oq~~7~~~F072 xA RECOGNIZING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHERRYMOUNT WHEREAS, Cherrymount has been a part of Saratoga's agricultural history as a vineyard and fruit ranch for over a century; and I WHEREAS, Cherrymount recalls the ancestral Irish home of the Brolly family and has been the Saratoga home of the Brolly family since September, 1888; and WHEREAS, the residential and farm structures at Cherrymount date from the 1860's and were among the first structures in Saratoga to be electrified; and WHEREAS, Cherrymount preserves for today's residents an exam le of P an early Saratoga working fruit ranch. NOW, THEREFORE, I, KAREN ANDERSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, do hereby issue this proclamation in recognition of the 100th anniversary of Cherrymount, and extend to Archibald Hart Brolly and his family sincere appreciation and best wishes on behalf of the citizens of Saratoga. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 21st day of September, 1988. Karen Anderson Mayor • f~ P~o~a C~O'~ N;s~orical Fo4 n Garden Pqr}y dQ~~oh DATE: Sunday, September 18, 1988 PLACE: Saratoga Historical Museum Garden Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, near Oak Street TIME: Two to four o'clock The Saratoga Historical Foundation invites members and friends to the annual September Garden Party that marks the beginning of its 1988-89 season of programs. This is a social get-together, and a time to renew membership. Please bring friends and neighbors who may be interested in joining and would like to get acquainted. Refreshments will be served, and Willys Peck will provide entertainment with his old time records of music of the 'teens and 'twenties. We are looking forward to a year of interesting programs on historical subjects. Meetings are held on the third Monday of alternating months, i.e. November, January, March, and May, at 8 p.m. in the Saratoga Library Community Room. In July, our summer event is the Barbeque and Pot Luck Supper at the Garrod Ranch. Your membership dues help support the Saratoga Historical Museum. Last year, the museum attracted almost ,60.0 visitors from all parts of the U.S.A. as well as from many foreign countries. At the Museum, local residents can find their roots and feel a sense of community identity. It is dues-paying time for 1988-89. An addressed envelope with the dues schedule is enclosed. Or, dues may be paid at the September 18 Garden Party. NEW MEMBERS WELCOME ! ,~~ ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 21, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes of 9/7/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. NEW BUSINESS A. Application for Heritage Resource Designation - 18390 Ravenwood Drive (Brandenburg House) B. Review planning application for subdivision in the vicinity of Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads C. Discuss revised application form for Heritage Resource Designation III. OLD BUSINESS A. Warner Hutton House - sign B. Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT L~ oa CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 7, 1988 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Voester, Heid, Koepernik, Ansnes, Mitchell, and Landsness Absent: Cameron Staff: V. Young B. Approval of minutes of 8/3/88 M/S Voester/Koepernik to approve the minutes of 8/3/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously, Heid and Ansnes abstaining. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall. D. Oral and Written Communications Commissioner Voester noted she had talked with Michael Cronk of the San Jose Mercury News, and was pleased with the article he had written on the Inventory. Chairman Heid noted he had spoken recently with Melita Oden; she had a few changes to the Inventory. All Commissioners acknowledged that they had received an invitation to Arch Brolly's party celebrating the 100th anniversary of his farm. Commissioner Voester passed around a card for the Commission to sign. M/S Voester/Ansnes to send the card to Mr. Brolly on behalf of the Heritage Commission, and to ask the City Council to adopt a resolution commemorating the event. Passed unanimously. Commissioner Ansnes will assist staff in preparing the resolution. II. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House sign Commissioner Mitchell reported that the Boy Scouts would HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - 9/7/88 PAGE 2 prefer to do the final, permanent sign for the house rather than the temporary sign. He had spoken with Carrie Deane, Volunteer Coordinator, and she is looking into finding a volunteer to do the temporary sign. He will report on the status at next meeting. Commissioner Voester gave Secretary Young a biographical sketch she had found on Warner Hutton. Young updated the Commission on the status of the house relocation. Secretary Young referenced the letter from Caltrans in the packet requesting input on a draft of the protective conditions for the City to follow once the house is transferred to the City. There was Commission concurrence with the draft; the Secretary was directed to relay this to Caltrans. B. Heritage Resource Inventory Commissioners reported on the progress they are making on their assigned "preview" properties. Commissioner Mitchell reported on two of his properties • that may need some action by the Commission. The first property, the rock wall property on Madrone Hill, is currently in the process of a subdivision application; owner John DiManto, needed to reapply because previous approval had lapsed. The project proposed preservation of the rock work to as great extent possible. Secretary Young noted this item will go before Planning Commission in October; she will schedule for Heritage Commission review at next meeting. The second property, mosaic at Paul Masson Winery, was viewed by Mitchell and Young last week. Both concurred that it was not feasible to preserve the entire mosaic when the building is demolished to make way for the proposed senior housing project. There was Commission consensus to send a memo to the Planning Commission supporting the EIR position on the mosaic, i.e. that some part of it be preserved and incorporated into the project if possible, and at the least the mosaic be fully documented and photographed. Chairman Heid then led discussion on the format of the Inventory publication. It was requested that this item be agendized for the next meeting. III. New Business A. Status of CLG Application • V. Young reported on this item, noting that the State Office of Preservation finally sent the materials to the 9 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - 9/7/88 PAGE 3 National Park Service. She noted that the heritage ordinance now needed some revisions to support the application; this will be agendized for next meeting. B. Upcoming Workshops V. Young noted that four Commissioners were registered for the workshop in San Francisco on historic building codes on September 23. Commissioner Koepernik expressed his concern that the Commission's conference and training budget was not sufficient enough to allow a commissioner to attend the National Preservation Conference, which was usually held in the midwest or east coast area. There was consensus to request a budget increase for this next year when the Council is considering the '89-90 budget. IV. Items Initiated ~ The Commission A. Voester - Membership in Saratoga Historical Foundation Commissioner Voester encourged other Commissioners to join local preservation related organizations such as the Foundation, Montalvo, and the California History Center. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission • ~Q~ o ~~B~Q~~ C~ ~ ~'~ o~ ~ ° ° ° BOO ° ~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: 9/14/88 FROM: Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission SUBJECT: Application for Heritage Resource Designation 18490 Ravenwood Drive The Heritage Preservation Commission has received an application for Heritage Resource Designation for property at 18490 Ravenwood Drive known as the Brandenburg House. The attached application materials provide documentation of the historic value of the property. Action ~ Heritage Commission According to Section 13-15.050 of the City Code, the Commission is required to render its recommendation on the designation in the form of a report to the City Council. The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the Commission's decision and the information and documentation relied on in support thereof. In order for the Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of a heritage designation, the resource must satisfy one or more of the following criteria: (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or 1 (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. The subject property is listed (#53, form attached); it met inclusion on the Inventory list. on the Heritage Resource Inventory criteria (a) and (c) above for ~~~~~ Valerie Youn Associate P1 ner VY/dsc Attachment: HRI Form #53 { . • A:memohpc 2 • . ~ Gate Received - ` ' ~' c~8' • M~i;,`~~yE~ Designation No._~~- (~ ~~w ~ .. ~~~~, Meeting Date ~f•PG ~•Zl • 8~ • P~~NNING UEPf Fee -8-~ - Alteration: $20; CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION/PERMIT APPLICATION FORM I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name 2) Historic Na B. C. D. Location/Address Assessor's Parcel Number_ 3~ .. ~a - ~~"'~ Use of Site ~C$ j~hCC„ 1) Original ~GSjdt~1CG ~E. Present Owner ~~K~$ ~ ~a~r~- (_~0~~~' • (.Please attach documenta ien of ownershi 1) Address ~$~~ ~liv~~nwC~ ~ 5o1~0.'fC~01~. 2 ) Phone Number ~ - ~ ~~ ~ . 3) Public or Private Ownershi p ~I 'i V GL'+`G 4) Has Owner been Notifies: of Application? II. Purpose of Application A. Application for Designation or Permit? ~Stq~10 r1 1. If application for permit briefly describe proposal and alterations required. B. Application for Heritage Landmark, Lane or District? • 1. If application for heritage lane or district please attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66). A ~' III. Description A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site (including major vegetation features) or structure and describe any existing major alterations from its original condition: C. D. E. Architectural Style ~CC,Q~}~YG ~d ~,. ~~CCn}~~0.~G-G~d Year of Constr~~ction_ ~g'$$ / L Name of Architect or Builder Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage «0~ 2) Depth ~ 37 • 3) Approximate Acreage ~3 afire. • F. Co of Structure and/or Site (circle one): 1) Excellent 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or unaltered? ~ S}~~.~~ ,~~ ~~ H. Secondary structures~on site. Descri e. `1~ I. C~ Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? or i gtha-I Stt G e • J. Photo (Date Taken: ( ) Location Ma' pLt,a.r,dt,_Rra, a.,e RG-vcnwo od Oc r~+p~-S 1 ~ L.r~ I~ a% p .0 N 9• (Label site and surrounding streE roads and prominent landmarks) • IV. Significance - •- A. Briefly describe historical and/or architectural importance of the resource (include dates, events and persons associated with the site): ~4-I~c oriafi Hh~ ~. -Dior 1~ u~ho G~dldec~ -~ ~+~, w;no (Attach sheet if more space required)(y~,~ -r~~ B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates): '~ ~cr,nb~r 23 14gC~ ~-- C. Does this site/structure have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? ~0 V. Form submitted by: 1) Name QMC`a R • ~.-v1 ("' 2) Address vunwcaod~, r 7!7 3) Phone Numbe 1 -~ 4) or Saratoga-Heritage Preservation Commission ~/ ~.• - I M P O R T A N T Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation or permit application to alter such a resource, the following should be read carefully. I, the applicant, understand that by applying for a permit to alter such a resource that the site of this resource will be subject to the limitations and provisions of Ordinance No. 66. I also agree that these limitations and provisions will be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the application is granted. In witness whereof, I here unto set my hand this ~ day ofd ~ lg~ r Signature ~._- Print Name _ J /J~~~J (~p~~ Address IA~n ~ t/.~!-~1 t ~InI'Y~ _~r G`.....,.~.~~n_ c Phone: Residenc ~(~?shy.- ) ~ Business VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one): City Council/Planning Commission/Community Development Department A. The Heritage Preservation Commission is for/against the. proposed designation./permit application. B. Comments: .. ,. 4 .. • • C. Findings: 5 Signed Chairmar. of Heritage Preservation Commission c~~ aav, S~~ ~..~ ~ p~c~ ~ u a~~ u~ ~ av~M ~osu~ 2 ~mc~ o-}. 1p`oS sroM 7sY~ ~v~. ~cb1 VS s~~w-~~ad w- ! ~o aaw~ vu~nv, ~ apoW- ~pue C ~Ja'1r1V ~~V-CrJ . x ~~ , ~y~- s~v-~D a~~ ~ tea} y~~ an~ss~x,~-w-~' ((~? p V-~p r '~-~ ~ S~~O~b ~~~ 3"4 7~0 ~~~-~01 aa~ zp~ S ~v-oZ~ u~o ~M ~ ~~a ~ abn b sb~ 2S~'`~ ~~ ' 3oC~a. ~-c~-~u~ ~ pv-ip ~o v-~ ~ ~~a nno ,o ` Suu,-r~~o~ ~vu ~~-j- s-~aw~~°~`s v~~a°d' ~}uo'~. x'11_' ~p~-~. . '~~. ~ . -s ~1~"'' - -- ~ ,-~ ~n~ - ~ r~-~~o Sao ~1~ ~ ~P - on~~ ~ ~ -mss ~ 1~ou-~~~~ -~-} a~ s~~}~ppb v1-~~o1 v~ ~o ~~~~ a~o~ _ onn~ ~o pv-b ~n~~~ ` ~~v-~n~o~ w c~ , ~iwnnan~-ap ~ ~oy5 b o~~ s~o c~c~- ~~ ~ua~ ~_ ~d :- V-o~}d, ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~Ar nod ~F3erw~~c~ . ~r . 3erw -c~k ~ dt,. his ~n,~~~ Y~+ra~ncd ow rcrsh._ I~n~i ~ 1Q~"3. ~ from p i tq~3. 1-o Iq~O ~ ~-hG 1nnuS~ ~5 c~~~icC~ b . y . ~ F'cr na~r~do ~ _ ~-Z Cir~d h~5 -~o~r~n - ~ , .q - y z~ ~o -~ ~o~r}~ ~s ~~~~~~d b~ -~'hG.~ F7r~csc~- owr~cr~ , ~'i~m ~ as~d ~.b- '~-~t' . undcX ~~' ~ ~ Ycc~ovQ~-'-c~(1.S P ~~~~~ ~ ~~ c~r~ ~~~1 ~~~cx~~ ~~and r f`~a-~~~c-~c~v~ `EInG1~1t~.SG 5 C1r~crouC,~t' ~ ~~ravc~~~ o ~vc; 1~.4t~e_ ~ -mot ~~S~ vC, ~J wG.~r ._-~c~cr a~r~ . r~ctia- - ~ hou~Se ~. -fihc. rol ~ •' .. i t_ ~., 1 ~ 1 .. , . .. G t __ •f ~ ~OC~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO:Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 16, 1988 FROM:Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission SUBJECT: Review planning application for subdivision in the vicinity of Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads • As discussed by Commissioner Mitchell at the last Commission meeting, the Planning Department has received an application for a 5-lot subdivision in the vicinity of Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads. The property contains the elaborate rock work which is an the heritage resource "preview" list, a list of properties that have the potential to be on the Heritage Resource Inventory, pending further research and analysis. In relation to the rock work, the project proposes to retain the majority of the rock structures, with some demolition, relocation and reconstruction. Both the applicant and his engineer will be at the Heritage Commission meeting to in- formally discuss the project; a full set of plans will be available at that time. The subdivision application will be heard by the Planning Commission in October. If the Heritage Commission has any comments on the project as it affects the rock work, Staff will forward to them to the Planning Commission for consi- deration in their agenda packet. Q~~~~~ Valerie Youn Associate Pla er • cc: John DiManto Bill Heiss Lisa Welge • Date Received Designation # HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION APPLICATION FORM (No Fee) PROPERTY ADDRESS NAME OF RESOURCE PROPERTY OWNER OWNER ADDRESS OWNER PHONE OWNER SIGNATURE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure, including major vegetation features, outbuildings/walls/ fences, and any major alterations from the original condition: • 1 • PROPERTY SIGNIFICANCE A. Briefly describe historical and/or architectural importance of the property, including dates, events and persons associated with the property: B. List sources used to determined historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates - attach copies if available): C. Does this site/structure have a county, state or national landmark designation? 2 B. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE C. YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION D. NAME OF ARCHITECT OR BUILDER E. APPROXIMATE PROPERTY SIZE F. G. H. FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE CONDITION OF STRUCTURE AND/OR SITE Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated IS STRUCTURE ALTERED OR UNALTERED? IS STRUCTURE ON ORIGINAL SITE OR HAS IT BEEN MOVED? • I. PHOTOGRAPHS Please attach photographs showing all four elevations of the structure or site. Indicate date taken. r~ 3 FINDINGS/CRITERIA (Pursuant to Section 13-15.010 of Saratoga City Code) The Heritage Commission may recommend to the City Council designation of a proposal as a heritage resource if it satisfies any one or more of the following criteria: a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or c. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or d. It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or • e. It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or f. It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or g. It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having. special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. ~~ HP:hpdesign 4 ~~~ 2~~~ • ~~ J G~ ~ e o e e C~~~~ o~ ~ ~OC~~ 1377 FRI,'IT~'.-~LE.-~~'E\~'E • S,-\R.~'I'OG.~,C,-\L1FOR:\l.-\~)S07O (4081 86 i -3438 September 8, 1988 ro ~-cti.~{x~. ~wu~m COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moy/es Donald Peterson Francs Stutzman At its meeting of September 7, 1988, the Saratoga City Council adopted Resolution HP-14 designating property • at 15231 Quito Road (Casa Tierra). in Saratoga as a Designated Heritage Resource. Our City Code requires that you be given notification of this designation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~ Valerie Yo g Associate anne • • ORDINANCE N0. HP-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MEAGHER-SMILEY HOUSE AND CASA TIERRA AT 15231 QUITO ROAD (APN 397-007-20) AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Commission, the application and supporting materials, the City Council has determined that the findings per Exhibit "A" can be made and hereby designates the property at 15231 Quito Road. Section 2: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the ~~ting time required by law was thereafter passed and aopted this day of Seer 1988, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Petersoa~, Stutanan and Mayor Anderson NOES : None • ABSENT: None Mayor ATTEST: ~ ~. City Cler i~i~ IJ l ~~~~~. It~tl August/September 1988 Volume 2, Number 4 Preservation is Major Trend in Building Industry Minority Heritage Initiative A new Task Force on Minority Heritage, called together by the National Trust, met Apri121-22 at historic Sumner School. The school, now restored as a museum anel cultural center, wus the first Washington, ll.C. public school to accept blacks. The task force represents a wide spectrum of local, state, federal, public and private organizations. The group hopes to develop proposals that can be implemented by a variety of groups, from established preservationists to those joining the movement. Task force members reviewed what has and is being done in the area of minority heritage preserva- tion on federal, state and local levels, in independent research, and a at universities and the National Trust. Discussion centered on involving people and organizations; cultural heritage preservation; wnrkin}; within existin}; ~ir~;aniza- tiunti :uul dcvclul,inh new unct;i historical rescarch- professional education; and surveys and designa- tion of landmarks. The task force established a steering committee to help refine priorities. A report on the task force's work will be presented during a Minority Heritage Preservation Forum at the Trust's annual confer- ence in Cincinnati, October 22, 5:30-6:30 p.m. For further information, contact Diane Maddex at the National Trust, (202) 673-4061. Louis Harris and Associates re- cently polled 201 opinion leaders about trends likely to have a major impact on the built environment and architecture in the 21st cen- tury. Those polled, comprised of leaders inside and outside the design and contruction industry, ranked only "urbanized" suburbs higher than the renovation of older buildings. Harris believes that, in the future, Americans will redis- cover the beauty of older construc- tion and focus more attention on renovation. The American Institute of Architects commissioned the survey as part of "Vision 2000," a multi-year program to assess the future of architecture and the built environment. Vision 2000: Trends Shaping Architecture's Future, an 81-page report, details 27 social, technological, economic, environ- mental, political and professional trends that are expected to shape the nature of architecture and architectural practice at the turn of the century. Thr Vision 2000 prui;ram will include cun(cr~nc~a, w--rk~hul,~, focus groups, surveys, cunsultnnt services and independent research. The information and ideas produced by Vision 2000 over the next few years will be made available through a series of reports, mono- graphs, illustrations and other printed materials. For further information about Vision 2000, contact Vision 2000, The American Institute of Archi- tects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 626-7488. National Trust for Historic Preservation Colorado Lottery ~~_ funds Preservation • Revenues from Colorado's lottery have funded historic preservation projects across the state for the past several years. The Colorado state legislature stipulated that lottery money be disbursed in three sepa- rate portions: fifty percent for capital construction; ten percent for the state division of parks and rec- reation; and the remaining forty percent for the Conservation Trust Fund. The Conservation Trust fund is a state-level fund that distributes money for scientific, scenic, aes- thetic and historic purposes. The money distributed by the Conserva- tion Trust Fund to counties, mu- nicipalities and qualified special improvement districts is based on a per- capita formula: the larger the population, the more money distributed. Lottery money has helped to implement a historic master plan for the White House Ranch, a National Register site owned by the city of Colorado Springs. Funds also help to maintain historic property and muse- ums as well as rehabilitate and complete new construc- tion on historic properties. The Conservation Trust Fund requires funds to be used for public sites. Funds are distributed annu- ally in September and typically go to the town or city council. For further information, contact: Christine Pfaff, Colorado Historical Society, 1300 Broadway, Denver, Colo. 80203. (303 8GG-4678. Idaho Heritage Trust • The Idaho Centennial Com- mission's Lasting Legacy Commit- tee is working with the National Trust, the Trust for Public Land and other natural and preservation interest groups to establish the Idaho Heritage Trust. The Trust will provide financial support for the preservation of Idaho's natural and historic assets. Designed as an endowed fund, the Trust will support land conservation and his- toric preservation through acquisi- tion, rehabilitation and education programs. Special license plate fees and private corporate and founda- tion fund raising will provide the funding, with no state appropriation expected. Legislators will introduce the proposed state-chartered Trust in the 1989 state legislature in hopes of its adoption before the state's 1989 1890• CENTENNIAL•1990' Centennial celebration. For more information, contact Marty Peter- son, Vice Chairman, Idaho Centen- nial Commission, 217 West State St., Boise, Idaho 83720. X208) 345-1990. D.C. Buildings Surveyed ~iddle-class apartment living gained widespread acceptance across America's cities by the end of the 19th century. Washington, D.C. was no exception, with apartment "corridors" springing up along newly installed streetcar lines. Today, apartment buildings com- prise amajor portion of the building stock in Washington. Recognizing the buildings' role in shaping the city's development, the D.C. Preser- vation League (DCPL and the D.C. Division of Historic Preservation set out to survey apartments dating from 1880 through 1945. The two- year project resulted in a computer- ized database of approximately 4,000 existing and demolished buildings, a narrative history of apartment hous- ing in the city and a multiple- property nomination along with 11 individual nominations to the National Register. The database can be searched by building type, exterior material and architectural style and other crite- rion. Acomputer print-out and pho- tograph can be obtained for each site. The inventory now serves as a tool for community organizations, government officials and individuals planning development and preserva- tion projects. Traceries, a local preservation and architectural history consulting firm, designed the methodology, conducted the study and evaluated its findings. The $150,000 project was funded by two grants from the D.C. Division of Historic Preservation, a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, funds from DCPL and in- kind services of more than 100 volunteers. A brochure on the project, supported by a Na- tional Trust Preservation Services Fund grant, is available through DCPL. For more information, contact Lori Ward, DCPL, X202) 737-1519 or Emily Eig, Traceries X202) 462-0333. Kit Carson Carousel in Berlington, Colorado is a National Historic Landmark HUD Handicap Rule In the Federal Register of May 26, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published a final rule adopting policies and proce- dures to assure non- discrimination based on handicap in HUD-assisted programs and activities. The rule, which took effect on July 11, implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C., Section 794. The Act protects people with disabilities against discrimina- tion in federally- assisted programs and activities. The rule affects all of HUD's pro- grams nationwide, including the Community De- velopment Block Grant Program, Urban Development Action Grant Program, Section 8 and all other assisted housing programs. It requires that a minimum of five percent of newly constructed and substantially altered HUD-assisted multifamily housing be designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by indi- viduals with handicaps. A housing unit that complies with the Uni- form Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) is an "accessible" unit under the rule. The rule requires recipients of HUD funds to conduct aself- evaluation of their programs to determine areas of possible non- compliance and to prepare a transi- tion plan for achieving compliance. Historic buildings are considered on a case-by-case basis that weighs factors of cost and historic integrity. (See "Network," Preservation Forum, Summer 1988, for a report on a Boston task force studying designs that would provide building access for disabled people without destroying historic character.) For further information concern- ing the new rule, contact Robert Ardinger, program manager, Section 504, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (202) 755- 5404. New York Court Decides Preservation Case On June 14, 1988, the trial-level New York Supreme Court firmly rejected a takings challenge to the Rochester Preservation Board's denial of a certificate of appropriate- ness for the demolition of a desig- nated historic structure. The decision in Lubelle v. Rochester Preservation Board, No.13481/85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 1988, signifies that, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision recognizing the validity of damage claims based on regulatory takings, First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987, those claims are still extremely difficult to prove in the context of land use regulation generally and historic preservation specifically. The Lubelle case demonstrates that the courts are continuing to apply strict standards that make it extremely difficult to prove a regulatory takings claim in the context of land use control. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in First English just one year earlier, a number of reports sug- gested that the prospect of court- awarded damages for regulatory takings would adversely affect local land use controls. This case illustrates that such fears aze unfounded, and that a reasonable system of land use regulation is not vulnerable to takings challenges so long as its purpose is valid and so long as no affected landowner has been denied all viable use of his or her property. The Office of General Counsel of the National Trust has published a special Preservation Law Re- porter advanced on the Lubelle case. For more detailed informa- tion on the case and special Forum member discounts on subscriptions to the Preservation Law Reporter, write to Preservation Forum. Forum Newsletter ISSN # 0896-8179) is published six times a year in February, April, May, )uly, Aug./Sept. and November by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Members of the National Trust's Preservation Forum receive six issues of Forum Newsletter, four issues of Preservation Forum, twelve issues of Preservation News and six issues of Historic Preservation as benefits of membership. Annual dues are $75.00. Qualifying individuals may subscribe to Preservation Forum and Forum Newsletter for $18.00 per year. Application to mail at the Second Class Postage Rates is Pending at Washington, D.C. Postmaster: send address changes to: Preservation Forum, National Trust for Historic Preser- vation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Copyright 0 1988 National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Support for the National Trust is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Pazk Service, under pro- visions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed aze not necessaz- ily those of the U.S. Department of the Interior. New HUD rule a~/'ects handicap access ~~ 1Vlichael Quinn, former executive director of the DC Preservation League in the District of Columbia, is now director of education at the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union. Quinn is responsible for the educational and outreach programs at George Washington's home. After having directed Historic Seattle Preservation and Develop- ment Authority for 14 years, AI Elliott has become executive director of North~vest Seaport, a maritime organization in Seattle. He is over- seeing resto- ration of the Wawona, a historic sailing schooner. The seaport plans to construct a small restoration shipyard on Lake Union, located in the middle of the city, to allow public viewing of the work on Wawona. Tavia McCuean, executive director of the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation since 1983, moves to Atlanta this month to head the Nature Conservancy's Georgia office. McCuean, recently elected to her second term as a director of Preservation Action, expects to retain her preservation ties in her new position. Kent Schuette, a National Trust Advisor from Lafayette, Ind., is currently working in Washing- ton, D.C. on the restoration of the Jefferson and Lincoln Me- morials. The architectural firms of Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB) and Hartman-Cox are overseeing the project. As a project architect with HNTB, Schuette is preparing a techni- cal chronology of the construc- tion of both monuments for distribution to specialized consultants. Greg Morris, an urban planner in Sioux Falls, S.Dak., has succeeded Elizabeth Boehringer as staff person to the city's board of preservation and as staff liaison with Main Street Sioux Falls. Boehringer, also a planner, now works with the city's transit system. California SHPO Kathryn Gualti- eri is leaving her post after 3 years to pursue graduate studies-. From 1975 to 1980, Gualtieri was a National Trust Advisor fiom California. Harlan H. Griswold has resigned from the Connecticut Historical Commission. Griswold has been a member of the Connecticut Historical Commission since 1958 and served as chair •from 1973 to 1984. Founder of the Con- necticut Trust for Historic Preserva- tion, Griswold also served as a National Trust Advisor for nine years and Northeast Regional vice chair for three years. Griswold continues to chair the state review board, a position he has held since 1974. According to Connecticut SHPO John Shannahan, "No other individ- ual has served the cause of historic preservation for so long and so well in Connecticut as Harlan Griswold." .4^ .._. T - O K ~.~ -, • ~J L~ A Primer for Planning Columbus Landmarks Founda- tion has published Goals for a Better Built Environment, a 25-page guide intended for local officials, planners, architects, developers and citizens interested in creating a better urban environment. The guide is divided into three main categories: 1) Initial Planning, 2~ Quality of the Urban Environ- ment and 3) Historic Preservation. Essential questions that need to be asked when considering develop- ment projects are also included. By following the guide, preservation- ists and others can ensure participa- tion from a wide variety of parties while avoiding urban design mis- takes. For example, the questions address such issues as encouraging pedestrian activity and screening parking facilities. Gretchen Klimoski, a preserva- tion consultant and former Ohio Deputy SHPO who helped prepare the guide, said that it has convinced people city- wide that historic preservation is a vital component of good urban design. The Sec- retary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabili- tation, an inventory and evalu- ation of historic buildings in the city's business district and a preser- vation features checklist are in- cluded. The guide, funded through Columbus's certified local govern- ment program, may be obtained for $4.00 from the Landmarks Foundation, 297 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. (614) 221-0227. Recognizing the risks faced by many of the key historic structures at black higher educational institu- tions, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Historically Black College and University Programs Office and the American Gas Association have launched a survey and assessment of the historic structures on more than 100 historically black college and university campuses. The survey will identify, assess and prioritize the most significant and threatened buildings. It will pave the way for a coordinated nation- wide initiative to promote and support stabilization and restora- tion actions on these campuses. Bethune-Cookman College, founded in 1872 and located in Daytona Beach, Fla., serves as the lead historically black college for the project. A project planning committee, composed of representa- tives from each of the sponsors, several other historically black colleges and universities and historic preservation organizations including the National Trust, has been formed. For further information, contact Ira j. Hutchison, director, Histori- cally Black College and University Programs, U.S. Department of the Interior, (202) 343-2403. ^5 Historically Black Colleges and Universities Xavier University, New Orleans, Louisiana • • C~ Heritage Education Symposium In May, members of the education and historic preservation communi- ties participated in a two-day meeting at historic Sumner School in Washington, D.C. to discuss heritage education in the elemen- tary and secondary school program. Spokespersons for teachers, school administrators, state education agencies, college and university faculties and government officials joined with historians and preserva- tion professionals to explore the qualities of exem- plary heritage ~,7 ~ j i~ education curricu- ! ~ j , lum materials. 1'~~ _ ~_.