|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you were a Business, you'd have lots of programs to help you. Homeowners have almost NO financial incentive programs in San Diego to help preserve our older homes, which are the fabric of our established residential neighborhoods. Except, the Mills Act. | ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
What is the Mills Act -- And WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IT Courtesy of San Diego Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk, (619) 236-3771 [edited from print version] A historical designation can provide a property tax reduction. San Diego is a relatively young town, but many residents are beginning to take notice of one of our most valuable resources, our historic sites and houses. The Mills Act, named for San Diegan James Mills, a former State Senator, provides an important monetary incentive designed to encourage the preservation, maintenance, and restoration of designated historic properties. If you have questions on the calculation of the assessed value, please call the Assessor’s Office at (858) 505-6262. What is the Mills Act? The Mills Act provides that property that is subject to a historical property contract be valued using the rental income that could be expected from that property rather than using comparable sales to establish the assessed value. This generally results in a much lower assessment if the property has been recently purchased. How does my property qualify for the Mills Act? It must meet qualifying criteria such as significant architecture, association with a historically significant event or person, or location in a historic district, such as Marston Hills. Once designated as a historical site, the owner can then enter into a voluntary contract with that city. How long is the contract and is it canceled if I sell the property? The term of the contract is ten years, however, it is automatically extended unless the property owner cancels the contract. The new owner would receive the full benefit of the contract because the contract goes with the property. Is the property owner required to open the property to the public? No, the law was revised in 1985 when new legislation relaxed the rules to encourage the preservation of historic properties. Prior to that time, any property under contract had to be open to the public for tours. After the 1985 revision, many additional properties have been placed under contract. Do all historical properties in San Diego County qualify for the Mills Act? No, only the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, the City of Coronado, the City of Escondido, the City of La Mesa, and the City of National City have enacted ordinances to grant the Mills Act exclusion. The County of San Diego has also passed an ordinance for historical properties in the unincorporated areas of the county. How many properties are benefiting under the Mills Act in San Diego County? Currently, there are approximately 370 properties under contract with the various cities that receive this property tax benefit. What is the Assessor's role in the process? Although the individual cities actually place the property under a historical contract, the Assessor’s Office must determine the actual assessed value based on a formula under State law, using the income that could be generated from the property. What kind of savings can I expect on my property tax bill? Typically, property owners can expect a 20% to 70% savings on their property taxes. Under State law, the lesser of 1) the current market value, 2) the Proposition 13 value, or 3) the restricted value based on the rents will be used to calculate your property taxes. It is possible that the Proposition 13 value may actually be lower than the restricted value, and the property would receive no benefit. Since I have owned my property for many years and already have a very low assessment, is it worthwhile to apply for the Mills Act? Some owners who would receive no benefit still apply for the Mills Act. It can be a selling point to a potential buyer because the property would not be reappraised at its full market value upon sale if the property were already under a historical contract. Once my property is listed on a historic register, are there any binding restrictions that will affect my property? Yes, once that property is designated on a Federal, State, or local register, it is subject to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Historic Building Code. In effect, the owner must protect, maintain, and rehabilitate the property into perpetuity. Mills Act Benefits • Reduction in Property taxes - 20% to 70% • No supplemental bills if under contract at the time of transfer or completion of new construction • Transferable if property is sold Mills Act Restrictions • 10-year contract, which is renewable • Once a property is designated as a Historical Property, it must be permanently maintained as a historical site Who should I contact if I want to place my property under the Mills Act? Each city has its own ordinance and criteria to determine if a particular property qualifies. Contact the following departments for further information: • San Diego - Historical Resources Board: (619) 235-5224 • Chula Vista - Planning Dept: (619) 691-5101 • Coronado - Community Development Dept: (619) 522-7326 • Escondido - Planning Dept: (760) 839-4553 • La Mesa - Community Development Dept: (619) 667-1177 • National City - Planning Dept: (619) 336-4310 • County of San Diego - Dept. of Planning and Land Use Historical Properties: (858) 694-2981 or (858) 694-3656 | |
|
|
This is the Matrix of Changes proposed by the Mayor. | ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
These Eligibility Requirements would ELIMINATE all the older homes in our established neighborhoods such as Mission Hills Kensington Point Loma La Jolla and all neighborhoods not in a Redevelopment Area. | ||
|
|
Frankly, they should have been doing it all along, as this requirement is in all of the contracts, and always has been. The City should also have a program to inform new owners of Mills Act properties of their responsibilities, rights, benefits, and obligations, so the continuity of stewardship continues through property ownership changes. Should there be a severe violation, the City should enforce its own code regulations, through the regular process. They always had the ability to do this, they just didn't do it. | ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
Legacy 106, Inc. is a member of the Neighborhood Preservation Coalition. We have joined with other organizations, such as Save Our Heritage Organisation and the University Heights Historical Society, to ask for your help to help improve the Mills Act program, which is helping homeowners restore historic homes in our older, established neighborhoods. The only incentive program the City of San Diego offers homeowners to invest back into their older historic homes is the Mills Act, which can provide a tax savings on property tax from 20-70%, as calculated by the Tax Assessor, per year, to be used to reinvest back into the maintenance of the home. http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/historical/pdf/millsact.pdf http://docs.sandiego.gov/councilpolicies/cpd_700-46.pdf This program is currently threatened with severe curtailment if current plans by the City of San Diego are allowed to go forward as proposed. You can help improve the process and make this important incentive program even more successful than it is today! | ||
|
|
In the April 3, 2008 edition of the La Jolla Light, the editors ran the following Our View Opinion: Opinion >> Our View -- Be cautious with Mills Act reform Apr 3, 2008 - La Jolla Light The recent proposal by Mayor Jerry Sanders to reform the way the Mills Act is implemented in San Diego raises serious questions for La Jolla. The primary question: are there any other tools available to preserve the buildings and the neighborhoods that have for so long made La Jolla a gracious place to live? Parts of La Jolla look ever more like neighborhoods on steroids, and in some cases the Mills Act - which allows tax breaks to those who preserve older buildings - may be the only antidote. Bloated buildings are not signs of civic health. Note Las Vegas, where the structures impress but do not form a cohesive whole. So it increasingly seems in La Jolla. Homes that might look lovely on five acres are shoehorned onto lots that are a few thousand square feet. Arabian-themed palaces jostle with Tuscan villas, which elbow against Victorian estates or California moderns. The drive from one stop sign to the next can bring an amusement-park-like tour of the cultures of the world. If reform of the San Diego Mills Act process means that La Jolla will be less able to maintain its graceful older buildings, then we must hope mightily for the reform to fail. Without doubt San Diego has been liberal in allowing houses to be protected under the Mills Act. As the mayor rightly points out, a quarter of all Mils Act properties are in San Diego. But this city, so seasonable and so near the ocean, is particularly vulnerable to excess in housing construction. Will Rogers once said, "Buy real estate, they aren't making any more land." Well, they certainly aren't making any more land like San Diego coastal land. It is easy to imagine a future in which the predominant structural qualities are largeness and newness. By then we will have lost many structures, much history and any opportunity to preserve a humane architectural character. This is not a future to be desired. Rather, areas such as La Jolla need to preserve what is good from the past and promote some sense of proportion in future construction. Reigning in the Mills Act hardly seems to address these needs. Some of the changes the mayor is seeking are minor and can easily be supported, such as moving the deadline for applications from October to March and improving inspection of Mills Act homes. Others are far from minor, such as capping the number of homes that can be protected each year and making it much harder to get a Mills Act designation. Whether major or minor, however, none of the proposed reforms seems geared to improving the very thing the Mills Act is meant to accomplish - preservation of buildings that make the city more human. While the proposed reforms might slightly improve the city's annual tax haul, they will weaken neighborhoods such as La Jolla exactly where they need to be strengthened - in their efforts to maintian civility in architecture. | ||
