Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic resources survey updated after outreach; committee recommends council adoption amid resident concerns
Summary
HRG and staff reported 31 re‑evaluations following outreach; 13 DPR forms were updated and one potential district (Island View Drive tract) was removed after new information lowered contributor counts. The committee recommended council adopt the survey updates; many residents voiced concern about being flagged for potential eligibility.
The Historic Preservation Committee on June 11 reviewed updates to the citywide historic context statement and survey and voted to recommend that city council adopt the corrected survey and related documentation.
Staff said the citywide survey evaluated roughly 35,000 properties and flagged about 1,000 (approximately 3%) for potential historic significance. Following council direction, staff and HRG conducted additional outreach and re‑evaluation: 31 properties were re‑examined, 13 documentary record forms (DPRs) were revised with clarifications, and one potential historic district — a post‑war tract on Island View Drive — was removed after further research showed altered window openings reduced the number of contributors below the commonly applied thresholds.
HRG consultant Carrie Fowler explained the limits of a citywide survey (public‑right‑of‑way observations, budget and time constraints) and reiterated the distinction between a survey evaluation and a formal designation. "A survey is a broad, preliminary flagging exercise," she told the committee. "If your property is identified on a survey, it's being flagged for further consideration; it is not a designation."
More than a dozen residents spoke during an extended public‑comment period, raising concerns about how being listed might affect their ability to make repairs, obtain permits, insure or sell their homes. Several homeowners requested non‑contributor status or formally asked to be removed from the survey. Staff and HRG repeatedly told commenters the survey does not itself impose restrictions and that identification only triggers further review if a property owner seeks permits or seeks formal designation. HRG said a deliverable spreadsheet documenting all re‑evaluations and the reasons for any changes will be included in the council packet.
After discussion, the committee voted unanimously to recommend that city council consider adoption of the context statement and survey with HRG’s updated DPRs and supporting spreadsheet. Staff said the survey and the spreadsheet documenting outreach and corrections will be forwarded to council for consideration on July 14.
The committee also discussed procedural implications: several members asked how planned municipal‑code changes and the possible phase‑out of the Design Review Committee (DRC) could affect historic review; staff said ordinances must be amended and that any structural changes to review bodies would be enacted by council and would take time to implement.