~,_ The Sumner ~+~ ,~ i~~ School meeting was sponsored as a part of the Na- ~ ~ i;~.' tional Trust's ,,_. -. strategic planning process for heri- tage education. _ - "We share a common purpose and we will benefit from working together," explained the National Trust's coordinator for heritage education, Kathleen Hunter. "Teachers, researchers, education leaders and parents know we.have to do a better job of teaching Ameri- can history, geography, literature, the arts and sciences. We also want our youth to develop civic values. These concerns are on the minds of every education official, and on the .agenda of many state legislatures." The National'Endowment for the Humanities' Deputy Chairman, John Agresto, persuasively argued that heritage education makes our historical and cultural experiences immediate and personal, thereby providing a framework for our "cultural memory." Heritage education focuses on the tangible and the real, and thus fosters truthfulness and "justice" in the telling of our history. Frances Haley, the executive director of the National Council for Social Studies, reminded par- Children participate in heritage education pro- gram at Mystic Seaport, Connecticut ticipants that "there is a curriculum in the schools," and exemplary heri- tage education materials should enrich this curriculum. Dr. john Patrick, direc- tor of Indiana University's Center for Social Studies Develop- ment, suggested that heritage education studies would certainly strengthen the geogra- phy curriculum. He pointed out that all are concerned with the sad state of geography instruction. However, geography is not only a study of maps but also an understanding of the relationship between "place," culture and events. Participants who had introduced heritage education materials to the schools agreed that successful programs use local sites and re- sources to teach even the broadest concepts in history and culture. These practitioners have found heritage education to be a good way to teach about the contributions of America's diverse socioeconomic, ethnic and racial populations. Ex- emplary materials developed for widely differing sites, such as Mystic Seaport, Utah's ranchlands or Madison's Montpelier all used an interdisciplinary approach that helped students see the connection between the arts, history, geography, science and technology. Dr. Timothy Crimmins, chairman of the National Council for Preser- vation Education, recommended that the "preservation ethic" be the primary standard we use to identify exemplary heritage education programs. Hunter added, "Teachers who use a heritage education ap- proach are convinced it is a better way to teach." School officials have discovered that involving students in historic preservation projects is a good way to encourage stewardship and citizenship values." The National Trust's task force on heritage education includes Hunter and the Trust Vice Presi- dents for Programs and Services, Maritime Preservation and Steward- ship of Historic Properties. The task force intends to complete a final draft of the strategic plan prior to the National Trust's annual confer- ence at Cincinnati in October. Conferences and . Workshops The Association for Preserva- tion Technology will hold its 20th anniversary conference and annual meeting in Boston, Mass., October 5-8. Contact: APT'88 Coordina- tor, c/o Historic Massachu- setts, 45 School Street, Boston, Mass. 02108. (617) 350-7032. The Park Service will sponsor two federal archeol- ogy program coordination workshops. The first will take place September 12-16 in Santa Fe, N.Mex. and the second October 24-28 in Harper's Ferry, W.Va. Contact: Richard Waldbauer, (202) 343-4113 or Dave Dahlen, Mather Employee Development Center, P.O. Box 77, Harper's Ferry, W.Va. 24525. The Preservation Institute for the Building Crafts will • offer a conference on Fire Safety and Historic Preser- vation at the Ascutney Mountain Resort in Brownsville, Vt., November 1-3. Contact: Charlotte K. Barrett, Preservation Institute for the Building Crafts, P.O. Box 1777, Windsor, Vt. 05089. (802) 674-6752. Two workshops for historic house owners: The National Trust's Center for Historic Houses and Brucemore will cosponsor a workshop for old house owners in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on October 1. Contact: the Center for Historic Houses at (202) 673-4025 or Brucemore at (319) 362-7375. Preserva- tion New Jersey, the Center for Historic Houses, the Office of New Jersey Heritage and. the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will cosponsor Living with your Old House on Septem- • ber 17 in Burlington, N.J. Contact: Preservation New Jersey at (201) 359-4557. The Land Trust Exchange will sponsor National Rally '88: Rising to New Heights in Local Land Conservation in Estes Park, Colo., September 25-28. Contact: Kathy Barton, Land Trust Exchange, 1017 Duke Street, Alexandria, Va. 22314. (703) 683-7778. "A New Look at Wood Protection" will be examined at a workshop sponsored by the Wood Protection Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, October 11-13 in Arlington, Va. For further information, contact the Institute at (202) 347- 5710. The Getty Conservation Institute will hold alive-day course on Preventive Care of Historic Photographs and Negatives at the Getty Conservation Institute, Sharing Good Ideas in Heritage Education at the 1988 National Preservation Conference in Cincinnati An all-day education fair, workshops and a study tour that takes heritage education to the streets of Cincinnati will present some of the best educational materials and in- structional designs being used in heritage education pro- grams. Participants will explore the theme of building partnerships between the historic preservation and education communities to imporve teaching and learning about American history and culture. School, community, and historic preservation groups who have introduced heritage education programs in the schools are encouraged co share their curriculum materials and their experiences at the education fair. To learn how you can be a presenter at the fair and join in an educational partnership, please contact Laurie Nicholas Rabe, (617) 523-0885. October 17.21. Contact: The Training Program, the Getty Conservation Institute, 4503 Glencoe Avenue, Marina del Ray, 42nd National Preservation Conference Join us at the 42nd National Preservation Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio, October 19-23, 1988. Forum members are urged to participate in a Management Workshop, featuring fund-raising techniques, use of computers, public relations strategies and special networking groups for local and statewide preservation organizations, to be held Octuber 17-19. To receive more information on the 42nd National Preser- vation Conference, October 19-23, 1988 in Cincinnati, Ohio, complete this form and mail to: Robin Burke, Center for Preservation Conferences, NTHP, 1785 Massa- chusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 N Organization/Firm Address City State Zip, Telephone Forum Member # (Located in upper right hand comer of mailing label) Calif. 90292-6537. (213) 822- 2299. "War and Peace: A Conference on Battlefield Preservation and Interpretation" will be held in Gettysburg, Pa., November 16-18. The National Park Service, The Department of the Army, National Parks and Conservation Association, Heritage Interpretation Inter- national and Council for America's Military Past are sponsoring the conference. Contact: Bruce Craig, Battle- field Preservation Conference, National Parks and Conserva- tion Association, 1015 31 Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007. (202) 944-8530. Publications/Videos Heritage Education: The Victorian Era, a 22-minute video featuring architecture and history of the Victorian period for use in history class. $72.50 through September 1988; $88.00 after October 1. Also available: Heritage Education Kit, materials designed to supplement state history text books. $198.00. Both suitable for students in grades 4-12 with teacher's guide included. Contact: Maurie Van Buren, Historic Preservation Consulting, 451 Leonard Avenue, N.W., Atlanta, Ga. 30307 (404) 377-0502. 0 . ~. .: W -- O R .:T H ~ K~' N:: O : W.. I . N G -: - - -~: ~~~~ • The Rehab Manual: Plan- ning and Managing a Housing Rehabilitation Project published by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services and the New York State Council on the Arts, $6.00 each or $5.00 for 10 or more copies. The booklet assists individuals and organizations with initial steps of a housing develop- ment project by providing practical advice and clear examples of each phase of a housing rehabilitation process. Contact: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, 520 West Green Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. X607) 277-4500. The Journal of Museum Education: Roundtable Reports devoted its spring/ summer 1988 issue to "Heri- rage Education: Teaching a Preservation Ethic." The issue assesses A Heritage at Risk and provides an over- view of heritage education programs as well as case studies. Individual subscrip- tions cost $20.00; institu- tional and library subscrip- tions cost $35.00. To subscribe, contact: Museum Education Roundtable, P.O. Box 506, Beltsville, Md. 20705. Two new publications from the Park Service: Keeping it Clean: Removing Dirt, Paint, Stains and Graffiti from Historic Exterior Masonry, GPO Stock #024-005-01035- 1, $2.50 for each copy and Preservation Brief #16: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteri- ors, 14 pp., GPO Stock #024- ~* .,~~j Y`~ ,~w ---= ----- y ~ y. ~~ ) I Aug./Sept. 1988 Volume 2, Number 4 National 'I~ttst for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave, N.`6V. Washington, DC 20036 (202673-4296 005-01037-8, $1.00 for each copy. To order, contact Superintendent of Docu- ments, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9325. Architectural Trade Cata- logues from the Avery Library are now available on microfiche. The catalogues are arranged by 16 subjects ranging from sitework to concrete and finishes to doors and windows. For further information, contact: CIS Academic Editions, 4520 East West Hwy., Ste. 800- DM, Bethesda, Md. 20814- 3389. (800) 638-8380. Grants October 3 is the deadline for the National Endowment for the Arts Design Advance- went grants. Funds support projects that advance design through practice, research and theory, or communica- tion and education about design. Grants for organiza- tions range from $5,000 to $50,000 and are available on a one-to-one matching basis. October 3 is also the deadline for design program grants to state and regional arts agencies. These grants encourage state and regional arts agencies to develop programs in the design arts. Grants range from $5,000 to $40,000 and are only avail- able on a one-to-one match- ing basis. Contact: Design Arts Program, National En- dowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506. j202) 682-5437. _ 1 - ~ -- ---- 1 ~ ~. a ~ ~, ~atnr ~ i- ` ~~~v~~ ~~EN 1 ., 1y ~: '~ ~;, ~~ANN1N~ pEPT 71253934 b SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESCRVATION COMMISSION GITY70FUSARATOGAVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 Application to Mail at Second Class Postage Rates is Pending at Washington, D.C. 4 -c. ~- ~ • CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 7, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes of 8/03/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. OLD BUSINESS A. Warner Hutton House B. Heritage Resource Inventory III. NEW BUSINESS A. Status of CLG Application B. Upcoming workshops ~,t:~~ ~~~ ~ ~" IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION A. VOESTER - Membership in Saratoga Historical Foundation V. ADJOURNMENT oa ~., ~'eA /• • • 3 CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 3, 1988 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House; 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Koepernik, Landsness, Voester, Mitchell Absent: Heid, Cameron, Ansnes Staff: V. Young B. Approval of minutes of 7/20/88 M/S Koepernik/Voester to approve the minutes of 7/20/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously. C. Posting of Agenda • Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall on Friday, July 29, 1988. D. Oral and Written Communications V. Young briefed the Commission on phone calls and letters she had received about the Heritage Resource Inventory. Commissioner Voester noted that she had attended the Saratoga Historical Foundation potluck at Garrod Ranch on Sunday, July 30, and that she had received positive feedback on the Inventory from several people. She met a women, Kitty Maguire, who used to work for the National Trust, who offered assistance to the Commission. She also noted that she would be serving on the Nelson Gardens Task Force and would be reporting back to the Commission on their progress. II. Old Business A. Warner Hutton House sign Commissioner Mitchell reported that he had contacted the Boy Scouts about the sign and they were still considering it. Commissioner Voester suggested contacting Roy Swanson at the City Maintenance Department for assistance. Commissioner Mitchell will continue to follow-up on this Heritage Preservation Minutes - 8/3/88 item. B. Inventory Preview List V. Young recommended the Commission establish a policy or work program for continuing the research on the preview list of properties. There was concensus to assign each Commissioner five properties, and update the Inventory list as the :Forms were completed and evaluated. Commissioner Landsness was only assigned two properties because she is continuing to work on the photography of Inventory properties. III. Items Initiated ~ the Commission Commissioner Voester :suggested sending designation application forms to properties on the Inventory. Secretary Young will draft a letter and revise the application form; item will be agendized for next mecating. Mrs. Voester also suggested the Commission ask the Council to recognize the history of Arch Brolly's property b!~ a resolution; item to be agendized at next meeting. On a :Final note, she expressed concerns about the impact of the relocation on the owls at the Warner Hutton House; she and V. Young will follow-up on this. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. There was concensus to cancel the August 17. meeting, so the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 7, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission • • U Oo~D ySTATE OF.i CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, Goromor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -.~;: sox Oslo •~__~- • j ~~ SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9120 '~~ " , ~15) 923.1444 August 3, 1988 4-SC1-85 0.0/17.9 48500 West Valley Corridor Warren Heid, Chairman Heritage Preservation Commission t3ECE~VE~ City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. „198 Saratoga, CA 95070 ~U G Dear Mr. Heid: PLANNING DEPT Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1988 regarding 13495 .Sousa Lane, the Warner Hutton House. The information on the Historic Resources Inventory form is accurate and needs no changes. As you know, Caltrans is in the process of moving the House to a site provided by the City as part of the environmental mitigation for the West Valley Corridor project. An element of transferring ownership to the City involves the development of conditions which have the purpose of protecting the building's architectural and historic characteristics. Accordingly, Caltrans is enclosing for your review and comments a draft of these protective conditions. As soon as we receive your comments, we shall seek the concurrence of the State Office of Historic Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Please provide your comments by August 19. I may be reached at (415} 557-8705. Sincerely yours, BURCH C. BACHTOLD District Director 'U MARA MELANDRY Heritage Resources Coordinator Enclosure cc: Frank B_e_rger, Margaret Buss - HQ OEA ',Valerie Yo~rig= _=~-,- ~'.= ~,a:~ 'Norm Nirenlierg`"`-/ - MLPang, PHHughes MKM:asn ~_ uMw~ wn f' ~i_CC~t"'C~:LiC_i` NJl'(_tl ~itiF:.il:}.ct,..li~l'i 1. f-i. Ur 1.!,~ !",r_•:uur ~tn(1Uii1 ui~ 6-sr~r'E_•iii?r,'. ~-:L,a~tt'tilii~ 1=;i7t_li=._ o:~ l-t~-~rti:~~~i~i'.L';.=t1~i~!r, Coc"i'ltlt~i` L'Gtt-JGGfi Ri~t_ttr=• 1;:?1 irs SGl:t:ti S~,ti J~I~i=• ~~riCa F~;i_ttfr_• pct' ri~~tt- Ste~:'erts Cr'eet:: Lk7ti1~`i:31`d lii CtlF1=t'"tlllil, Cciil!-i'!i`ri1~i, tti;:. Lailfoi'-nlci LE~~s~!Yi_,iiet~t Or .... _. J. ~ .... _ _. ~ ._._ ,i.:1 Lr-~tr°,s, cirri-ltlur-,-. 1+_ r'c:rs~:~i:it_ ~:ilt!i, + _.: t. uri':~E'y'c:riCt (3~ ttlE 11}~tt"rit'r t'lU'!~1_ilri 1'!i:)t_:,t ti3 the (vi'l.';s Gr 'Scir"ati~e~;3 t:r.!C.iil tilt 1.1 t;i ' S e!cc°p L'~ini=i3 G, ttiE• Gf.-!1 i rat i ors tc_• F;r-eser-'•r~~_ and n,~ti ritcti rt ttie bui 1 di nq_ a bGT i t= its st_t,t:tts a a Flr-v~.ler-ty eli~gibi~ f;~i:- inclusion in ttiG f•laticn._tl fittt'i ~ti=•r' G• t~zl _ti?1 2 C F'l aces. laic Ci_iridl t1 Gti ~ attact-si?U tG ttii: t'r r:~ri_,i~Cr 1.1"iSt'r Ll,iiE:tl't. a fy ~f'idl sue, tvl l l k<~: 'r ••c>=1'r dtd IrJi'tti tiic~t R != 3.f'i:'tt-LtiiiG•r"tt l1-t tt'it rt:cil E_tett~~ f"E•cGrCl~ Gv ~ctt'ita Cl~:ra 1.GLUst'~', S'tati= C<: C~~1].~ur`tila. rl'iC c1't-t1L~ tG ttic ("tCiitGr~nt~tisss Of i=1 ~"--C-t ct°i i- 1 t_,i: .t F.i d:c'i. (-it. ~i F•:-i i~2:, r~s E.~'E1 S~ 1 i=5 t1iE r E:.fUl rtra c•rit O~t Stl is ttl ~ttl Con n I . :s. 'ti.k3 ' .it F:li'"OF:!ti•'ty b~ C~t:7ri':'c_~:'?d 'vJl tti F'r C!t:_Ctl'•rt Ci._r'•.'tii~~ii'l=~. P,~.~p~ndi;c Fs lri Ccln81t1'._r'~ttlOri 0:- tl`iC Cl:il'i'•;•~y'i~iiiCC ur ttidt L°P"tale fJ•:3.-SGtiyl ps`oFi~_{ t~;~ I;IiC!l•J:l a~~ ttie b~}nrnEr !~ilttUti t-!utt5e, nc!t•J relocated to ti~~at c>=r-t~iin ri•?;:1 pr-oFaer-t';: !•;riGt•Jn as Li t-y Hall F'~r-Ec iri the City uF ~ictt`~•t'i0ia;is Saiitct L1c:Yct Got:r'it'~', ~t;_~tti= G°F Ca11TGr nia, Wfiicti 1~ CftGt'i? t tt l l ' d •~ =• i= r° l b t? ij ~ • Cdescr- i F;ti cs.i o 41la:-ner- I-lutturi t-lcluse~ tti C1t'y Gf Si~i'r atGt~:t ~c;rrt°S c+r: beh:~l h Of 1ts~i'r, 1t- SUCC:=55Gr grid i=cssigti~ Ott all tirisr' tG sisaint~s:in ani: Fr eset-ve all e;:tet'iar ar~~ interior •feitttres that qtt~=~li~y tiE pt-clpes~-ty fer- inctu~ion ir: tl:c l~aatic!t-s.tl F:c•yist~r- rJ•f }-iistGr-i~~' F'lacc~, a:fiich Testtur-es ar-e inclttd~d lri c!ttaCtii'tiLnt 1, a~ FGllt~t.•J~: 1 . The City of S'_ r-ato:~a steal 1 pr'eser-ve and irs~ti ritai r: the 4}~ir-nt~r- t~ltltttrr+ 1~~utlse i n accilt-d trti th the re~_Gtefts{:=rldcd agprG~iche5 iri the Sect-etar•; a-f the Inter-iG:-'a 5tandar-d~ fcr F;~i~abilit:~tiori artt~ ~t_!idelit~t~~ roi~ F;~habilit~~tiun uT Hiatur-ic ltui ldiriq_~• (P•latiGnal F'ar-4:: Se:~-vice 1''C_~1 ir, ct-der to ~r-eserve and trite :.;rit_t those qual i !: i es that szs~~l::ca the ldtlrr:car- }-lt!ttor; !•~ou~e e.ligiblt fGt- iriciusiGn iri ttit 1'•1~ttiGr,a1 F;;egistet- Gi 1-lietGric t-''jcli=r5. Scild ScLr'-etar'y~.~_ S~..~rliic'~rd~ ar•e 1n~1L!dcd aS att~tctii,itrst :.. ~. tdo al tEr-ati on sh~tl 1 be iriaClt to the i eatur-cs that goal i --~y the VJa:r`ri~r tir..tttGri t"'1r~1:=_~~ fGi~" iriclttaiiJn in ttir= hdatiurs~ti F;t!gi =_ter` ldi ttiout ttie FiC•r`si,i ssi on o~f ttic State I-li ~tor-i c 1='r-esc~r-••:%atic.ri t:Jf Eic•Lr-~ (S!-1f=1~i . ~'lctri~ fos•- an•;' such t.•JOrt:: ,• Fit...-1~iCi_tu by' t~t'it L_,lt`,r G~ :~csr"ct~Gq~ lt- ~UCEStCIrS cc''id c,5=1Qii= shall bl~~ su::,i~sit_t:~d t:,o the S!l!•~'U fGr~- a r-e~•:iet•J period o thil•-t; d~,',' 4 at tl'it• Ellis Gi~ WfiiC!-i die?!'"1CId t!'iE: I~JGr"!~: iiict'~' fait Ut'idr_'t"'t_t!~:tri i t i:tic Ji !'l.1 ticiE3 nv'l= Ci3iiiir'rr=fi't.:'d l ri t•Ji" 1 t i rite. _,. ,- - ,- .1 _ 1. .. - ~ ~_ _+. ~rtil c ctgt-f=•E•i'i:Ln'+.. 1 = 1 r'tul t'1Ca Gtl 'iE (rl t ~ O"T' Jctt`cc va=t, 1 51_ti_C:i:S:•=Gi'-: ~Lic~ ci5~1 gt'i:3 1 n pr_r`ri=tUi t'j CGrsdi tl Ori CGlltcil l-ir3d t,er'-i=•i n ~ti_:11 bc• irise•I`ted b.,,. tt'ic:• City o; Saratoq<:i Vcrtc;ti rn cr r~'; L:~Jt..==,c t-i='r r?Y"i.?f'tt= _ 1 i"i aC'i'y' ij:';_ij Ot' Gti"iE'r" 1 ti;~.l 1 riS'~=1-llsfi:?Ci't ~3'y s... ~-. !•!i'iiCt'i 1 ~ G1'v'i=_L~- l t=i=•l i Gr. i.itr't~_•Y tn~• fcc SiiiiYlE tltlc Gt- eiri}~ UL{'ii_•i'- 1:_~~;_t° c:~~:::.itr• 11°i t{'ii:? LsJ<:i'r rr~t' I-•1!_ItL'.:Jrt t-lu!t~c Gi" ~Ii'i p~~t-t tr:e_~t"~G:. 4. l":;~ C'it'y Gr `,~~:t-c::tuq::: sissy' ~~~~I'y to trio ~F{l='C'i ~Gt t-E1c::cSG 'f•Y'viii c!i'l'j' CCitis~ltlGCl_ Gt'" t'"LS'l~{'-1Ct1GiiS Cast"it;~lfiECj tlet'"~lsi. SllC{l 1'E~i=cs=~G S{scll LE:i=C~i'fi~i E-~~rCCtl'VC llF'iC~:i 1tS t~E•CGt'~ytlOt'i in trig ~;i FiCi:? G{: tt'iE Cl~t-I:: ~.ricl F=:;~CGt-Cjc~t- of Sailt~ Clet'a Cu~lrs't;r, St~tc G i C ~:1 i .~ G r° r3 i ~. . C. E;i=cl_!'E:ic;r'i G-F tti:i~ flit-tEiistnt Sticcll coristit~lte cGncl~t~i~:'e vid•::t'ic:: 't{-i~t tl-~i? Ci'l'}f a~f Sat-•~tc~;~ ~~;s~ ei=S tG be bound L-y t!'i~ ~i•GC'r•t7:31!'iCj CC~rts_t1tli~riS ~1'sd t-cS'tt-2CtlCSriS and tG Gct-•tGt-sis trlE Oi:l~1Q~'i.lC3riS ~ic:i'Elli S~?t fGt"'trt. Lt { 'i lJl~' Srii•.:-iTUJ,•'i Ld~tt! aliiornia Department of Transportation ~hitectural Inventory/Evaluation Form 04-SC1-85, 9.6 17.7 04134-4 • 00 LISTED DETERMINED ELIGIBLE X APPEARS ELIGIBLE APPEARS INELIGIi3Li,. IO~NTIFICATION 1. Common name: - N/A ` 2. Historic name: _ Warner Hui~n House 3. Street or rural address: 13495 Sousa Lane City San Jose - Zip County Santa Clara 4. Parcel number: N/A 5. Present Otivner: Bruce W. & Karyn L. DeBoer .Address• 13495 Sousa Lane City San Jose Zip __Ownership is: Public Private X _ s. Present Use: Residential Original use• Residential DESCRI?TtON ~ 7a. Architectural style: Queen Anne 7b. Briefly describe the present physica/descriprion ~of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: A one-story wood frame houses on an L-plan, with gable and hip roof forms clad in composition shingles. Eaves are boxed and _ bracketed. Exterior sheath~~ng is v-rustic siding. Windows are 1/1 double-hung. A small veranda extends across part 'of the principal facade. Alterations include enclosing of the rear porch and the addition of French doors in the west facade which open onto a redwood deck. p-rchitectural details typical of the style include; bracketed, tLtrned porch posts and pilasters; angled bay window adorned with fan brackets and pendils; hooded oculus in gable end of bay; bulls-eye motif in porch entablature; detailed spandrel panels under bay windows; sunburst motif in cross-gables; milled pilasters separating windows in ba trave moulding beneath main entablature; short able returnschi- strip cornices above windows and doors; small brackets below window sills; vertical board skirt and lattice work around ~~ i foundation. B. Construction date: Estimated 1896 Factual 9. Architect Unknown to. E3uihlcr Unknown t t. Approz, property size (in feet) Frontage Depth orapprox, acreage See attached 12. ~~fc(s) of enclosed photogrJph(s) -- 1 q$'~ tJ. Condition: Exccllcnt Good Fair Octcrioratcd No longer in existence , •r 14, Alterations: See item 7b 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land ca t red buildin ~ Iii _ S t e gs Densely built-up X Residential X Industrial Commercial Other: 16. Threats to site: None known._Private development Zoning Vandalism I Public ~`Jo-ks project X Other: 17. Is the strut;ure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: _ N/A SIGiVIFICANCE ' 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site.) Situated on land from the Quito Rancho patented to Manuel Alviso in 1866, this house was likely built ca. 1896 for Warner Hutton. Hutton, born in New York in 1842, came to California with his ~~I parents, Henry and Eleanor, who first settled in San Francisco. In 1869 and 1870 the elder Hutton acquired somewhat over 200 acres of property from Samuel Blythe, planting the land to orchard. In 1883 he sold son Warner 175 acres for ten dollars plus "other considerations," and gave Warner the remaining acreage in 1896. - History records the younger Hutton improved the developed the property further. Inasmuch as this house stylistically does 'i not appear to date much before 1890, it seems likely that it was probably built about the time that Warner Hutton acquired full control of the property in 1896. This house has a high degree of architectural integrity, and in the context of the S Santa Clara Valley, is one of very few remaining houses of its period with this degree of design detail. It appears to meet (continue' Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): 20. PJ1ain theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH eheet;ed, number in order of importance.) Architecture Arts & Leisure Economic/Industrial -Exploration/Settlement Government Military Religion Social/Education APEI Map Reference ~C 21, Sources (Li:t books, documents, surveys, persona) interviews and their dates). Field survey, 10/83; ~~ chain of title information, 1984; History of Santa Clara County, California, Los Angeles, 1922. ' 'I 22. Date form prcp.~rcd JL1 Y 30. 1984 fJy (Hamel Organiration Ca tr1nS nddres:: 1120 N Street City Szcr~~mento _ Zip ~ ~~ Phone: V ~C~~ o U~Il~1C~~~ • • ~ 6TATE OFl CALIFORNIA TO`L/CC%~~ACiv~L ~ ~~ SU JECT: MINI-MEMO ~ ~~LYCp ~ . G'~~ STD 100.8 (REV. Y•70) ~~~ ~ ~ 1958 ~~'~'~•~„/ S ,~. n DATE ~/r~/~~ R l-l ~~ c,_ < C~9~~~ c, P -~~ Y ~~,,~~~~' ~ - GC/ ~c~.//yt) . SIGNED ADORE66 DATE SEND PARTS i AND 3 INTACT -PART 3 Wlll BE RETURNED WIT P H RE LY 85 93594 * i STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GOVdf/10/ OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ~ JST OFFICE SOX 942898 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9296-0001 t9 t 61445-8006 David W. Look, AIA, Chief Preservation Assistance Branch Division of National Register Programs National Park Service, Western Region 450 Golden Gate Avenue; Box 3Ei063 San Francisco, California 94102 Certified Local Government Application Cit of Sarato a City County Santa Clara County County 12th and 13th Congressional District Enclosed is a request for designation of the City of saratot~a as a Certified Local Government, for the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, program in California. ~ I certify that the provisions for participation described checklist and in the signed cE-rtification agreement are i ' the procedures for the certif9:cation of local governments the National Park Service on September 30, 1985. Kathryn G ltieri State Historic Preservation Officer Enclosures: Checklist Certification Agreement cc: Valarie Young, Associate Planner Secretary to Heritage Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 on the enclosed • n accord with approved by ~ • CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPLICATION CHECgLIST Toxn/City or County: City of Saratoga State: CA Date submitted to State: 8/9/88 Date approved by State: 8/12/88 (1) Applicant has authority to enforce acceptable legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties. X (2) Applicant has established a qualifying historic preserva- tion reviex commission consisting of 7 members: There are 4 professional members There are 3 lay members 1 lay member currently vacant- X appoint will be made shortly. (3) We have confirmed that all commission members have a demonstrated interest, competence, or knoxledge in historic preservation. X lie have verified that professional members oP the commission have been appointed to the eztent available in the community, and xe have reviexed resumes that document professional qualifications acceptable under 36 CFR 61, Appendiz A. a x (5) The role and responsibilities of the Local Government have Deen specified in detail in the enclosed agreement. X (a) Includes ~ basic responsibilities only: ~_ 1. Enforcing State or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources. 2. Maintaining a system for survey and inventory of historic properties. 3. Providing for adequate public participation in the historic preservation program. 4. Reviexing National Register nominations through a qualified local commission. r~ L ~b~ It~aludes basic responsibilities and additional responsibilities 1. available to all CLGs in our State (list): a. b. c. 2. specific to this CLG (list): a. b. c. (6) Orientation/training sessions for the local commission will be held On at the Annual Preservation Conference held in the spring of each year and at the California Small Town Conference in LaJolla, November 1988. (7) The CLG contact person, including his or her position/title, • nailing address, and phone number: Valerie Young, Associate Planner Secretary to Heritage Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitevale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)867-3438 (8) Any other information relevant to this application: • State reviewer: ,O~ii/LC~~I~~~,'e~%~~ Date: d~~~~~~ ~. a~ O~ ~~ ~' C B~~ 04 ~°~~° `200 C~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles August 8 , 19 8 8 Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Marion Mitchell-Wilson Supervisor, Survey and Local Assistance State Office of Historic Preservation P. 0. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Dear Ms. Mitchell-Wilson: Thank you for your letter regarding the status of Saratoga's Certified Local Government application. For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of the correspondence between the City of Saratoga and Steade Craigo of your office regarding our • application. On behalf of the City, I would like to express very strong concern about the length of time it has taken your office to process our application and .the .apparent further delay your recent letter represents. The purpose of the City Manager's letter of April 14 was to address the issue of professional appointments. We were led to believe from Mr. Craigo's letter of April 11 that submittal of this letter was the only action requested of us to complete our application. It is now four months later, and we are being requested to submit still further information to you. It was the City's intent in completing and submitting our application last December that we would be eligible for the 1988-89 CLG grant cycle. The Heritage Commission has worked very diligently in completing their heritage resource inventory this year and anticipated seeking grant funds for publication costs associated with that document. We strongly urge you to achieve your stated goal of assisting as many cities as possible to participate in the CLG program and not delay our application any further. Marion Mitchell-Wilson August 8, 1988 Page two If I understand your letter correctly, you are now waiting for us to submit two items: 1)"documentation of professional appointments" and 2)conunitment to incorporating "interim provisions" into our heritage ordinance. To address item #1, I am enclosing the City's written procedures for filling Commission vacancies ar-d a sample vacancy advertisement. Also enclosed is a current membership roster with term expiration dates. You will note ghat two vacancies occur in April of next year. As stated i.n the City Manager's letter, the City has a commitment to filling those vacancies according to City procedures and the professional qualifications required by the CLG program. CJ To address item #2, I am asking that you allow this paragraph of the letter to serve as the City's commitment to amend its ordinance as suggested.. In light of completion of our Inventory and other Heritage Commission activities, the City Council has directed the Commi:>sion tb review the City's heritage ordinance and recommend appropriate changes to the Council for • consideration. The Commission will begin this process in September of this year. I hope this information will now complete our application. I would appreciate hearing you at the earliest possible date if additional material:> are required. Sincerely, ~Q~~ Valerie You Associate P nner Secretary to Heritage Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCr GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GOVeinOl DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 • SACRAMENTO 94296-0001 (916) 445-8006 Duly 19, 1988 Ms. Valerie Young, Associate Planner Cultural Heritage Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Young: ~~CEIYED JUL ~ :.. 1~~~, PLANNING DEPT. The administration of the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program within the Office of Historic Preservation has been undergoing a personnel transition for several months. The office hopes to have a permanent full-time Historian in this position by the middle of August. In preparation for the new staff person, I am reviewing each pending file and writing a status report and letter to the applicant. Unfortunately, the Saratoga file does not contain any of this office's letters to you, only your responses, the most recent of which was April 14, 1988. From it, I gather that the issue of professional qualifications is still in question. This is the most common disc repancy between local ordinances, the State's procedures, and National Park Service Register requirements. Enclosed is a recently prepared Certified Local Government Technical Assistance Bulletin which outlines a recommended process for increasing the professionalism on a local landmark's commission in lieu of amending an existing ordinance. Your letter of April 14 indicates that the City has informally agreed to implement several of these recommended steps. In reviewing the ordinance, however, I notice that in Section 13-15.060(b)(c) each landmark designation is subject to approval for 30 days before it is in effect. There is no interim provision or "stay of demolition". This situation can actually have an adverse effect on historic resources. It can provide notice and a free period to an owner who may wish to destroy the property without due process. A "stay" or interim protection clause should be incorporated into the ordinance. There is also no provision in Section 13-10.050 for previously undesignated but potentially eligible properties. A suggested interim provision might read as follows: "No building alterations, demolitions, or removal permits for any improvement, • building, or structure within the proposed district or potentially eligible landmark shall be issued while the application is pending." Ms. Valerie Young Page 2 July 19, 1988 Although the above omission in i;he ordinance itself is not sufficient enough to prevent certification, it should be remedied as soon as politically feasible. I will be leaving a recommendation in your file for the new CLG staff person. The recommendation will be that the City of Sara toga's Request for Certification be forwarded to the National Park Service for CLG status as soon as the office receives documentation of the professional appointments outlined in the bulletin and a commitment: that "interim provisions" be incorporated into the text of the ordinance ass soon as politically feasible. As you are aware, the certification program includes a monitoring and a de-certification process. I will recommend that the certification agreement contain a special condition that: the de-certification process will begin automatically at the end of one year if the professionalism provisions and interim protection clause are not in place. • This type of conditional certification is a new approach that the California Office of Historic Preservation has negotiated with the National Park Service. It facilitates the certification of more communities such as Saratoga that already have an ordinance and review board in place. Our goal is to assist as many cities as possible in meeting the certification standards by this fall so that they can qualify for the 1988/89 Certified Local Government Grant cycle. If you have any further questions regarding your certification application, please contact the Office of Historic Preservation, Certified Local Government staff, at (916) 445-8006. Sincerely, Ms. Marion Mitchell-Wilson Supervisor, Survey and Local Assistance Office of Historic Preservation 0-5798H Enclosure cc: Mr. Steade R. Craigo OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAM Technical Assistance Bulletin'~1 Alternative Procedures for Appointing Members to Local Landmarks Commissions The following outlines alternative procedures for appointing to the extent available in the community qualified professionals to the Landmarks Commission. The appointment of qualified professionals is required for certification and retention of that status. A deficiency in this area is the most common reason for the Office of Historic Preservation and the National Park Service to deny certification of ordinances under the CLG Program. Sometimes this deficiency can be temporarily overcome by establishing administrative procedures rather than immediately amending the ordinance. Sometimes an effective preservation program may exist without the particulars being specified in local legislation. Furthermore, it is not always politically timely to amend a local ordinance, thus exposing it to further revisions which may not be in the best interest of historic preservation. For this reason the following recommended procedures are being provided. They outline an acceptable appointment process for use on an interim basis in the absence of adequate provisions in an ordinance. All other requirements having been met, these alternative procedures could assist in qualifying the community for certification on a conditional basis. Proper procedures used in the appointment of members, the criteria for selection, and adequate documentation of the personnel appointment process are the critical factors. t. Standard written procedures adopted by the City Council or Board of Supervisors, Personnel Selection Committee should include a copy of the Public Notice and standard advertisement outlining the professional qualifications for membership on the Certified Local Government Landmarks Commissions. This announcement should include the specific CLG professional standards, a reference to the ordinance, the number of professional positions, and the number of public positions. 2. The criteria for all candidates, not only the specified professional positions but also for the public positions, must specify a document track record of commitment to historic preservation. 3.~ Individuals filling the public positions can be professionals and thus serve to meet the requirements of professional categories as well as those of the public member positions. By using the public positions in this way, the CLG can expand the breadth of professional scope on the Commi ssi~on. 4. A letter from the Certified Local Government should be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer after each. appointment describing the results of the appointment review and selection process. This letter should include the advertisement, the number of responses received, the qualifications of all respondents, including their resumes, and a list of the candidates selected, their resumes, and the 3ustification for the selection. 