|
|
We offered the following Letter to the Editor Reply: April 3, 2008 Dear Editor Jones-Kellett, Subject: Be Cautious with Mills Act Reform, April 3, 2008 I totally agree with the Opinion on page A13 concerning Mayor Jerry Sanders’ proposal to “reform” the Mills Act. But Mayor Sanders does not have the legal authority to discriminate against wealthy people who own historical homes in La Jolla, no matter what the Grand Jury report and Union-Tribune editorial page wrote. The Mills Act is a California state law that cannot be reformed by any mayor anywhere in California. State law always trumps local municipal codes, ordinances, and policies. The Mills Act clearly states that once a City Council passes a resolution to adopt the Mills Act, which San Diego did in 1995, any owner of a house that is historically designated on the National Register, State Register, or city or county register automatically qualifies for a Mills Act contract. Mayor Sanders is blowing smoke when he proposes to deny Mills Act contracts to people in La Jolla, Point Loma, Mission Hills, Golden Hill or his own hood in Kensington. San Diego only has about 2,000 historically designated properties, yet Los Angeles has more than 20,000 in their historical districts. Like most cities in California, Los Angeles imposed historical designation on enormous neighborhoods as mitigation for Environmental Impact Reports on land development projects. Those districts were often created in the crucible of highly charged public hearings to offset losses from high density condominium projects. The City of Oakland is looking at imposing historical designation on 17,000 homes in the near future. Why are there less historical designations in San Diego than Los Angeles? Because our Historical Resources Board has tried to encourage private homeowners to voluntarily designate and invest personal money in restoration work. Why are there less Mills Act contracts in Los Angeles than San Diego? Well, for one thing the Tax Assessor in Los Angeles incorrectly denied hundreds of people Mills Act contracts by using the wrong formulae. But more importantly, Los Angeles offers many more incentives than the City of San Diego. Another reason Los Angeles and many other cities in California have hundreds if not thousands more historically designated properties than San Diego is they correctly apply the California Environmental Quality Act to subdivision and condominium projects in their cities. Those cities fund contracted historical surveys and impose involuntary districts over entire neighborhoods as permit impact mitigation to offset development losses. They also offer low interest bank loans to help owners re-paint and re-roof or replace windows. Some cities even have programs to offer free paint or waive building permit fees or offer free architectural services. The City of San Diego has avoided involuntary imposition of historic districts over neighborhoods to avoid angering land developers. Failure to protect neighborhoods has resulted in illegal demolition all over San Diego and led to costly lawsuits that the City has lost or been forced to settle out of court. We who live here have lost much of what made San Diego a charming city for families to walk in comfort and safety. The new General Plan approved in March drastically increases housing density in La Jolla and our older neighborhoods to the point that historic preservation will nearly be impossible, yet the certified Final Environmental Impact Report offered no feasible alternative mitigation to encourage voluntary historic preservation. Without the Mills Act to encourage developers and homeowners to preserve old buildings, we are going to see a lot more demolitions, lawsuits, and angry people. More than 100 people attended the Land Use & Housing Committee meeting in February 2008 demanding a new demolition permit ordinance with an increase in fees from $209 to $1,500, so staff can protect our important historical neighborhoods. For twelve years, the Mills Act has been a lure to encourage property owners to voluntarily preserve their own homes and invest private money into restoration work. People in La Jolla, Point Loma, and Mission Hills can afford to and do invest $200,000 to more than $1,000,000 to restore their cherished old homes, and they do so because of the Mills Act. The recent Grand Jury report was not written by professional investigators who objectively tried to understand why we want old neighborhoods and types of houses preserved for the future. Someone on the Grand Jury has a vendetta against wealthy homeowners and accused them of being “tax cheats.” The Union-Tribune article actually called out owners of historical homes in La Jolla as unqualified for Mills Act contracts. Why should La Jolla residents be ashamed of wanting to preserve our neighborhoods? Why is wealth treated as synonymous with tax cheats? The Grand Jury report completely failed to address the relationship between the thousands of houses being demolished for condominium development. The Grand Jury report failed to address the relationship between the California Environmental Quality Act, San Diego Municipal Code, and historical designation. The City of San Diego has failed miserably in carrying out its legal responsibility to require Environmental Impact Reports on demolition of historical buildings in San Diego. And it failed to explain how the Mills Act mediates those mitigations by offering an incentive for voluntary preservation. In fact, the Grand Jury only interviewed the Tax Assessor (twice) and the Historical Resources Board staff (once), but not one single homeowner who has a Mills Act contract, not one historian who prepares historical designation reports, and not one member of the highly skilled building industry who restores hardwood floors, built-in gumwood buffets, or sculpted plaster vaulted ceilings. The Grand Jury should be ashamed of the poor quality investigation that wasted so much of our tax money. The failings of the Grand Jury report caused Mayor Jerry Sanders to order a Special Hearing of the Historical Resources Board to be held April 18, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 12th Floor of City Hall to hear what people think about the Mills Act. There have been so many hundreds of telephone calls, emails, and letters by angry citizens that today they moved the hearing room to the full Council Chambers to accommodate the anticipated crowd. What a waste of time and money, as Mayor Sanders cannot legally discriminate against people of any economic class and cannot deny a Mills Act contract to people living in La Jolla or any other part of San Diego. And if the City Council kills the Mills Act program, what equivalent protection will we have for the historical neighborhoods and commercial buildings that created our unique identity in La Jolla? Ronald V. May, RPA President, Legacy 106, Inc. | ||
|
|
