Historic Resources Board reviews limits of authority, Brown Act restrictions and progress on survey/audit

The Salinas Historic Resources Board reviewed the legal and practical limits of its authority over preservation and demolition and received updates on the city’s ongoing audit of its 1989 historic-property survey.

Planning Manager Grant Leonard cited the municipal code while explaining the board’s jurisdiction: "Section 3-02.04 really outlines the limitations of this body," he said, noting that demolition recommendations apply primarily to properties already listed on the city’s historic-property survey. Leonard also noted that the board’s preservation responsibilities include public outreach and keeping the survey current.

Board members sought clarification on what constitutes a “historic resource” under city code. Leonard pointed to section 3-02.02 and said the code defines a historic resource as properties listed on the national or state registers, or those voluntarily designated at the local level. "The property owner has to do that," he said of the local designation process; the city can designate city-owned properties but not privately owned properties without following the code’s designation steps.

The board discussed the California Brown Act’s restrictions on serial communications among a quorum. "The Brown Act is California's public meeting law," Leonard said, warning that coordinating strategy about an item likely to come before the board risks creating a prohibited serial meeting. Board members asked whether sharing notices about out-of-jurisdiction items (for example, a Watsonville building) could be discussed informally; staff said general informational sharing about other jurisdictions is acceptable but preparing coordinated positions in private could violate the Brown Act.

Members raised demolition-by-neglect and fee mechanisms used in other jurisdictions. Several members referenced Monterey County’s updated demolition guidelines, including a demolition-by-neglect provision and possible financial penalties or retainers for violators; they discussed adapting such approaches locally. The board agreed it can only make recommendations to city departments (planning, public works, city council) and stressed the importance of a current and comprehensive survey to enable review and timely comment.

Assistant Planner Yesenia Segovia updated the board on the audit and flagging process, saying she is "halfway through, out of 6 pages" of the 1989 survey and expects the initial audit comments to be complete in a couple of months. Segovia described her role as identifying addresses that need flags in the city's permit software; supervisors will perform the actual flagging in the tracking system.

Board members asked how flagged properties interact with permitting. Staff said flagged properties are routed to additional review during permit processing so planning staff can assess historic-significance issues and reference the Secretary of the Interior’s standards where applicable. Staff committed to reporting back with specifics about whether owners on the 1989 list accepted restrictions when they were listed.

Members also discussed city landmarks and the absence of an obvious local landmark registry on the Salinas website. Staff said the Page & Turnbull survey update should supply recommended district mapping and property reports that would help the board recommend city landmark designations and to flag county-owned but locally significant buildings.

The board asked staff to bring future agenda items clarifying: the list of existing Salinas landmarks (if any), the city’s process for creating local landmark designations, and whether city procedures can ensure prospective buyers and realtors are informed when a property is flagged as historic.