A survey lists 56 historic properties in South County
Morgan Hill – County supervisors passed an ordinance that seeks to protect historic landmarks by providing financial incentives for owners to maintain their old buildings.
Titled the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the new policy formally adopted Tuesday aims to streamline the designation of landmark buildings and the process of reviewing proposals to renovate or demolish buildings of historic character in unincorporated Santa Clara County.
But the law also seeks to protect property owners’ rights, requiring their permission before naming their property a landmark and piling on extra building regulations.
“Since this new policy will restrict a property owner’s ability to make changes, it is important to have his or her consent before designating the property a landmark,” said Supervisor Don Gage.
Not everyone on the board agreed. Similar preservation laws in Palo Alto, Morgan Hill and the Santa Cruz County don’t require owners’ consent before landmarks are designated. Supervisors Blanca Alvarado and Jim Beall held the sentiment that requiring owners’ consent is counterintuitive to the goal of protecting the county’s shared heritage.
“Not much will happen” in the way of preservation with the new policy, said Javier Aguirre, Alvarado’s senior policy aide. “Neighboring jurisdictions don’t require owners’ consent based on the philosophy that their properties have historic value and significance that transcends to the property owner.”
Surveys show there are about 200 eligible landmarks in the county, and 56 are located in South County.
Following a 3-2 vote Oct. 3 when Beall and Alvarado dissented, the board formally adopted the new law Tuesday on its consent calendar.
Property owners who opt in will be required to obtain a Landmark Alteration Permit (LAP) and discretionary approval before remodeling or demolishing a designated landmark. Alterations must meet California’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, or not adversely affect the integrity of the landmark unless there’s no feasible alternative. LAP applications will be reviewed by the county’s historical heritage coordinator and approved by the county’s planning director.
“The (ordinance) gives clear instruction to both the county and the public when an owner proposes alterations to properties that are of historic or cultural value,” said Dana Peak, the county’s historical heritage coordinator.
Gage and other proponents hope financial incentives will lure property owners to protect pieces of the county’s pioneer past. Owners of designated landmarks may be eligible for 40 to 60 percent savings on their property taxes under the state’s Mills Act Program. The board may add other incentives, such as fee waivers for permit applications, and expedited permit processing.
As to how properties become official landmarks, the county is currently updating the Historic Resource Inventory, a list of some 200 properties started in 1975 and revised in 1979 and 1999. According to the county, many of the properties listed on the Inventory no longer have documentation that meets current historic evaluation standards. To remedy the situation, properties listed in the Inventory were reevaluated in 2003 and 2004. Following the adoption of the updated Inventory by the Board of Supervisors, the designation of individual landmarks will be recommended based on criteria used by the California Register.
Supervisors will be able to name properties as landmarks that are at least 50 years old and determined to have historic integrity. Additionally, the board can designate properties that are less than 50 years old that possess “exceptional” historical value. Property owners, supervisors and the historic heritage coordinator can initiate the process.
More than 50 South County properties are included on the updated Inventory, including the Gilroy Hot Springs, the San Martin Presbyterian Church and the Guglielmo Winery in Morgan Hill.
“We got a little bit of history here. You’re kind of walking through time,” said Gene Guglielmo, who operates Guglielmo Winery, started by his grandparents started in 1925.
Guglielmo said he hasn’t studied the ordinance, and he’s not sure whether he and his brothers who are co-owners would agree to turn their business into a protected landmark.
“I’m all for preserving historic landmarks, but I’m also for protecting property rights,” the wine maker said. “We’re going to preserve the land as long as we can, but in 50 years, who knows what will happen.”