Preservation Action Alert Saving San Diego's past for the future. We need your help to stop the destruction of the Mills Act and the historic designation process in San Diego!! Please plan to attend this important hearing and have your opinion heard. We hope that you will be able to plan now to get off work early, rearrange your Friday in whatever way you need to in order to attend this important hearing. http://sohosandiego.org/images/special_workshop_agenda08.pdf SPECIAL WORKSHOP REVISED AGENDA Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2:00pm City Council Chambers 12th Floor, City Administration Building 202 C Street, San Diego, CA 92101 It is important to note that the Mayor has already presented his plan http://sohosandiego.org/images/sanders_millsact.pdf and has further stated his views on the Roger Hedgecock show. Listen HERE. http://sohosandiego.org/images/Roger_Hedgecock_20080403_4.mov [Linked below is the podcast of Mayor Jerry Sanders on the Roger Hedgecock radio program on Thursday April 3, 2008, 4 pm. Mayor Sanders and Mr. Hedgecock discuss the Mills Act, the Grand Jury report, and Historic Designation. Start time of 22 Minutes. Scroll down to Thursday April 3, 2008, 4 pm to listen to the podcast.] http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=rogerhedgecock_podcast.xml Mayor Sanders has claimed that he is acting in part on behalf of the schools that he says are losing tax money from the Mills Act. However the Mills Act was carefully crafted in legislation to not adversely affect taxes to schools. "Under the Mills Act legislation the State will make up the difference in revenue to the schools so that there isn't an overall reduction in the school's revenues from property taxes collected after recording of Mills Act Contracts." No one can argue successfully that saving a city's history is one of foremost and lasting education for our children and our children's children. The claim made by the Mayor of tax revenue losses to schools is false. The truth is that the people behind this push to eradicate the one tool the city has to protect its historic sites is the development industry's lobbyist, the Building Industry Association (BIA). They have been open and public about their grave concern that they are running out of places to build and must have the ability to scrape our historic neighborhoods to continue to stay in business. SOHO has long extolled and listed the many ways that the BIA can continue to grow and preserve our heritage at the same time. However they will have none of it, the only agreement they want is the one that provides the ability to run roughshod over the needs and desires of all of our communities. The money spent to subsidize the building industry by the City of San Diego is aberrant compared to the small amount of money that the Mills Act provides. Mills Act savings directly affects the quality and standards of character in communities; it has been proven to actually upgrade property values for non-historic homes in the vicinity of designated homes or districts. The claim that Mills Act contracts result in costs to the community is a false and unwinnable argument. This argument is filled with factual errors resulting in egregious conclusions and wrongheaded and costly proposed remedies. This is a debate that SOHO is happy to have! This is SOHO's response to the Mayor's recommendations. http://sohosandiego.org/images/response.pdf We ask that you come out in force We ask that you come out in force to support our response and make it clear to the Mayor and to city hall that historic preservation is an issue that affects all of us, in every community whether it is a historic neighborhood or a newer neighborhood. This is the tip of the iceberg; this is the beginning of a serious erosion of our rights as a community. The Mayor also proclaimed that protecting our city's historic sites is an affront to individual property rights. But the facts are that the rights of the community as a whole are greater than the rights of a single owner or developer or agency. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a community has the ultimate right to decide what it will look like, and preserving and protecting its historic buildings falls squarely into that category. This is the foundation of all zoning and preservation laws and the Mayor knows this. READ FURTHER. http://sohosandiego.org/images/sometimes.pdf This is an assault on community character and the right of our communities to determine their own future. The Mayor thinks outside development interests should have those rights not the people who live there. Please ask your friends and neighbors to come out in support of saving all San Diegan's rights to preserve our history. You can fight city hall and win. SOHO has proven it time and time again. This is one of the greatest threats to historic sites in the 40 years since SOHO's founding. Please help us save San Diego's past for its future. We hope you will be able to attend and speak or stand as a group in favor of SOHO's stance on the issue. Help build SOHO's legal defense fund. Donate now. Save Our Heritage Organisation 2476 San Diego Avenue San Diego, California 92110 www.sohosandiego.org | ||
|
|
325 W. Washington Street, Suite 2, #221 San Diego, CA 92103 619-497-1193 www.MissionHillsHeritage.org --A community organization dedicated to preserving the character, charm and historical resources of the Mission Hills neighborhood. April 13, 2008 San Diego County Grand Jury 330 West Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego, CA 92101-3830 Mayor Jerry Sanders City of San Diego 202 C Street, 11th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Report filed March 19, 2008 (History Hysteria: Historical Resources in The City of San Diego.) Dear San Diego County Grand Jury and Mayor Sanders: Mission Hills Heritage (MHH) is a non-profit community organization dedicated to preserving the character, charm and historical resources of the Mission Hills neighborhood of San Diego. Please consider this letter to be in response to the above-referenced report (hereinafter the “Report”) and Mayor Sanders’ proposal to reform the Mills Act program. We are deeply concerned that the investigation performed by the Grand Jury was fundamentally flawed and that the findings and conclusions are unsupported. Likewise, we feel that several of the reforms proposed by Mayor Sanders in the press release dated March 19, 2008 are misguided. For these reasons, we feel compelled to respond. Overview Completely lacking from the Report is any discussion whatsoever of the purposes and goals of the City’s historical designation and Mills Act programs, and whether the programs are achieving such goals. The purpose of the programs is to encourage historic preservation, in order to protect the heritage of the community, stabilize and revitalize older neighborhoods, and a host of other goals. The Report lacks even a cursory discussion of these goals and whether the programs are successfully achieving them. There is no discussion of the benefits of the programs (or historic preservation in general), and instead the Report focuses only on lost tax revenue, which is discussed in a vacuum. The report is replete with fantastic statements that read more like scandal-rag newspaper headlines than the findings of a quasi-judicial body, such as “Fact: An unelected body of volunteers is making decisions that result in the loss of revenue to the City.” The Report is also based on a false premise: that only a limited number of exemplars of certain historic architectural styles should be preserved and, therefore, the City of San Diego has gone “overboard” with historical designations. This conclusion is backed up with incorrect information and half-truths. It would appear that this conclusion is driven by one consideration only, lost annual property tax revenue due to Mills Act contracts, without any consideration whatsoever for the positive benefits of the historical designation and Mills Act programs. Such a flawed analysis results in unsupported recommendations and conclusions, as discussed below. The Report is Based on a Flawed Premise The Report appears to be based on the premise that the City should be “saving” only a small sampling of any one architectural style, without any regard for the benefits of preservation on entire neighborhoods and the City in general. The Report includes the following statements: “It seems clear that San Diego has gone overboard in designations…. How many examples of Craftsman houses does the City really need? (At present there are 100-150 Craftsmans in excellent condition that are in excellent condition that are historically designated.) … Limits need to be put on the number of exemplars of any style of construction…. The number of designations in a year should be severely limited to encourage the HRB to compare and save only the best properties.” Page 4. [italics added.] This restrictive view of the designation process suggests that the only purpose for saving historic properties is to have a few examples to display, much like a museum. However, this premise completely ignores well-studied and documented benefits flowing from historic preservation on entire neighborhoods and communities, and runs counter to State and local law. The importance of preserving historical resources is described in the City of San Diego’s General plan: “No city can hope to understand its present or to forecast its future if it fails to recognize its past. For by tracing the past, a city can gain a clear sense of the process by which it achieved its present form and substance; and, even more importantly, how it is likely to continue to evolve. For these reasons, efforts directed to identifying and preserving San Diego’s historic and archeological resources – with their inherent ability to evoke the past – are most advisably pursued.” The City’s own website includes the following comments about the benefits of historic preservation and sets forth a good description of the benefits to the community: “The City of San Diego recognizes the benefits of historical resource preservation to the community as well as to individual property owners. Preservation efforts stabilize neighborhoods and