5. The Office of Historic Preservation should be provided, at the initiation of the interim procedures, with the schedule of appointments and when each appointment will expire. The letter should include a statement that all future appointments will be filled according to the above procedures. Although the above recommended appointment procedures are sound interim policy, they are not a substitute fora strong ordinance. The standard. procedures for the Certified Local Government Program remain the most sound for assuring an effective preservation program within a certified local community. You are encouraged to take the first opportunity to amend your local ordinance to strictly adhere to the Standard Certified Local Government Procedures. If you have any further questions regarding this Technical Assistance Bulletin, do not hesitate to contact the Office of Historic Preservation, Certified Local Government staff person, at (916) 445-8006. S-5799H C~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECEIVED rDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 'i ~ ; POST OFFICE 80X 942896 AVU ~ ~ ~~~~ SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94296-0001 19161445-8006 PLANNING DEPT NEW DATE FOR SMALL TOWN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 8-10, 1988 LA JOLLA Even the best laid plans sometimes run. aground. We had scheduled the Office of Historic Preservation's third annual small town • preservation conference for La Jolla in mid-September. But r}ow it appears that the whole San Diego area will then be flooded with sailing enthusiasts. That's because a recent judicial decision requires the America's Cup race to be held no later than September 19. Rather than compete for restaurants and hotel rooms with a tidal wave of tourists, we've postponed the conference until November 8-10. We'll be sending registration materials in early October. For more information in the meantime, please call the conference coordinator, Tong Ciani, at 619/454-7141. We are sorry about any inconvenience this may have caused and are hoping to see you in November. C~ ~\ ,~ L/1 W W V M~1 W M~1 x O W~ A' 0 U( F--1 A tFt----~1 F~ a 1--1 W~ ABOUT THE CONFE~ICES The impact of banding wdea on .historical resources throughout the State of California has been a confusing myriad of conflicting subjective judgements. There is a need for encouraging the reduction of seismic hazards is historical etructnrea, balancing public safety and historic preservation in a reasonable and economical manner. However, the interpretation, mitigation and application of several conflicting codes throughout the state and local jurisdiction continue to confuse building officials, atchitetta, engineers, developers.. and preservationiata. A series of one day conferences in four cities xill coordinate the recent modifications to the State Historic Building Code, the features of the IIniform Code for Banding Conservation and the guidelines for reducing seismic risk Sa potentially hazardous buildings ea proposed by the Seismic Safety Commission. The conferences will stress the atateride code impact on older mmd historical buildings in the morning sessions. In the afternoon aesaions, there will be mm emphasis on regional problems end panel discussions of case studies. Since April 20, 1988. the State Historical Building Code Board adopted the recent Phase I thmmges to compliment Senate Bnl 2321. operative since Jaly 1, 1985. In addition to these changes. topics to be discnaeed will be ~t6e establishment of emergency response procedures regarding earthquake dieeatera and historical resources; conducting new poet-quake field research and carrmt proposed legislation effecting historic atrnctnrea. landscape and _.~„- _ kRlY11b LeaVYLY.ca. Ia 1986 the State Legislature enacted the mmreinforced masonry building law,, SB 567. The Sei®ic Safety Commission h8a recently published a guidebook to identify mmd mitigate seismic hazards of IIRN buildings and historic buildings. Nembera of the Seismic Safety Commission will provide update information on their detailed program, California at Risk: Reducing Earthgmke Hazards 1987-1992. The impact on historic resources through the implementation of SB 567 will be presented and discussed. The International Conference of Building Officials, in 1987, produced the Uniform Code for Building Conservation to establish life safety requirements for all ezisting buildings that undergo alterations or a change in nae. The UCBC provisions offer alternative methods of achieving safety so that the inventory of historic eziating bundinga can be preserved. Pesch of the conferences should be eztremely informative. Local building officials, lnapectora. fire and safety officials, architects, landscape architects, engineers, handicap enforcement officials, cultural resource plaanere, developers. attorneys, end preservationiata are invited to attend. SPEAKERS • The following guest speakers trill preamt mm apdate of wrrent codes and seismic guidelines. NII.PORD WAI'.iiB DONALDSON California Preservation Foundation State Historical Bonding Code Board !~[. GREEN International Conference of Building Officials TON TOBIN Seismic Safety Commission SPONSORS CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS SELSlG:C SAFETY C014ISSION STATE HISTORICAL BUII.DING CODE BOARD FEE =70; includes all day conference, lunch, and one copy of the State Historical Building Code dated April 20, 1988; the 1987 Uniform Code for Bonding Conservation; 1988 California at Risk, Steps to Earthquake Safety for Local Government; December 1987 Guidebook 6 Appendiz: To Identify and Hitigate Seismic Hazards in Buildings, and other conference materials. SCHEDULE. All conferences begin at 9:30 a.m. Lunch is 12:00 to 1:30 p s. The conferences end at 4:30 p.m. Coffee. tea, juice and snacks are available throughout the day. Parking is nearby all conference sites but the cost is not included in ~_ n__ tuc rcc. INFORMATION Please direct inquiries to: THB CALSFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION 1615 Braedway, Snitea 705-709 Oeklmmd, California 96612 Telephone (615) 763-0972 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y REGISTRATION FORM ! Pena ` - Phone -A4ress ~{tv State Zio Enclosed find my check for = (;70 yes person; includes sessions, materials and lunch) Lint nasea of others included is this registra- tion on separate sheet and attach. Hake cheeks payable to California Preservation Foundation and sail by September 16. 1988 to: ~ California Preservation Foundation j 1615 Braedway, Suite 705, Oakland. CA 94612 ~~~ ~• NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATIO\,- LA`z- 1233 20TH STREET, :~i,W. • S(7ITE SO1 • WASHINGTON, D.Ci. 20036 • (202) 828-9611 PBESID EYT ~ E~ctcrrrvt Dtetcroe rERSH BOASHERG. ESO. STEPHEN \. UEVY15, ESp. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-28 July 18, 1988 North Carolina Billboard Case Draws on Keystone and Penn Central American communities are increasingly taking steps to control visual pollution, often through a sign control ordinance. Visual Pollution and Sian Control• A Legal Handbook on Billboard Reform (available-for $15.00 from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELL), 201 West Main Street, Suite #14, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-5003), reminds communities that the billboard industry fights such ordinances vigorously: [T]he industry is aggressive in the courtroom, engaging in expensive litigation to overturn or dilute the . new laws. According to one municipal attorney who fought a legal battle over his city's billboard ordinance, the sign companies "fight tooth and nail. With them, it's like Custer and the Indians, like the Alamo." (Any community contemplating a billboard control ordinance should be in touch with both SELC and the Coalition for Scenic Beauty, 218 D. Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.) A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit suggests a growing lack of judicial sympathy for the predictable arguments of a litigious and well-funded billboard industry. The court in Naeaele Outdoor Advertising. Inc. v. City of Durham (No. 87-1599, decided April 15, 1988) draws on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v DeBenedictus (see "Update" 1987-7) for the principle previously articulated in Penn Central Transportation Company v New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), that when a property owner makes a claim of a federal constitutional taking a court should look at the total property interest of the owner and not permit the owner to subdivide his property artificially. The impact of the case may be to make proving a "'taking"' more difficult for a large regional or national billboard company. Naeaele challenged a 1987 billboard ordinance for Durham, North Carolina that is similar to other billboard ordinances that courts have already upheld: \,aT[O\ALCEYTER FOR PRE~iERV".~'CIO\ L,1 K' The ordinance permits the continuing display of noncommercial adlvertising signs, paid or unpaid, but• prohibits altogether the construction of any new off-premise outdoor advertising structures. The ordinance provides a delay or amortization period of five and one-half years before nonconforming signs will be prohibited . Naegele owns 137 billboards in Durham, 85 of which (with 131 advertising "faces"') could not display commercial advertising after March 4, 1990, tlZe end of the amortization period. Though Naegele argued that Durham's stated interest in aesthetics and traffic safety was not advanced by the ordinance, the court disagreed: While the evidence regarding traffic safety offered by Durham is far from conclusive "acsthe~:ics alone is a sufficient' 'justif'ication"' for this type of police power regulation. Contrary to Naegele's contention, the location of the billboard in commercial and industrial areas does not precludE: the city from relying on aesthetics to justify its exercise of police power. In sum, we find no principled distinction between the Durham ordinance and those ordinances which have been found not to violate the rights of sign owners secured by the first amendment. The Fourth Circuit cautioned that Naegele might not have a "mature" claim under Fennell v. San Jose, 108 S.Ct. 849 (1988), and that the district court should on remand consider the • possibility of prematurity of Naegele's claim if Naegele might seek variances for any of its billboards in order to escape the prohibitions of the Durham ordinance. The core of Naegele's case rested on arguments that the Durham ordinance "'took"' property worth $2.8 .million (85 billboards worth $1.5 million and "'severance damage"' of $1.3 million): Naegele also tendered evidence that the land owned or leased for billboard sites had little other commercial use and that moving the billboards is economically impractical. The life of the billboards, according to Naegele, far exceeds the amortization period of five and one-half years allowed by the ordinance. The city contends that inasmuch as it will not physically seize Naegele's nonconforming signs, Naegele will retain full benefit of them for its own use, reuse, salvage, or other purposes. It emphasizes that Neaegele can use its signs for noncommercial advertising or move them to locations where tY:~ey are permitted. The city asserts that the amortization period makes the ordinance a reasonable exercise of police power. ~.~T[O\<1LCE~TEIt FOR PREfyER~'ATIOY L~~i' • The Fourth Circuit refused to grant summary judgment to the City of Durham: Recent cases decided by the Supreme Court raise questions about the propriety of summary judgment of takings claims without a fu ly developed factual record. The record discloses genuine issues of material fact about the effect of the ordinance on Naegele's business. For example, the parties differ about the economics of moving signs, their salvage value, the effect on "sharing"' sales, and the overall impact of the ordinance on Naegele. The city suggests that Naegele will benefit from the growth and economic development that the ordinance is intended to foster. These factual differences cannot be deemed immaterial as a matter of law simply because the city has allowed an amortization period of five and. one-half years. The Fourth Circuit held that a key question in the case "is the designation of the appropriate unit of Naegele's property affected by the ordinance."' The court quoted from Keystone, which had in turn quoted from Penn Central: "'Taking"' jurisprudence does not• divide a single parcel into discrete segments and attempt to determine whether rights in a particular segment have been entirely abrogated. In deciding whether a particular governmental action has • effected a taking, this Court focuses rather both on the character of the action and on the nature of the ~ interference with rights ~ the parcel as a whole--here the city tax block designated as the "'landmark site."' The court then concluded: Guided by these precepts, the district court,. on remand, must determine the appropriate unit of Naegele's property after an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Clearly the unit is not composed of the affected billboards, which, like the coal pillars in Keystone, do not constitute a separate segment of property for taking purposes. The court suggested that the "'appropriate unit of property"' might be extremely large in the case of a nationwide billboard company such as Naegele: Naegele argues that the prohibition against some of its signs will lessen the value of the remaining signs because of its "'sharing"' method of marketing--that is, selling advertising for the same product on numerous billboards. If the sharing market is confined to the triangle area of North Carolina, it would appear that the appropriate unit of property is Naegele's business in this area. There is some indication in the record that a substantial part of Naegele's business is cigarette advertising. If Naegele advertises cigarettes or any other product through sharing ~AT[O\,~LCE\TER FOR PRE~ER~'AT[O\ LA~~' contracts that are nationwide or in other broadly defined markets, the unit: of its affected property may be larger • than in the business it conducts in the triangle area. The Fourth Circuit found First English (see "Update" 1987- 24) irrelevant: pIt is apparent, however, that the Durham ordinance does not deny Naegele all use of its property. Instead, like the statute- upheld in Keystone it directly affects only a part of the property." In a fascinating portion of the opinion, the Fourth Circuit speculated at length o:n issues which might be considered by the district court on remand: The court should make findings ,pertaining to every aspect of Naegele's business. that will be affected by the ordinance, including the numl-er of billboards that. can be economically used for noncommercial advertising, the number that are economically usel~ass, the terms of Naegele's leases for billboard locations, the land Naegele owns for locations and whether it has any other economic use, the cost of billboards that cannot be used, the depreciation taken on these billboards and their actual life expectancy, the income expected during the grace period, the salvage value of billboards that cannot be used, the loss of sharing revenue, the percentage of affected signs compared to the remaining signs i:n Naegele's business unit, the relative value of affected and remaining signs, whether the • amortization period is reasonable, and any other evidence presented by the parties that the court deems relevant. Complete information about pending or recently decided cases involving billboard control ordinances is available from both the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and the Coalition for scenic Beauty (see addresses on previous page). The Coalition publishes a bi-monthly newsletter Sian Control News to report on new ordinances across the country. SELC is publishing a series of statewide supplements to its basic publication on Visual Pollution and Sign Control. The first supplement, Visual Pollution and. Billboard Reform in Tennessee, is now available and can be ordered for $15.00 from the Center. A second supplement on billboard control in North Carolina will be available soon. Billboard control z~aises complex legal issues because of the impact of the federal l3ighway Beautification Act and the Act's political requirement ghat compensation be paid when existing billboards located alongside federal interstate highways are prohibited. The emergence of non-profit organizations dedicated to the collection, analysis and distribution of information about billboard control is a promising development, though. (A subscription to the "'Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") NATIONAL CE \TTE R FOR PRESE RVATIO\T LA~V . 1233 20TH STBEE?, N.w. • SUITE 301 • WASELINOTON, D.Ci. 20039 • (202) 828-9611 PtE•IDEYT TeesH Bowsaetta. Eso. ~ ExEGC'TrVE Dr•tcTOa ~TePHeY Vii. ~EVV(5. E50~ PRESERVATION LAW i'PDATE 1988-29 July 18, 1988 New York Court Finds No Taking in Demolition by Neglect situation A New York „trial court has held. in Lubelle v: Rochester Preservation Board (No. 3481/85, Monroe County Supreme Court, decided June 14, 1988) that several denials of demolition permission did not "'take"' property owned by an individual who had tried repeatedly since 1970 to demolish a Greek Revival house in order to expand a parking lot. The plaintiff became the sole owner of the house in 1969. The structure was designated a local landmark in 1972, despite objections from its owner. The owner was told several times in 1972 that demolition of the structure would require permission from the Rochester Preservation Board. The owner was refused • demolition permission in 1972: During the ensuing years, there was numerous correspondence between the Plaintiff and various departments of the City of Rochester regarding demolition and notices of building code violations Mr. Lubelle operated the building as a rooming house, but the building was vacated and eventually boarded. On September 5, 1976, a fire occurred at the premises and rendered substantial damage, including a hole in the roof.. In 1977, the plaintiff requested a revision of the real property assessment on the -property for 1977-78 because of the severe fire damage in 1976. An appraiser described the building at the time as "'detrimental, hazardous, unsightly and a menace to the neighborhood"' and stated that the cost of rehabilitating the property would make such a project "a foolish venture" because its interior was a "'shambles and beyond any practical state of repair. In April 1981, plaintiff applied formally to the Rochester Preservation Board for permission to demolish the property. Members of the board inspected the property at the suggestion of the owner. The chairman of the board was able to testify that "'she had visited the site, and believed the building to have been in a good state of preservation at that time.^' The board denied ~".aT[O~ALCEYTER FOR PRE~IER~',~-T[CIr (..~~~' the demolition application in June 1981. In its decision, the board noted that one appx•aiser who had not inspected the interior of the building thought the property had then a market value of • $45,000 and a professional engineer had concluded that the building was in "sound structural condition"': The decision concluded that the application for demolition should be denied~on the basis of the landmark status of the building and the aforementioned reports, as well as the applicant's failure to offer factual evidence concerning current market valuE!, efforts to sell the property, cost of repair and past and potential future income. In June 1982, city personnel removed the building's porches without any prior notice to the Rochester Preservation Board. In November 1985, the owner sought again a Certificate of Appropriateness 'for demolition of the structure. The board required this time completion of an Environmental Assessment Form and a draft Environmenta]. Assessment Statement. After referring the matter to the Ro<;hester Environmental Commission, the preservation board "'passed a resolution that Plaintiff's proposal would have a significant effect on the environment, and that no determination on the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness would .be made until submission of an Environmental Impact Statement."' The preservation board notified the applicant that it found the draft Environmental Impact Statement inadequate, and an attorney for the owner notified the board that the statement • would not be revised. The board then notified the applicant that no further action would be taken on the application until an acceptable draft EIS had been received by the board. The New York court found the matter before it "'ripe for judicial review"' This Court has concluded that there was nothing the Plaintiff could. have submitted, which would have satisfied the Board as an adiaquate Environmental Impact Statement, and, therefore, the aforementioned resolution represented, in effect, a denial of the Plaintiff's application. Using the test of ~~e St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 N.Y 2d 66 (1986), the court held that there had been no "taking." acke requires an owner to "'show by 'dollars and cents' evidence that under no use permitted by the regulation under attack would the properties be capable of` producing a reasonable return; the economic value, or all but: a bare residue of the economic value, of the parcels must have been destroyed by the regulations at issue."' Despite the owner's attempt to invoke the Supreme Court's recent First Enal~sY~ opinion and collect damages for a temporary regulatory taking, the court found no taking had occurred. • ~.aT[O\AL('E\TER FOR PREfiERYA'l`IO\ L.1 N' Mr. Labelle could not establish that his property lacked • value: [Tjhe Plaintiff has not established, by "dollars and cents" evidence, that the designation of his property as a landmark . and/or the denial of his applications for demolition have destroyed the economic value of his property. Indeed, the evidence submitted at the trial established that the Plaintiff has received offers of purchase for the property. . [T]he Plaintiff received an offer, dated December 21, 1983, with a purchase price of $318,000. The Plaintiff, himself, testified that he has received many offers for the property, and as recent as three or four weeks prior to his testimony at the trial. Though an expert witness for the property owner attempted to establish that the "highest and best use" for the property would be as a parking lot, the court found it highly doubtful that Mr. Labelle could obtain a needed special permit for such a purpose: The problem with this evidence is the fact that the building is located within an R-3 low-medium residential and 0-0 overlay office zoning district. Under these sections, provision is made for issuance of a special permit for accessory parking, but not for an independent, commercially operated parking lot.. Although the parties disagree whether or not a special permit for such purpose could be issued under the Rochester City Code, the burden would be upon the Plaintiff to establish a reasonable likelihood of a zoning variance or, at the vest least, the issuance of a special permit. In the present case, the Plaintiff has not met this burden and, indeed, there was every indication that the City of Rochester would oppose such an application. The court ruled rather that the owner's attempt to gain through a declaratory judgment action a demolition order was improper because New York State provided a procedure under Article 78 with a statute of limitations which had already run on the plaintiff. The court found that the property "represents a danger to public safety and, at the present time, is in a substantially deteriorated condition. It is apparent that this condition results from the Plaintiff's intentional neglect of the building for approximately the past 18 years." The court recommended that the City of Rochester act quickly to acquire the property by eminent domain if it intends to see the property preserved and rehabilitated. The City of Rochester is now moving to take the property by condemnation. For further information, contact Kathryn Sette at 716-428-7063. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") . NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION' LA~i' 1233 20TH ST$EET, N.W. • SUITE 501 • WASIiI~~2T.Ci. 20036 • (202) 828-9811 G .y ~gg8 . p,U PEE9[DENT pEpS EXECUTIVE DIE EI;TOE TERSH BOASHERG. ESp. ~ P1-ANN,NG STEPHEN N. DExNIS, Eso. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-30 July 18, 1988 Two Historic Structures on the Same Site: Which to Preserve? A growing interest in archeology will lead in time to conflicts between a standing building on a site and a suspected or known archeological resource on the same site. How should a decision be made about which will be preserved and interpreted for the public? Zf a decision is made that the archeological site may be more important than a later building on the site, should the later building be protected at least until excavation at the site confirms the existence of valuable archeological resources? A recent ministerial decision in England offers valuable clues for how the issues involved in such a decision might be approached. • The remains of a Roman amphitheatre have been discovered in Chester just outside the ancient city walls which are so prominent a feature of the city. A portion of the amphitheatre has been excavated and is exposed for public viewing. Plans have now been made for the creation of a Roman Center on the site, which would include an interpretation center and reconstructed portions of the amphitheatre. Unfortunately, Dee House, an eighteenth-century house with later additions, sits squarely atop a portion of the site. When Deva Roman Centre Ltd. applied for listed building consent to demolish Dee House, the Secretary of State for the Environment and Transport removed the matter from the local planning authority and conducted a public inquiry. The Inspector's report recommended that listed building consent be denied, but the Secretary of State overruled this recommendation in a decision letter dated May 23, 1988. The Secretary of State's decision seems to have turned almost entirely on the extraordinary importance of the known or suspected Roman remains at the site, and the fact that Dee House had been considerably altered since its original construction: The Secretary of State has recognised that the amphitheatre at Chester is of considerable historic rarity by virtue of being one of only three legionary fortresses in Britain, whereas he is in agreement with the Inspector that there are other good examples of C18 town houses in Chester which appear to be subject to less alterations and extension than Dee House. PATIO\~LCE~TTEIt FOR PREEiER~'AT[OY L.1 N' The Secretary of State rejected a proposal that Dee House might • be left partially suspended <~nd still in its present location over the excavated amphitheatre: The Secretary of State has considered whether the proposed development could be carried out with the retention of Dee House. Whilst agreeing with the Inspector that it might be possible to excavate the amphitheatre under Dee House, he is of the opinion that to emphasise the uniqueness of the proposed development would require the demolition of that property. In this respect he has noted English Heritage's views that the retention of Dee House would prevent the oval form of the amphitheatre from being fully appreciated and that the position and height of Dee House above the arena would bear no relation to its surroundings. A crucial portion of Circular 8/87, the policy document which is supposed to guide local planriinq authorities (and the Secretary of State) in reaching decisions on listed building consent applications, reads: The Secretary of State will not be prepared to grant listed building consent for the total or substantial demolition of a listed building unless he is satisfied that every possible effort has been made to continue the present use or to find a suitable alternative use for the building. The May 1988 decision on the Dee House application would appear to conflict with this clear policy statement: The Secretary of State has made his policy clear in Circular 8/87 that he would not be prepared to grant listed building consent for the total demolition of a listed building unless he is satisfied that every possible effort has been made to continue the present use or to find a suitable alternative use for the building. Given the importance of the alternative use of the site and under these exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State is o!' the view that there are justifiable reasons to override the normal presumption in favour of the preservation of the lists<i building. He regrets the loss of the listed building nevertrieless he feels that the proposed development and excavation of the amphitheatre which is of outstanding importance in terms of the national heritage, will promote the public's enjo~itment of and advance their knowledge of Roman life in Britain. ~In forming his views the Secretary of State has carefully considered and balanced the arguments and proposals put forward bit the Ancient Monuments Society, the Victorian Society, the Gec~rgian Group and other objectors. The Dee House decision letter attached six important conditions to the grant of listed building consent for demolition of Dee House. These conditions show a carefu:L attempt to ensure the preservation of the original portion of Dee House should further excavations on the \~-TIO~iALCEYTER FOR PRE~4ER~'gTIOV L.-K' • site fail to locate additional Roman ruins under Dee House itself or should the Deva Roman Center project fail for other reasons to go forward: 1. The works hereby permitted shall be [begun] not later than five years from the date of this consent. 2. The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. 3. During the initial stages of excavation the main block of Dee House comprising three distinct parts but excluding the southern and western wings on the site shall be preserved and protected in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority. 4. Before any demolition takes place the local planning authority shall be allowed access to the buildings to draw up a schedule of materials which in their opinion should be salvaged for re-use. Any materials to be salvaged shall be carefully removed and stored for future use in agreement with the local planning authority. 5. Any revision of the phasing. programme and corresponding plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. 6. Notice shall be given to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England at least one month before demolition is due to commence in order that the Commission may make arrangements, if it so desires, for its members or officers to enter the building for the purpose of making a record of it ` Whether a .partially-excavated Roman amphitheatre in Chester should be completely uncovered and made into, an additional tourist attraction involves an issue that often occurs in applications for certificates of appropriateness to American preservation commissions: should plans for new construction on a site be reviewed at the same time that plans for demolition of existing buildings on the site are being reviewed by the preservation commission? Increasingly, well- drafted American preservation ordinances deal explicitly with this issue. The District of Columbia preservation ordinance, for instance, specifies: In those cases in which the Mayor finds that the demolition is necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit, no demolition permit shall be issued unless a permit for new construction is issued simultaneously under § 5-1007 and the owner demonstrates the ability to complete the project. i ~.1T[O\ALCE~fTER FOR PREFlER~'.~TIO\ I„~w' The revised Philadelphia preservation ordinance contains similar • language: At the time that a permit: application is filed for demolition subject to the Commission's review, the applicant shall submit'. ., the plans and specifications of the proposed work, including the plans and specifications for any construction proposed after demolition and such other information as the Commission may reasonably require to exercise its duties and responsibilities under this section. The revised San Antonio ordinance requires the city's Board of Review for Historic Districts wind Landmarks to consider the following when a property owner unable to demonstrate unreasonable economic hardship seeks to show "unusual and compelling circumstances" in order to obtain a Board recommendation for demolition: Whether there are definit;e plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect such plans will have on the architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, social, aesthetic, or environmental character of the surrounding area as well as the economic impact of the new development . Only one American historic preservation case seems to have involved the question of whether a local preservation commission could require an applicant for a demolition permit to submit with the application a second application for a certificate of appropriateness for new construction on the sa~ae site. The court in Wolk v. Reisem, 413 N.Y.S.2d 60 (App. Div. 197'9) ruled that the Rochester, New York preservation ordinance did not permit such a requirement: In our view, the Board erroneously interpreted the ordinance. The only reasonable construction which may be placed upon its language is that demolition and new construction are separate events, each of which require[s] the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness before its undertaking. The clear lesson of the Wol}~ case is that a local preservation ordinance should indicate clearly whether a historic preservation commission may (or must) require an applicant for a demolition permit to indicate future plans for the site of the proposed demolition work. Local preservation commissions which believe that their ordinances do not now give them this highly desirable power may wish to consider an amendment to the ordinance to clarify this issue. The power of a historic preser/ation commission to attach conditions to a certificate of appropriateness to halt demolition should facts and circumstances change may also need to be clarified in many ordinances (see "Update" 1988-17). (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") 1TATI0ITAL C'EOiTER FOR PRE~.'ER`'ATIO~T LA~~" 1233 20TH ST$EET, :~~.W. • SUITE ~O1 • WAS HI\GTON, D.G. 20036 • (202) 828-9811 PRESIDENT TERSH BUASBERG. E50. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE EXEGCiIVE DIRECTU@ JTEPHEN \, [)EYy15, ~.DQ. 1988-31 July 26, 1988 Can Neglect of a Historic Structure Constitute "Nuisance"? In its March 1987 Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis decision, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that there is still significant life in the 1887 nuisance decision Muctler v. Kansas (see "Update" 1987-7). A little-known Missouri decision suggests that when a local historic preservation commission finds itself unable to bring adequate enforcement procedures against an owner who is neglecting a property, nearby owners may have as an alternative the option of bringing a nuisance action. Plaintiffs in Kelly v. Boys' Club of St. Louis, Inc., 588 S.W.2d 254 (Mo. App. 1979), filed a five-count nuisance action to prevent the demolition of several structures in the Soulard Historic District in St. Louis. All five counts were dismissed by the trial court. The Missouri Court of Appeals found the first three counts of the suit to be moot, because .each of these counts sought to prevent the demolition of already-demolished buildings and to require the Boys' Club to maintain the buildings adequately. The fifth count, which sought to recover damages for emotional distress, was also dismissed as failing to state a valid cause of action: [Plaintiffs have premised recovery upon the tort of outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. . The tort requires that the outrageous actions be committed "intentionally or recklessly" with the desire to inflict severe emotional distress or in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. There is no allegation in plaintiffs' petition that such intent existed, or that defendants acted recklessly as above defined. There is no allegation that the conduct of defendants was engaged in with any intent to injure anyone, particularly plaintiffs, or with knowledge that it would have a high probability to do so. The petition alleges only that defendants engaged in a course of conduct for their own benefit, not directed toward plaintiffs but in disregard of their rights, which caused • plaintiffs to suffer emotional upset. We do not find this sufficient to state a cause of action. \ATIO\ALCF.rTEN FO 12 I~ItEtiEN~"AT10\ LAN' The appellate court found, though, that the fourth count stated a valid cause of action for nuisance: Plaintiffs here have alleged that defendants intentionally and deliberately Billowed residential buildings located in a residential neighborhood to seriously deteriorate, to become a health hazard, and to become a haven for vandals, arsonists, and undesirables. The activities included failure to obey city ordinances and refusal to permit other persons to protect the property. The allegations sufficiently plead an unreasonable, unusual and unlawful use of the buildings causing discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience and damage to the plaintiffs. The allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for nuisance. The Boys' Club argued that though its conduct may have constituted a nuisance, it constituted a "public nuisance" and consequently the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge it: But a private per.aon may pursue an action in nuisance even as to a public nu:sance if he suffers a special injury not common to the public generally. Whether this nuisance as alleged be deemed public or private, plaintiffs have asserted special injury to themselves and their property based upon their proximity to the nuisance. The Boys' Club next argued that it could not be held responsible "for the criminal actions of third parties such as arsonists and vandals" and that a "causal connection must exist between the acts of the defendants and the nuisance complained of." The Missouri Couri~ of Appeals disagreed: However, that causal connection is met if the defendants had reasonable anticipation of harm and failed to exercise reasonable care to avert such harm. Here it is alleged that defendants had such knowledge, did nothing to avert the dangers and in fact affirmatively encouraged such depredations. If the allegations are true, as we must presume them to be for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the reasonableness of defendants' activities and conduct is a question of fact for the fact finder. A property owner cannot knowingly allow his property to become a haven for criminals to the cietriment of his neighbors and deny that his property has become a nuisance because the resulting criminal activities are those of third parties. Additionally, the allegations of vermin infestation, health dangers, and fire hazards do not involve the actions of third parties but rather the action or inaction of defendants and are in themselves sufficient to support a claim of nuisance. