Santa Paula: A Planning Renaissance?

By Sheryl Hamlin

After a request by Council Member Crosswhite at the September 19, 2018 council meeting, the Santa Paula City council voted to consider a revision to the city’s 34 year old Historic Preservation Ordinance. Also at the September 19 meeting, the final tract map for the historic Hardison Property was approved, a process that took over four years and a lawsuit, all of which was a catalyst for review of the historic ordinance. Read about that meeting here. Read the city’s existing historic ordinance here.

Agenda Item Number 8 on the October 3, 2018 meeting was the first step in the revision to the Santa Paula Historic Preservation Ordinance.

The Design Assistance Committee, a five member committee, is charged with designations, research and inventory of potential historic designations, but the DAC meets sporadically with no regular schedule. When the DAC has made a recommendation, the Planning Commission supposedly morphs into the Historic Commission to rule on the recommendation, an event not calendared in years. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring the Planning Commission to hear a recommended designation.

Santa Paula Historic Process

There is nothing on the city’s website about the process of historic designation nor is there a list of the properties designated. There is one historic district on a portion of Santa Paula street. The Faulkner House, the Glen Tavern Inn, the Ebell Club and the Union Oil building are listed on the National Register. The county has designated 27 places in Santa Paula as cultural landmarks. There is no operating search function on either the city website or the General Plan website, so a person looking for the city landmarked properties would be lost.

Speakers

Gabriel Zamora spoke about fees for designation. Historically, there was no charge, then in 2017 the fee was $1500, but in 2018 the fee was raised to $3791, an amount according to Director Mason represents all the departments who must review the application and the associated time. A private citizen must pay the fee, but a member of the DAC, a staff member or council can designate without paying a fee.

Gabriel Zamora made several points about the existing ordinance which should be changed in a subsequent revision:

• The Name Design Assistance Committee is a misnomer. It is not a design review committee. The name is confusing in practice and procedure.
• The new ordinance must integrate the development intake process with the historic process so that developers realize the current historic status or potential historic status of the property.
• A new ordinance should add language about potential landmarks. There are 700 potential within the Spere of Influence, he said.
• Property owners should be able to take advantage of the Mills Act, he added.

John Kulwiec, AIA, spoke about the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board, where he has been a member for 6 or 8 years. He suggested that because the process of historic designation is complicated, Santa Paula should not reinvent the wheel, but should contract with the VCCHB as Fillmore and Simi Valley do. He said the county is also updating its historic ordinance. The VCCHB meets regularly with bi-monthly meetings.

VCCHB Inventory of historic sites

Sheryl Hamlin spoke about the LA Conservancy model in Director Mason’s package and urged council members to read it. She also spoke about the Dudley house, a historic house that has become a revenue generating community center, where she had recently toured.

Discussion

Director Mason said he envisioned help from the State of California who would guide the city through a new ordinance. He also suggested a council study session. All of this would be in Spring of 2019. The General Plan has a historic component, so both should be finished concurrently. James Mason also said there is an “economic factor” to historic preservation which is an important consideration.

Council Member Procter said that the organization should be changed so that the Historic Preservation Commission is “not a coincident body” with the Planning Commission because there is a different degree of expertise required. Also, he said it was obvious the ordinance needs a “pre-emptive” mode.

Council Member Araiza was concerned about staff time. Mayor Gherardi said this discussion was only a start and that there should be an ordinance tailored to the city’s needs. Council Member Crosswhite wanted to pursue the high fees and also asked why the basic procedures of the existing ordinance had been ignored for years.

City Manager Rock restated the problem as a “massive update” to an existing ordinance. He said there is no staff with historic expertise. He concurred with Mr. Kulwiec about complexity. He agreed with the study session concept.

The council agreed to proceed with the next activity in Spring of 2019.

To watch the video and download the information, click here.

For more information on author click sherylhamlin dot com

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing –DONATE