promote cultural tourism as well as offer a wide range of other benefits. … Historic preservation… • Protects the unique history, architecture, or character of a community • Provides the “competitive edge” of place differentiation and community livability • Enhances quality of life • Provides a sense of neighborhood and community pride • Stabilizes or increases property values • Encourages public reinvestment • Generates heritage tourism • Is environmentally responsible • Reduces construction debris in landfills • Establishes strong community ties • Provides a sense of time and place” The City’s website also touts the well-recognized benefits of preserving historic neighborhoods, in the context of designating individual historical properties and historic districts. The positive benefits of preservation at the community level are recognized by cities, towns and states across the country, many of which have strong preservation laws in place. These goals cannot be realized by a process wherein only a few “choice” historic properties are saved, and the rest are razed. Concerning the Mills Act program in particular, the California Office of Historic Preservation has published “Technical Assistance Bulletin #12”, which describes the benefits of the program to local governments as follows: “Local governments had adopted the Mills Act because they recognize the economic benefits of conserving resources and reinvestment as well as the important role historic preservation can play in revitalizing older areas, creating cultural tourism, building civic pride, and retaining the sense of place and continuity with the community’s past.” Moreover, the “exemplar” approach to the designation process as advocated in the Report ignores existing local and State laws. The San Diego Land Development Code provides for historical designations of individual resources and districts based on specified criteria, and is not dependant on the number of such properties that are extant. In fact, we are aware of no jurisdiction in California that judges the historical value of individual resources based on the number of such examples in existence. Historical resources are also protected under California State law. The California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA) requires the utilization of an objective process to analyze historical resources in the development process. Again, the CEQA review process is not based on a comparison to other examples of similar resources in order to “save only the very best.” Flaws in the Investigation In performing its investigation, the Grand Jury only interviewed the County Tax Assessor’s office, the staff of the San Diego Planning Department and Historic Resources Board. No owners of historically-designated properties, historic groups, or historians were interviewed. This one-sided investigation resulted in flawed information that formed the basis of the recommendations. Some examples are: (1) The Report states that the investigation revealed five main reasons individual property owners seek historic designations, including “nostalgia for a relative’s family house.” Since, by its own admission, the Grand Jury did not interview any homeowners of designated properties, it seems highly unlikely that the list of “main reasons” is accurate. (2) The Report states that the Grand Jurors toured two districts, including Shirley Ann Place and formed the conclusion that “Shirley Ann Place seemed to be questionable as to its historicity” without any analysis or support. The Grand Jurors have no historical expertise of their own , and did not describe any evidence to support this assertion. (3) The Grand Jurors also toured and compared the Mission Hills Historic District and the Burlingame District and the Report declares that the: “... Mission Hills District with its bigger residences, larger lawns and separations, and better maintenance looked to us more like what we feel would be a real historical district than the very similar Burlingame District.” This crude comparison would fail any historical expert’s test for determining historical value. Again, the Report relies on a flawed set of criteria for judging historical value, based on a comparison approach where the only the “best” survive. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Report is the statistics cited for historical designations. The Report includes at page 3 a comparison of properties designated historic by different cities, as the basis for the conclusion that San Diego “has gone overboard in designations.” The report states that San Diego has 676 designated properties and Los Angeles has 265 designated properties. These figures are incorrect and misleading. Actually, as of the date of the report, San Diego has over 850 designated properties and Los Angeles has over 900 “Historic-Cultural Monuments” the Los Angeles term for historical designation. But even these figures do not take into account the contributors to historical districts, which are equal to individually designated resources in legal status and protection. As of the date of the report, San Diego has approximately 1,150 contributors to 19 designated historic districts (only nine of which are composed of residential properties), for a total of approximately 2,000 structures protected by designations. By comparison, the City of Los Angeles has 9,790 contributing structures in its 22 locally-designated historic districts (known as “Historic Preservation Overlay Zones”), with many more proposed districts under consideration (See Attachment 1), for a total of over 10,690 structures protected by designations. Even taking into account a population that is approximately three times that of the City of San Diego, the City of San Diego is lagging for behind the City of Los Angeles in protecting properties by historic designations. Contrary to the conclusion of the Report, San Diego has not “gone overboard” and is, in fact, far behind the curve in protecting historical properties. The Report Fails to Consider Benefits Afforded by the Historical Designation and Mills Act Programs, Only Property Tax Losses As stated above, the Report does not discuss the goals of historical preservation and the two programs in question, and fails to weigh the benefits against the costs of the programs. Preserving the cultural, architectural heritage and history of the community are important public goals. The vintage homes and neighborhoods of San Diego are an important aspect of San Diego’s heritage and our quality of life. MHH believes that the historical designation program is key to preserving our City’s history and heritage, and the Mills Act program is the only financial incentive offered by the City of San Diego to encourage historic preservation. Lacking from the Report is any analysis as to whether the historic designation and Mills Act programs are successfully achieving these goals. In its brief monetary discussion, the Report focuses exclusively on the City’s loss of property tax revenue, without any discussion of the positive financial benefits to the City brought about by the historical designation program and the Mills Act program. As discussed above, the City’s own website discusses various benefits that results from historical preservation in general, as fostered by the designation and Mills Act programs. Many of these benefits accrue directly or indirectly to the City, such as community revitalization and reinvestment in the community. Examples of such benefits include promotion of cultural/heritage tourism and the taxes that result from such. The positive financial impacts of cultural and heritage tourism may be difficult to calculate, but should not be discounted, since a large portion of San Diego’s economy is based on tourism. Historic areas of the City, including historic neighborhoods, draw sightseers by the busload. For example the neighborhood of Mission Hills is on the sightseeing route of at several tour companies, including Go Car Tours (which utilize GPS-guided tour cars), City Sightseeing of San Diego, and San Diego Insider Tours. “Where You Want To Be!” Tours offers walking tours and guided bicycle tours of Mission Hills and nearby neighborhoods. Undoubtedly, the two recently designated historical districts in Mission Hills will act as a further draw for sightseeing and tourism in this neighborhood. Moreover, the historical designation and Mills Act programs have the impact of raising property values, which results in higher property taxes. This financial benefit is completely ignored in the Report. Over the years, a number of studies across the county have documented the increases in property values resulting from historical designations and designating historical districts. This phenomena is well known and understood in the real estate sales industry and preservation movement. Recently, Andrew J. Narwold, Professor of Economics with the School of Business Administration, University of San Diego, released a paper based on a study that quantifies the positive externalities associated with the designation of historical houses in the City of San Diego and the Mills Act. Using hedonic pricing models and log-linear regressions, the study calculated the effects of “Mills Act houses” on