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National • Center at the address lj.sted at the top of this "Update.") NATIO:~TAL C'E~'TEIZ FOIL I'lIE~E1tVATI01i I.~~~' 1233 20TH ST$EET, x.W. • SUITE 301 • WASHINGTON, D.Ci. 20036 • (202) 828-9811 P@E9IDEVT EXECCTI~'E I)IBECTnR TERSH BOASBERG. E50~ \TEPHEV \, UEV\IS, EsU~ PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-32 July 26,'1988 Mobile Imposes Demolition Moratorium to Protect Two Streets To halt speculative demolitions prior to development of a new convention center in the city's central business district, the Mobile City Council adopted on May 3, 1988 an "Ordinance Requiring Temporary Suspension of the Issuance of Demolition Permits for Significant Historic Structures in Portions of the City of Mobile" which will be effective for four years. The ordinance covers Significant Historic Structures facing specified portions of either Government Street or Dauphin Street or located within the city's central business district. The ordinance defines a Significant Historic Structure as either a building individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places (or a contributing building in a National Register historic district) or a structure which in the opinion of the Mobile Historic Development Commission is eligible for listing in the National Register. The purpose section for the ordinance notes that the city is developing a Master Plan for the central business district, preparing design and site plans for a new convention center and working toward implementation of a Main Street Program by the Mobile Historic Development Commission. The city justifies a temporary suspension on the issuance of demolition permits for seven reasons: (1) many of Mobile's most historic structures have" already been demolished; (2) further demolition "and the consequential reduction in the aesthetic beauty and charm" of the city would "hinder the successful and profitable operation of a convention center"; (3) further demolition would "hinder and create uncertainty in the planning for a convention center"; (4) further demolition would "frustrate the adoption of a Master Plan for zoning criteria and capital improvement requirements"; (5) further demolition would "irreparably damage the image of the City of Mobile presented to those tourists and visitors traveling on [the] gateways" to the city; (6) further demolition would "[threaten] the implementation of the Main Street Program by interfering with the revitalization" of two key streets; and (7) the protected ~TIO\.~I. C'F \Tf:[2 F'OK PltF;tiFlt!'.~TI~D~ L<~~1" Significant Historic Structures "are important assets of the City of Mobile which are vita!1 to the citizenry's psychological health and to the tourist industry's survival." The ordinance specifies that "[e]ach day a structure remains demolished and unreconstructed according to its original plan and with a substantial portion of its original materials shall constitute a violation.10 The ordinance provides procedures which owners can use to seek exceptions to the ordinance. Owners may appeal to the City Council "and the council may waive the suspension provided by this Ordinance as to the: structure sought to be demolished, if it finds that the destruction of the structure in question is necessary for the public health and safety due to the physical condition of the struct~zre." Alternatively, an owner may appeal within sixty days ~f rth~~ ~f~f~e~t,ivE aaLe of the ordinance iQicy'r cii~ purpose of seeking a waiver of the moratorium provided by this Ordinance on the grounds. of unreasonable economic hardship." The ordinance defines quii:e precisely. the situations in which economic hardship exceptions are likely to become available: This exception for unreasonable economic hardship shall be applicable only to owners or authorized representatives of owners of Significant Historic Structures who have expended significant sums of money prior to the passage of this Ordinance on development plans involving the demolition of such structures. In determining whether to grant a waiver under this exception, the Council shall weigh the economic hardship and invE!stment expectations of the owner or authorized representative of the owner against the potential damage to the hist:oric and architectural integrity of the structure and of the street in question. The mere purchase of a structure for future development without further development expenditures shall not be classified as an unreasonable economic hardship. The Mobile ordinance requires owners seeking an unreasonable economic hardship exception to provide detailed financial information including "replacement construction plans" and "financial proof of the ability to complete the replacement project." The criteria to be used by the city council in "considering the potential damage to the historic and architectural integrity of the structure and of the street in question" are carefully .specified in the ordinance. The ordinance also contains standard severability and illegality provisions, a!nd provides that the city attorney "may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to halt threatened violations of the ordinance." • (A subscription to the ":Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00„ Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") .~ I~'ATIO:~TAL CE~'TER FOR PRESERVATION LA~i' 1233 20TFI STEEET, ti'.W. • SUITE 501 • WASIiINOTON, D.Ci. 20036 • (202) 828-9811 PRESIDENT ~~ ;` EXECIITIVE DIBECT(~H TERSH BOASBERG. E.50• ~ ~ ~ !~ STEPNEY L. DEYy(S, E.50• ~,,~r, pEpT PRESERV~'Il~~'OT~ LAVV UPDATE 1988-33 July ~6, 1988 Tax Court Values Facade Easement Given After Landmark Designation A facade easement held by the Preservation Alliance of New Orleans (operating as the Preservation Resource Center or "PRC") illustrates nicely the difficulties both appraisers and reviewing judges are likely to have in the future with contested facade easement donations when (1) portions of a site are partially vacant, (2) a property is already subject to the restrictions of a local historic preservation designation, or (3) off-street parking requirements must be considered in speculating about the likelihood of future additional development on a site. • In Frank Nicoladis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1988-163 (filed April 10, 1988), the Tax Court held that a contested facade easement donation on a New Orleans building had an actual value of $168,700. The easement donation had been valued initially by the donor at $350,000 but valued as challenged by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at only $86,000. The former Protestant Orphanage Home, constructed in 1887- 1888 and converted to office uses in the 1970s, occupies a large portion of a corner lot on New Orleans's Magazine Street. The remainder of the lot, and an adjoining lot also on Magazine Street, are covered by a surface parking lot. A third lot, located behind the lot occupied by the building, is vacant. Off- street parking requirements applicable to the lots require one parking space for each 4.00 square feet of office space. In 1979, the Historic District Landmark Commission ("HDLG") designated the structure a Historic Landmark. After a series of real estate transfers, the building's owners donated a facade easement to PRC in December 1981. The Tax Court noted that "The only issue to be decided in this case is the fair market value of the facade donation on December 28, 1981." The IRS argued initially that little value should be attributed to the facade easement because the • restrictions already imposed on the property by the municipal landmark designation left little development potential for the owners to relinquish through a facade easement. \.~TIO\.~LCF\TEK FOK PKFSFK~'ATIO\ L.1 N' Two key provisions of the facade easement specified that PRC must approve plans for any new structures on the property and that the owners would be required to maintain the property adequately: Owner agrees to preserve and maintain those portions of the exteriors of the buildings, and to keep them in at least the same state of repair in which they are at the time of this donation. Owner may alter the appearance or composition of thosE; exteriors of buildings donated hereby, including the construction of appurtenant structures, only after having submiti:ed written plans therefor to donee and having obtained donee's written approval. Based on these facts, the positions of the parties were diametrically opposed on issues relating to the value of the property "before" and "after" the easement donation: [The owners] contend that the historic landmark designation had relatively little effect on future development of the Property, but than the facade donation effectively eliminated potential development of the land used for parking on Magazine Street. [The owners's] expert concluded that after the donation, the highest and best use of that portion of the Property was as a parking lot only, and therefore a substantial part of the value of the facade donation was attrilbuted to loss of development ~of the parking lot portion. At trial [the IRS's] expert claimed that the facade donation did not restrict future development of the Property any more than it was already restricted by the historic landmark designation. In his. opinion the public would have objected to a division and development of the Magazine Street parking lot even before ~t:he facade donation because of the building's historic landmark designation. Any development of the Property was therefore limited to the key lot behind the building both be:Fore and after the donation. A number of conflicting appraisal documents were introduced into evidence by both the owner and the IRS. The Tax Court based its holding on more than one of the appraisals and on information contained in appraisals far both the property owner and the IRS. The Tax Court concluded after reviewing conflicting expert testimony that "we are not persuaded that the existing historic landmark designation impacted prospective development of the Property to the extent claimed by [the IRS's] expert, or that the facade donation impacted future development of the parking area on Magazine Street to 'the extent claimed by [the owners's] expert." In other wordsa, some development on the site could still have occurred after the landmark designation but prior to the easement donation, and some development could still occur on the site even after bath the landmark designation and the • easement donation. ~. ~.~TIO~ALCE~TF N FOK PltESER~',\TIO\ LA~~' The court noted repeatedly the difficulties appraisers have had in the past appraising facade easements and the difficulties appraisers continue to have even after the Tax Court's recent decision in Hilborn v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 677 (1985): [When an appraiser for the owners appraised the property in 1981] there was little information available regarding the valuation of facade servitudes. The prevailing opinion was that such grants affected the value of the property, but appraisers were uncertain as to what extent. We note . . that all of the experts expressed reservations about the precision with which they could predict the effect of the facade donation on the value of the Property. [According] to the experts, there have been relatively few sales of property encumbered with facade servitudes of this type [The] apparent dearth of comparable data has caused many appraisers to shy away from expressing an opinion as to the effect, if any, of a facade donation on the value of property. The Tax Court considered testimony by an expert witness for the IRS that the vacant lot fronting on Magazine Street "could not have been developed because of the public's response to the historic landmark designation pure speculation." A member of the Historic District Landmark Commission testified to the contrary, that the Commission would not be likely to refuse every potential redevelopment scheme that might involve obstructing the view of the existing end of the Orphanage facing the vacant lot: [I]t would be more probable that the commission would be that whatever would considered for construction would be of scale and proportion and certain details itself or, you know, have some compat: original structure. concern of the be put there or materials and a that would lend Lbility with the The court showed itself willing to detect inconsistencies in an appraisal submitted on behalf of the IRS:. Not only did he attribute a greater significance to the historic landmark designation than did the other experts, but his- land values bear no relation to the potential for development of the land. He valued the two rectangular portions of land at $12 per square foot, even though he claimed that it was unlikely that the vacant half could be developed, and he valued the key lot at $6 per square foot, even though he claimed that any potential addition to the office building would probably be added on that lot. On a point of great importance to appraisers who have wished • that courts might accept as a general rule the proposition that a facade easement should result in an automatic 10$ diminution in value, the Tax Court stated: \.~TIO\ALCE\TFN FON I'12FtiFR~'.1TI0:\ LA~i' We note, however, that by this decision we do not mean to imply that a general "10-percent rule" has been established • . with respect to facade. donations. There was a fair amount of discussion by t:he parties at trial about whether the Court had established a'"10-percent rule" in Hilborn. We did not there and do not here. Hilborn establishes as acceptable the before and after method of valuation, and while under the circumstances of that case a 10-percent figure was relied upon, valuation itself is still a question of facts and circumstances. Under the facts and circumstances of this case we find the value of the Property decreased 10 percent due to the encumbrance of the facade easement. The Tax Court agreed with arguments that the effect of the easement donation had beE:n to subject the property to additional restrictions going beyond those restrictions previously applicable because of th~a landmark designation of the Orphanage structure: In addition to the 10-percent general diminution, we are convinced that the potential to develop the Property has been affected at least to the extent that any change or addition must be aipproved by PRC above and beyond the approval of the HDLG. On the question of whether the vacant parking lot could be developed at all after the easement donation, the court reviewed • conflicting information presented by the owner, PRC and the IRS. The Court noted IRS's helpful concession that $50,000 in development potential had been lost because of the easement: We are not persuaded by either party's argument, however, with respect to the amount we should attribute to the effect [of the additional restriction because of the easement donation]. Although [the owners] claim that the portion of the [property] had no use other than that as a parking lot after the donation, this contention is not supported by the record. There was testimony by a representative of PRC that it was possible than an addition might be approved on that portion of the Property, depending upon the proposal. However, even after this testimony was presented, [the owners] did not off~ar a revised value that would take into account at least some potential for development. Were it not for the fact that [the IRS's] expert attributed $50,000 to loss of developm~snt, we would be inclined, based on the record, to deny any amount for lack of proof of the same. However, we consider [the IRS's] position to be a concession that at least $50,000 should be attributable to the potential loss of development. (A subscription to the "P:reservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") NATIONAL CENTER FOlt PIZESEI2VATION LA`~i' t233 20TH ST$EET, ZT.i1~ • SUITE X501 • WASHINVTON, D.C. 20039 ~ (202) 828-9911 PHE9ID EJiT • EXECUTIVE DIHECTOH IERSH BOASHERO. ESQ. ~TEPHEY \, 17EY~1IS, E50~ PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1988-34 July 29, 1988 Court Upholds Denial of Certificate for Garage. Opening Few court decisions have dealt with basic questions about how thoroughly a reviewing court should look into a preservation commission's challenged decision. In Marr v. Back Bay Architectural Commission, 505 N.E.2d 534 (Mass. App. 1987), an opinion openly critical of a trial court judge and his opinion, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed a trial court judge who had ordered the Back Bay commission to issue a certificate of appropriateness for "a proposed garage and associated entrance driveway which the plaintiff wishes to construct .in and leading to the basement level of the front elevation of an addition to an existing building." (The opinion . suggests that denial of the requested certificate effectively precludes certain desired uses for the renovated structure.) Much of the brief opinion deals with inadequate procedures followed by a trial court judge in reviewing the commission's decision. The appellate court "concluded that it must reject findings of fact and conclusions of law which a trial judge has copied almost verbatim from proposals submitted by counsel for one of the parties." The appellate court noted tartly that the trial court judge had "signed something entitled 'Plaintiff's Judgment "' and pointed out that "[t]he body of the judgment was also copied from a form submitted by counsel for the plaintiff. The judge struck the word 'Proposed' from the caption of the submission." The appellate court noted that "[m]ore than one quarter of the twenty pages were devoted to disposing of a defense which the commission had set up in its answers, which had been litigated only faintly in the course of the trial, and which had been conspicuously waived by the commission in its posttrial brief. There was here . an evident lack of the independent thought on the part of a trial judge in performing his duties [and] also a transparent refusal to consider any of the contentions of the commission." The opinion is valuable for its detailed discussion of how a trial court judge should review and assess a challenged preservation commission decision. The court pointed out limits to the scope of • review for a trial court which is asked to review a decision by the Back Bay Architectural Commission: \~~TIOV.~LCF\TER FOR PRF:~iER~"~1TI0\ L~1N' [The scope of review] is not as extensive as that which applies in an appeal from a decision of a board of appeals under the Zoning piC#rr There is no general directive .. to make findings of fact on all issues which might be thought material, such as whether the exterior architectural features of a particular proposal z"re 'appropriate' . The statute setting up the Back Bay commission states that a trial court "shall annul the determination of the commission if it finds the reasons given by the board to be unwarranted by the evidence or to be insufficient: in law to warrant the determination of the commission " The court concluded that " [ 1 ] ogically, the first inquiry should be whether the reasons given on the face of the decision are 'insufficient :in law to warrant [the commission's] determination "' For example, in the present case, has the commission improperly based its decisions on ;some notion of general policy which it believes will further the: restated purposes of the statute under which it operates or has the commission denied both applications because, in its judgment, the exterior architectural features of both proposals do not meet the criteria of "appropriateness" as they are now specifically delineated in the statutes ? This type of inquiry is one which can normally be answered from the face of the decision in the particular case. If the decision appears to be based on a legally untenable ground, the reason(s) is (are) "insufficient . in law" and, as indicated in the Gumlev case, the decision should be annulled without further ado unless the court, in the exercise of its discretion, chooses to request a supplemental statement of the comm:ssion's reasons before any further proceedings are had. Then, the reviewing trial court must consider whether the evidence before the commission could have justified the conclusions reached by the commission: If the commission's decision appears to be based on a legally tenable ground, the court must then consider whether the reasons given are "warranted by the evidence" The court is obliged to take evidence and make findings of fact on this branch of the inquiry. If the evidence before the court is sufficient to sustain the. decision, the court can annul it only if persuaded by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the action of the commission was unreasonable, whimsical, capricious or arbitrary. In arriving at any such conclusion, the court must take care not to substitute its judgment for that of the commission. The court gave additional. guidance to trial courts on the issue of what action a trial court should take if a commission's decision is found to have been impropE:r. The Marr court held that in most Massachusetts situations the: case should be remanded to the challenged commission: \:~T[O~.1LCE~iTER FOR PRE53ERVaTIOY L.~~i' • As the Gumlev case makes clear, the court is not to direct the issuance of a certificate except in extremely narrow circumst~-maces The language now under consideration authorizes .the court to remand the case to the commission for further consideration in light of the court's decision. . That is the course which should be followed in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The' appellate court recognized that a preservation commission should not be blamed for situations not within its control: The court cannot base a conclusion that the commission has acted arbitrarily or capriciously solely on the fact that there may be other buildings located in the vicinity of the plaintiff's building and in the Back Bay architectural district which have exterior architectural features similar to those desired by the plaintiff if the commission has had no occasion to pass on the appropriateness of those features. A question which often arises is whether a local preservation commission has its hands tied because another administrative body in the same city has reviewed the same project and approved it. Does such approval preclude the commission from subsequently disapproving the project because it is architecturally "incompatible"? Nor should the court fault the commission because it may have disagreed with what the board of appeal of Boston had to say about the aesthetics of the plaintiff's proposal in the decision by which the board granted the plaintiff a variance from the provisions of the zoning ordinance so as to legitimate the use of a portion of the building as a garage. This is simply another of the situations in which the Legislature has required multiple authorizations from different administrative bodies established to serve different purposes. The appellate court was not troubled by the fact that denial of a certificate of appropriateness for the desired garage would have an impact on the use which might be made of the property owned by the plaintiff in the case: If the commission has properly refused the requested certificate on the ground that the exterior architectural features of the proposed garage are not appropriate under the statute, the fact that the refusal will have the incidental effect of preventing the desired use is not a ground for annulling the commission's decision. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, leaving in place the preservation commission's denial of the requested certificate of appropriateness. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is • available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.") • Ill Opportunity to Comment on Rehab Tax Credit Standards IVED AUG 1 ,~ 158n PLANNING DEPT ~n May 23, the National Park Service published the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Reha- bilitation in the Federal Register with a request for public comment. In his recent "Viewpoints" article (Preservation Forum, Sum- mer 1988, H. Ward Jandl noted that previous publication for public comment of the Standards in the Register (1977, 1979 and 1983) pro- duced few suggestions for change despite the criticism they had received. Jandl said that the Park July 1988 Volume 2, Number 3 Service hopes to receive more com- ments on this occasion. The revised Standards have been slightly modified from the language in the existing Standards, largely for the purpose of clarification. Ac- cording to the Park Service, the basic preservation principles eluci- dated in the Standards remain the same. Forum members have an oppor- tunity to make their views known on the Secretary's Standards. Written comments should be sent Trust Proposes Endangered Heritage Act to Congress National Trust president J. Jackson Walter proposed that Congress enact an Endangered Heritage Act in testimony on June 21, 1988 before the House Subcom- mittee on National Parks and Public Lands. Noting that the Manassas battlefield is one of many cases where incompatible develop- ment threatens National Historic Landmarks and National Parks of major historical significance, Walter released a list of the most endan- gered historic places. (See Preserva- tion News, July 1988.) Walter stated that "new mecha- nisms are required'to renew an ethic of national stewardship that puts emphasis on protecting heri- tage sites through a partnership between all levels of government and the private sector." The Trust recommended that the Endangered Heritage Act contain the following provisions: Review of Federal Activities Require all federal agencies to deny federal assistance where projects would cause substantial harm to a Development threatens the Deerfield, Mass. National Histau~ic Landmark District National Historic Landmark or Na- tional Park. Local Planning and Protection Include a new, comprehensive approach to encourage state and local protection of heritage sites, as well as to provide the federal gov- ernment sufficient authority to protect the national interest in heri- tage conservation. The techniques would include: • Financial incentives for local governments, through the Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water Conserva- tion Fund, to cooperate with the National Park Service to create as soon as possible to: Associate Director, Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. For further information, contact H. Ward Jandl, Chief, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Preservation Assistance Division, (202) 343-9584, or Carol D. Shull, Chief of Registration, National Register Branch, Interagency Resources Division, (202) 343-9536. adequate protec- tion for sites • Authority for the National Park Service to go to federal court to tempo- , rarity halt de- ~ velopment in extraordinary situations. Federal Acquisition ~ The Na- tional Park Service should request, and the Congress should appropriate, sufficient funds to acquire owner- ship interests in properties where federal acquisition is necessary for the preservation, public access and proper interpretation of heritage sites. For a copy of the text of the testimony on the Endangered Heritage Act, send a stamped, self- addressed envelope to Preservation Forum. National Trust for Historic Preservation S T A T D I ti P A T C H Preservation Victories in California and Rhode Island ~n June 7, California voters ap- proved Proposition 70, the Califor- nia Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Bond Act. The measure provides $776 million for preservation of wildlife habitat, coast, parks and open space lands, including $11 million for historic preservation. A statewide coalition of more than 200 businesses, conservation organizations and civic groups, including the California Preserva- tion Foundation, supported Proposi- tion 70. The coalition formed following the state legislature's 1986 rejection of three bills that would have provided funds to preserve the resources. (See "State Bond Issues for Historic Preserva- tion," p. 14, Preservation Forum, Summer 1988, for a review of recent state bond issues to support historic resources. ~ Approximately two-thirds of the funds will be used to acquire land. The remainder will be used to develop park and recreation areas, restore or enhance wildlife habitat and fund lhistoric restoration projects. For more information, contact Californians for Parks and Wildlife,'.)09 12th Street, Suite 203, Sacramento, Calif. 95814. (916 448- 1786. In June, the Rhode Island state legislature passed eight bills and recommended a one million dollar bond issue for historic preservation at the conclusion of its 1988 ses- sion. The measures will expand existing preservation legislation as well as target specific areas for new initiatives. The legislation will help: • preserve and interpret state- owneci historic properties • provide financial rehabilitation incentives for homeowners and Landmark Legislation in West Virginia Qn March 30, West Virginia Gov- ernor Arch Moore signed Senate Bill 267, the first piece of historic pres- ervation legislation passed in the state since 1977. The bill empow- ers local governments to enact zoning laws to protect the integrity of historic districts. The Task Force for Historic Preservation, composed of members from the Preservation Alliance of West Virginia, the Department of Culture and History and other preservation organiza- tions initiated the legislative action. A unique feature of the bill is a voluntary check-off on state income tax forms for donations to a state historic preservation fund. Other significant provisions include: • permitting historic district zoning by city zoning commis- sions • allowing city councils to designate historic preservation districts through local land- marks commissions • permitting fire marshals to de- termine alternative fire code re- quirernents on historic build- ings • establishment of a state register of historic places. Task Force co-chair Hydie Hopkins noted that the income tax check-off could generate as much as nonprofit preservation organiza- tions • survey and preserve historic landscapes • strengthen and clarify state historic district zoning enabling legislation • secure full state funding for the state historic preservatie~n office. The legislation was developed from the findings and recommenda- tions of the Statewide Legislative Study Commission on Historic Preservation, established by a joint resolution of the legislature in 1986. The results of the 18-month study are compiled in the commis;sion's report, A Legacy to Save or lose. For a copy of the report and :further information, contact Wendy Nicho- las, Providence Preservation Soci- ety, 21 Meeting Street, Proviidence, R.I.02903. (401) 831-7440. $30,000 annually. The National Trust supported the legislative proposal reseaich with a $1,000 Preservation Services Fund grant. For more information, contact Preservation Alliance of West Virginia, 612 Main Street, Sutton, W.Va. 26601. X304) 765-5716. Preservationists joia Gov. Moore for the signing of West Va legislatioa. L~ 0 • Litigation in Omaha when the Omaha, Nebraska, City Council approved the demolition of an entire six-square-block National Register historic district ~Preserva- tion News, December 1987; May, June, July 1988), local preservation- ists examined strategies and legal tools which they could use to challenge the project. The demolition of the historic warehouse district known as Jobbers' Canyon is part of a plan for the corporate headquarters of ConAgra, one of the largest corpora- tions in Omaha. ConAgra officials insisted that the eight-story turn-of- the-century warehouses would be aesthetically incompatible with the new low-rise, suburban-style "campus" ConAgra wanted to build on vacant land next to the district, and they threatened to move the entire company out of town if the council did not approve the demoli- tion. The proposed demolition raised important legal issues under both state and federal law. People for Responsible Omaha Urban Devel- opment (PROUD), a newly formed nonprofit organization, moved quickly to challenge the ConAgra project by filing a lawsuit in federal court in March 1988. After a pre- liminary injunction was denied on April 13, the National Trust joined the case at the request of PROUD. ter initially deciding not to itigate, Landmarks, Inc., the Omaha nonprofit preservation organization, joined the case in a "friend of the court" role. Mercer Management Company, the primary devel- oper of the Old Market area, a major tourist attraction for Omaha that is adjacent to Jobbers' Canyon, has joined the preservationists as plaintiffs in the case. Mercer argues that the demolition of Jobbers' Canyon will harm the Old Market economically, by damaging the historic character of the area. The most important issues that the court will decide concern the responsibilities of federal agencies to consider the effects of projects they fund, or for which they grant permits, on historic resources. The requirements of both the National Historic Preservation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act are in dispute. The case also raises the troubling issue of "antici- patory demolition," in which permit applicants demolish historic properties before actually applying for federal permits in order to avoid review under Section 106. Defen- dants in the case include three federal agencies with jurisdiction over portions of the project -the National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers and Interstate Com- merce Commission (ICC) -along with ConAgra, the Omaha Develop- ment Foundation, the city and the county. The non-federal defendants have used their significant legal re- Ordinance Project example, they vehemently fought the National Trust's intervention and have challenged the standing of all plaintiffs in the case. One tactic has been to threaten acounter-suit against the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs in the litigation, even though costs are assessed against a plaintiff only if the court is convinced that the lawsuit is frivolous. These threats contrib- uted to the initial reluctance of Landmarks, Inc. to get involved in the case. However, if the plaintiffs are successful in enforcing the federal statutes, the court may require the defendants to pay costs and attorneys fees to the plaintiffs. These fees would be awarded under specific provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act that are intended to encourage public inter- est organizations to enforce federal laws. The trial in the Jobbers Canyon case will take place July 11-14. As the preservation lawyers prepare intensively for trial, demolition of the Jobber's Canyon district contin- ues. Forum members should send copies of local historic district ordi- nances, archeological ordinances and innovative zoning provisions that help protect historic properties to the Preservation Forum. The Trust staff will use the collected ordinances to improve assistance to commu- nities seeking to adopt or amend their local laws. Copies of court deci- sions interpreting ordinance provisions will also be useful to the project. sources to urge the court to reject the preservation concerns. For When the Association for Preser- vation Technology (APT) moves its headquarters from Montreal to Washington, D.C. later this summer, Susan Ford Johnson will assume the position of executive director. Johnson, former president and most recently executive direc- tor of the Historic Fredericksburg (Va.) Foundation, Inc., succeeds Ann Falkner, who was instrumental in tripling APT's membership during her twelve years with the organiza- tion. The National Association of State- wide Preservation Organizations has elected Alan Schwartz as chair. Schwartz, execu- tive director of Historic Massa- chusetts, Inc., succeeds Stepha- nie Churchill, former executive director of Preser- vation Maryland and now head of Historic Savannah. The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture has awarded its Distinguished Professor Award to Bernd Foerster for his sustained creative achievement in the advancement of architectural education. Foerster, a professor at Kansas State University's College of Architecture and Design, is a fellow of the American Institute of Archi- tects, atrustee of the National Trust, and a member of Preserva- tion Forum's Editorial Advisory Board. After serving as executive director of the Historic Staunton ~Va.) Foun- dation for the past five years, David j. Brown has been chosen as the first executive director of the Preservation Alliance of Virginia. He is a two-term past president of the alliance and currently serves as chairman of the Governor's Commission to Study Historic :Preservation. The'~VatE:rford Va. Founda- tion's new executive; director is Catherine Ladd, former e~,:ecu- tive director of the Connecticut Nurses Associa- tion. While living in :[~lorwich, Connecticut, Ladd helped form two historic districts, served on the local his- toric district commission and wrote a book or.