nearby property values. The study concludes: “The results from the [calculations] suggest that the value of a house increases 3.76% for each additional Mills Act house within 250 feet. For Mills Act houses within 250 to 500 feet, this impact is reduced to 1.63%. … Previous research has shown that the value of this tax benefit [the Mills Act] to the homeowner is very significant, increasing property values by 16%. However this program costs the local government in terms of lost property tax revenue. The results in this paper suggest that the loss in property tax revenue [due to Mills Act contracts] is more than compensated for by a general increase in the property value of other homes in the neighborhood.” [italics added.] Thus, the ripple effect of rising property values resulting from historic designations more than offsets the lost property tax revenue due to a Mills Act contract. This type of evidence is not considered in the Report, which focuses solely on lost property tax revenue on the historically designated properties themselves. Most of the “findings” and “recommendations” flow from the flawed and short-sighted analysis of the Grand Jury set forth in the Report. Instead of leveraging the benefits of historical designations and the Mills Act contract, the Report recommends severely cutting back the designation program and restricting the availability of Mills Act contracts. Our recommendations for the Historic Designation and Mills Act Program The only real problem with the historical designation program in the City of San Diego is that the City has failed to assign enough qualified staff from the Planning Department to work with the HRB, creating a backlog in applications. To this extent, we agree with the Report that more staff should be assigned to the HRB. As for the Report’s finding that the “volunteer board” should not be making decisions regarding designations, the Report fails to note that the Planning Department carefully screens applicants to the HRB, who are then chosen by the Mayor’s office. The structure of the HRB is the same structure as used throughout the dozens of boards and commissions that assist the City of San Diego with decision-making. The other findings of the Report that relate to the designation program, such as enacting a moratorium on new applications for historical designation and establishing restrictions on the number of exemplars of a housing types and historical district types are ill-advised and some would violate existing laws. As for the Mills Act program and the Mayor’s proposed reform package, MHH agrees with several points, including: (1) MHH supports modest increases in the application fees to cover the cost of processing Mills Act contracts. (Pursuant to Cal. Government Code § 50281.1, the fee cannot exceed the reasonable cost of administering the program.) (2) MHH supports establishing a periodic inspection program with reasonable fees charged, based on the actual cost of inspections; (3) MHH would support stiffer penalties for violating the terms of the Mills Act contract, including enforcement fees that would cover actual staff costs; (4) MHH supports the concept of tailored contracts to encourage maintenance of historic properties and allow for the designation of properties that have not yet been restored at the time a Mills Act contract is awarded. However, many other proposed restrictions are ill-advised and should not be adopted. MHH opposes the Mayor’s proposal to impose a numerical limit on the number of contracts awarded annually, and the severe restrictions to the eligibility requirements, which would for all intents and purposes shut down the program. We urge the Grand Jury to withdraw the Report and conduct a more balanced investigation, including interviewing homeowners of historically-designated properties, local historians and other experts in order to gain a better perspective on the issues discussed. The Grand Jury should also perform a better factual analysis, and refrain from offering opinions on matters outside their expertise, without backup from experts. The Grand Jury should take into consideration the matters described in this letter and other evidence offered by preservations advocates and experts. We also urge the Mayor to reconsider many of the proposed “reforms” and instead adopt changes that will strengthen the designation and Mills Act programs, not weaken them. Sincerely, Barry E. Hager President, Mission Hills Heritage Enclosure Footnotes: (1) Under the National Historic Preservation Act, historical experts are required to have a minimum of 18 accredited college units in history and at least two years of professional experience. (2) Source: Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Public Planning, City of Los Angeles (3) This study can be found at: http://sohosandiego.org/histdistricts/estimating_historic.pdf ************ MHH Alert--Hearing on Mills Act Contracts Dear Members of Mission Hill Heritage and Neighbors: As you know, on March 19th, the San Diego County Grand Jury released a report entitled “Historical Hysteria: Historical Resources in the City of San Diego.” With no cost/benefit analysis or discussion whatsoever regarding the benefits of historic preservation, the Grand Jury urged the City of San Diego to “rein in the number of properties designated as historic and the number of Mills Act contracts.” In a one-sided investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed only officials with the San Diego County Tax Assessor’s Office and City of San Diego staff. It would appear that no owners of historically-designated properties, preservationists or historians were interviewed. On the same day that this shocking report was released, the Mayor’s Office issued a press release with a detailed proposal regarding various proposed “Mills Act reform measures.” If adopted, these restrictions would, for all intents and purposes, shut down the Mills Act program in the City of San Diego. Preserving vintage homes offers many benefits to our City and its residents. A restored vintage home brings a spark of pride to a neighborhood which helps revitalize older neighborhoods. This is evident in many older neighborhoods such as Mission Hills, where restored architectural gems line the streets. Restored neighborhoods showcase our heritage and attract tourism. Until we begin to recognize and treat our historic homes, buildings and neighborhoods as a public asset, we will continue to lose them and the benefits that come with preserving our heritage. MHH supports several proposed changes to the Mills Act program, including a moderate increase to the application fees, requiring periodic inspections of Mills Act contract properties and reasonable inspection fees, and tailored contracts to encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties. The Mayor’s proposal, however, would essentially end the program as we know it. Please see our response letter posted on our website: http://www.missionhillsheritage.org/images/MHH_Letter_to_Grand_Jury_4_12_08.pdf The City is holding a special workshop to promote the Mayor’s reforms, and will be taking public comment. The workshop will be held: Date: Friday, April 18, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: City Council Committee Room, 202 C Street, 12th Floor Even if you do not wish to speak, please attend to show your support for historic preservation, and the Mills Act program. Thank you. Barry E. Hager, President Mission Hills Heritage 4020 Falcon Street, #221 www.MissionHillsHeritage.org (619) 497-1193 | ||
|
|
http://www.laplayaheritage.com/ Subject: Mayor Sanders’ War on Established Historic Neighborhoods and the Mills Act Dear City of San Diego: The following is backup documentation for our Non-Agenda Public Comments for the Tuesday, April 15, 2008 City Council Meeting. In preparation for the Historic Resource Board Mills Act workshop on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2 pm at City Council Chamber, we have prepared an Executive Summary of why Mayor Sanders is targeting the Historic community by trying to get rid of the Mills Act incentives for historic neighborhoods. To Mayor Sanders, the City Council, and the City Clerk: We are asking that you, or a representative from your office attend the Mills Act Workshop, Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2 pm, at City Council Chambers. We are also asking that the Historical Board Meeting be televised on City TV 24 for later public review. We are expecting a very large crowd of angry taxpayers and Historically-Designated homeowners to show up in numbers and let Mayor Sanders, the City Council, the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning Commission know that our Historic neighborhoods are not for sale. In addition, Mayor Sanders lives in the historic neighborhood of Kensington with it red-tile roof Spanish homes. City Attorney Mike Aguirre lives in a Historically Designated home in the Banker Hills neighborhood. http://www.steveformayor.com/2008/03/19/steve-francis-supports-saving-the-mills-act/ Linked above and copied below is Mayoral candidate Steve Francis' written Policy stance on the value of the State of California Mills Act law. Steve Francis' Policy stance is the exact