~ Norwich houses. Suc- ceeding National Trust advisor for Virginia Connie Chamberlin, Ladd's appointment comes at a critical time, since development threatens Waterford's National Historic Landmar]c status. Jaquelin l~obertson, dean of the University of Virginia's School of Architecture since 1980, stepped down as dean at the end of June. One of the country's leading architects and urban designers, Robertson plans to take a 'year's leave of absence from teaching to devote fu]~l time to his private practice in Charlottesville and New York. During his tenure as dean, Robertson directed efforts to build a national endowment for preserving the Unive:rsity's Jeffersonian build- ings and grounds and convened the annual Mayor's Institute for City Design ca~nference. Lawrence A. Walker is the new executive director of the Historic Charleston Foundation. First elected a trustee of the foundation in 1980, ~JValker has served in the past as the foundation's vice- president, president and acting executive director. C~ 0 Lead Paint Removal: No Easy Answers t`~s the dangers of lead paint become more widely publicized, the number of states and municipalities enacting legislation requiring the removal of lead paint is likely to increase. The problem facing preservationists is that regulations for lead paint removal or "abate- ment" have most often been pre- pared by health department officials unfamiliar with preservation con- cerns. For example, according to Con- necticut preservationists, draft lead abatement regulations in that state had many difficulties, largely because the preservation ramifica- tions of the issue were poorly understood. One provision required that where lead paint could not be removed from exterior surfaces, those areas should be covered by aluminum or vinyl siding or other waterproof material. The Connecti- cut Historical Commission, Con- necticut Trust for Historic Preserva- tion and Connecticut Preservation Action alerted their members and allies about the proposed regula- tions. They quickly prepared alter- native language for consideration by the state's Department of Health Services. Susan Chandler, architect at the Historical Commission, noted that the Department of Health Services Rocky Mountain Tourism The Association of Historic Hotels of the Rocky Mountain West pro- vides travelers with an alternative to interstate highways and hotel chains. In 1984, owners of historic hotels in the Rocky Mountain region joined together to promote the unique aspects of their hotels. The hotels range from grand resorts such as the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colo., to the Franklin Hotel in Deadwood, S.Dak., located on the main street of the historic frontier town. To qualify for membership, a hotel must be located in the eight- state Rocky mountain time zone, be listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register and provide a positive and memorable visit. Vol- unteer efforts, rather than large funds, fuel the association's suc- cess. To date, 20 hotels pay low member- ship dues. In addition, a public rela- tions firm, working at a nominal monthly fee, generates publicity for the associa- tion while atoll-free, central reser- vation system links the hotels. The association also publishes tour guides for four regions within the eight states. The guides cite scenic and cultural attractions, historical points of interest and recreation areas. The guides steer the reader away from tourist traps to local highlights. The first completed guide, featuring northern New Mexico, sold out within three months and an upgraded and welcomed constructive criticism. She encourages all preservationists to participate from the earliest stages in the formulation of legisla- tion and regulations. In early June, the Department of Health accepted almost all of the Historical Commission's suggested revisions. Due to the extremely toxic nature of lead, the process of re- moving lead paint is a complex, costly and time-consuming task. Required steps include inspection, certification of inspectors, work site preparation and clean-up, disposal of materials, possible relo- cation of tenants and preventing destruction of a building's architec- tural integrity. In addition to bal- anced regulations, Chandler stresses the need for greater education on the issue and research on better methods of paint removal. For further information, contact Susan Chandler at (203) 566-3005. expanded edition is now being printed. The association will arrange package tours for groups, in- cluding For more in- formation about the association and to order the travel guides, contact John Feinberg, executive director of the association and president of CSC, an architectural firm special- izing in hotel restoration, 1315 Broadway, Boulder, Colo. 80302. X303 j442-3601 The Strater Hotel, D~rrango, Colo. (above) aad The Brown Palace Hotel, Denver, Cola (right) Trust Lowers Interest Rate on National Preservation Loan Fund The National Trust has lowered the interest rate and increased the flexibility of its National Preserva- tion Loan Fund ~NPLFj. Forum members can now easier access loans and lines of credit for their preservation projects. Both nonprofit organizations and government agencies can use NPLF below-market-rate loans for a variety of purposes. Funds can be used to start local or statewide revolving funds, expand current revolving funds, acquire historic sites, purchase options to buy historic properties, and stabilize, rehabilitate or restore individual historic buildings. The Trust has lowered the NPLF's interest rate to two percent- age points below prime, making the current rate seven percent. The Trust has also increased the flexibil- ity of its repayment terms. The changes reflect an effort to increase the pool of projects that can take advantage of the $1.3 million in NPLF financing currently available. Over the past 17 years, the program has committed more than $7.1 million in funds. Across section of the ten projects selected in 1987 includes: $50,000 to the . Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina to assist a Raleigh nonprofit organization, Arts To- gether, Inc., in adapting an 1880 car- riage house as an arts center; $100,000 to the Dulce Nombre de Jesus Roman Catholic Church to support restoration of this 1869-76 spiritual and cultural center in Humacao, Puerto Rico; and $100,000 to Dubuque Main Street, Ltd. to initiate aloes-interest loan pool for rehabilitating storefronts and business facades in three downtown historic districts. In recent years NPLF funds have also helped acquire an endangered archeological site in Collinsville, Ill., move a threatened house in Asheville, N.C., purchase property in a rural historic district in Lin- coln, N.Mex., and rehabilitate other historic buildings as affordable housing and commercial space in Saugerties, N.Y., Bowling Green, Ky., and iDorchester, Mass. Projects thrqughout 41 states have received NPLF assistance to date. All NPLF project properties must be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing part of a historic dis- trict. Private owners of endangered National Historic Landmarks (as A16®y, N'Y Revolving Fvnd used' funds from T}vst's N~rtional Pres- ervniion Loon Fnad designated in the annual Section 8 Report prepared by the National Park Service) qualify for special assis- tance through the program. Loans typically range from $20,000 to $150,000. Higher grant awards are possible for threatened landmarks. Applications for NPLF consideration are accepted at any time. Nonprofit organizations and government agencies are encour- aged to apply for NPLF funding to support statewide and local preser- vation revolving funds or loan pools. Establishing a community loan program can encourage local banks to join with preservation groups in financing the rehabilita- tion and reuse of privately-owned historic properties as well as provid- ing an ongoing source of local capital for preservation. A preservation revolving fund in Albany, N.Y., seeded with National Trust loan funds several years ago has shown impressive results. The Historic Albany Foundation. tapped $25,000 in NPLF funds in 1977 originally to acquire deteriorated properties in a residential block slated for demolition. Three tar- geted properties were acquired and stabilized for resale as the initial re- volving fund effort. The entire block was later rehabilitated by private residents as a result of the activity. The Foundation currently uses its revolving fund both to acquire individual buildings for resale and to offer rehabilitation loans to low-income residents in a neighborhood facing gentrification. The revolving fund has spurred more than $3.25 million in ~revitali- zation funds in Albany's Capitol Hill area. Proposed revoly- 1 ing fund and single- - site projects must match NPL]? loan i funds at least dollar ~ for dollar. Loans ~ must be secured ~ with real estate or Z other collateral ac- ceptable to the Na- tional Trust. How- ever, agovernment entity with a good bond rating may back a loan with its full faith and credit. Loans are usually repaid within five to seven years and can be amortized over a longer period. Typical sources of repayment include proceeds from resale, syndi- cation, cash flow, pledged fundrais- ing and permanent mortgage take- out. The NPLF program can provide key early financing for local preser- vation projects. Forum merr-bers interested in discussing how the NPLF's below-market-rate loans can help to fund their projects are invited to call the Trust's Office of Financial Services at ~202~ 6i'3-4054 or your Regional Office. • • • W O R T H K lv U ~ti' I i~( G Conferences, Workshops and Training Programs • All Forum members are encouraged to send a repre- sentative to the National Trust's 42nd national preservation conference, October 19-23, in Cincin- nati. On October 17-18, the Trust and the National Council of Preservation Executives will cosponsor a workshop on preservation management for Forum members. On Saturday, October 22, there will be an affinity group meeting for trustees and staff of historic '; sites conducted by Gerald George, former director of the American Association for State and Local History. j Registration materials are j available in the July issue of Preservation News. For further information, contact the Trust confer- ,' ence office at (202) 673- ! 4100. Publications The National Trust's Texas/ New Mexico Field Office has published the Tourism Statistics Survey, a 21-page compilation of tourism statistics in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Okla- homa, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. It includes information about state budgets, tourism generated income and employment, attendance figures and tourist profiles. Copies may be purchased for $3 from the NTHP Texas/New Mexico Field Office, 500 Main Street, Suite 606, Fort Worth, Tex. 76102. (817) 332-4398. Brownstone: An Owner's Care and Repair Guide, Soci- ety for the Preservation of New England Antiquities The American Association for Scare and Local History will hold its annual meeting in Rochester, N.Y., Septem- ber 14-17. Contact AASLH, 172 Second Avenue North, Suite 102, Nashville, Tenn. 37205. (615) 255-2971. The Center for Ancient Studies of the University of Minnesota and the National Park Service are cosponsor- ing Presenting the Past: Media, Marketing and the Public in Minneapolis on October 12-14. Contact Leslie Denny, Professional Development and Confer- ence Services, University of Minnesota, 220 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55455-0139. j612) 625-0727. The National Main Street Center and the Illinois Rural Affairs Council will cospon- sor a two-day training pro- gram in Springfield, Ill., (SPNEA), 20 pp., 1988, $3. This booklet examines brownstone treatments and discusses building inspection, treatment costs and methods for dealing with contractors. It also suggests creative - restoration techniques such as retooling old stone and turning steps back to front. Order from SPNEA, 141 Cambridge Street, Boston, Mass. 02114. X617) 227-3956. The Conservation Easement Handbook: Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs, 289 pp., $19.95 plus $2.75 postage. This guide discusses the negotia- tion, acquisition and manage- ment of land and historic preservation conservation September 15-16, on design and design management in traditional downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. Contact the National Main Street Center at the National Trust X202) 673-4219 The National Main Street Center and the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development will cosponsor a training program on revitalizing downtown commercial districts. The program will take place September 19-21 in Annapolis, Md. and November 1-3 in Madison, Wis. Contact the National Main Street Center at Trust Headquarters j202) 673-4219 The Los Angeles Historic Theater Foundation ~LAHTF) and the League of Historic American Theatres are holding a symposium on downtown redevelopment easements. A resource guide and model easements are also included. The Trust for Public Land, the Land Trust Exchange, the Public Resource Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation jointly compiled the publication. Order from the Land Trust Exchange, 1017 Duke Street, Alexandria, Va. 22314 j703) 683-7778. Archeology and Historic Preservation Federal Affairs Workbook, Foresight Science eJ Technology, Inc. This notebook serves as a refer- ence manual for those involved in archeology and preservation policy. The publication provides its readers with a summary of Congressional and federal promoted through historic theatre re-use on August 12- 13 in Los Angeles' historic Broadway theatre district. Participants will examine both the restoration and re- use of historic theatres as well as the future of the arts in Los Angeles. Contact: LAHTF, P.O. Box 65013, Los Angeles, Calif. 90065 )213)746-9868. The National Trust's Center for Historic Houses and the National Association of Realtors are offering a seminar entitled "Rehab for Profit." The session will focus on utilitizing the tax credits for preserving historic and older buildings. The seminar will be held in a variety of locations begin- ning on September 22. For further information, contact: NAR, X800) 874-6500 or X202) 383-1247. agency activities that affect archeology and historic pres- ervation, alist of contacts in Congress, federal agencies and national organizations as well as extensive informa- tion on key preservation laws and regulations. The com- plete set costs $40; sections can be purchased individu- ally for $15 each. Order. from Foresight, 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 305, Washing- ton, D.C. 20036. X202) 833- 2325. From the National Trust for Historic Preservation Library at the University of Mary- land, the Index to Historic Preservation Periodicals (G. K. Hall, 563 pp., 1988) lists more than 5500 articles is over 350 sources published since 1979. Similar in ,' ~V O R T K N O ~~V 1 N (~ format to G.K. Hall's Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals with negligible overlap, the index is an essential research tool for preservationists, architects, builders, designers and histo- rians. Order from G.K. Hall Printed Book Catalogs, 70 Lincoln St., Boston, Mass. 02111. (800) 343-2806. $95. Three church and synagogue conservation case studies are now available: Second Presbyterian Church of Chicago, 13 pp. with bibliog- raphy and Frank Lloyd Wright's Llnity Temple of Oak Park, 111. These two studies discuss exemplary conservation strategies to be used by church leaders, layleaders and preservation- ists. $3.50 for each copy. Contact: NTHP's Midwest Office, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1135, Chicago, Ill. 60604. (312) 939-5547. A Case Study on the Mediation Process Over the Preserva- tion of a Religious Building: The Church of the Imrnacu- late Conception, Boston, Massachusetts, 89 pp., 1988, $5 or $3.50 each for 10 or more copies. Order from Historic Boston, Inc. (617) 227-4679. Grants and Loans The "Awards for Excellence in Low-Income Housing" program, sponsored by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie M:aej, will provide six grants of $25,000 each to nonprofit neighborhood groups for the following projects: single/ multi-family rental, home- ownership, single rootn occupancy for the homeless and elderly housing. 'Co be eligible, new and major reha- bilitation projects must have been placed in service between July 1, 1987 and June 30, 1988. September 15 is the application deadline. Guidelines are available from the Fannie Mae Foundation, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, . N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016. Beyer Blinder Belle of New York City has established the James Marston Fitch Chari- table Trust. The fund will award fellowships to Ameri- can architects, urban designers, decorative artists, landscape architects and architectural historians. Grants will encourage the study of problems connected with the preservation and re- habilitation of architecture and urban planning. Contact Beyer Blinder Belle, 41 East 11th Street, New York, N.Y. 10003. (212j777-7800. Forum Newsletter is published six times a year by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Members of the National Trust's Preservation Forum receive six issues of torum rvewsie rcer. tour issues of Preservation Forum. [welve issues of Preservation News and stz sssues of (-listoric Preservation as benefits of membership. Annual dues are 575.00. Qualifying individuals may subscribe to Preservation Forum and Forum Newsletter Eor 518.00 per year. Application ro Mail at Second Class Postage Rates is Pending at Washington, D.C. Postmaster. Send address changes to the Na[ional Trust Eor Hisroric Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Copyright ©1987 National Trust Eor Historic Preservation in the United States. Support Eor the National Trus[ is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S. Department of t:ie Interior, National Park Service, under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed are no[ necessarily chose of the U.S. Department of the Incerior. July 1988 Volume 2, Number 3 National 'Dust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave, N.W. - Washington, DC 20036 ~ 12021673-4296 r. ~- 7153?34 0 SARATO~A ric:RIT~Gc ~RcS=KV:,TI~IN C~~MMiSSIOr; 13777 FuITv aL~ ~v_tiu= CITY .~F S Ar. AT J~~A SAKwT~O;,, CA 95C7~; Request for Comments: The National Park Service has draft copies of three National Register Builletins available for public com- ~I ment: Bulletin 30, "low to ~ Evaluate and Register '. Rural Historic Land- scapes"; Bulletin 36, "How to Evaluate and Nominate Historical Archeological i Resources"; and Bulletin ~ 38, "Traditional Cultural Properties: Guidelines for Evaluation." To obtain copies, contact National Register staff members ~ Linda McClelland, ()02~ ~ 343-9544, for Bulletin 30 i and John Knoerl, (202) 343- 9518, for Bulletins 36 and 38. Application to Mail at Second Class Postage ]fates is Pending at i Washington, D.C. • Main Street News n MainStreet Number 37 July 1988 F a g c 0 3 z 3 Z • Success on Main Street: The Tesas Connection Anice Read In 1980 Texas was in a recession, there was double digit inflation and interest rates soared to 21 percent. A drive through the state's rural communities would have revealed shabby down- towns, boarded-up storefronts and the ravages left behind by the Great Texas White Paint Salesman and the Mansard Monster. In those days, there was no statewide program to assist small rural communities. But in conjunction with the National Trust for Historic Preservation's National Main Street Center, the Texas Historical Commis- sion was willing to take a gam- ble and commit itself to a Main Street downtown revitalization program. Initially, the cities of Eagle Pass, Hillsboro, Navasota, Plainview and Seguin agreed to participate in the fledgling ven- ture, although no state financial assistance was offered. Even the local Main Street managers had to be paid by each community. Since then, 45 cities have offi- ciallybeen designated to receive architectural and other tech- nical assistance from the Texas Main Street Project, now in its eighth year of expanding activi- ty. Sixteen other cities have par- ticipated as self-initiated proj- ects, and today four cities are Tie spirit aal berite9e 81 ntaay Tesas towns bave bees reaewed since tMe atetewide Maia Ytreet project began eiglt years ago. Here, 6eergetewa celebrates yyeatera WeeM with a parade oa Maia Street. ~ ) enrolled in the Texas Urban Experimental Program. Who would have imagined then that in just eight years there would be more than $159 million invested in these down- towns' historic buildings? Or, that more than 2,000 buildings would be rehabilixatecl-all by the private sector? Over 3,000 jobs have been created with 1,044 more businesses present in these towns than in 1980. What began as a cautious ven- ture has turned into one of the most successful revitalization programs in the country. Now the rural countryside is benefit- ing from the experiences in the model cities. A visit to 1Viason or even small Hutto will reveal restored Victorian commercial structures with new businesses inside-all inspired by nearby Main Street programs. he Early 11ear~s Texas was one ofi only six states chosen to partici- pate in the tltree-year Main Street demonstra- tion program. Getting the state government interested :in under- taking such a program was easy as 33 states submitted applica- tions to the National Tiust. But transferring the knowledge gained by the three pilot Main Street projects in Hot Springs, S. Dak., Madison, Ind., azid Gales- burg, Ill., into workable local programs proved mu<:h more difficult. Every city was different. The various local leadersltips had different agendas. And the only model cities to study were faz away in the Midwest. There had to be constant assurances to the communities that the four- point Main Street approach would work. illsboro-The First Model The first community meetings in Main Street towns were much the same as they are today. When Tom Moriarity, National Main Street Center program associate, and I arrived in Hillslrnro jpop. 7,000, we noticed boarded-up, dilapidated buildings and weeds that hadn't been pulled. Worst of all, right on the town square in front of a row of retail establish- ments, two dogs were sound asleep in the parking spaces where cars should have been. Still, true to form, just one hour later in a meeting with the downtown merchants, Tom and I were told that the only reason people didn't shop downtown was because there was no place to park. Those first resource team vis- its, to assess the conditions in the Main Street towns, were memorable, too. It was in Hills- boro that a team member unex- pectedly blurted out at the town presentation, "Look folkc, dead bugs in your show windows are a no-no." After the team's visit, progress began slowly. Archi- tects provided drawings for fa- cade improvements. Hillsboro's project manager, Paula Peters, gave constant assurances that downtown was going to get bet- ter and even succeed someday. The local leadership provided strong support, but little hap- pened that first year other than some paint jobs and a few new awnings. Crops had failed and farming was bad. Then, the town started efforts to get the regional Safeway office to speed up their plans to build a promised supermarket just a block off the squaze. New busi- nesses moved in, but many failed; although business did im- prove for some. Resource team member Gloria Knight, a shop- ping mall manager from the Rouse Company, consulted with a local shoe store owner. She was amazed to find that he cazried no Nike shoes. He said he had stocked them in the past, but they had sold quickly and he had none left. He didn't even realize that he should reorder. Just one yeaz later that same shoe store owner was bragging, as he un- loaded carton after carton of Nike shoes, that he had shown enough profit to buy a Cadillac. Hillsboro is now in its eighth year with its fifth Main Street manager. There is a sign on the highway inviting travelers to visit the beautifully restored historic town square. Motorists veer off the interstate to shop downtown at Antique Village or George's Western Wear in charmingly restored histor buildings. This successful Main Stre model can boast 107 rehabili- tated buildings, 52 buildings sold and four new buildings downtown, reflecting an invest- ment of more than $5 million. Eighty-five more; people are working in the 10-block heart of the city and there; are 37 more businesses than there were that first year. A member of th.e Main Street Advisory Board, who is also on the Hillsboro City Council, commented, "Main Street has lifted our appreciation for quali- ty design and cralftsmanship in our historic buildings. Main Street gave us hope when we needed it." It was the citizens of Hillsboro who did the work, who never faltered through good times and bad, and who aze reaping the rewards. renham--"A little Bit of Neaven" In its statewide tel Sion ads, the local creamery in Brenham refers to this area of Texas as "a little bit of Heaven." But that phrase wouldn't have applied six years ago before this small city in the rolling hills between Aus- tin and Houston began its Main Street program. 7"hen, historic preservation meant the muse- um, the restored Giddings' Stone Mansion or the Bassett and Bassett Buildnng downtown. The remainder of the central business district ~~as slowly los- ing ground to new shopping centers in the suburbs of this historic city. Brenham began its Main Street program in 1983 with only two historically designated buildings downto~nrn, but with a wealth of historic fabric waiting to be revealed. There were deep- rooted feazs among the town's citizenry about safety and con- cerns about downtown par And to top it all off, a 1 financial institution was threat- ening to raze one of the two buildings that ha.d been desig- 2 National Main Street Center, iVational Trust for Historic Preservation nated as historic. Unfortunately, when the institution filed for a demolition permit it was the Main Street manager who noti- . Pied the local radio station and had to take the blame for caus- ing arun on the bank by out- raged depositors. Despite this embarrassment the building now stands. The Brenham Main Street pro- gram now houses a local Small Business Development Center sponsored in part by the Small Business Administration. The town's strategy has been that by assisting existing businesses and industries others will fol- low This plan has paid off. There are now 40 more businesses downtown representing 109 ad- ditional jobs. Eighty-one build- ings have been rehabilitated, many of them pristine restora- tions. Upscale apaztments have been developed in one of the previously vacant historic buildings. Parts of the downtown that were once considered dangerous aze now filled with visitors and local shoppers enjoying the res- taurants and touring the historic • structures. The more than $7 million invested by building owners in rehabilitations is reaping rewazds. The Christmas Stroll and other local promo- tions aze bringing tangible re- sults to the cash register. The "doubting Thomas" retailers have been converted and ac- tively help market the down- town. Brenham is now a shining example of Main Street efforts. ufkin-Turning Around Fifteen Years of Neglect Lufkin began a Main Street program the same yeaz as Brenham, but had many more steep hills to climb. This deep East Texas community had di- rected all its efforts toward growth and expansion, leaving downtown with only a few re- tailers. There were already two large enclosed shopping malls in • the community. Tivo highways encircled the city, each with retail and fast-food centers. There were no directional signs to downtown because visitors were never shown this area. One of the resource team members said, "This town suffers from highwayitis." Yet, there were fine historic buildings downtown and the fi- nancial institutions were com- mitted to remaining in the cen- tral business district. But Lufkin had to rebuild a marketplace. First, the old Angelina Hotel was converted to housing for senior citizens. Then the Main Street program embarked on a major project to turn downtown Lufkin into an arts center. A committee enticed a nationally known artist, Tim Saska, to move to town. They accom- y ,~ ti ,~ r ~ ~ y plished this by offering Saska a trp 1g11N iWt major downtown building free if MW t~l he would develop the first floor p^~ ~ into a working studio and open t12,i11,lSi ~ it for tourists (who were still nM~INtap~ only a dreamj. The Main Street ~~~ program conducted afund-rais- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ing effort to purchase the ' building. Later another building be- came available and another gal- lery was developed. Next a large two-story building was devel- oped into an emporium offering antiques, Mexican imports, a gift shop and a portrait artist who works on the open mezzanine. The dream of a gallery center was materializing, but the area U 0 a F i N d J 3 IMlpprlYlti~ The Roslindale Village; Main Street Project is seeking ~m ener- getic and vivacious individual to ® work with neighborhood resi- dents, merchants and property owners on a comprehensive pro- gram of promotions and design improvements. The promotions program involves an .annual two-day festival, special events, retail sales events, advE;rtising circulazs, a newslette>y media relations and program market- ing. The design component of Roslindale Village Main Street involves facade and silk im- provements, public a:rt and street and sidewalk improve- ments. Qualifications: The successful candidate needs good conununi- ty organizing, volunteer recruit- ment and management skills, excellent interpersonal skills, good writing skills, the ability to plan and execute events,. sensi- tivity todesign issues anti matu- rity. Candidates should have a BA degree in an applicable field of study and a minimum of one yeaz of relevant work experi- ence. Knowledge of Roslindale is desirable. Fluency in either Greek or Spanish is a plus. Send resumes with references to: Kathleen McCabe, Director Roslindale Pillage Main Street 4258 Washington Street Roslindale, MA 02131 Maims The Main Street project iin Bur- lington, Iowa, is seeking ai duec- tor for its two-year-old, well- organized and successful down- town revitalization program. The director is responsilble for supervising volunteers, 20 com- mittees and paid staff and for carrying out historic preserva- tion and economic development duties. Compensation based on experience. Application Deadline: August 8, 1988. Send resumes to: Main Street of Burlington Box 901 Burlington, TA 52601 8~ Assisi~t Frazier and Associates of Staun- ton, Va., aze seeking a design assistant to participate in the Yuginia Main Street Design As- sistance Program. Design assis- tant is a full-time entry level position, starting September 1, 1988. Salary negotiable, with full benefits. Qualifications: BA degree in az- chitecture preferred but will consider other design back- ground. Sensitivity to historic preservation is essential. Send resumes to: Frazier and Associates 213 N. Augusta Street Staunton, VA 24401 ~~r The Main Street project in Dan- ville, Ry., is looking for an exec- utive duector. The Heart of Dan- ville Main Street Program is a part of the Kentucky Heritage Council's Main Street project and, in one year, has distin- guished itself as one of the best. Danville is a beautiful, progres- sive college town in the Blue- grass region of Kentucky with distinct southern chazacter. Its citizens have a great sense of the community's history and future and consider Main Street to be a community asset. The annual program budget is 563,000 and salary range is 5260,000. Can- didates must have appropriate education and experience and strong people skills. Send re- sumes to: Mary Breeding The Heart of Danville 307 W. Main Street Danville, KY 40422 (606) 236=1909 Pr1l~ DIMetM~ The Arkansas Historic Preserv tion Program is labking for director for the Pviain Street Arkansas Program. Responsibil- ities for this positiion include: developing,, coordinating and disseminating information and technical assistance to Arkansas communities that need help in the economic redevelopment of downtown central business dis- tricts; assisting in the establish- ment and organization of local Main Street projects; working in the azeas of organizaition, design and economic restnicturing. Qualifications: BA degree in his- toric preservation,, business, planning or commiuuty devel- opment, plus three years of pro- gressively more reslponsible ex- perience in the abo~re or related fields. Other job-rebated educa- tion and/or experience may be substituted for all or pan of these basic requirements upon approval of the Qualifications Review Committee. Salary is 519,006 annually. Application Deadline: Augu 26, 1988. Send appliications to: Personnel Officer Department of Arkansas Heritage Suite 200 225 E. Mazkham Little Rock, AR 72201 t «ol~~ The Main Street Projiect in Grin- nell, Iowa, is seeking; an individ- ual vvithenergy and imagination to conduct the various activities of its two-year old program. Qualifications: The. successful candidate will have a back- ground in mazketing and real estate development, with excel- lent communication skills and the ability to work iridependent- ly. Prior Main Street: experience is desirable. Salary will be com- mensurate with experience. Application Deadline: August 5, 1988. Send resume and cover letter to: • Dazla Hamilton 1309 West Street Grinnell, IA 50012 (515) 236.6555 Main Street Progra~ pager ux Falls, S.D. pop. 99,000) is seeking a manager for its newly launched urban Main Street pro- gram. The program manager will report to a board of direc- tors. Qualifications: The program manager must be entrepreneuri- al, energetic, well organized and capable of functioning in an independent environment. Ex- cellent interpersonal and com- munication skills are essential. Experience with downtown re- vitalization and nonprofit orga- nizations is essential. Candi- dates should have an undergrad- uate degree in business, azchi- tecture, historic preservation, planning or related field, plus at least three yeazs of relevant ex- perience. Salary range is $30,000 to $34,000. Send resume to: Downtown Sioux Falls, Inc. Attn: Gregg Morris 224 West 9th Street Sioux Falls, SD 57102 inning with this issue, Jobs will appear regularly in Main Street News. Send job an- nouncements to: Main Street News National Main Street Center 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 n DIw1UwB fMllf Ill Tail hl^ will MNM ~N MW ittwt- ~< wMal ~ im Ftutlrrl, wMtl IuMlls a IM rip, twi r MI r~ NM I~ Mw~ AIHtMn. had to be marketed. Main Street Manager Carol Moore: began working with local motels to provide spouse tours during meetings and conventions. Be- fore long she became part of the local sales team to attract conventions. Visitors came, toured and shopped, enjoyed the experience and told others about it. Carol could be found giving tours to family reunion groups or high school coaches' spousE:s. Luf- kin's development strategy has resulted in more than ~~ 12 mil- lion invested in the downtown district and 57 additional busi- nesses employing 92 more people. sin Street-A Contagious Spirit Competition is strong among the small cities in Texas, especially over high school sports. Visiting consul- tants must be careful not to mention a nearby city if it is a strong football rival. Now, Main Street rivalry is becoming more contagious than the football type. Cities sur- rounding one of the successful models can be counted on to apply for Main Street designs. tion. The contagion has resulted in clusters of restored dow towns where shoppers and toti~ fists can visit several Main street cities in one day. For example, residents of Dallas often travel to Hillsboro, Waxahachie, Enniis and Cor- sicana to shop, ea.t in the tea rooms in the restored buildings and cake historic home tours. Each of the Main Street pro- ~ grams has produced walking and W driving tours of historic places, W complete with brochures and ~ travel guides. i Travelers along Highway 20 go ~ to Pittsburg to have lunch and o enjoy the famous Pittsburg Hot Links, see the restored Ezekial Air Ship and visit the antiques shops. When they leave, they can drive just 16 mules to Dain- gerfield, visit th.e museum, watch that famous Daingerfield Cheesecake being made and see a movie in a restored theater. The same linkage has developed between Henderson and Kilgore, as well as between Cuero, Goli- ad and Gonzales. "those old valries begin to fadE: as our smo cities join together to host the many tour buses and vans of Winter Texans. eras Main Street Strategies Through the eight years of the Texas Main Street programs some defini- tive strategies have been developed: ^ Encourage self••help. Texas cities are loath to turn outside the state and use federal funding to help solve their problems. Local leaders still possess that independent spirit of the old West. As a result, low••interest loan pools, made available by local financial institutions, have been established in each of the cities. The Texas Main Street Project gives each of the towns a nomi- nal $1,500 incentive grant to encourage reluctant build owners to use quality prese tion techniques. 