opposite of Mayor Jerry Sanders. Mr. Francis values our historic neighborhoods and the appreciates the value and Quality Of Life the charming neighborhoods add to our beautiful city. http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/grandjury/reports/2007_2008/HistoryHistoria.pdf The San Diego County Grand Jury wrote an official 17-page Grand Jury Report entitled "Historic Hysteria: Historic Resources in the City of San Diego," Filed March 19, 2008. The report by the Grand Jury only analyzed the costs associated with Historical Designation. The report failed to analyze the enoumous benefits such as historic tours, increased real estate values for Historic Homes, revitalization of older neighborhoods, and the reason why the Mills Act is a State law that pays for itself, plus gives neighborhoods a sense of safety from encroaching developers. The Grand Jury only seeked information from government agencies, they never sought information from the Historic community. The Grand Jury was also given false information regarding State of California taxes for area schools, and they believed Mayor Sanders' assertions without verifying the readily-available data for themselves. We are asking that the Grand Jury come to the Mills Act Workshop next Friday, so we can educate them about the benefits of Historic Preservation and how much additional revenue the City receives from people who spend Millions of Dollars restoring historical homes in San Diego for future generations. We hope that the Grand Jury will understand and rewrite their official report when the receive additional information and verifiable facts from the Historic community. It is an honor to live in a Historically Designated home. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Hartsell, M.D. 371 San Fernando Street San Diego, California 92106 (619) 523-4350 rhodes@laplayaheritage.com ------------------------------------ April 11, 2008. Subject: Mayor Sanders’ War on Established Historic Neighborhoods and the Mills Act Incentive. The Historic communities in San Diego have come together, to read and understand State law and the Municipal Code, and are making sure Mayor Sanders and DSD follow the law. Developers who are used to not obeying the law are mad. The attack on the Mills Act is retaliation, so that there will be no incentives for saving the charm and history of our established neighborhoods. The attack will also get rid of public opposition to unwanted projects by not requiring noticing to neighbors. Potentially Historic Homes all over the City of San Diego are demolished without permits on a regular basis. After the potentially historic homes are demolished, a new Mc Mansion or luxury condominium complex are built which block neighbors’ historic view, and not providing mitigation for adverse impacts as required by law. Adjacent property values are lowered and neighbors are mad. When the Municipal Code is violated, such as demolition without a permit, the developers get a free pass by applying for a demolition permit after the fact. If Mayor Sanders’ DSD and Planning Department just followed the Municipal Code and State CEQA laws like every other city in the state of California, then neighborhoods would be protected by existing laws. In 2006, the Building Industry Association (BIA) said, Let's think of all the land use fights we will have in the next 15 years, and let's have them all at once, so the opposition will not be prepared to fight for their neighborhoods. The BIA wants to force density and high-rise structures without the required infrastructure in areas where they can make the most profit, under the guise of providing affordable/workforce housing for the poor and middle class. However, what is being built is not affordable/workforce housing, but luxury condominiums without the required infrastructure and mitigation. The quality of life in older neighborhoods is being destroyed by Mayor Sanders. Instead of building affordable/workforce housing in residential neighborhoods that want the density and need new development such as Districts 4 and 8, and the East Village in downtown; developers only want to build so-called affordable/housing in established neighborhoods on the coast such as La Jolla, Point Loma, and Ocean Beach. In addition, Developers are also targeting Districts 2 and 3 neighborhoods such as Mission Hills, Hillcrest, North Park, University City, etc., where developers can charge higher prices for the luxury condominiums, than they can in the disadvantaged Districts 4 and 8 neighborhoods. It is all about money and profit at the expense of established residential neighborhoods that are already built-out and do not want density without infrastructure. http://tinyurl.com/2rahzd The Village Propensity map for the Land Use and Community Planning Element of the General Plan just came out and shows a large increase in density in already established, built-out neighborhoods. Please see the above linked map that show high-density structures within the Coastal Zone for La Jolla Village, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, and the Midway area. Of course the majority of increase high-rise structures are planned for Mission Hills, Hillcrest, etc., so that developers can get more bang for their bucks. Density with infrastructure and mitigation is great. Density without mitigation is not a good business practice. No other City in the State of California lets developers get around State CEQA laws to get rid of public input into development projects. Lately the Historic community in San Diego has been tracking Permit Application and Permits Issued and found many luxury condominiums projects which demolish potentially historic homes. By State law and the Municipal Code, a Historic Assessment is required by DSD before older homes are demolished. With the help of City Attorney Mike Aguirre, the historic community is holding Mayor Sanders and DSD’s feet to the fire and requiring them to follow the law. The Building Industry Association is not happy, and the attack on the Mills Act by Mayor Sanders is retaliation on Historic Neighborhoods for making the City follow the law. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Hartsell, M.D. 371 San Fernando Street San Diego, California 92106 (619) 523-4350 rhodes@laplayaheritage.com | ||
|
|
NEWS RELEASE Contact: Kristen Kouk FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Phone: (858) 320-7507 March 19, 2008 Email: Kk@SteveforMayor.com http://www.steveformayor.com/2008/03/19/steve-francis-supports-saving-the-mills-act/ Steve Francis Supports Saving the Mills Act and San Diego’s Historic Homes, Francis Takes Strong Stand to Preserve the Character of Our Neighborhoods San Diego — Steve Francis, a San Diego mayoral candidate, released this statement today: “It has come to my attention that policy changes are underway at City Hall that will jeopardize efforts to save historical homes in the City of San Diego. I strongly urge local lawmakers to mend the Mills Act, not end it. The small loss in tax revenue that benefits qualifying homes is outweighed by the enhanced value they add to our community and the millions of dollars generated through specialized property maintenance and historical tourism. It is a worthy investment, and I will stand by it. To be sure, I support common-sense reforms to the Act, including inspections and stronger, more detailed contractual agreements between the City and property owners. But supporting a cap on contracts and adding unnecessary red tape is short-sighted and benefits some developers who are motivated to change the character of our neighborhoods for profit. As Mayor, I would oppose efforts to cap the number of historical homes that can receive Mills Act contracts, and I would also oppose new eligibility requirements that would effectively prevent most homeowners from qualifying. City Hall should be encouraging the efforts of our historic preservation movement and the desires of property owners to retain the unique architecture and fixtures of their cherished homes. San Diegans are proud that we have more Mills Act properties in our city than anywhere else in California. Preserving the character of our community is important to our quality of life, and important to tourism. City residents can trust that I will protect our historical neighborhoods and homeowners from poor policy changes.” | ||
|
|
PRESERVATION ALERT: The Mills Act You need to be aware that Mayor Jerry Sanders and City staff are proposing significant changes to the City of San Diego’s Mills Act Program. If adopted as written, these changes will make most (if not all) historic homes in La Jolla, Pacific Beach, Point Loma, Mission Hills, Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, Talmadge and Kensington ineligible for a new Mills Act contract. In addition, numerous recent comments by City staff indicate that the City is considering possible “non-renewal” of current Mills Act contracts. This action would effectively cancel existing contracts and the process of increasing property taxes to the current year assessments would begin. If you are concerned by the City’s current tenor regarding protecting our historic communities please... 1. ATTEND the Historic Resource Board Mills Act Workshop! Friday April 18th at 2:00 pm in the Council Chambers 12th floor of the City Administration Building 202 C Street, Downtown 2. CONTACT Mayor Sanders! If you cannot get him personally contact Ronald E. Lacey, Community Outreach 202 C Street, 11th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 236-7168 rlacey@sandiego.gov 3. CONTACT your City Council person, neighbors and friends! District 1: ScottPeters@sandiego.gov District 2: KevinFaulconer@sandiego.gov District 3 ToniAtkins@sandiego.gov District 4: AnthonyYoung@sandiego.gov District 5: BMaienschein@sandiego.gov District 6: DonnaFrye@sandiego.gov District 7: JMadaffer@sandiego.gov District 8: BenHueso@sandiego.gov | ||