13ut the state program wants tlhe towns to secure additional sources of National Main Streer Cenrer, National Trusr tar Historic Preservation r U funding, and thus holds grant- writing and fund-raising work- shops in each city. ^ Adhere to good preservation techniques. Most of the small cities have not conducted a his- toric resources survey, nomi- nated their downtowns for in- clusion in the National Register or developed preservation plans. Main Street cities are encour- aged to apply for state matching grants to begin preservation ef- forts and are assisted in the application process. Similarly, building owners get help in ap- plying for state historical mark- ers. The Texas Main Street Proj- ect provides more assistance through workshops to train de- sign review boards, building owners, architects and con- tractors in preservation techniques. ^ Provide design assistance to every building owner. While other aspects of the state pro- gram have been trimmed in re- cent budget cuts, the design assistance program has been strengthened. Under the leader- ship of Restoration Architect Dick Ryan, the Texas Main Street Project staff visits every city once a month to consult with building owners and over- see the work being done on rehabilitation projects. ^ Encourage networking among the managers. In addition to conferring through frequent telephone calls, the Texas Main Street managers meet peri- odically on a regional basis to socialize and share ideas. These joint problem-solving sessions (usually without state staff- help the managers develop strong loyalties to each other and to the program. ^ Keep the cities in the program. Three years of effort typically represent just a good beginning for a revitalization program, and the downtown usually starts to go downhill if necessary man- agement and expertise don't continue. There are now 13 cities past the three-year period that have moved into the Texas Graduate Program. The gradu- ate towns are given constant help and occasional visits. The state program helps them re- cruit and train new managers ~-- and graduate managers aze used in training courses and at work- shops and conferences. These cities are also placed in the spotlight by referrals to the press. afore Challenges With 33 small towns now participating in the pro- gram and producing re- markable tangible re- sults, the state plans to continue the project of the Texas Histor- ical Commission into the next decade. More towns aze develop- ing interest each year, and all azeas of the state have par- ticipating communities. In addition, four cities- Wichita Falls, Fort Worth's Poly- technic Heights, Longview and Houston's Heights area-are now participating in an Urban Experimental Program. Of the 33 Texas cities with populations over 50,000, 16 have asked for MMadIN 1 T^us MIII MII t1~i MIMM ~ f/ M1N 'hIN 1~ w~Nl rs M Wtlrk Ip ^1 Illl~lp. Main Street assistance. It will be left to the state legislature to determine if such a program will be developed. Touring Texas in 1988, the traveler has more interesting places to visit because of the many Main Street efforts. Often, out-of-staters interested in start- ing aMain Street program visit Texas just to tour the participat- ing cities. Next year the Texas Main Street towns will have an oppor- tunity to welcome visitors from throughout the nation and Can- ada in conjunction with the Main Street National Town Meeting scheduled for late Feb- ruary in Austin. See Center- piece, pg. 8.) The state is already polishing its boots and practic- ingits "Howdy Paztner" to share its Texas hospitality with down- towners everywhere. Anice Read is director of the Texas Main Street Project, Texas Historical Commission. C/~ __ C .~ Stone--Part IV Consolida~on of Stone One of the fastest growing bodies of knowledge related to stone conservation is the use of consolidants to stabilize; the stone and arrest its deteriora- tion. Although stone consolida- tion has been studied and prac- ticed for more than a century, it is only in the past 25 yeaz;s that knowledge of how consolidants actually work has been gstined. Most stone deterioration is caused by the loss of minerals and chemicals that bond stone particles together. The mvierals aze leached out of the stone by the interaction of moisture, hu- midity, temperature, solar radia- tion, wind and gaseous ~pollu- tants. (See Stone: Pazt II, April 1988.E Stone consolidants arrest this process by filling the; gaps between the particles, bonding them back together. Stone consolidants aze applied as a liquid or semiliquid wax) that seeps into the stone, then hardens into a solid material. The effectiveness of consoli- dants depends on a number of factors: ^ the viscosity and surface ten- sion of the liquid consolidant ^ how well it fills the gaps be- tween stone panicles ^ lack of breakdown due to chemical reaction with the type of stone on which it is used ^ the effects of sunlight-paz- ticularly ultraviolet radiat:ion- on the consolidant How well a stone consollidant works after it is in place depends in part on environmental c:ondi- tionsand in pazt on the distribu- tion of loading stresses within the stone. The durabilit}~ of a consolidant is also influene;ed by the Gaze with which it is applied or injected into the stone. There are four main groups of stone consolidants in general use today: inorganic materials, alkoxysilanes, synthetic organic polyters and waxes. During the 19th century, in- organic materials such as sil- iceous consolidants, alkali sili- cafes, silicofluorides and al- kaline earth hydroxides were used extensively as consoli- dants. These substances are still occasionally used today. Most inorganic consolidants produce insoluble materials that cement the stone's particles together. Another type of inorganic consolidant, calcium hydrox- ide-a type of alkaline eazth hydroxide commonly called limewater-reacts in its wet state with the cazbon dioxide in the atmosphere to forma cal- cium cazbonate surface on the stone. Consequently, instead of actually consolidating the stone, this substance seals the surface much as paint does. One of the major problems with in- organic consolidants is their i tendency to produce soluble salts as a by-product when they dry, creating new material to be leached out of the stone. Thus, rather than consolidating the stone, these agents often accel- erate the deterioration process. Alkoxysilanes have been used as a stone consolidant only since 1960. Because of their chemical composition, alkoxysilanes can penetrate deeply into porous stone, usually 20 to 25mm or more below the surface. This consolidation agent thus bonds the subsurface as well as the surface of the stone, decreasing the possibility of surface spall- ing (chipping) or scaling. 'lino side effects of most alkoxysilane consolidants, however, are a slight change in the color of the stone and a difference in the weathering rates between un- treated and treated stone. Un- treated stone weathers faster than treated stone. There are two main types of synthetic organic consolidants: ^ Polymers, which are dissolved in appropriate solvents that evaporate on application leaving the polymer to fill the gaps between stone particles ^ Monomers, which polymerize within the stone after they aze applied Examples of synthetic organic polymer consolidants include: acrylic polymers methyl meth- acrylate and butyl methacry- late), acrylic copolymers, vinyl polymers polyvinyl chloride and polyvinyl acetates and epox- ies. Epoxies consist ol: an epoxy resin and a curing agent, which converts the resin into a hard polymer within the pores of the stone. During the last 20 years, epoxies have been successfully used to consolidate limestone, sandstone and marble-for ex ample, the stones of Santa Maria Maggiore in Venice. One of the known side effects of epoxies is their tendency to form a white powder or chalk when exposed to the sun. Thus, epoacy residue should be removed from the surface of the stone before it hardens. The final major type of stone consolidants are waxes, which have been used for nnore than 2,000 yeazs. The Roman archi- tect and engineer Vitruvius de- scribed the impregnation of stone with wax in his book, On Architecture, written in the first century B.C. More recently, paraffin waxes have been applied to a. variety of stone buildings. Rather than consolidating the stone in the, same way as synthetic organic polymers, alkoxysila:nes or in- organic materials, waxes form a coating on the stone's surface. This coating repels vrater, thus slowing the rate of deteriora. tion. The major problems with waxes are their tendency to soft- en at high temperatures and to trap grime and dirt on. the stone. The consolidation of deeterio- 6 National Main Street Center, National Trust for Histortc Preservatton ~. ! rated stone is a difficult and potentially expensive process.- The successful use of a consoli- dant depends on many factors, eluding type of stone, weath- ing conditions, extent of the deterioration, accuracy of diag- nosis and skill of application. Except in cases where alter- native solutions to deterioration have been exhausted-replace- ment or reproduction using cast stone or fiberglass-consoli- dants probably should not be considered. In cases where they are a viable solution, expert advice must be sought. Additional Reading Amoroso, G.G and V. Fassina. Stone Oecay and Conserva- tion: Atmospheric Pollution, Cleaning, Consolidation and Protecting. New York: Elsevi- er Publishing Co., 1983. Architect's Journal. "Stone." Various issues, April 9, 1975- July 16, 1975. Building Research Establish- ment. "The Weathering, Pres- ervation and Maintenance of atural Stone Masonry," arts I & II. London: Her Maj- esty's Stationary Office. Bullock, Orin. The Restoration Manual. Silvermine Pub- lishers, 1966. Callender, John. Time-Saver Standards. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Clifton, James, ed. Cleaning Stone and Masonry. Ameri- can Society for Testing Mate- rials, 1986. Davis, Gerald, ed. Building Per- formance: Function, Preser- vation and Rehabilitation. American Society for Testing Materials, 1986. EIarvey, John. Conservation of Buildings. London: John Baker Publishers, 1972. Lee, H. and K. Neville. Hand- book of Epoxy Resins. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. London, Mark. Masonry: How to Care for Old and Historic Brick and Stone. Washington, D. C.: Preservation Press, 988. tional Material Advisory Board. Conservation of His- toric Stone Buildings and Monuments. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982. National Trust for Historic Pres- ervation. Preservation and Conservation: Principles and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1976. Sereda, P.J. and G.G. Litvan; eds. Durability of Building Mate- rials and Components. Amer- ican Society for Testing Mate- rials, 1980. Staehli, Alfred. "Measurement of Stone Weathering Rates." APT Journal, vol. VIII, no. 4, 1986. U.S. Department of the Army. Historic Preservation Mainte- nance Manual. Technical Manual No. 5-801-2, 1977. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Preser- vation Brief #1 The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of Masonry Buildings, Robert Mack, AIA, 1975. , U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service, Tech- nical Preservation Services. Respectful Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: Preserva- tion Press, 1982. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1979. Weber, Helmut. "Stone Conser- vation and Consolidation." APT Journal, vol. XIX, no. 3, 1987. Winkler, Erhard. "Measurement of Stone Weathering Rates." APT /oumal, vol. VIII, no. 4, 1986. Winkler, Erhard. Stone Proper- ties: Durability in Man's En- vironment. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1975. By Richard Wagner, Urban Pro- gram Manager, NMSC. Mr. Wagner is a registered architect. ~MainStreet Main Street News is published by the National Main Street Net- work, amembership program of the National Main Street Center, National Trust for Historic Pres- ervation, l?8StitassachusettsAv- enue, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20036 j202~ 673-4219. J. Jackson Walter, President, Na- tional Trust for Historic Preserva- tion Sally Oldham, Vice President of Programs and Services Scott Gerloff, Director, National Main Street Center Linda Glisson, Editor Suzanne Dane, Associate Editor The National Trust is the only national, private nonprofit orga- nizationchartered byCongress to encourage public participation in the preservation of sites, build- ings and objects significant in American history and culture. Support for the National Trust is provided by membership dues, endowment funds, contributions and matching grants from federal agencies, including the U.S. De- partment ofthe Interior, National Park Service, under provisions of the National Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1966. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Interior Depart- ment. A lard hrtIW1 q~tlNl^t ht IIN 111NM b IM Nw1~ MKM M sb~ M ^ a h IM NbrI1MtlN, ~ tIpMA, ~il'MI. Tp 1~! fbM rIt pl NM ll'gIM. 7 .~ National Town Meeting Nighlights Main Street at WorN The NMSC's third annual Na- tional Town Meeting .will be held February 26-March 1, 1989 in Austin, Tex., with the Texas Historical Co'mmi~ssion cosponsoring. "Main Street at Work" will offer pazticipants more than 40 lectures, workshops and discus- sion groups on the nevvest re- vitalizationtrends and ac:tivities in the nation, from impllement- ing assessment districts and writing successful grant pro- posals to managing parking and developing effective image pro- motion campaigns. In addition, two megasessions will be fea- tured-Downtown Organiza- tions in Transition and Finding New Markets for Down~town- chat are geazed for all attendees, no matter what stage their downtown revitalization pro- grams are in. Sessions will be conducted by NMSC staff members, Main Street project managers and state coordinators and experts in such fields as marketing, retail analysis, storefront desiF~, busi- ness recruitment, leadership de- velopment, fund-raising, public relations, volunteer manage- ment and graphic desig~i. Special activities at the "Main Street at Work" National Town Meeting will include a welcom- ing reception, an exhibit of pro- gram and mazketing materials from Main Street towns, tours of Austin and nearby Main Street towns and the popular Big Bash, for dinner and dancing-Texas style. More details, including regis- tration costs and dates, will appear in this column in the following months. Network members will also receive a brochure this fall. Immediately following the Town Meeting's closing session on Wednesday afternoon, the NMSC will conduct its first Professional Training Institute in Downtown Revitalization. Watch this column for applica- tion and registration details. All Town Meeting attendees aze in- vited to attend the Institute's opening session. Florida Main Street Expands In an effort to create demonstra- tion projects that serve as mod- els of downtown revitalization for small cities, Florida Main Street has added three commu- nities to its program, bringing the total to 18. Avon Pazk pop. 8,420) fea- tures "Mile Long Mall," a city park that runs the length of the downtown business district. Named by English settlers after Stratford-on-Avon, the town has thrived on the citrus business since 1886. Fort Pierce pop. 39,285) was named for a fortification built in 1838 as part of a chain of east coast defenses against Indians in Florida. Today, the town is Lucie county seat and a shipp port for citrus products. Venice (pop. 14,585) was founded in 1924 as a retirement community for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Enf~neers. Built as a northern Italian theme town, more than 160 original buildings in the Italianate style remain. These three communities were selected from. a field of 23 applicants to receiive technical assistance from the NMSC and Florida Main Street Program. Oklahoma Announces Expanded Program Oklahoma has selected the towns of Bethany, El Reno and McAlester as 1988 participants in the state's Mani Street pro- gram. State Coordiinator Susie Clinard says these; towns will provide more examples of positive solutions and opportu- nities using the Main Str approach to iiownto~ revitalization. The Oklahoma Main Street Program and the NMSC will provide technical assistance and training to these communities during the next three years. With these additions, 13 towns are now participating in Oklahoma's program. National Main Street Center National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.20036 71253y34 6 SARaTJ~a ~hcRITar,_ PRcS_RV::TIC~ CG~!tiISSIGi~ 13777 FUITVAt.c av_~uc CITY E7F S aRaT~Ga SaRaTOG~. Ca 95~7~ 'L.. _. __.__'' ~'~S7'~~i .J. __-- _.__. `;... z_ - 3 ti ~~~ JU121'68 /- ~ >6~ I ... i:: i 0.4~ :, n v i I ie z ~~ . g. s Z m p a 0 Main Street News MainStreet m Q Small Town Design Assistance: An ONlahoma Case Study Ronald H. Frantz The most visible-and lasting- element of the four-point Main Street approach is design. A poor promotion can be corrected the next time around and may even be totally forgotten. Misguided facade improvements will be visible everyday, however, and probably will not be changed for some time to come. Obtaining good design assis- tance for asmall-town Main Street program can be difficult at Number 38 August 1988 times. In many small communi- iM MaM^~ M~ ties, design resources are lim- apt ~~^ ited. Some towns have few, if ~~ ~ ~ any, design professionals and a~a~a a ray ~~ ~ those that are available may not qM~ ~ be aware of the Main Street 1M1 NCaMt~ philosophy and approach. Even ~~ tt~aM ~ on the state level, appropriate ~~~ a ~ fa~~r ~~ design assistance may be diffi- cult to obtain. In Oklahoma, for example, design resources are scarce at both the state and local levels. Other than the state historic preservation office (SHPOj, there are no statewide orf;aniza- tions concerned with good de- sign, historic preservation or downtown revitalization. As a result, the Oklahoma Main Street Program has packaged and produced a variety of design tools to assist not only the state's 12 Main Street corr~muni- tiesbut also other towns consid- ering revitalization projects. and present to the community. Oklahoma Main Street towns are also encouraged to add a number of technical public bons to their desii~ resour~ libraries. The key to any good design information base is The Secretary of the Interior's Stan- dards for Rehabilitation. These standards offer 10 general rules for the rehabilitatio~a of old and historic buildings anal are neces- ~, ~°~M .,.P. .,...,.~..... ,.::.:'a: ,... ~~~loeMw:.,.: ~ae_.m m..,".eµw~+o.~> m`.~..~..w rtw,.w.... ~... e...~i~.,ee~ .~..a Mw.a ~a~...a.~u ~,,.,.,... ~.e tl u •w1uw.ep~e..in newa~m,.wr~,s~. iw, wuww~.nw u e.+. i },'~'.~ '.I i~~ i ~ Pf ,1 ~~.: ~ ul'~ u; ~' ~ ~ LL. 1~ ' ~ W ft nls tap ~ e~ cMcru>n ee+r IrewiM IrwiMt! ly ISO OMIeMb^e Male Street mtitect is ggiq pIM tN resteretbe a tre reran twdi le klahoma Design TooIS The Oklahoma Main Street Program dis- tributes "Fact Sheets" developed by the state's Office of Historic Preservation. These sheets briefly outline the' desig- nation process for the National Register of Historic Places, the federal rehabilitation tax incen- tives and the Certified Local Government program. The Main Street office has also com- piled resource lists for unusual or appropriate building products to be used on traditional com- mercial structures; professional referral lists of architects, engi- neers and landscape architects; and lists of specialty contractors for those seemingly impossible building restoration projects. All of these resources are avail- able to any Oklahoma town at no charge. To offer help on specific de- signissues, the Oklahoma Main Street Program has developed a number of products: ^ Oklahoma Sign Design Guidelines, a 25-page book that outlines procedures for develop- ing asign review process or sign ordinance and offers design guidelines for commercial signs ^ Design Guidelines for Re- vitalizing Oklahoma's Down- towns, a 111-page book that describes Oklahoma's unique commercial architecture and provides guidance for rehabilita- tion and maintenance projects ^ New Territory: Upstairs Downtown, a 45-minute video that explores 21 new uses for upper floors in nine Oklahoma towns. Produced in collabora- tion with the Alva (Okla. Main Street Project, the video illus- trates avariety of upper-floor uses-from residential and com• mercial to light industrial and entertainment-to show that there is indeed "life after the pigeons." ^ Design Committee Training Packet, which outlines all of the aforementioned resources as well as others. This package offers a way for local design committees to keep track of design issues they need to study ~arn~nal ~1atn Strrct Center. Vatutnal Trust fur Huutnc Presen•atmn i~i7 ..ti..rrrw ~ ~ ~.Nu ~ .~:: ..w.~w ~ o,n~r w - ire. Y.. :__.~ ~~.5="? ~_ __ -<:•'i. sary reading for anyone who wants to take advantage of the federal rehabilitation tax incentives. More lengthy and technical than the Secretary's Standards are the Preservation Briefs, a series of publications produced by the Technical ]Preservation Services division of the National Park Service. Currently number- ing 15, this series addresses pres- ervation techniques ranging from masonry cleaning and adobe repair to the restoration of metal casement windows. This information can be especially helpful for contractors hired to handle building rehabilitation or restoration projects. Both the Preservation Briefs and the Sec- retary of the Interior's Stan- dards fot Rehabilitation are available from the Govemm~ Printing Office in Washingt D.C. Most state historic preser vation offices have copies as well. Publications, slide/tape pre- sentations and videotapes that :specifically address downtown design issues are available from the National Main Street Cen- ter. The videotapes and slide shows, which address storefront design, signs and public im- provements, have proven to be excellent tools for raising public awareness about commercial ar- chitecture and other desigri is- sues. In Oklahoma, the Main Street office encourages project managers to customize these shows by including slides of their downtown buildings. Other sources of design infor- mation include: regional offices of the National Trust for Histor- ic Preservation; the American Institute of Architects; and the Construction Specifications In- stitute. Communities might also seek information from statewide nonprofit preserva- tion organizations only about 10 states, Oklahoma included, do not have one); county or local preservation organizations; or arts and humanities councils. esearching ~e Downtown In addition to compiling a library of general de- sign information, Main Street project managers should research the history of down- town buildings and gather other information that will help them provide appropriate design assistance. The most helpful research comes in the form of historic photographs and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps See "Tracing the History of Your Downtown, Part I," Main Street News, No. 21, February 1987.) These will not only help determine ,when buildings were constructed but will also show the original de- sign and materials of buildings that have been altered. Often, the practicality of a facade ren- ovation is determined at this stage. A drastically altered building may have so much irre- versible damage that no amount of time, money or effort will restore it. If historic photo- graphs donot match present-day appearances in any way, a San- born map may reveal that the original building was destroyed or torn down. The Main Street design com- mittee or project manager should also find out whether the downtown may be eligible for historic designation. Buildings or districts can be listed in local, state or national historic regis- ters. Local historic districts or landmarks are designated through local ordinances monitored by historic preserva- tion commissions and usually have specific guidelines for fa- cade alterations. If part or all of the downtown is included in a local historic district, the preser- vation commission will need to advise building owners about what they can and cannot do to their buildings and explain any financial incentives that might be available. State historic designations are not normally tied to guidelines or incentives. Listing in the Na- tional Register of Historic Places, on the other hand, enti- tles most building owners to apply for the federal rehabilita- tion tax credits. preading the word Once a design informa- tion base has been de- veloped, it can be used in a number of ways. One of the most important is to educate people at both the com- munity and state levels about the Main Street approach to design. In Oklahoma, the project managers or design committees make presentations to a wide variety of groups, including mer- chants, building owners; con- tractors, real estate agents, civic clubs and service organizations. These calks range from broad overviews of design issues to discussions of specific topics, such as signs, storefronts and window displays. Many of the Oklahoma towns have also coor- dinated evening design work- shopswith the state Main Street office. If there is no statewide Main Street program, the SHPO or some other design or historic preservation professional might be asked to speak about design issues. At the state level, the Oklaho- ma Main Street staff speaks at state and regional conferences held by such groups as the American Society of Interior De- signers, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Con- struction Specifications Insti- tute, the American Planners As- sociation and the State Arts Council. Informing as many groups as possible about the Main Street approach to design is the key to building support as well as developing a resource list of professionals who aze truly interested in and sensitive to the design problems of traditional commercial districts. uiding Design Changes In Oklahoma; design as- sistance for facade im- provements is provided free to all building owners, at their request, in the officially designated Main Street project azeas. The scope of assistance provided by the Oklahoma lvlain Street architect is determined by the owner's needs, budget and time schedule and the building's physical condition. The state office provides project managers with a number of forms to help standardize the gathering of in- formation for facade projects: ^ Building inventory form, which can be used to detennine the size and condition of the building as well as note impor- tant architectural details ^ "Scope of Work Checkllist," which can help owners deter- mine the type and exter,~t of work required on their buildings ^ "Construction Schedule," a chazt that shows which months are most suitable for different phases of work ^ "Request Form for Facade De- sign Assistance," which de- scribes the budget, schedule and scope of work for a specific building. The project manager sends this form to the state office to schedule time with the Main Street architect. ncentives for Investment In Oklahoma, a number of financial incentives have been developed to encour- age propezty owners to repair or improve their buildings. Loan programs. Low-interest loan pools in the Oklahoma Main Street towns range from $100,000 to $200,000. Property owners can borrow up to $10,000 at 6 percent fora maxi- mum of five years. Before a loan application can be sent to the bank, however, the facade ren- ovation plans must be reviewed and approved by the local Main Sweet project's design commit- tee. The plans must then be implemented as approved. Sign grant programs. In 1986, the Oklahoma program received a $5,000 matching grant from the Mountain/Plains Regional Office of the Nationail Trust to develop a pilot sign ,grant pro- gram for the Main Street ' communities. Each of the first five towns- Alva, Anadarko, Duncan, Ok- mulgee and Tahlequah-was given $1,000 to set ups an incen- tive grant program. Grants of up to $200 were awarded on a first- come, first-served basis. Plans were approved by the; local de- sign committees. The success of this program led several of the 1987 Main Street communities to organize their own sign grant programs. The combination of free de- sign assistance and financial in- centive programs ha.s encour- aged extensive investment in Oklahoma's Main Street towns. During the first two years of the program, nearly 80 facade ren- ovations were completed in the Main Street communities, along with 169 other building projects, including new construction, for a total reinvestment of $3.5 million. Ronald H. Frantz, A;[A, is the • state architect for the Oklahoma Main Street Program. Located in northeast Oklahoma, this community of 4,500 formed the Pawhuska Downtown Revitalization and Preservation Association in early 1984. Although the downtown had a fabulous collection of 1900-1930 oil boom Plains commercial architecture, it was approaching an 80 percent vacan- cy rate. With the help of a matching grant from the Oklahoma Historical Society, the group contracted with an architec- rural firm to conduct a survey of all buildings within the city limits as they existed in 1944-approximately 1,400 structures. From this survey, a 101- building Natienzal Register historic dis- trict was created for -the triangularly- shapeddowntown. The next step was to develop design guidelines and a historic district ordinance for the district. Following this, a series of eight street- scape drawings, which included the facades of all 101 buildings, was com- pleted, along with an analysis of the area's development potential. The :1894 Osage Council House know city hall and the 1916 Constantine Theater were restored as pilot projects, illustrating how downtown's buildings could nerve as important assets for its future. NVith this preliminary work behindl it, Pawhuska became an Oklahoma Ddain Street town in 1987. 4 \,ni~~n.il ~1.ur, >crrrt i_rntrr \.in~~~ai Tni>c tnr Ni:e~,ne Pr<,rn.~t~~,n It a ta^~nitY bas . ,, aat:tnliq aan't cMblq slats Iwl attract: costeuers trale serraariq sreos, it nay be passible Io elr a n~ea's sbae store or olper ceinplesea~ry business to captrre eten oaro soles. Measuring Sales Demand Kennedy Smith For several years, residents of Anytown, a medium-sized southwestern community, have been saying that the downtown needs a new men's clothing store. In a customer survey con- ducted two years ago, people listed a men's store more often than any other type of business when asked what they would like to see downtown. Yet, John- son's, apopular men's store that had been in business downtown for more than 50 years, closed in 1984. Since then, most people have shopped for men's clothing at one of chree stores in the Syphon Mall, 15 miles away. Although consumers say they want a new men's store down- town, desire alone isn't enough to make a new store successful: There must be sufficient sales demand. Unless the community can economically support the new business, making an effort to recruit one will be useless. stimating Potential Sales Gauging the dollaz vol- ume of potential sales for a particulaz retail catego- ry is the first step in measuring sales demand. To estimate a community's potential sales de- mand, market analysts gener- ally use the Consumer Expendi- ture Survey, a report prepared every few years by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau sur- veys thousands of households throughout America, asking people to record how much they spend on a wide range of prod- ucts and services, from heating oil to health insurance. It then divides the households complet- ing the survey according to sev- eral chazacteristics: ^ age of the householder ^ race ^ household income ^ region of residence ^ household size ^ whether the respondent owns or rents a home Finally, the bureau analyzes the amount that households in each category spend annually for a variety of goods and ser- vices. According to these char- acteristics, people spend money in diverse ways. Retired people rarely buy furniture, for in- stance, because they have al- ready accumulated household furnishings. Young adults, on the other hand, buy furniture gradually, over the course of a decade or more, thus represent- ing astronger consumer market for furniture sales. A downtown revitalization program can estimate potential sales for the downtown trade area in the following way: Count the number of trade area house- holds that fit into each of the Consumer Expenditure Survey's categories; then multiply this by the amount a household typ- ically spends. Example. Anytown has about 9,000 households (a total popu- lation of just over 24,000. It is the primary commercial center in Southwest County. About 6,000 people living in nearby Northeast and Central counties work in Anytown, thereby providing another group of po- tential downtown customers. Several of Anytown's businesses also draw shoppers from small towns throughout the region. In all, Anytown has a trade area that covers about 35 square miles and includes approxi- mately 19,000 households. These households, are dis- tributed by income as follows: Household No: of Income Households Under $5,000 844 $5,000-9,999 1,117 $10,000-14,999 2,422 515,000-19,999 5,253 520,000-29,999 5,958 530,000-39,999 2,330 540,000 and over 1,059 TOTAL 18,983 The Anytown Downtown De- velopment Association ~ADDA) wants to know what the poten- tial demand for men's clothing might be. According to the Con- sumer Expenditure Survey. households typically spend be- tween $92 and $606 annually for men's clothes, depending on household income. Using the number of households in each income group in Anytown's trade area and the typical per- household expenditure figures 4 Reca,uriq sales Iles m leeriq ue ceweweiry welt eat elweltt M easy. If IN tewe is lecetel 11 e "drlt" ceeery, ter es>•Ile, a eew rosteeat welt eew~ lero astewe~s wRe rortleNy d~iq a• Iwo a wero u ~ et a rosteerat tlwi sells RIeK by 11te dNNi. 'I~pical Annual Household Number of Household Potenttial Income Households Expeadttures l~mand Under $5,000 844 x $126 = = $ 106,344 764 102 $5,000-9,999 1,117 x 92 127 = , 307,594 $10,000-14,999 2,422 x 178 = 935,034 $15,004-19,999 5,253 x 202 = 1,203,516 $20,004-29,999 5,958 x 326 = 759,580 $30,0009,999 2,330 x 606 = 641,754 $40,000 and over 1,059 x TOTAL POTENTIAL SALES DEMAND = $4,056,586 may not represent a good retail opportunity. Imagine a town in a "dry" county-one that does not permit sales of liquor by the customers to capture more sales than the community itself would be expected to generate- it might be possible to add a: listed in the Consumer Expendi- ture Survey, ADDA estimated total potential demand for men's clothing to be: omparing Poteni;ial Sales to Actual Sales The potential salc~s de- mand for a retail category should then be compared ~to the trade area's actual sales for the most recent year that figures are available. If potential sales are greater than actual sales, there is probably a sales leakaf;e-in other words, people are shop- ping outside of the trade area. If actual sales exceed potential de- mand, the community probably has a sales surplus-it's drawing in extra sales from outside the trade area. Example. Anytown's actual sales for men's clothing last year totaled $2,869,000. Because Anytown's potential sales x$4,056,586) exceed its actual sales of men's clothing ($2,869,000, it has a sales leak- age ($1,187,586, meaning chat people are going outside the city's trade area to buy men's clothing. nterpreting Sales LeaNage or Surplus figures <• Logically, it wouldl seem that a sales leakage offers an opportunity to add additional stores-or expand existing busi- nesses-to capture sales that are leaving the community And, usually, this is true. There are times, however, when a leakage drink. An estimate of potential demand indicates that the com- munity has a sales leakage of several million dollars in restau- rant sales. If, just across the county line, there is a good restaurant that can sell liquor, people may routinely drive over there for dinner. Consequently, new restaurants in the dry county may never capture much of the sales leakage. Or, if there is an outstanding men's store 20 or 30 miles away, customer loy- alty might prevent a new local business from ever recapturing lost sales. Similarly, a sales surplus does not mean that the downtown cannot increase sales even more. If the outstanding men's store is local-and if it draws enough second men's store, a rnen's shoe store or another busviess cater- ing to those customers. Because of the mauny ways a sales leakage or surplus can be interpreted, it is crucial that the people involved in the down- town revitalization program also participate in th.e process of analyzing potential sales de- mand. If a professional market analyst is hired to conduct a leakage analysis, be: sure he or she is familiar with local and regional businesses,, local shop- ping habits and ocher market characteristics. Better yet, con- duct aleakage or surplus anal sis locally; then discuss possib interpretations before involving a professional market analyst. 