|
|
April 11, 2008 Mr. John Lemmo, Chairman Historical Resources Board City of San Diego 202 “C” Street San Diego, CA 92101 Subject: Mills Act Workshop - April 18, 2008 Dear Chair Lemmo and Historical Resources Board Members: I disagree with Mayor Jerry Sanders’ premise that the Mills Act Program needs to be reformed in San Diego. Only the City of San Diego’s monitoring program needs reform. I am President of Legacy 106, Inc., a company dedicated to providing professional historical and archaeological research to assist in the objective and accurate evaluation of scientific and historical significance for the best management of these resources. Additionally, I have forty (40) years of experience in historic preservation. I hold the distinction of being the first non-academic government archaeologist / historian in San Diego, as I served as District Liaison Archaeologist for State Highways in 1970. I am a Registered Professional Archaeologist, Public Historian, and co-founder of Legacy 106, Inc. We have written reports that supported historical designation of over fifty (50) houses and forty-four (44) district contributors. The City of San Diego, Municipal and Land Development Codes, totally relies on the Historical Resources Board review procedures to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review of construction project impacts on historically significant properties. Any legislative decision to reduce the Mills Act program will adversely impact the physical environment of the City of San Diego and must be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with full disclosure of the effects of reducing mitigation discussed and relied upon in the recently certified General Plan EIR. Reduction or removal of the Mills Act mitigation must be replaced by an equivalent or better program for reducing land development impacts to below a level of significance. A. I object to Mayor Sanders’ reliance on the County Grand Jury report as guidance, because no one on the Grand Jury is qualified to evaluate the Mills Act program. To qualify, they need to meet the minimum standards of the National Historic Preservation Act set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. The Grand Jury investigators and their report demonstrate a complete lack of formal training and lack of understanding of how federal and state historic designation programs work across America. The California Office of Historic Preservation keeps records of the 2,457 Mills Act contracts across the state. A fair comparison of San Diego’s program must include all the other cities and counties that use the Mills Act to encourage historical preservation. Accurate figures on the number of historically designated or district-contributor properties need to be made available in the revised Grand Jury report. For example, Los Angeles involuntarily imposed 22 districts over more than 10,000 homes and of those, there are 315 Mills Act contracts. Fair comparison shows San Diego is far behind other cities in protecting potentially historical properties, even though it entered into 805 Mills Act contracts. To professionally and objectively investigate this issue, they must have the following credentials to understand the purpose and role of the Historical Resources Board and historical designation program, as set forth by the National Historic Preservation Act: • Completed 18 accredited units and a Bachelor of Arts degree in history or a closely related field from a college or university history program; • They must also have specialized training in historical architecture and construction; • Training in the California Environmental Quality Act and how it relates to the San Diego Municipal and Land Development Codes; • They must have received minimal training in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historical Properties and understand how this guides City of San Diego urban planners and Historical Resources Board staff in evaluating nomination reports and properties for historical designation; Unprofessional Investigation. The Grand Jury failed to conduct a proper, fair, and unbiased investigation: • They never interviewed the California Historic Preservation Officer in Sacramento; • The Grand Jury never interviewed the California Resources Agency for an understanding of the California Environmental Quality Act and General Plans; • The Grand Jury never interviewed the professional historians like myself who have been screened for inclusion on the City of San Diego consultant’s list and prepare historical designation reports for the Historical Resources Board; • The Grand Jury never interviewed one single property owner of a historically designated property, let alone a meaningful sample of the approximately 800 Mills Act contracts; • The Grand Jury never interviewed the Executive Director of Save Our Heritage Organisation, La Jolla Historical Society, Mission Hills Heritage, Heart of Kensington, Neighborhood Historic Preservation Coalition, or any other stakeholder organization in San Diego; • The Grand Jury never interviewed the locally elected chairs of the locally elected community planning groups in Mission Hills, University Heights, Kensington, Point Loma, Ocean Beach, La Jolla or any of the areas with the greatest concentrations of 50-years or older houses; • The Grand Jury failed to study Los Angeles and other major cities across California to determine how many houses are designated, how many districts were created, how many examples of architectural styles are protected, and how many of those houses were designated involuntarily. Incorrect Facts. The Grand Jury report used incorrect or distorted facts to justify their findings. Here are some very real facts: The City of Los Angeles created twenty-two (22) Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (Districts) and currently have 315 Mills Act contracts. Those districts include over 9,790 contributing houses. The City of Phoenix has 36 historic districts with 7,000 designated houses. By comparison, San Diego only has 2,000 historical designations. Los Angeles and Phoenix imposed those districts over thousands of houses involuntarily. The City of San Diego wanted to avoid imposing involuntary districts over 20,000 houses by inviting homeowner voluntary historical designations. The incentive offered to encourage property owners to come forward was the Mills Act. I submit that these failings of the Grand Jury investigation that I have listed prove the report is fatally flawed and cannot be relied upon by Mayor Jerry Sanders or the City Council. The failure to acquire qualified professional investigators who fairly and objectively interviewed all the sources I have listed in this letter renders their investigation inaccurate, incomplete, biased, and completely unacceptable. The Grand Jury report is a disgrace to the citizens of the County and City of San Diego and should be rejected out of hand. B. Mayor Sanders cannot legally deny Mills Act contracts from owners of historically designated properties in Kensington, North Park, University Heights, Mission Hills, Point Loma, La Jolla or any other community in San Diego. The City of San Diego cannot choose which communities within the City boundaries can benefit from the Mills Act because California law clearly defines all historically designated properties as eligible where a Charter City has passed a resolution to engage in the Mills Act. There is no provision in State Law to allow discriminating against one community or another, no matter how wealthy or poor the owners or blighted the neighborhoods. The City Council approved the 1995 Resolution to develop the Mills Act Program in San Diego, which is the program in effect today. C. The Mills Act is the only tool available to property owners to protect our historic neighborhoods and old buildings that define our community character. The Mills Act is the only incentive to encouraging real estate investors to preserve the unique neighborhoods that give communities like Mission Hills, Kensington, Normal Heights, University Heights, and La Jolla a chance to preserve their unique identities. Mayor Sanders’ proposal to deny the Mills Act to property owners in these communities would result in wholesale destruction across San Diego from teardowns of established neighborhoods and replacement with new residential / condominium and/or commercial development. The City Council passed the 1995 Resolution to adopt the Mills Act because it could not fund city-wide historical surveys to meet the California Environmental