6 tian,,i;.ti ~1.un ~tnrt ~cntcr ~~n~m~l Trust n,r Hunrttc Presrn.rn„n 1~~ ~1 stimating the Need for Additional Retail Space If potential sales demand figures indicate that the down- town can support one or more new businesses-or expan- sions-estimate how much ad- ditional retail space will be needed. To do so, figure out the amount of sales a particular type of business is likely to generate per square foot per year, then divide the total unmet demand by this figure. Unfortunately, there is no pre- cise way of estimating how much a downtown business is likely to generate per square foot annually. Shopping center devel- opers can use Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute, to find actual sales-pee-square-foot statistics for stores in shopping centers and malls. Because most downtown businesses are indi- vidually owned and because downtown economic conditions vary widely throughout the ~ountry, it is impossible to use these figures for central business districts. Instead, many professional market analysts look at the sales a community actually realized in a specific category and the number of square feet of existing retail space for that category. By dividing the existing square feet by existing sales, analysts can determine the amount local businesses generated per square foot. They can use this figure to estimate how much new retail space the community might be able to support. Example. Anytown's sales de- mand analysis showed approxi- mately $1,000,000 of unmet de- mand for men's clothing. To be safe, ADDA leaders assumed that a new business could capture only one quarter of that unmet demand-about $250,000. They estimated the amount of downtown sales space devoted to men's clothing be about 14,500 square feet. d, they already knew that men's clothing sales totaled $2,869,000 last year. Based on these calculations, 1. Actual Sales - Actual Square Footage $2,869,000 - 14,500 sq.ft. 2. Unmet Demand - Average Sales per to be Captured Square Foot $250,000 - $198 per sq.ft. = Average Sales per Square Foot _ $198 per sq.ft. = New Square Footage = 1,263 sq.ft. of new retail space ADDA leaders decided to recruit census tracts available from the anew men's clothing store to fill Government Printing Office; a about 1,200 square feet of retail typical state volume costs less A word of caution. Being able can also be obtained from librar- to demonstrate unmet sales de- ies, city and county govern- .space. than $12. ~ Census information mand for a certain type of prod- uct orservice does not guarantee the success of a new business in that category. Many factors af- fect how successful a new ven- ture might be: ^ how well the business is managed ^ promotion and advertising ^ proximity to supporting busi- nesses that attract similar types of customers ^ characteristics of the sur- rounding environment A comprehensive downtown revitalization program can grad- ually address many of these factors. The program can help improve the appearance of the commercial district, share mer- chandising and advertising skills with retailers, promote the district's assets and recruit complementary businesses. Be- fore beginning business recruit- ment activity, however, the re- vitalization program should es- tablish a solid foundation in these other areas. And, by mea- suring sales demand, the pro- gram should also know whether the local mazket has the poten- tial to support new retail space. Additional Reading Information on the number of households by category gage, household size, household in- come, race, housing tenure) is available in the Census of Popu- lation Characteristics and Cen- sus of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics. Cen- sus data is available by volume by state, with data then broken down by county, SMSA ~Stan- dard Metropolitan Statistical Area, city, town, unincorpo- rated portions of counties and merits, councils of government ~COGs~ and regional planning agencies. Kennedy Smith is the N:1~ISC's Program Manager for Commu- nication and Education. MainStreet Adam Street -ti'~w•s is published by the National Main Street Net- work. amembership program of the National Main Street Center, National Trust for Historic Pres- ervation, 1'8.~ Massachusetts Av- enue, N.bV.. 6Vashingmn. D.C. ?0036 ,?01. h'3-1? 19. G Jackson 1M1alter, President. Na- irunalTrust tnr Hismnc Preserva- tion Sally Oldham, Vice President of Program, and Servtces Scott Gerloff, Director, National whin Street Center Linda Glisson, Editor Suzanne Dane, Associate Editor The National Trust is the only national, private nonprofit orga- nt~aaon chartered by Congress to encourage public participation in the preservation of sites, butld- in.ks and obiects significant in American history and culture. Support for the National Trust is provided by member_.hip dues, endowment funds, amtributtuns and matching grants from federal agencies, including the U.S. De- partment ofthe [nterior, National Park Service. under provisions of the National Historic Presen~a- tiun Act iif l9(,h. The ~~pinions expres;ed in thl, publication do nut necessarily reflect the Mews ur policies of the Interior Depart- ment. C/~ ~~ Better Buildings wi1~ Bte Buddy System In Winc ester, Va., the Main Street program's design commit- tee is using the buddy system to ensure adherence to the facade designs prepared by state Main Street Designer li:athleen Frazier. The nine members Hof the de- sign committee ~incluiding two landscape architects have been trained by Frazier to read and interpret her sketches for Win- chester's facades. Extra training sessions for the mernbers fo- cused on paints, textures, colors and other visual aspects of build- ing rehabilitation. Armed ~}t their new knowl- edge, the buddies were each assigned to help downtown building owners implement Frazier's design plans. The design committee be- lieves it is important to provide guidance during crucial parts of each rehab project, to answer questions and offer etacourage- ment to the building owners. The system was starte,i when it became appazent that the proj- ect manager had too :many re- sponsibilities to follow up on the projects personally:-S.D. Mascot Promotes California Town A birthday party was held re- cently inSan Luis Obispo, Calif., to honor a special citizen. Downtown Brown, the business improvement assoc:iation's (BIA) mascot, turned one year old and 250 people were on hand to help him celebrate. He re- ceived aplaque and letter of appreciation horn the mayor, and the gratitude of all down- town merchants. Downtown Brown (also known as Brown) was the idea of the Thursday Night Activities Committee. The committee sponsors events on Higuera Street each Thursday night to attract shoppers and families. Activities include concerts, food cook-offs and special sales. And each Thursday night a big, fuzzy, brown beaz with a caztoon face walks through the crowd, handing out balloons, candy and flowers and posing for pictures with his most ardent fans- children. Brown's alter ego is high school student Craig Fraser, Jr., who dons the costume each Thursday to entertain the youngsters and spread goodwill among their parents. Down- townBrown has become such an easily identifiable, friendly am- bassadorfor downtown San Luis Obispo that the costume is available for all B:[A membr~ use during special events grand openings, anniversaries and sales.-S. D. Hawaii Video Involves Community "It brings tears to my eyes," says Mami Herkes, statewide direc- tor of Main Street Hawaii, about anew 20-minute video. "The comments people make are very heartwarming, " s.he adds. The videotape, which high- lights Hawaii's four Main Street towns, will be used as a public relations and marketing tool. Production of the video was supervised by F:ojean Evans, Main Street Hawaii administra- tive assistant. Iivans accom- panied students from Leeward Community College to the sites. Main Street Hawaii con- tracted with the college to film the towns, offering the job as an educational project. In addition to street scenes, many citizens were intervi and asked what tl:iey liked about their towns and the Main Street program. T:he viewpoints were woven into the Main Street story presented in. the video. The videotape was funded by the fourteenth session of the Hawaii State Legislature.. The tape is available 6bm the Main Street Hawaii office for presen- tations at civic meetings. from Main Street Hawaii Newsletter, May 1988. ~~~ National Main Street Center ~ 1 H =-~ z ~ ` ' ~`!~ National Trust for Historic Preservation `P5~ 6~0 ;~,~,~ T~~=_., y:- ~: U S.POa1A~: i 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 3 AUG 16'88 ~- . ~ ~~ Washington, D.C. 20036 - ~• +'i~ i ~; Q .Z S ' 1' ~.B.ME:E11 ~~ D. C• 6113473-~~~ c 71253534 6 PREScR1~i'ATIChICOMMISSION RECEIVE~~ 13777 F~UITVALE AVEbiUc CITY OF~ SAkATOGA AUG I ~ 198y SAftATOG~4 CA 9507C PANNING DEIpT 11:1,,,i,l,ll,,,l,,,iii,,,l,!„i L 1 V O q {.I =1 ~; a 4 - ~. A N N O U N C E M E N T of R~ EIV~O THE CALIFORNIA HIS'It~RY AND AciCHDC.LOGY GRAND PROGRAM C 1988 ~~ ~ ' ~ 1~-`~~ Funding Availability: PI_ANN~NG ~EpT The California Wildlife, Coastal and Parkla~rya Conservation Act of 1988, approved on Jae 7, 1988 as Proposition 70, authorizes eleven mulion dollars ($11,000,000) for competitive grants to public agencies anti nonprofit organizations for the preservation of tustorical and archeological resources in California. Not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be used for archeological resources preservation purposes. The Oft ice oaf Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks am Recreation, will distribute the $11,000,000 history and archeoloc~v grant rand in only one <.yc1e. Allocations of tunas will be authorized on July 1, 1989. The minimum grant award is expected to be 550,000. There is no set maximum amount. A~A1 ication Deadl uses : The application deadline is December 1, 1988. All applications must be postmarked by Dec:etiber 1, 1988. Applxcations postmarked after December 1, 1988 shall not be eligible to participate. ~liaibJ.e Ar.~licants: Applicants eligible to participate are units of local governments, districts, and nonprofit organizations. Units of local government are cities, counties, and cities/counties. District means any regional park or open-space district. District also means any other district wh~.ch is authorized by statute to operate and manage parks or recreational areas or facilities, ahd recreation services on lamas and facilities owned by the district, am allocates a substantial portion of its annual operating budget to parks arxi recreation, areas or facilities. Nonprofit organhization means any charitable organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code, which has among its primary purposes the conservation and preservation of wetlands or of lands predominantly in the~.r natural, scenic, h~.storical, agricultural, forested, or open-space oomition. Site Control: The applicant must either own the property or have sane operational control of the property. Ineligible Activities: Construction of new structures, including reconstruction of previously existing structures, will not be funded. G ~ Purpose of Grants Zhese statewide competitive grants are authorized for acquisition, development, rehabilitation, or i:estoration of h~.storical or archeological Historical and ArcheoloQic R~esouroes: resources. Grants are awarded for historical. and archeological resources, inclusive of, but not l vmited to, any building, structure, site areas, or place which are historically or archeologically significant, or are significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical ar~d archeological resources may be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Staten Historical Lanciznarks, or State Points of Historical Interests. Properties potentially eligible for listing on the National Register may also qual~.sy for the program. the National Register criteria ror evaluation are ident:itied in the application booklet or may be obta~.ned f ram the Off foe of Historic Preservation. Camnetitive Criteria: Zhe history znd archeology grant program is competitive. Zhe selection criteria include an assessment of` the property's significance and integrity, degree of project urgency and re=source protection, applicant's admuzistrative performance, impacrt on current preservation concerns. Request for Information : For copies of the application form, National Register Criteria, Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guicle fines for Historic Preservation Protects, Secretary of the Interior's Standards anr~ Guide~.ines for Archeoloc~ anti Historic Preservation, or for further information, contact: Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation P. 0. &>x 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-OOul (916) 445-8006 ~ o~ ~a~- , ~. • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: August 2, 1988 To: Elizabeth Ansnes Roy Cameron Warren Heid Norman Koepernik Sharon Landsness Bruce Mitchell Barbara Voester From: Don to son, Councilmember Subject: Historic Resources Inventory Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman I just finished wading through the new inventory. You are to be congratulated for completing such a thorough analysis of our historic heritage. Good work! jm cc: Valerie Young ~L` e o ~a~- __ ~~ ~ ~~~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman August 1, 1988 _ _ \ Dear Commissioner: The sixth annual recognition dinner honoring members of City Commissions in the City of Saratoga will be held on Tuesday, September 27, 1988. On behalf of the City Council, I-am very pleased to be able to invite you and your spouse or guest to join us. Please save the date. The dinner will be held. at the Saratoga .Country Club, 21990 • Prospect Road, at 6:30 p.m. Please respond to Jean Muser, 867- 3438, extension 16, by September 13th. Sincerely, Karen Anderson Mayor jm , ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 . (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUlV~ TO: Commission Chairs FROM: SUBJECT: Carolyn King, Administrative Assistant Commission Recognition Dinner Program DATE: July 25, 1988 The Council is again looking forward to the opportunity to show their appreciation to the various Commissioners who have contributed their time and efforts to the City. This year the Recognition Dinner will be held on Tuesday, September 27. We would like to incorporate into the program for the evening a short statement by the Commission Chairs. This should include a list of achievements over the past year and objectives for the coming year. • The program will be made available to the public as a way of sharing your accomplishments and future plans. It is important to have something from all the Commissions. Attached is a copy of the program from last year. We expect to follow the same format for this year's program. Please have your statement to me by September 6 for inclusion in the printed program. If you have any questions, please call me. Carolyn King mt Attachment CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July 6, 1988 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call (Introduction of new Commissioner) B. Approval of Minutes of 6/15/88 C. Posting of Agenda D. Oral and Written Communications II. NEW A. B. III. OLD A. BUSINESS Discussion on adobe wall at Casa Tierra, 15231 Quito Road - oral staff report Review and adoption of Heritage Commission bylaws BUSINESS Heritage Resource Inventory - follow-up IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION V. ADJOURNMENT • • ~Il~1C~~'C~~ • CITY OF SARATOGA • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 15 1988 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Heid, Cameron, Landsness, Absent: None Staff: V. Young Public: R. Tyrrell B. Approval of minutes of 6/1/88 Koepernik, Ansnes, Voester M/S Cameron/Ansnes to approve the minutes of 6/1/88 as submitted. Passed unanimously, Commissioner Voester abstaining. U C. Posting of Agenda Staff noted the agenda was posted at City Hall on Friday, June 10, 1988. D. Oral and Written Communications V. Young noted the letter in the packet from the owners of Kerwin Ranch, at the corner of Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues. No response is necessary. Chairman Heid noted he had received information on three potential Inventory properties from Mr. Arch Brolly. He noted that he had given the Inventory list to board members of the Saratoga Historical Foundation to review. II. New Business A. Review landmark alteration application for handicapped access ramp at Saratoga Historical Museum, Designated Landmark #7. V. Young gave a brief staff report on the application noting that it was a City project funded by HCD funds. No alterations were proposed for the structure itself. Commissioner Heid stated he would abstain from discussing and voting on the item because he prepared the plans for the project. Heritage Preservation Minutes - 6/15/88 • Commissioner Voester noted that there was an expressed need for the ramp and that the design was appropriate: to the structure. M/S Cameron/Koepernik to recommend to the Plar.~ning Director approval of the application based on the Commission's determination that the proposed work: is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the heritage preservation chapter of the City Code, and that the proposed work does not adversely affect and will. be compatible with the external appearance of the landmark and surrounding structures. Passed unanimously, Commissioner Heid abstaining. III. Old Business A. Heritage Resource Inventory Chairman Heid noted he had talked to Mrs. Gaspar, owner of the Paul Masson Hunting Lodge on Pierce Road, regarding the Inventory form for her property. Mr. Heid had made some corrections and additions to the form and given it to her to review; she had not submitted any comments. He also noted that he had sent a memo to all the Council members regarding the Commission's approach to adopting the Inventory. There was discussion on the order of the list. V. Young noted the list was in alphabetical order only for ease: in use by staff and the public; it could be reorganizeci for actual publication. There was consensus to adci an asterisk to the properties that are already Designated Heritage Landmarks, and to add the Selection Criteria to the list. M/S Voester/Land.sness to approve Resolution HP-88-0]L, a resolution of the Heritage Preservation Commission adopting the Heritage Resource Inventory on behalf oiE the City of Saratoga.,. based on the findings set forth in the resolution, with the addition of an asterisk identifying the Designated Landmarks and the Selection Criteria to the list. Passed unanimously. There was then discussion on the press release to be prepared and th.e letters to be sent to the property owners. Mr. Tyrrell addressed the Commission on this item, suggesting they prepare a "press kit" with a press release, photographs, etc. and that it be delivered personally to the: newspapers. Chairman Heid and Secretary Young will work on the press release. • Heritage Preservation Minutes - 6/1/88 IV. Items Initiated ~ the Commission Commissioner Voester noted that the Nelson Gardens General Plan Amendment application was to be heard by the City Council at this evening's meeting. Commissioner Ansnes expressed her support and appreciation of the assistance given to the Commission by Secretary Young and commended her for receiving one of the employee recognition awards. All other Commissioners concurred. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6 at the Warner Hutton House. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young Secretary to Commission ~Q~ o ~~B~Q~~ C B s 5~ 04 ~~~° BOO C~L~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: June 22, 1988 FROM: Valerie Young, Secretary to Commission SUBJECT: REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF HERITAGE COP~~IISSION BYLAWS One of the Heritage Commission's administrative work items for this year is the preparation and adoption of bylaws. Staff has prepared the attached draft bylaws which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. These bylaws closely reflect the organization and content of the Planning Commission bylaws which were adopted last year. The Commission should be prepared to discuss the bylaws, recommend • any changes or corrections, and adopt the bylaws by a motion and vote. u BYLAWS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA Section 1. Organization and Officers A. ORGANIZATION The Heritage Preservation Commission shall consist of ~ceven regular members and shall be organized and exercise such powers as prescribed by the Code of the City of Saratoga. B. OFFICERS 1. Selection a. A Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected annually from among the Commissioner's membership on or before January 31st. • b. Should a vacancy in any office occur, the Commi~csion shall elect a replacement officer at the next regular or noticed meeting to serve until the next annual elec:tion of officers. • c. In the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair, any other member shall call the Commission to order, whereupon a Chair shall be elected from the members present: to preside. 2. Responsibilities The responsibilities and powers of the officers of the Commission shall be as follows: a. Chair 1) Preside at all meetings of the Commission. 2) Call special meetings of the Commission in accordance with legal requirements and these by]~aws. 3) Sign documents of the Commission. 4) See that all actions of the Commission are proper. 5) Appoint committees as necessary. The Chair sha]Ll be an ex officio member of all committees with voice but not vote. • 1 Heritage Preservation Commission - Bylaws 6) Attend certain City Council meetings and other meetings or functions as the Commission's representative. 7) Communicate informally as necessary with the Mayor, City Council members and City Manager on certain Commission matters. 8) Write and approve letters on behalf of the Commission. b. Vice-Chair During the absence, disability, or disqualification of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities of the Chair. c. Secretary The Planning Director or his/her designee shall serve as the Secretary to the Commission, shall be the custodian of its records, shall conduct official . correspondence and shall generally supervise the clerical and technical work performed at the request or on the behalf of the Commission. C. POWERS AND DUTIES The Heritage Commission shall be advisory only to the City Council, the Planning Commission and the agencies and departments of the City, and shall establish liaison and work in conjunction with such authorities to implement the purposes of heritage preservation as outlined in the City Code. The Heritage Commission shall have the following powers and duties: 1) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing an official inventory of heritage resources. The inventory shall be publicized and periodically updated, and a copy thereof shall be kept on file in the Planning Department. 2) Recommend to the City Council specific proposals for designation as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. 3) Recommend to the appropriate City agencies or departments • projects and action programs for the recognition, conservation, enhancement and use of the City's heritage resources, including standards to be followed with respect 2 Heritage Preservation Commission - Bylaws • to any applications for permits to construct, change, alter, remodel, remove or otherwise affect such resources. 4) Review and comment upon existing or proposed ordinances, plans or policies of the City as they relate to heritage resources. 5) Review and comment on all applications for builc~ing, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, bui:Lding site approval, use permit, variance approval, design reaview or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecsting any heritage resource. The Commission's comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments. 6) Investigate and report to the City Council on the availability of federal, state, county-, local or private funding sources or programs for the rehabilitation and preservation of heritage resources. 7) Cooperate with the county, state and federal governments and • with private organizations in the pursuit of the objectives of heritage conser~-ation. 8) Upon the request of a property owner or occupant and at the discretion of the Heritage Commission, render advice and guidance on the conservation, rehabilitation, alteration, decoration, landsc:aping or maintenance of any heritage resource; such voluntary advice and guidance shall not impose any regulat:ion or control over any property. 9) Participate in, ~~romote and conduct public information and educational programs pertaining to heritage resources. 10) Perform such other functions as may be delegated to it by resolution or moti~~n of the City Council. Section 2. Meetings A. RULES OF ORDER Except as otherwise provided in these bylaws or in the Saratoga City Code, the lastest edition of "Robert's Rules of C-rder" shall be used as a guide to the conduct of the meetings of` the Commission provided, however, that the failure of the Commission to conform to said rules of order shall not, in any instar-ce, be• 3 • Heritage Preservation Commission - Bylaws deemed to invalidate the action taken. B. PUBLIC MEETINGS All meetings of the Commission shall be held in full compliance with the provisions of State law, ordinances of the City, and these bylaws. C. REGULAR MEETINGS 1) Regular meetings shall be held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 3:00 p.m. in a public place determined by the Commission. 2) Whenever a regular meeting falls on a public holiday, no regular meeting shall be held on that day. Such regular meeting may be rescheduled to another business day, or cancelled by a motion adopted by the Commission. D. SPECIAL MEETINGS Special meetings of the Commission ma: the call of the Chair or by a majority the Commission or upon request of the least 24 hours notice to each member the press. The time and place of the determined by the convening authority. E. STUDY SESSIONS/WORKSHOPS be held at any time upon of the voting members of City Council following at of the Commission and to special meeting shall be The Commission may be convened as a whole the-Whole in the same manner as prescribed special meeting for the purpose of holdi: workshop, provided that no official action quorum shall be required. Such meetings public. F. AGENDA or as a Committee-of- for the calling of a ng a study session or shall be taken and no shall be open to the 1. An agenda for each meeting of the Commission shall be prepared by the Planning Director or his/her staff. 2. A copy of the agenda shall be posted on the kiosk located near the main entrance of City Hall at least 72 hours prior to the time of each meeting. 3. A matter may be continued or deleted from the agenda, but no item shall be added to the agenda and no decision shall be made with respect to a matter which is not on the agenda, • except under circumstances permitted by State law. 4 Heritage Preservation Commission - Bylaws • G. VOTING 1. Voting Requirements a. A quorum shall ~~onsist of four members. b. The affirmative vote of a majority of the quorums is necessary for i•t to take action. c. When a member of the Commission abstains from voting on any matter before it because of a potential conflict: of interest, said vote shall not constitute nor• be considered as either a vote in favor of or opposition to the matter bein~~ considered. 2. Recording Of Votes The minutes of the Commission's proceeding-shall show the vote of each membber, including if they were absent. or abstained from voting on a matter considered. 3. Disqualification From Voting A member shall disqualify her/himself from voting in accordance with tlhe City's Conflict of Interest Code: or when a disqualification is required by State law. When a person disqualifies her/himself, (s)he shall state prior to the consideration of such matter by the Commission that (s)he is disqualifying her/himself due to a possible conflict of interest and shall then leave the voting area. H. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS The following steps are normally appropriate for regular Commission meetings: 1) Call the meeting to order promptly at the appointed houz• (if a quorum exists.) 2) Roll call. Ask the staff to call the roll. ~ • 3) Minutes. Note the :minutes on the agenda and, unless changes 'are necessary, ask for a motion to approve them. Voice vote is sufficient. 4) Communications. Announce that this is the time on the agenda that any member of the audience may comment on any matter which is not listed on the agenda. A time limit: may be imposed by the Chair on such oral communications. Commissioners and the Secretary may also present written • communications at this time. 5 Heritage Preservation Commission - Bylaws 5) Old and new Business. Announce the item and ask the Secretary to present the Staff Report. Ask the Commission if they have questions. a) If the item involves an application, invite the applicant to speak. Then invite others to speak. Turn the item over to the Commission for discussion. b) If the item involves a vote, Commissioners should make a motion and a second; the Chair should restate the motion or get confirmation from the Commission that everyone is clear on the motion prior to voting. Call for the question (vote.) Following the voting, announce the Commission's action to the audience. Indicate whether the action is final or whether it is a recommendation to the City Council, Planning Commission, or Planning Director. 6) Adjournment. The meeting shall be formally adjourned by the Chair. Unless otherwise specified, the meeting shall be adjourned to the next regular meeting of the Commission. • • 6 • ~~~ n r ~ -~ T~G~ 1;3777 1~ItUI'1'V~1.1? :1V1?NU1~: ~Alt.~1"1'UGA, C:1LII~OItNI~~ 05070 (•lUt3) ki(i7-:i•1:3f3 IV~~ 1Vr~~,Al~~-YJ1V~ TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: June 27, 1988 FROM: Heritage Preservation Commission SUBJECT: Temporary sign for Warner Hutton House As you are aware, the Warner Hutton House on Sousa Lane will be moved to the Civic Center site next to Wildcat Creek sometime this fall. The Heritage Commission has been monitoring the progress of the relocation and would like to place a temporary sign at the Civic Center site announcing to the public that the house is coming and will be located there. Section 15-30.180 of the City Code enables the Council to grant temporary special permits for such signs. The Commission will be soliciting volunteer assistance for the design and construction of the sign, so they do not anticipate any cost to the City. The proposed location and a simple sketch of the anticipated design are shown on the attached diagram. The sign would be modest in size (15-20 sq. ft.) and height. It would be rempved when the house is relocated. Valerie You Secretary to Heritage Commission ~~ w r ~. ..~ 1 ~~ r l` ti,, ~i~F ~ ~~ i G 9[. r ~ ~- 5~ ~ti\ r I ~ ••~~ ~ ~~iti~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ rf .. ~UYURE IfiDME OG 11~ I~rRN~1Z ~UTf D N - r_ nn ,~ y Y a ~ ... ~ c a v ,N L 'n ~ '> w ~~ `/; .~ ~ s ,. T :,Y, ^, i i,t, '~ [' ',~ L i~~ ,~ ~ ? ~~~.f1;1. ~~ ~ S t n w c ~ E I ~ ~~ 4m ux -- ~ s r 7 . ~ ~ j C! ' .1. " [~l~[1~Jnw y 1 n~ to 'a~n . ~ ~' ~n Z c LQ ~~ - :` ~ fti a m ~ ~s . v" Wx V WY O .. i .- C ~ t:' , F. h [ '•: r/ F' . A' i:' >' r7~*' FY FI(~'~Y.~ i` F ~~ d ~sE3 ~i vG+•oi~.a~l~~i~~ea R^+~ett c:.si~:l~.i Yd~aas•_t eri v~s9 ~ii~cJ ~i c'~c:_'c ~J Ct Q:~. Main Street News ~ ~~~ ~~ :; ~ ~: ~~trtt"•~-.. ,t j - 1 s Tci~,.t~ ~ 6M~ rlt~1~~ ~z <. 3 ~ ~ ~~~ i -. .~.-,."may. ~, ~ •vr•a ; ~t ~ ~v~°. ~ t.~ - _ a [ '~- •4' ~~~.` ~i.._ j l: _ •~ "4~ .'F .yam `~)~ y (~.:~h. wt M1~t,jr _ ,--,~ ~.`__~s~~ 7F1.. ~. yam,,,, ~~-:,,,-' 7-~ "+~ ~~~~~S„?,,,a~Cq~p spy ~~ ~ ~ Rj. .~! ~]I .-. f ~~ t F. w i''.~~~,,.~[ s 'Plr '~r~y~i~l~y~^^JJ~:: ~'c ~J 1~~ r 5~ ~ ~ ~s~"' _ i ~ '`.r ~7'''~~~]]]~~ ~~L ,.r~~.ti1 ~i .*rv~~'} 1 ^,. K~~l 1~.~ ~ _ .E ,~ A . 'Yr~ " Yeti ~ e~l {,jam' S ~ ]y~ ~G e ~~R ~. V G?~f ~^{.1~ ~ ,~i ~ ~t, raft .. rz,~ ~, y}µ 4 , t ,.,, ~ ~ ~ F y,~ ~ r ~ ~ ~'F~ : ~ ~ " ~ -` ~? i ~. etc° ~ ^ barked on the back lots of Holly- found that location shooting is Doughboys parado ~~ ~~~s~eC~~s ^ wood or on the streets of big no longer the budget-busting, Gast tte ~~~'~~~ ~~ ~~~~ cities like New York or Chicago. red-tape headache it used to be. Nlaxahaehie, Tcx.~ coarthouse duriu But more and more, movie direc- The enthusiasm of both au- ire diming of 1918, ~~~~~ tors are setting their crews and thorities and local communities alerting hRatthew actors in motion on Main Street. in welcoming visiting film Broderick. (sexes Steve Goff According to the July 1987 crews has resulted in an explo- filmlR;usie Qtiice) "Lights! Camera! Action!" It issue of American Film, "Over sion of interest in shooting out- used to be that this famous the last 10 years, an increasing side Hollywood." three-word directive was only number of filmmakers have Writer-producer Douglas Cur- Paa1 hetvrnan ar:~' feliaw attars trca seers in tierry s; Sc.7, liir~~ Ei s censtructi~n site i7 dewrtcwn l2ac 1'tkJri, Fta. (lay ~tirt5 Illsis Street Prot°a~,) F;In:rta~ers used s cid 1QG8G~u rtarehouse is downtcwn Yii!s9i , t~.C., to til;a parts cl tee mceie Summer Neat, starrir~ pnLhcny Edwares. (Lisa 4ey~in Batts, Yr7;sa7 Gary Tire) tis says, "If I make a movie in Lawrence, Kansas (which he did), people are glad to see me come. They're still excited by the fact you're making al movie in their backyard acid there's significant economic impact." Lawrence is a Main Street town where four feature or "made for television" (MFT) films have been shot since 1982. The town found out, though, that not all movies shot: in the community will highlight its beauty or uniqueness. An MFT film, "The Day After," depicted the chilling effects of t:he nu- clear bombing of Lawrence (no real harm done, thanks to spe- cial effects. A second film, Nice Girls Don't Explode, whose plot remains a mystery even now, was shot in Lawrence and uti- lized ... well, I guess ...nice girls. Even though these filnns have a certain dubiousness about them, the folks in Lawrence laughed all the way to the bank. According to the Lawrence County Visitor's BureaLi, "The Day After" producers spent $2 million in the local area, and Nice Girls ...injected $1 mil- lion into the economy. R s e°., ~~~: ~~~~ ~~~~~''c~aE~y Filmmaking is storytell- ing; romances, comedies, _ westerns, historical dra- "~' mss and humor and ad- venture stories are just some of the types of films that can be made on Main Street. It is this variety of opportunity, this matching of story to locale, that make your chances of success- fully bringing a movie shoot to your town part luck and part preparation. There is one Main Street town in Texas that has taken a touch of luck and mixed it with a whole lot of preparation to be- come known as "The Best Little Hollywood in Texas" and "vintage America in mint condi- tion." Waxahachie has been the site of more than 15 feature films, including academy award winners, The Trip to Bountiful, Places in the Heart and Tender Mercies. According to the Los Angeles Times, "This town of 17,300 is getting used to the sight of production crews filming in the house next door or on the square around the imposing, Roman- esque county courthouse. The lure is the neighborhoods. State- ly gingerbread houses that line tree-shaded streets and a re- stored town square make Waxa- hachie aperfect setting for turn- of-the-century period movies." Debra Wakeland of the Waxa- hachie Convention and Visitor's Bureau says, "The Main Street program was the beginning of our success. If the renovation of downtown buildings had not taken place, we would have missed out on most of the movies because all of them have been filmed using the down- town area." Besides the millions of dollars spent by production companies on everything from meals and motel rooms to lumber, paint and clothing, Waxahachie has seen other benefits. The Los Angeles Times continues, "Howard Rainey's Furniture Store has a new coat of paint be- cause the producers of "Peyton Place-The Next Generation," an MFT movie, wanted it a different color. They repainted it to Rainey's specifications when the shooting was completed." , The movies first came to Wax- ahachie in 1967, when Bonnie and Clyde was partially shot there. That was the result of luck. Since that time the -town has been doing what it can to capture film productions by preparation. The community pays $2,500 in annual dues to the North Texas Film Com Sion to keep its name in fron~ movie producers and directors. It has also put together a book on local movie resouirces such as contractors, carpenters, actors, electricians, etc. As you can see, the welcome malt is out in Waxahachie. Director David Anspaugh, who directed Hoosiers, was searching for the right restau- rant-grill to use for scenes in his upcoming movie Fresh Horses, a soon-to-be-released film star- ring Molly Ringwald and An- drew McCarthy. By chance, Ans- paughfound himself in the Main Street town of Covington, Ky. He walked into W'iggs Grill on Madison Avenue in the heart of downtown, lookedl around and declared, "This is it!"Not exact- ly the old chance discovery of a starlet at the local soda fountain, but it does show the part luck plays in site locations. Besides feature films and MFT movies, avariety of'other profe. - sional filming occurs on M~ Street. Manassas, Va., watched as much of their downtown and train station were used in film- ing the music viiieo of Steve Winwood's "Back in the High .Life." Bristol, Tenn., saw a film pro- duction crew spend more than $240,000 in their community during the making of a commer- cial for the fruit drink "Slice." Downtown Carlisle, Pa., be- came a soundstage for a full day as shooting took place for a national Merrill Lynch commercial. a.•^-q ~ ~Y.~~~a9 of iqP ,'°`i ago ?~'G~dlJieabE:v - Despite the rewards, making movies on Main Street does ]lave its draw- - backs. The hassles that come with the presence of a film crew are all short-term prob- lems, but you need to be aware of them just the same. The biggest problem for :.~. town usually involves closing major streets, including Main Street. Depending on what needs to be filmedf, your down- . town could be disrupted for two or three days. Most film crews work with city officials on this •ssue and try to do as much Saturday, early morning or late night shooting as possible. Several towns have reported difficulties in dealing with tem- peramental film crews and art- ists. If some of the movie people seem annoyed by being in a small town for a long time and act unpleasantly, my advice would be to grin and bear it, make them comfortable and spend their out-of-town dollars with an extra touch of relish. ~~ C0~€3~~ ~~~~;~ '' .The economic impact of ""' the dollars spent by a film crew in your town or state "._: goes beyond the gross dol- lar amount spent. For example, the Kentucky Main Street Newsletter estimates that $1.7 million was spent during the two months that filming for Fresh Horses was under way in Covington. The estimate in- cludes money spent on food, ~odging, supplies and other ex- penses. Because out-of-town money changes hands several times before leaving the area, the Kentucky Department of the Arts uses a multiplier of 2.5 to deduce the total economic im- pact of the production crew's visit, which came to $4.25 million. States vary on how to measure this impact, but regardless of ~~~_~ r ._ ..__ __ ____ ~~ ! ~ - ~~ .. how it is measured, it is signifi- cant. Most states use a multi- plier of between 2.5 and 3.5 to indicate dollar turnover. Others figure that anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of a film's total bud- get is left behind in the filming -locale. The most detailed study we found on the economic impact of a film on a local economy comes from the Arizona Office • of Economic Planning and De- velopment. It looked at the eco- ,nomic impact of the filming of the "Oregon Trail" television series on the Flagstaff, Ariz., economy. The state was assisted by the auditing department of Universal Picture Studios. BAs the study was done in the late 1970s, we have adjusted for in- Elation so the figures are in 1988 dollars. See chart at right.) Local banks can also receive business from a movie produc- 'tion. According to Paul Maslan- sky, producer of the PoliceAcad- emy movies, when a film is in production, money is being spent at the rate of $4,000 to $5,000 an hour. He says, "Dur- ing preproduction, a local bank will have been selected because of its reputation and conve- nience to the location. The bank is usually delighted because hav- ` ing a movie company's account is glamorous and means $1.6 to $2 million worth of activity cir- culating through the bank for the six weeks we're shooting our $4 million picture." ~~\ \~ ~.-- _ . .. ., Direct Expenditures Contract construction Transportation and communication Eating and drinking establishments Furniture, home furnishings Hardware and building materials Gasoline service stations Apparel and accessories Miscellaneous retail stores Hotels and motels Personal and business services Recreation and amusement services including house rentals Health services Electrical and repair services Salaries paid to local residents (actors, drivers, secretaries, labor 2,970 11,800 167,850 5,835 21,720 20,210 2,010 10,415 209,810 2,290 40,850 650 8,900 332,520 Total direct expenditures $837,880 Indirect Expenditures Adding in indirect expenditures, the total eco- nomiceffect on the community was $1.4 million. Some indirect expenditures used to compute this figure include: Wholesale $ 24,100 Department stores 4,000 Restaurants and bars 240,210 Food stores 58,100 Automotive sales, parts 40,570 Clothing 10,000 Total indirect expenditures $376,900 _, R ,. a ''j Cfa~ lies: 1 ~:' . Most states have a film 3 ~<. commission housed in `~-~ the state department of economic development. You should make a point of finding out which department in the state government is working with filmmakers because it is here that the hunt for locations begins. Usually a filmmaker will contact a few states that he or she thinks could provide loca- tions for the film, although states are becoming aggressively competitive in promoting their particular advantages to film- makers and studios. A moviemaker will then send a shooting script to the state film commission. The commis- sion reviews the script to see what types of locations are called for and begins to match stc,ry to locale. This is done in one of two ways: Either the commission selects pictures of sites that match the script from A 1.:;^ cre:e ygli. reh~y to sce^_: SCe??e G`i 18~f:; $[Peei i?~ f^^1 HC2L, ma~in~ Qi t?e m~eie Ba~:;r. ~ rsiLh rh- 6f~Or. (I'ei!deCl~~u Ceara; fiic: 11on?CIISSIUn) an inventory of thousands of photographs from all over the state; or they scout and photo- graph alocation that is not on file. The chosen photos are sent to the moviemakers, and if they like the match their representa- tives will visit the site to make the final decision about filming there. As you can see, to be included in the site selection process you must make your local film com- mission aware of what your town's got. Andy Spaulding, di- rector of the Virginia Film Of- fice, says it is important to communicate to film offices the architectural integrity of your town. "It is a real asset to my office to have this kind of infor- mation," he says. Texas Film Commission As- sistant Director Tom Copeland readily concurs. In fact, his staff has had such success with Main Street towns that they automat- ically visit each one to photo- graph the town, talk to commu- nity leaders about its overall potential and familiarize them with how the commission works. In many cases, he says, these visits have provided the incentive to get some needed design work accomplished. ~ OL-J $~f;, ~~~la~ ~f~E~$ Remember the four ..~ .points of the Main ~~ Street approach and em- ~tl~..~I - ;,: Iflllltl if ~ '• "~ '' P~~ ~~ ;~ ~'~! ~ ~~~' :~~w~ dt „~ ~I,~~ ~ ' ;~;,•: .. ~. ~::--~ . ~~~_ r ploy them to help put your town in the movies. Organization. Talk ~~ith your state film commission about which local resources could help land a film. The Main :itreet or- ganization should take the lead in working with the chamber of commerce to compile a list of these resources, which might include any of the following local services: hotels and mo- tels, catering, contractors, ani- malrental and training, aviation services, advertising, costume rental, dry cleaning, .floral de- sign, make-up, portable toilets, vehicle leasing and weather in- formation. If you are serious about being movie-ready, com- piling this type of information can help. New Mexico, for in- stance, puts out a Nevi Mexico Film and Video Persom~el/Busi- ness Directory. You sh~~uld also talk with the film commission about visiting your town to pho- tograph it for their files. Design. Without a doubt, this is the most important factor in attracting a film crew Identify downtown blocks and buildings that are in good design shape and add them to your list oi' resourc- es. Keep your state film commis- sion informed about downtown design projects as they happen. This includes facade renova- tions aswell aspublic a:nd water- front improvements. ]Don't be afraid to use the possit:ility of a movie coming to town to push a design project to completion. Promotion. Let the state film commission know about any annual festivals or special events held downtown. Supply them with photographs that show the uniqueness and/or re- gionalism of your event. A film could use your actual event or have you restage it. Quiz: In the movie, True Stories, a parade was filmed in McKinney, Tex. Was it real or staged?~ When the film is completed, don't forget to promote your town as a movie site. If your town already has a filmmaking heritage, why not celebrate it with a downtown promotion? Sonora, Calif., was the site of more than 100 silent films shot between 1920 and 1928. Next year the town plans on holding a film festival based on the west- erns shot there. In Carlisle, Pa., an early 1960s episode of the TV series "Route 66," which was shot there, has been located and is now showing at the local college and library Economic restructuring. Here is where some of your current liabilities can enjoy moments as assets. In Wilson, N.C., under- utilized tobacco warehouses were used in the film, Summer Heat. Beth Jasper, director of the Ar- kansas Motion Picture Develop- ment Office, says that iri many cases vacant properties are a plus because the filmmaker can make building changes easily and it costs less than dealing with an occupied business that would have to close during filming. Sometimes improvements made by a film company or the sudden celebrity status of prop- erty can cause it to be occupied shortly after the film crew leaves town. A movie filmed in your town will generate pride, enthusiasm and, in many cases, significant dollars for the local community. So put your best facades forward, blow your horn and we'll see you, or your town, ax the movies! Steve Goif is a program associate wit}t the National Main Street Center. Tss hcasv, 82~?rc~. I~ t^2 leto~:il 5:,~. U.G.) hSar. ~t~:~. I."s~11'a E~OS£'"' Ere R.^i[-r?a h°^:_ o-~ri:~^ ilr!~:-. (~,tcwn $EC`;r~ • ~ouies ~~n fNain s~~ In addition to those mentioned i list of movies made in Main Stre filming that has been done in }' APIi008 `Wilcox ]Florence . ]Flagstaff and Presco i 'Yuma Mk8nS8S Camden CellloPnlB ]Fort Bragg ]Petaluma flOPide ]Lake Worth• CeOPgie ;[tome and Carters~• 88xieii ]Hilo IOdi808 lBloomington Illin018 ~foliet MisEi88ippl :Natchez NeW MeaiCO Las Vegas BOPtlI CBPOli08 Wadesboro Shelby Wilson OPegOn Astoria SOefJ! C8P011n8 Beaufort Te0nesaee Bristol TeaaB Waxahachie McKinney YPgI8i8 Fredericksburg Petersburg W8861ng100 Port Townsend MFr =Made for televf ;Ya:.. ;al tam ~.,rit CiRKi, Nar.ona! Trust tnr F!au;r.c 1'rc:rrcar,:n; It e article, the following is a partial ,wns. Please let us know about any town. Code of Vengeance Murphy's Romance Over the Top Rambo III A Soldier's Story Racing with the Moon, Overboard Peggy Sue Got Married, American Graffiti, Howard the Duck Heai The Mosquito Coast Black Widow Breaking Away The Blues Brothers "North and South" ~MFT~, Crossroads Red Dawn, Silverado The Color Purple Reuben, Reuben Summer Heai The Goonies The Big Chill, The Great Santini The River ]918 True Stories "George Washington" ~MFT~ "Gore Vidal's Lincoln" ~MFT~, "Murder of Mary Phagan" 1 An Officer and a Gentleman ~( r w p ~~~~~c~ ~p3~~ ~~9~~' ~Gfs~d ~A~C~~ui~ti:% Carl Kaderi "We've tried everything. " °Prices are too high down town. " "This is the way we've always done it." "We can't compete with the big boys at the mall. " ... The first thing that greeted me when I started work as Main Street project manager in Porter- .. wille, Calif., was the negative attitude of many merchants and ~, shoppers. They didn't believe anything positive was possible. And to make matters worse, they soon began asking, "When are we going to see results?" Realizing the need to change .. attitudes as quickly as possible, I decided to investigate their claim that prices were too high .downtown. The local newspaper ,~- agreed to help with a shopping survey comparing downtown .prices of 70 brand-name items with their costs at the mall. On the day after Thanksgiving, I ::went to the mall in the morning and checked the prices of all 70 . items; that afternoon, I shopped fpr the same products down- town. The results, verified and ieported by the newspaper, re- vealed that in every case, prices were cheaper downtown. The story gave people their first im- pression of Main Street Porter- ville-a positive one! The success of the survey led me to consider other ways of helping Porterville's merchants and reversing negative attitudes. ~~;'4"'"id ~4iYe~~Yi~ I~t~i3 ~{I~~~J ~_ : My first .effort was to hold seminars on adver- tising and retailing, but I -. .. quickly found out that this method wasn't going to work. Many merchants just did not show up for the seminar, wliile those that did refused to ask questions or identify their problems. I was trying to think of a solution for this problem one day when I passed by a video store and the light went on: What if we could develop a training video for retailers along with a workbook they could keep. The problem of funding seemed the only drawback to this idea. Since Main Street Por- terville did not have the money for such a project, I applied to the Tulare County Private Industry Council and received a $7,000 grant to produce the videos. The first program, on advertising, has been completed and four others-store planning (interior layouts and merchandise dis- plays; merchandise assortment planning; how to start a small business; and how to develop a business plan-are currently in progress. The video offers a good way to introduce retailers to effective advertising concepts, but the training does not end there. Af- ter the merchants view the pro- gram, Main Street Porterville works with them individually to get a feel for their problems and answer any questions they might have about how to imple- ment the techniques shown on the tape. The advertising video also re- sulted in another training tool- amodel store. A section of the video discusses the importance of a store's appearance, from exterior to interior. In visits to individual stores, I found it diffi- cult to explain to owners on shoestring budgets how they could make their stores attrac- tive. One of our merchants seemed to have a good grasp of this concept, so together we remodeled his store, The Fash- ion Network, to help other re- tailers learn the basics of inte- rior merchandising. Among the store's features are a window display that is changed every three weeks and interior displays that not only show merchandise to -its best advantage but also group related items to encourage greater sales. `''~ ~~t~~~~~ t ~e .n,r;~ ft~;e~>> _ ~~aitE:iy..e:~;: _ Once Porterville's mer- ` chants began thinking -, positively about their stores and their products, it seemed time to begin some ag- gressive marketing. Main Street is no longer competing just with the malls; increasingly, direct mail and shop-at-home services on television are drawing away customers as well. To combat this problem, Main Street Por- terville created its own video catalog in conjunction with the local cable TV station. The first step in developing the catalog was to lay some ground rules. It was decided that presentations should be kept to one minute, describe only one item and represent a good value to the customer. Next came the hard part~onvincing retailers to participate. Eventually 30 downtown mer- chants agreed to give it a try. I worked with each one on a script and then we scheduled practice sessions at the television sta- tion. Although at first many of the merchants froze up, got lost in their scripts and sometimes even forgot the names of their stores, the whole process was great fun. What emerged was not a slick Warner Brothers production but a good homegrown two-hour video shopper. And in two ses- sions, the program produced 179 orders for downtown busi- nesses. Currently, we plan to use the video catalog to kick off the Christmas shopping season each year. One of the major advantages of this form of television adver- tisingwas its low cost. The price fora 30-second ad was only $8, while cone-minute spot cost $13. For an additional $135, the local cable TV company will film on location. Thus, aone- minute on-location segment would cost $45-$5 per 30 sec- onds and $35 for use of the production unit. Porterville merchants learned some interesting lessons from this experiment. They found out that part of the program's cost could be paid for by co-op adver- tising and that some of their suppliers offer premade videos that they can use in other types of TV advertising. Most impor- tantly, Porterville's merchants discovered a way to reintroduce themselves to their customers. Making a personal appeal on television is a natural extension of the downtown retailer's best selling tool. It's a form of person- al service. The customer deals directly with the owner and that creates an important image for any shopping district. x y~7 ' ~ ~~t~n~ti~ t~n~;E ~at Convincing mer- ±' u 3 _^~. ~ °;;, ; chants that they ( should work to- =-1 ~ gether to promote the downtown can be like pull- ingteeth inmany small commu- nities. Everyone has a different idea about what to do and when to do it. In Porterville, we looked for a common denominator that would convince merchants to advertise under the Main Street banner. We came up with an End of the Month Sale (EOM. The EOM program served two purposes: It provided a means of clearing out merchandise in a timely manner; and it offered a way for downtown businesses to advertise under a unified format. A contract was drawn up requir- ing each retailer to advertise once a month, use a standard format and offer merchandise that represented at least a 30 percent savings for the consum- er. The agreement also stipu- lated that each EOM sale would last two days, that each business could advertise one item or product line and that retailers must have enough merchandise to cover their ads. To promote the sale, we worked out a special price with the newspaper, which agreed to create an advertising format for each event and submit it to our promotions committee for ap- proval. Main Street Porterville backed up this ad with radio and television spots and also pro- vided window banners for re- tailers to use during the event. The net result was awell-orga- nized retail promotion program thac produces good sales for the entire downtown. The Main Street approach rec- ommends starting with small, easily achievable projects that not only produce tanl;ible re- sults but also rebuild pride and confidence in the downtown. Main Street Porterville's suc- cessful retail assistance pro- grams prove that the incremen- tal, self-help Main Street meth- odology works-and that it doesn't require a huge invest- ment of money. Carl Kaden is project mama,cr of Main Street Porteryilic, l;lc. Porterville, a community cf al- most 20,000, is one of 10 towns participating in the G3fifornia Itilain,Strcet Program. F' A I-FE:i F;-t,D ~; {~~~k~~~~~E~ It9ain 5'treet ~'~'ews is published h}' the National Nlain Street Net- woric, amembership program of the National Main Street. Center, National Trust for Historic Pres- ervation, 1785 Massachusetts Av- enue, N.~i!, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 673-4219. J. Jackson ~4'alter, President, Na- tionalTrust for Historic F'reser~~a- tior, Sally Oldham, Vice Presiciert of Programs and Services Scutt Gerloff, Director, National Main Street Center Linda Glisson, Editor Suzaruie llare, Associate Editor The National Trust is the only national, private nonprofit orga- nization chartcrc:3 by Conress tc~ encourage public participation in the preservation of sites, build- ings and objects significant ir. American history and culture. Support for the National Trust i provided by membership dues, endowment funds, contributions and matching grants from federal agencies, including the tJ.S. De- partment of the Interior, hational Pori; Service, under provisions of the National Historic P:rescrva- tion Act of 196!,. The c:~pinions expressed in this pubIicaaion do not necessarily reflect the views or pidicies of the Interior Uepart- ment. ,. ,_ f,' '. a'"t ~ ._ ~L ~~. N~k sr4 k1~ 4^ ~G~i :t ~~ > . ~"` ~' "`~ . ~ - r Com lementar businesses ,'~-s _ were highlighted in a crew joint ret il ti ,.~ „-. a promo on spons _ `~~-`~' by the Livermore (Calif ) Main ~"~~''' r . . .Street Pro ect. The event called .., r--~ -~-, ,: `:,.-,-' "Deck the Halls," was a show- "CVC~~~BY'4~. :~~ y~~ case of interior design services ++.~ ~, and merchandise offered by a •~., ~ -~~ ,. wide selection of downtown pr-t...:.. :~ businesses. ~~~,:~ :~k~:a;~:~:._ Using an upper-story apart- ment in a historic downtown ' building, a local interior design- ,,.. ,~;..:..,,... er created a homey setting with ss~' s '""'"' furniture, carpets, draperies, _, ~,~.> . ~~ ~ wall coverings, accessories, "'"~" -` '~x~.. rran.. =~ flowers and plants contributed . ~:,.:~. <.:.:,v.. ~~ __ ' by 18 downtown stores. When ~;~~~ ~,:vi..,~;, the interior desil;n was com- °F°"'^ 4,~..,:~,~;;..:: leted the a artment was fur- P. P ~ they decorated for t:he Christmas "'~-=--~"`=° ~^ ~~ ~z-y holidays. ' .~Y "Deck the Halls" was pre- ~r - w _: viewed on a Thursday evening in u ~,,, ' .November. Then,, the design ° 'y~=•M-- showcase was opened to the '"~'~ ~" ~.. ,~. . public that weekend and the ~•• ..,-. •~-' following Thursday evening and j..~~. ~.. ~ ~- 4 ~ ~ ~ weekend. The price of admis- =~' ` ~ , slop was a $3 donation to~ i .~,.~ ~ p ' '' ~ ~ L vermore Main Street Pro '~' ~ ~ ''~'~- Project Manager Jeff Eichen- fieldsays the Main Street project netted $1,600 from the event. Not only was it profitable, but the showcase also "went a long way toward helping us build a quality image for our down- town," said Eichenfield, adding, "It also generated a lot of inter- est in downtown living and up- per-floor conversions."-S. D. (submitted by Jefj` Eichenfield, project manager, Livermore (Calif.) Main Street Project) C~{~J~;-[p(per({({a/y~~~~~~5Je?~~a±.~[n~~ E[~XS ~s[~.~.~ ^r C4^:'•. .. fY 9iG HS3i VYY~L iW ~ ^~I ~YaG ~~~Ci ~r.•ng~.a .~YiisE~t:: - ' 'Most people tend to associate the name "Oklalhoma" with wide open space:; where the wind comes sweeping down the plain. There are, however, other wide open spaces that are grow- ing innumber, not only in Okla- ' homa's downtowns, but in b~ ness districts throughout t._ country. As retailing practices change and economic bases - transform, wide open spaces are resulting when local and chain department stores vacate their downtown buildings. "These 50-foot wide store- ~onts, often extending as far:as 40 feet deep, more than likely become white elephants that everyone would like to forget," says Susie Clinard, state coordi- nator of the Oklahoma Main Street Program (OMSP~. But, rather than ignore the problem, OMSP asked Professor Am Hen- derson at the University of Oklahoma, School of Architec- ture if his students could study the problem of large vacancies downtown and offer workable solutions. Henderson, an award- winning preservation architect, was eager to have his fall 1987 historic preservation seminar address the problems of wide open downtown spaces. The objectives of the architec- tural projects to be undertaken by the students were: ^ incorporating small busi- nesses into large buildings that had been formerly used as de- partment stores ^ sensitively adapting the aces with respect to the origi- al architectural materials and details ^ authentically restoring the fa- cades of the buildings ^ developing plans for these buildings that could also serve as guidelines for similar projects Working with Clinard and Ron Frantz, the state Main Street architect, Henderson se- lected Pawhuska, one of the 1987 Oklahoma Main Street towns, as the site for the stu- dents' projects. Pawhuska is a town of 4,500 people located 45 minutes north of Tulsa in north- east Oklahoma. It sits amidst beautiful, rolling, tall grass prai- ries that support cattle ranches and oil exploration. Pawhuska is the Osage County seat and the capital for the Osage Indian Nation. The town was chosen for sev- eral reasons: a 101-building Na- tional Register district has been designated; streetscape draw- ~gs and design guidelines have een developed; and the 1910-1930 Plains Commercial buildings have been relatively unaltered. Additionally, many of the buildings, ranging from two to five stories, are vacant and for sale. The academic designs could be used as marketing tools to attract investors interested in using the 20 percent tax credits on buildings with asking prices that range from $1 to $5 per square foot. To acquaint the students with historic preservation principles and practices as well as down- town issues, a series of speakers from the staff of the OMSP, Oklahoma Historic Society and the state historic preservation office discussed subjects ranging from the four-point Main Street approach to Oklahoma's archi- tectural history and rehabilita- tion tax credits. In addition, Pawhuska Main Street Project Manager Jane Finley took the students on tours of the down- town and its buildings. After orientation two projects were selected and the students were divided into work teams. One group faced the challenge of designing a new use for an emp- ty J.C. Penney department store. The team's solution transforms the large ground-level space into seven smaller commercial spaces, the rear mezzanine into a restaurant and the second floor into a large, airy loft apartment. The design assignment in- cluded developing a name and logo that had historical ties to Pawhuska. The students suggest calling the mixed-use project The Penny Market, a derivative of the original business name associated with the building. A logo of an Indian-head penny, which was in circulation at the time Pawhuska was developed, ties into the building name, as well as to the strong local Osage Indian culture. The Penny Market plans will be used as a marketing tool to attract an owner. The other team of students selected The Mercantile Build- ing for their project as it offered an opportunity to extend the project outside the building. Just as they began work, the struc- ture was purchased by a mer- chant. The students worked with the new owner to develop plans for her business. The team's plans for the typ- icalearly 20th-century, red brick building call for the reconstruc- tion of all missing architectural elements, including a central stairway entrance. The entire facade would be cleaned of white paint, restoring the origi- nal brick. Inside, the ground floor would be divided in half with a com- binationbook and antiques shop on one side of the building and a restaurant on the other. A cen- tral dog-leg staircase would lead to the second floor where the two front rooms could be either extensions of the restaurant or retail spaces. The back half of the second floor has been de- signed with two two-bedroom apartments, each with private entrances at the rear of the building. The team's proposal also suggests converting an ad- joining 50-by-90-foot vacant lot into a landscaped plaza with dining areas. Both teams of students pro- duced highly sophisticated uses that were not only sympathetic with the architectural character, but were also within realistic budgets. The plans are flexible enough that owners of white elephants in Pawhuska and the other nine Oklahoma Main Street towns are beginning to think differently about their wide open spaces downtown. In fact, one town has since convert- ed a 50-foot storefront that had a similar floor plan as The Penny Market. submitted by Ronald H. Frantz, AIA, Architect, Okla- homa Main Street Program ;,,j K ~.~ 1 ~' ` , -~ ~•~ ~'.q• - ,~ i - __ ~~; ~-. . ;,,~~ , ~_ ; ` _4~:A,- ~'~:~ - ~::,~._; 1~~~'` ~~~;~:. `~-` _.< ~: =~~~ fi>~""',. r~~~.' .. ,~, . t., ~~: ,~, ~:::; ~_• . Massachusetts, one of the six original demonstration ;states, has renewed its partnership with the National Main Street Center. Together, the Mas:>achu- setts Main Street Program, housed in the state's Executive Office of Communities and De- velopment, and the NMSC will provide technical assista~ice to seven cities in 1988. Using a competitive selection process, Massachusetts chose five small cities and two urban centers for this round of tech- nical assistance. The five small cities are Chelsea (pop. 2;1,431), Franklin (pop. 20,005j, (sreen- field (pop. 18,456, Peabody (pop. 45,976) and Taunton (pop. 45,001 ~. These communities will re- ceive amatching grant from the state to pay the salary and bene- fits of a full-time project manag- er and cover the costs of an in- tensive first-year progr~im of technical assistance. Eacli year the amount of this grant is gradually reduced, and th,e cash match increased, so that lby the fourth year, the city will be responsible for the entire pro- gram cost. As a separate part of thc; 1988 program, Massachusetts chose two cities-New Bedford. (pop. 100,248) and Worcester (pop. 161,799--to participate in an Urban Demonstration Project. These cities will receive techni- cal assistance but no matching grants. The city must finance the entire cost of the program, including the salary of a full- time project manager. Technical assistance from the NMSC includes a two-day train- ingsession for all the communi- ties, one-day reconnaissance visits and four-day resource teams. Typically, resource teams concentrate on two or three important issues brought out by the reconnaissance team-is- sues such as improving building or streetscape design, reusing underutilized or vacant space on Main Street, developing a pro- motional calendar or establish-. ing a viable downtown business association. The resource teams , also work with the local Main Street organization to chart an 18-month strategy for down- town revitalization. In addition. to this assistance, the state.pro- gram will hold bimonthly proj- ect managers' meetings. '`tF7c;r;c;~ - ` ~-(~ t 6t!- n ~ E:nK {LkE~O F; i,i ~G C~EG~:.:e L:ac:,~E7 I~C Ci~S:~aiei~c- ~~, Planning your conference calen- dar? Mark these dates now This summer,. from July through September, the NMSC . will hold five two-day design workshops. Guiding Design on Main Street will be held at the following locations: July T 1-12,' Tacoma, Wash.; July 18-19, Al- buquerque; August 1-2, Asbury Park, N.J.; August 4--5,'faunton; Mass.; and Septemiber 15-16, Springfield, Ill. The newest addition to NMSC's nationally recognizeT series of training programs, Guiding Design on .Main Street blends hands-on in<,;truction in downtown design with training in design management issues. Participants will learn how to use rehabilitation tax credits, low-interest loan programs and other financial incentives to stimulate building improve- ments; how to implement local design management legislation; and how to find alternatives to building demolition. Attendees will also receive a copy of the - NMSC's new training manual, Guiding Design on 1Vlain Street, which is not yet available to the public. Registration for th.e workshop is $165 for Network members ($195 for nonmembersj. The Center is also offering a special group rate of $130 per person to communities that send three or more people. All group rate re - istrations must be mailed gether. Each workshop is limite to 80 people. For fuirther infor- mation, call Vicki ~Onderdonk, NMSC, (202) 673-4219. ... Coming late this winter. The NMSC will host its third Main Street: National Town Meeting in Austin, Tex. Watch this column for further details. - ~~ National Main Street Center National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W Washington, D.C. 20036 7125?53~, SAKeTCLA N=!'<iTA~~ p4h~~RV~TiC:'~; CC"'t'ISSIC?v 13777 ~UITV~~Lr oV=RU= CITY ~F ce%:~TCG~ 5~,=~aTrGa CA 95C7C ~ .i .. ~ .. a .1 .d .-..; l ~~ National Trust for Historic Preservation ~(I11' -~;: ,r~ , June 10, 1988 ,_~ Dear Main .Sereet::Network Member: The National Trust has just lowered the interest rate for its National Preservation Loan Fund (NPLF). ., Main Street managers have increased flexibility in using NPLF loans either to acqu,i.re or rehabilitate specific historic buildings, or to begin revolving..,funds that offer local business owners incentives for rehabilitating:;their storefronts and building facades. The April issue of Main Street News features several examples of N`ain Street projects across.Ythe country that are already using NPLF loans. tdow you can tap P1PLF funds ranging from 520,000 to $150,000 for real estate development projects in your community at an interest rate of ~, two percentage points below "prime." Loan repaymen*_ terms are flexible depending upon project financing. Enclosed is a fact sheet outlining all of the NPLF's new terms. For a copy of the Mari Street Iv'ec,~s article and to discuss how the NPLF can help your local preservation project, please contact the Trust's Office of Finaricial Services or the regional office serving your area. We l~ok forward to working with you. /I Si~ckrelyfl 'n/ n i Uougla A. Harbit._. Direct r Financial Services enclosure ~ECEIVE~ ,lUN ~ G 15g~. PLANNING DEPT 17ti~ ~la~,~chuti~•tt, A~.~•nu~•, ;~.~ti: ,. National Trust for Historic I~res~rvation The National Preservation Loan Fund: ,-_ Flexible Financing From the National Trust ~, ~~ ~:.. Your community may be eligible for below-market-rate loans from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The T.rust.~has_:more than $1.3 million in loan funds available for historic preservation projects through its most flexible financial program, the National Preservation Loan Fund (NPLF). The NPLF provides nonprofit organizations and public agencies with loans to establish.,or~expand local and statewide revolving funds and loan pools,,an.d.for real estate development projects involving historic buildings, ,sites and districts. Specifically, NPLF awards can.be used to: o acquire, stabilize, rehabilitate or restore a.National Register- listed or eligible property-for direct use, lease or-;resale; o establish or expand a revolving fund either_to acquire ;and resell properties or to relend for acquisition and ,reha.bi,litation costs; o purchase options to acquire historic properties.. The National Trust has committed more than.,$7.l million in NPLF funds across the country since 1971. In fiscal year 1987 alone, the program awarded more than $700,000, including $100,000 to Dubuque, Iowa, Main Street, Ltd. for a new low-interest loan pool targeted to properties in three downtown historic districts. The NPLF also has helped to revive a Main Street farmers' market in P,aris,.Texas, and adapt as retail space, office and rental housing a complex of former industrial buildings on the waterfront in Bay City, Michigan'. A Main Street program can tap NPLF funds to acquire a building as its office or acquire and resell a property to help revitalize its commercial area. NPLF funds also can be u~.sed to acquire options on endangered properties to buy time to locate a preservation-minded buyer interesa;ed in rehabilita- tion. Funds can be relent by the Main Street pro.g~ram to:a private developer if the Main Street program has; a substantive role to play in the project, such as ensuring use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or arranging for an easement donation. NPLF awards are" usually f.'or not more than $150, 0.00...x: ~ :Loans are offered currently ~at an interest rate of two percentage points below "prime." Our current rate, therefore, is seven percent:. Loan terms are typically five years, although financing terms can be tailored to individual projects. Loans for revolving fund projects, for instance, may be awarded at lower interest rates to match rates proposed by local banks. In addition, larger loans can be made for projects involving endangered sites. E,pplicants selected for NPLF-awards must: •. 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 673-000 match-National. Trust funds with other loans or grants at leasf ~iiollar-for-dollar; o provide security using a loan-to-value ratio of 85 percent of the collateral property's post-rehabilitation appraised value or provide other securit~~ acceptable to the National Trust (in the case .of a city applicant, for instance, the Trust allows the loan to be backed''by its full faith and credit in lieu of specific collateral if it has a good bond rating); and o demonstrate -tfie capacity to manage, staff and finance the project'. . , _ .. . Application s, to the NPLF are accepted at any time. An application can be initia'ted'-by sending to. the National Trusts regional office a brief letter of`ititent including the following information: a surunary of the prorosed~project''and schedule for completion; the amount .of Iv'PLF assistance requested and intended use of funds; total project cost and other sources of project financing; proposed loan security and source of repayment; and brief background information on the applicant acid ~ttie property's historical significance. For more information on the NPLF program and the National Trust's other financial'assistance programs, please contact: The Office of Financial Services National Trust for Historic Preservation `~ ~ 1785 Massachusetts .Avenue, N[,' . h'ashington, D.C. 20036 ' (202) 673-4054 Mid-Atlantic Regional.Office -Mountains/Plains Regional Office Cliveden _.. 511 16th Street, Suite 700 6401 Germantown Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Philadelphia, PA 19144 (303) 623-1504 (215) 438-2886 !' ~`" '' - Texas/New Mexico Field Office Midwest Regional, Of>f~ce: 500 Main Street, Suite 606 53 W. Jackson Blvd.;: Suite 1135 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Chicago, IL 60604 (817) 332-4398 (312) 939-5547 • Aestern Regional Office Northeast Regional Offce• - One Sutter Street, Suite 707 Old City Hall =- San Francisco, CA 94104 45 School Street, 4•t~h Floor ~ - (415) 956=0610 Boston, NIA 02108_ :-• ,,. , .. (617) 523-0885.; ...:.;_ Southern Regional Off'lce` 456 King Street Charleston, SC 29403 (803) 722-8552 '