Quality Act and federal requirements for General Plan implementation. D. There is a fatal flaw to Mayor Sanders’ logic, which I believe is based on incorrect assumptions in the Grand Jury report and Union-Tribune articles. • Across the City of San Diego, private property owners invest $thousands of dollars of their own money to restore old houses, before nominating their houses for historical designation. • Many clients paid local building professionals to restore their interior woodwork, old stucco, tile work, wood framed windows, roofing and landscaping. • My clients spend between $50,000 and over $1,000,000 just to meet the high standard set for individual house designation and maintain the original character of their homes. • All my clients are responsible, tax-paying, citizens of the City of San Diego who take great pride in owning a historically designated house. • My clients would willingly agree to long-term maintenance programs of their designated properties. In fact, these provisions are in the existing Mills Act Contracts already – the City simply needs to enforce them, as they do code compliance requirements. E. To meet the high standard set by the Historical Resources Board, Legacy 106, Inc. conducts an average 45-days of investigative research on each house to find the evidence to prepare a defensible historic nomination. I say this to correct a serious inaccuracy in the Grand Jury report that the board only spends 10 minutes considering each house: • Historical Resources Board members must read our reports as part of the whole public record prior to field inspection of the nominated houses; • The City of San Diego Historical Nomination Guidelines cause our reports to average 100-pages in length; • Historical Resources Board members must devote at least two-hours to read and comprehend all the complex evidence we carefully cite to support or refute findings; • The total time invested in evaluating each property, investigating, report writing, production, editing, staff review, HRB reading, and the field visit constitutes considerable time, not ten minutes as reported by the Grand Jury. F. Legacy 106, Inc. carefully inspects all potential client houses and only accepts those we believe qualify for individual historical house designation. • We screen an average of five houses per month as potential candidates for historical designation potential. • We only contract with owners of houses that would be excellent candidates; • Most of our clients hire building industry professionals to repair wooden windows, restore interior wooden finishes, restore exterior stucco, restore roofing material, and rehabilitate old wooden features. This means millions of dollars of work for the local building industry; • One family living on Marlborough in Kensington spent the last two years chipping inappropriate texture coat off their original stucco to restore their house to meet the very high integrity standard required for house designation; • The houses we bring forward to be placed on the Historical Resources Board agenda have been restored to meet your high integrity standard; Legacy 106, Inc. recommends the following “Reforms” to the function of the Historical Resources Board Staff’s operation: • Require historical designation reports to include a draft Mills Act contract when the owner has stated they are requesting a Mills Act contract; • Require the Mills Act contracts to include a work program schedule with milestones for reporting the progress of restoration work; • Upon receipt of a Mills Act contract, require each homeowner to provide annual photos of the elevations of the property in public view to prove the house has been properly maintained; • Clearly state in the historical designation notification letter that changes to the building elevations must receive Historical Resources Board approval; • Require owners of designated properties with Mills Act contracts to dedicate façade easements over those elevations visible to the public view and include the City of San Diego as a party to said easements; • Monitor change of ownership of designated properties by working with the Recorder’s Office and then sending a copy of the Mills Act contract to the new homeowner to protect the property in its historical state; • The City Council should approve an intake processing fee for historical designations requesting a Mills Act contract and charge $1,500 to cover processing and contract preparation. • Provide Mills Act contract training to qualified historical consultants in the preparation of Mills Act contracts to be included in designation reports; • If the owner of an historically designated or Mills Act property has been found negligent or improperly changed an historical façade, the Historical Resources Board staff and City Attorney should first send an official notice to direct complete restoration. If the owner refuses or ignores the notification, then Historical Resources Board staff should initiate a public hearing on the violation and begin procedures to remove the Mills Act and levy the 12.5% fine to prosecute Mills Act violators as stipulated in the Mills Act; • There should be no charge for historical designation applications not requesting the Mills Act contracts. Legacy 106, Inc. also recommends the following general “Reforms”: • The City of San Diego, Historical Resources Board, should provide training in federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits for commercial or rental properties and charge a reasonable recovery fee for public participation. • Outsource the backlog of individual house nomination reports and develop a fair schedule for the property owners to anticipate being placed on the agenda after 12 to 13 months of waiting patiently for a hearing - the practice of not having any owner-submitted nominations on the agenda, and ONLY DSD referrals, is unacceptable. • As an added incentive, the City of San Diego, Historical Resources Board, should arrange with local banks to provide low interest loans for owners of historically designated properties to restore their houses. • The Department of Planning and Economic Development shift demolition and building permit review of all buildings over 45-years old to the Historical Resources Board staff and name them the “Office of Historic Protection;” • The City Council revise the Demolition Permit procedures to require Historical Resources Board staff to stamp all approved demolition/building permits and to charge $1,600 for demolition permit reviews of any resource over 45 years in age; In conclusion, I submit that elements of what the Mayor proposes to change in the City’s application of the Mills Act program, under the guise of “Reform,” cannot be done, because the City cannot change a State law. However, I do recommend substantial changes to the operation of the Historical Resources Board Staff’s office procedures because the Municipal and Land Development Code rely on this program to carry out the California Environmental Quality Act. Failure to comply with this law will result in a number of costly lawsuits that will cost tax payers a great deal more money that could be gained by harming the program. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you need to reach me, you can call me at (619) 269-3924. Sincerely, Ronald V. May, RPA President and Principal Investigator | ||
|
|
Dear friends of Historic Preservation, On Friday April 18 at 2:00PM, the Historic Resources Board will conduct a workshop on the 12th floor of the City Administration Building to take public testimony about the Mayor’s pro- posal to end most historic preservation in San Diego, including Mills Act contracts. This workshop is important to historic preservation. The Neighborhood Historic Preservation Coalition met recently to discuss the status and future of historic preservation. The Coalition comprises community and historic pre- servation groups throughout San Diego including SOHO, Bankers Hill/Park West Community Asso- ciation, Heart of Kensington, Hillcrest History Guild, La Jolla Historical Society, Mission Hills Heritage, North Park Planning Committee, University Heights Historical Society; and interested private individuals. Historic Preservation needs your help and your attendance at the HRB meeting next Friday to speak. Testimony that focuses on a few central recommendations is a good strategy. The Coalition hopes you speak in support of these key items: 1 - Keep the Mills Act program as it is now. It works well and should be left to continue working well. 2 - Increase the Historic Resources staff to cope with the backlog of historic designation nominations on hand and other demands on the staff. 3 - Supervise Mills Act contracts to encourage historic property owners keep their properties in good shape. This may enable some sensible modifications to Mills Act contracts or enfor- cing contracts appropriately when properties are not being maintained properly. Historic preservation is in the balance now, and the Coalition urges you to help keep it operating in San Diego's behalf. Jim Varnadore NHPC member | ||
|
|
. | |
|
|
Home | Designations | Qualifications | Company Profile | Newsletter | Links Archaeology
& Historic Preservation www.legacy106.com |
|